Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And for at least the 20th time, murder rates have been dropping everywhere. In places with massive gun sale increases. And places without it. When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.
You do realize that knife cuts both ways, right?
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
Wrong....
Gun Control: Myths and Realities
4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t.
True. The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.
And for at least the 20th time, murder rates have been dropping everywhere. In places with massive gun sale increases. And places without it. When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.
You do realize that knife cuts both ways, right?
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
No they aren't....
Yes, the are.....
It seems like a relatively obvious equation: The weaker the gun laws and the higher the rate of gun ownership in a given state, the more deaths from gun violence that state will see.
That's the conclusion of a report released Thursday by the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit organization that researches the public health impact of gun violence.
Alaska has the highest rate of gun fatalities in the country, according to data from 2013. The state saw 19.59 deaths per 100,000 people, which is significantly above the national average of 10.64 deaths per 100,000. VPC's report indicates that Alaska also has the country's third-highest rate of gun ownership, with firearms in 60.6% percent of households.
States With Most Gun Deaths Have High Gun Ownership And Weaker Gun Laws, Report Shows
And high gun ownership rates aren't great for cops either.
The higher the rate of gun ownership in a state, the higher the likelihood of a law enforcement officer being killed, a new study has found.
Researchers, writing online in the American Journal of Public Health, used F.B.I. data on the rate of police officer deaths in each state, along with information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on gun ownership rates. From 1996 to 2010, there were 782 homicides of law enforcement personnel, 92 percent of them by gunfire. Responses to domestic disturbance calls resulted in 116 police deaths, 15 percent of the total.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/...-gun-ownership-see-more-officers-killed/?_r=0
Yeah...not true...I just saw that debunked but can't find it now.
“We see that the same states that are the top gun-owning states are also the top states for officer homicide — for example, Montana, Alaska and Arkansas,” said the lead author, David I. Swedler, a research assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health. “And the lowest gun-owning states — Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey — are the states with the lowest officer homicide rates. Officers living in states with high gun ownership are more likely to be murdered on the job.”
And for at least the 20th time, murder rates have been dropping everywhere. In places with massive gun sale increases. And places without it. When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.
You do realize that knife cuts both ways, right?
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
You understand that a murder and a "gun death" is not the same thing, correct?
Are we talking about murders, or people choosing to end their own lives?
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.
And for at least the 20th time, murder rates have been dropping everywhere. In places with massive gun sale increases. And places without it. When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.
You do realize that knife cuts both ways, right?
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
You understand that a murder and a "gun death" is not the same thing, correct?
Are we talking about murders, or people choosing to end their own lives?
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.
Okay. Suicide isn't violence. So let's scratch that from your equations.
Now the states with more guns have less violent crime and less gun violence.
You do realize that knife cuts both ways, right?
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
You understand that a murder and a "gun death" is not the same thing, correct?
Are we talking about murders, or people choosing to end their own lives?
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.
Okay. Suicide isn't violence. So let's scratch that from your equations.
When a gun in the house doubles the rate of suicide, no....we don't 'scratch that'.
Now the states with more guns have less violent crime and less gun violence.
Really? Alaska has one of the rights rates of gun ownership. Yet its consistently in the top 10 for violent crime. In 2014 it had 603 violent crimes per 100,000 on a national average of about 386.
South Carolina has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation. And in 2014 was number 1 for violent crime with double the national average.
Hawaii has the lowest gun ownership rate in the nation. And has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation, at 286.
Arkansas is in the top 5 for gun ownership rates. And in the top 10 for violent crime rates, at 552
There's something wrong with your hypothesis.
Now, where are the firearm homicides concentrated in Arkansas? Little Rock and West Memphis.
[/quote]Alaska is an outlier, why they are the way they are would take a lot of research to explain.
And for at least the 20th time, murder rates have been dropping everywhere. In places with massive gun sale increases. And places without it. When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.
You do realize that knife cuts both ways, right?
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
You understand that a murder and a "gun death" is not the same thing, correct?
Are we talking about murders, or people choosing to end their own lives?
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.
And for at least the 20th time, murder rates have been dropping everywhere. In places with massive gun sale increases. And places without it. When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.
You do realize that knife cuts both ways, right?
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
You understand that a murder and a "gun death" is not the same thing, correct?
Are we talking about murders, or people choosing to end their own lives?
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.
And for at least the 20th time, murder rates have been dropping everywhere. In places with massive gun sale increases. And places without it. When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.
You do realize that knife cuts both ways, right?
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
Wrong....
Gun Control: Myths and Realities
4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t.
True. The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.
I've quoted two studies that explicitly contradict you. The first finding higher rates of gun violence in states with higher rates of gun ownership. The second showing that rates of police offers being shot is higher in states with higher gun ownership rates.
Typing the word 'wrong' doesn't magically make either study disappear. Remember, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.
Now, where are the firearm homicides concentrated in Arkansas? Little Rock and West Memphis.
And? That doesn't change the fact that your theory just shattered again. And the violent crime rate in Arkansas is one of the worst in the country.
You're literally ignoring every example of your theory breaking. And then pretending that they don't exist.
Um, have you ever heard of confirmation bias? Because you're its poster child.
Alaska is an outlier, why they are the way they are would take a lot of research to explain.
You do realize that knife cuts both ways, right?
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
You understand that a murder and a "gun death" is not the same thing, correct?
Are we talking about murders, or people choosing to end their own lives?
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.
Okay. Suicide isn't violence. So let's scratch that from your equations.
When a gun in the house doubles the rate of suicide, no....we don't 'scratch that'.
Now the states with more guns have less violent crime and less gun violence.
Really? Alaska has one of the rights rates of gun ownership. Yet its consistently in the top 10 for violent crime. In 2014 it had 603 violent crimes per 100,000 on a national average of about 386.
South Carolina has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation. And in 2014 was number 1 for violent crime with double the national average.
Hawaii has the lowest gun ownership rate in the nation. And has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation, at 286.
Arkansas is in the top 5 for gun ownership rates. And in the top 10 for violent crime rates, at 552
There's something wrong with your hypothesis.
You do realize that knife cuts both ways, right?
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
You understand that a murder and a "gun death" is not the same thing, correct?
Are we talking about murders, or people choosing to end their own lives?
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.
Okay. Suicide isn't violence. So let's scratch that from your equations.
When a gun in the house doubles the rate of suicide, no....we don't 'scratch that'.
Now the states with more guns have less violent crime and less gun violence.
Really? Alaska has one of the rights rates of gun ownership. Yet its consistently in the top 10 for violent crime. In 2014 it had 603 violent crimes per 100,000 on a national average of about 386.
South Carolina has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation. And in 2014 was number 1 for violent crime with double the national average.
Hawaii has the lowest gun ownership rate in the nation. And has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation, at 286.
Arkansas is in the top 5 for gun ownership rates. And in the top 10 for violent crime rates, at 552
There's something wrong with your hypothesis.
Now, where are the firearm homicides concentrated in Arkansas? Little Rock and West Memphis.
And? That doesn't change the fact that your theory just shattered again. And the violent crime rate in Arkansas is one of the worst in the country.
You're literally ignoring every example of your theory breaking. And then pretending that they don't exist.
Um, have you ever heard of confirmation bias? Because you're its poster child.
Alaska is an outlier, why they are the way they are would take a lot of research to explain.
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
You understand that a murder and a "gun death" is not the same thing, correct?
Are we talking about murders, or people choosing to end their own lives?
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.
Okay. Suicide isn't violence. So let's scratch that from your equations.
When a gun in the house doubles the rate of suicide, no....we don't 'scratch that'.
Now the states with more guns have less violent crime and less gun violence.
Really? Alaska has one of the rights rates of gun ownership. Yet its consistently in the top 10 for violent crime. In 2014 it had 603 violent crimes per 100,000 on a national average of about 386.
South Carolina has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation. And in 2014 was number 1 for violent crime with double the national average.
Hawaii has the lowest gun ownership rate in the nation. And has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation, at 286.
Arkansas is in the top 5 for gun ownership rates. And in the top 10 for violent crime rates, at 552
There's something wrong with your hypothesis.
Guns are not the risk factor for suicide, drug use, alcoholism and mental health problems increase the risk, not gun ownership, since close to half of all suicides in the U.S. are done without guns. Take away guns and the other half will switch methods from guns to what the other suicides use.
That increased gun ownership doesn't increase murder rates? Gun deaths are higher in states where there are more guns.
You understand that a murder and a "gun death" is not the same thing, correct?
Are we talking about murders, or people choosing to end their own lives?
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.
Okay. Suicide isn't violence. So let's scratch that from your equations.
When a gun in the house doubles the rate of suicide, no....we don't 'scratch that'.
Now the states with more guns have less violent crime and less gun violence.
Really? Alaska has one of the rights rates of gun ownership. Yet its consistently in the top 10 for violent crime. In 2014 it had 603 violent crimes per 100,000 on a national average of about 386.
South Carolina has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation. And in 2014 was number 1 for violent crime with double the national average.
Hawaii has the lowest gun ownership rate in the nation. And has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation, at 286.
Arkansas is in the top 5 for gun ownership rates. And in the top 10 for violent crime rates, at 552
There's something wrong with your hypothesis.
Ahhhh, but it doesn't. Japan has virtually NO gun ownership and their suicide rate is higher than ours so your assumption is false from the get go.
And this is why you can't trust those studies….
Evaluating new research "Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.: An Ecological Study" By Monuteaux, Lee, Hemenway, Mannix, Fleegler - Crime Prevention Research Center
But their paper (available here) isn’t testing what they claim. It isn’t testing whether increased gun ownership causes crime rates to increase. The study is far too simplistic and doesn’t include even the basic control variables that are typically included in other crime studies.
********************************
The controls that are being used in this paper can’t begin to account for the differences in crime rates. The regression estimates reported in Table 2 don’t tell what percent of the variation in crime rates are being explained by the variables used in these regressions, but I am willing to bet that it is less than 10 percent.
Yet, this paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine doesn’t account for either of these factors. It is essentially making a purely cross-sectional comparison across states. On account of that, if they had included Washington, DC in their estimates (with its high crime rates and low gun ownership), it would have dramatically altered their results.
It is easy to see how the results are reversed by just including these state fixed effects. The first estimate below corresponds to the first estimate reported in Monuteaux, Lee, Hemenway, Mannix, Fleegler’s paper. The first estimate uses regional fixed effects. The second includes state fixed effects. The gunBRFSS variable is their survey measure of gun ownership by state. In order to get at the nonlinear concern that they raise, I do want academics normally do and have both a linear and a squared version of that variable. You can see that including the state fixed effects causes their result to go from positive and insignificant to negative and significant. It seems clear that they broke the survey measurement into arbitrary fifths to help get the result that they wanted.
We used the negative binomial approach used by these authors in these estimates, but there is no truncation issues here and the data fits a weighted least squares estimate. However, just for the sake of argument we will use the approach that they want used. (Click on results below to enlarge them.)
While these “fixed effects” will pick up the average differences across places, there are other differences that won’t be accounted for. One example is they don’t account for differences in any type of law enforcement(e.g., arrest or conviction rates, death penalty, per capita number of police, percent of the population in prison). The above results include the arrest rates for aggravated assaults, but removing the arrest reduces the statistical significance for both estimates.
You understand that a murder and a "gun death" is not the same thing, correct?
Are we talking about murders, or people choosing to end their own lives?
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.
Okay. Suicide isn't violence. So let's scratch that from your equations.
When a gun in the house doubles the rate of suicide, no....we don't 'scratch that'.
Now the states with more guns have less violent crime and less gun violence.
Really? Alaska has one of the rights rates of gun ownership. Yet its consistently in the top 10 for violent crime. In 2014 it had 603 violent crimes per 100,000 on a national average of about 386.
South Carolina has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation. And in 2014 was number 1 for violent crime with double the national average.
Hawaii has the lowest gun ownership rate in the nation. And has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation, at 286.
Arkansas is in the top 5 for gun ownership rates. And in the top 10 for violent crime rates, at 552
There's something wrong with your hypothesis.
Ahhhh, but it doesn't. Japan has virtually NO gun ownership and their suicide rate is higher than ours so your assumption is false from the get go.
Ahh, but these aren't assumptions. These are measurable results here in the US. Other countries, I can't speak for. In ours, owning a gun doubles the risk of suicide. Not attempting suicide. But committing it. On average a suicide attempt is successful less than 5% of the time. Use a gun, and that number jumps to above 90%.
Guns make suicide attempts orders of magnitude more deadly and likely to succeed. And dramatically increases the odds that someone in your home will be successful in killing themselves.
Hmm.And for at least the 20th time, murder rates have been dropping everywhere. In places with massive gun sale increasesYes, this article looks at the gun laws in Virginia. Katie Pavlich is a journalist and has completed the AR-15 and pistol classes at gun fighter school. she wrote about her experiences at the school last year. her she is discussing the myths that we need more gun laws and that we have a gun violence epidemic...
Of course, gun murder is going down, not up...and now 12.8 million people carry guns for self defense.
Katie Pavlich - The Truth About Guns in Virginia
Finally, it's important to point out that although every crime carried out with a firearm is a tragedy, there isn't a "gun violence epidemic" as the anti-gun activists claim. In recent years, gun sales in Virginia have exponentially increased while crime, including crimes carried out with firearms, have significantly decreased.
You understand that a murder and a "gun death" is not the same thing, correct?
Are we talking about murders, or people choosing to end their own lives?
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.
Okay. Suicide isn't violence. So let's scratch that from your equations.
When a gun in the house doubles the rate of suicide, no....we don't 'scratch that'.
Now the states with more guns have less violent crime and less gun violence.
Really? Alaska has one of the rights rates of gun ownership. Yet its consistently in the top 10 for violent crime. In 2014 it had 603 violent crimes per 100,000 on a national average of about 386.
South Carolina has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation. And in 2014 was number 1 for violent crime with double the national average.
Hawaii has the lowest gun ownership rate in the nation. And has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation, at 286.
Arkansas is in the top 5 for gun ownership rates. And in the top 10 for violent crime rates, at 552
There's something wrong with your hypothesis.
Guns are not the risk factor for suicide, drug use, alcoholism and mental health problems increase the risk, not gun ownership, since close to half of all suicides in the U.S. are done without guns. Take away guns and the other half will switch methods from guns to what the other suicides use.
Blithering nonsense. Guns are an enormous risk factor for suicide. One of the single largest, in fact. If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide.....doubles.
That's a 100% increase. You can ignore these facts and these numbers. But you can't make anyone else ignore them.
