High gun states: Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, South Dakota, Arkansas, West Virginia, Alabama, Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota and Kentucky - total population 100.6 million
Low gun states: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut - total population 100.6 million.
You can click on the chart for a clearer version. But what it shows is that where there are guns there are more incidents of gun violence. It's a sad fact that in America, women are brutalized by men too often, but what this chart shows is that when there's a gun in the house, it becomes lethal. The total figures on suicides indicate that the gun is especially effective. Where there are fewer guns, there are fewer successful suicides. (source is CDC WISQARS 2003)
But what it shows is that where there are guns there are more incidents of gun violence.
ReplyDeleteThere are probably darned few skiing fatalities and drownings in the Sahara, too, but that doesn't mean we should mandate deserts everywhere.
Where there are guns there are, presumably, also more incidents of defensive gun use. I won't bother quoting stats on those, because you dismiss everyone else's stats as being "biased," but have you ever heard the statement "If it saves one life, it's worth it"?
"But what it shows is that where there are guns there are more incidents of gun violence. "
ReplyDeleteOh boy, there's a shocker! There's also more vehicular homicide where there are more cars.
What's your point here Mike?
Oh look. Another paid gun control advocate that you take at face value w/o questioning his numbers.
ReplyDeleteActual evidence that Hemenway doctored his numbers.
ReplyDeletehttp://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2007/09/debate-continues.html
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2007/09/anti-mathematics.html
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2007/09/hemenway-responds-to-ch.html
Also, the data you show in no way has any relation to your statement that "guns are bad news for women."
ReplyDeleteMike B, I've been waiting for you to come back at my "if it saves one life, it's worth it" line by arguing that more lives would be saved by restrictive gun laws than would be lost due to the inability of some people affected by such laws to defend themselves effectively, so I could come back with my own response to that. Alas, you never cooperate ;-).
ReplyDeleteAlright--be that way, then--I'll just preemptively attack the argument that "more lives would be saved by restrictive gun laws than would be lost" (note that I am not conceding that, except for the sake of argument).
To do so, I'll shamelessly plagiarize Jeff Snyder's brilliant A Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control. Let me apologize in advance for the length--I'd actually like to include more.
Take, for example, gun prohibition as a means of eliminating gun crime, on the assumption that the evidence is clear that if gun crime can be eliminated more people's lives will be saved than lost (the avowed greatest good assumed to be the preservation of the greatest number of lives). All are deprived of arms to eliminate the harm caused by those who would otherwise abuse their freedoms by using firearms to commit crimes. Let's assume this law works, that is, in fact achieves its goal of eliminating all gun crime, and thereby maximizes lives saved.
It is evident from this example, first, that the individual's liberty to own firearms depends on whether sufficient others are using them to produce desired results. In this case, we have posited that they have not, that is, that more people are dying from gun crimes than are being saved by persons defending themselves with guns. The utilitarian "solution" to maximize aggregate welfare is thus to deprive all individuals of the liberty to own firearms. The scope of an individual's freedom, then, is not a function of the respect due him as an independent agent having free will, and does not depend on his own conduct, but is instead a function of how his fellow citizens behave and the results they achieve.
Second, the individual's private good is not merely subordinate to the realization of the aggregate greatest good, but is freely sacrificed to securing that greatest good. The obverse of the fact that more lives are saved by gun prohibition is that some, having been deprived of an effective tool of self-defense, will of necessity lose their lives, so that others, admittedly [for the sake of argument] more numerous, will live. In short, some are sacrificed freely, so that others, comprising a greater number, may live.
Utilitarianism sanctions human sacrifice, both great and small, as long as it is for "the greatest good for the greatest number." That is, utilitarianism justifies using some merely as a means to fulfillment of others' ends, so long as those who are to be sacrificed are not too numerous. The individual thus has no right to life; that life has become so much raw material to be disposed of in pursuit of the aggregate greatest good.
In contrast, a philosophy of individual rights is not results-driven and therefore does not sanction human sacrifice in favor of the highest good desired by the greatest number. An approach that rests on man's freedom cannot, by definition, be driven by outcome or result: if men are left free, the outcome will be left variable! Of necessity, an approach that rests on freedom cannot possibly guaranty a specified, favorable outcome, either individually or in the aggregate. It cannot, therefore, promise safety, security, a reduction in violent crime, etc. Such concerns are blissfully beside the point, for the point is precisely to respect each individual as an "end in himself."
And that's why I have little interest in statistics--whether they support more restriction or more freedom.
Mike, where did you make the "guns are bad news for women" comment?
ReplyDeleteSo you cite absolute numbers of high gun states vs low gun states. Do you mind answering a few questions about those:
ReplyDelete1) Which states were included in each?
2) What is the population of those states?
3) What are the rates (i.e. per 100,000) so that the comparison is valid?
Actually, if you just list the answer to the first question, I am sure that your regular commenters including myself will be more than happy to do the actual number crunching for questions 2 and 3.
A lauded professor with a Ph.D. from Harvard... I don't care how anti-intellectual you are (or apparently threatened by someone with superior credentials) the academy, in general, does not reward crappy or skewed research.
ReplyDeleteThat's why it's called "peer" review for those on this thread trying to argue that this educated and widely respected scholar is somehow a liar.
Nice try, tho'.
Jeff Snyder is a Harvard man? Didn't know that. Cool.
ReplyDelete45superman, Thanks for those paragraphs you pasted. They certainly contain some rousing ideas, very eloquently stated. But, I've read similarly well-worded apologies for the concept of men living in a society of their fellows, about those men making sacrifices for the greater good.
ReplyDeleteThey're both good arguments; of course I prefer the societal one. In my ideal world, you gun owners need not be "punished" because of the wrongdoers, just "inconvenienced" a bit.
Thirdpower, Thanks for the links but I can't agree that they provide "actual evidence." I realize you're passionate about this, but Hemenway is dispassionate. He provides numbers from unimpeachable sources. He makes good points. In fact when it comes to interpreting the stats, one could even surmise that "high gun" states are more violent than "low gun" states. Check the totals.
ReplyDeleteReputo, Later I'll provide you with the breakdown of exactly what states were used and their total populations. I'm sure you'll be able to find lots of problems with that.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteTry going back and reading this post again
http://3boxesofbs.blogspot.com/2009/04/debunking-availability-part-1.html
The numbers just don't add up the way that Hemenway says they do.
Also, how dispassionate can someone be when they are getting paid from a grant given by an anti-gun organization.
Skyewriter,
ReplyDeletePeer review doesn't mean as much as it used to because of the way it is being manipulated.
The editors are allowed to pick and choose who gets to peer review the work...allowing them to cherry pick the researchers in a field.
Hemenway's work has been thoroughly discredited many times.
The fact that Hemenway is reluctant to or flat out does not provide his data and methodology VIOLATES the tenets of peer review.
And as I said to MikeB, go back and read that post of mine. Hemenway is trying to say that correlation is causation and that simple isn't supported by his work.
Sorry MikeB,
ReplyDeleteHemenway is a paid advocate for the gun control movement. You've rejected numbers for 'bias' before, why not here?
You're so cute when you're being an apologist.
I provided actual numbers from the very sources he used and how he used obsolete and manipulated numbers to make his claims.
Not that I expect any of you to do so. I challenge you or Skyewriter to dispute my findings. If you won't or can't. Ask yourself why.
Skyewriter - As we've seen from your postings, superior credentials aren't necessarily indicative of a capacity for logical reasoning.
ReplyDeletewhen it comes to interpreting the stats, one could even surmise that "high gun" states are more violent than "low gun" states. Check the totals.
ReplyDeleteTotals are irrelevant. It is the RATES you need to be looking at.
Bob S.,
ReplyDeleteWhat's really funny is he then denies making any causality claims at all when all you have to do is quote his own words to show him being disingenuous again.
Bob S:
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, have you ever been through the peer review process?
Of course they decide who gets published and who doesn't. That's why it's called peer review. A writer must demonstrate a broad understanding of issues and accepted "sources" in any field.
That's how academia works. A group of scholars decide collectively on what are the best possible responses to relevant research questions.
Do people from his own field criticize Hemenway? I would suggest reading the UVM interview with him from 2.17.2009 to get a better sense of his scholarship.
In general, a (rotating) board-appointed group of scholars blindly review submissions for publication in most well-respected journals and scholarly publication houses.
In academia, most people are interested in epistemology, not propaganda.
I may be wrong about your intention with that comment, but falling back on wide-spread conspiracy theory (that would involve thousands of people whose careers and reputations would be at stake) is a bit naive.
It's not a "conspiracy theory."
ReplyDeleteIt's widely known fact that many firearms related studies conducted in academia are blatantly biased propaganda and nothing more.
It's really not the least bit surprising once you do some research and find out where all the money is coming from that funds all these studies.
"I challenge you or Skyewriter to dispute my findings."
ReplyDeleteCareful, Skyewriter gets mighty pissed when you ask her to back up her statements with actual evidence.
"In academia, most people are interested in epistemology, not propaganda."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet that's all that Hemenway produces. His research is funded by a gun control advocacy group. Do you accept research saying smoking doesn't create problems when the research is paid for by tobacco companies?
I've shown where he used and then defended obsolete information to make faulty claims.
It is noted that what I've presented has only been responded to by arguments by authority and no actual facts.
"The majority of Americans who die unintentionally from firearms are under twentyfive
ReplyDeleteyears of age." No date is given for this claim but one can assume it's for 2003 or 2000, depending on the cited paper.
According to Wisqars, in 2004, there were 649 unintentional deaths by firearm for all age groups. For the ages of 1-25, there were 247. 38%.
Assuming he stayed w/ the "early nineties" wording before switching over to 1996-2001 (as looking at each individual year shows he did), the numbers for 1990-1994 for under 25 were 3926/7143. 55%
For 1990 alone it was 772/1416. Still 55%.
True, that's a "majority".
By 2000, however,(three years before he finished this report) it was 306/776. 39%. Not a majority. The same holds true since at least as early as '96. Over three years before his self cited other paper.
So even assuming he used the same wording from his 2000 paper, it would seem he would have to added over a decade of pre-'96 data to more current to come out w/ a "majority" or he intentionally used old data to make a current claim. Since he cites having accessed WISQARS for numbers in 2004, either way it shows nothing but a case of blatant intellectual dishonesty.
About the funding source, I've been meaning to say something I mentioned once a while back. You guys keep mentioning that as if it discredits the work. I don't believe it does. People like Paul Helmke, The Gun Guys and Prof. Hemenway, all the "shills" for the Joyce Foundation as you call them, were probably strong gun control people before they ever hooked up with Joyce. You make it sound like they're all just talented writers who are available to the highest bidder. I don't think it's like that. When the Joyce people want to fund some projects, who are they going to go to? Someone who believes in their cause, obviously.
ReplyDeleteSkyewriter,
ReplyDeleteI haven't been through the peer review process...nice try at an appeal to authority argument, but it really doesn't work.
I dont' have to have had a heart attack and survived to be able to read the research.
As I stated the peer review process is biased and broken. The "anonymous" process isn't. People selectively send the research to those that can and will support it.
Of course they decide who gets published and who doesn't.
That isn't what I'm arguing. What I am saying is that partisan efforts are being passed off as non-partisan peer review. Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it is correct....at one time the theory that the earth was the center of the universe was peer reviewed. Guess some people are just still living in history, eh?
Do people from his own field criticize Hemenway?
And what field is that?
David Hemenway, Ph.D., is Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Youth Violence Prevention Center. Once a year he spends a week at the University of Vermont as a James Marsh Visiting Professor-at-Large.
Dr. Hemenway teaches classes on injury and on economics. He has won ten teaching awards at Harvard School of Public Health.
John Lott has criticized Hemenway's work among others, so Yes. People have criticized his work.
I may be wrong about your intention with that comment, but falling back on wide-spread conspiracy theory (that would involve thousands of people whose careers and reputations would be at stake) is a bit naive.
Your attempt to paint me as a conspiracy theorist would be better served if you didn't over reach.
In any particular field, especially such as firearm safety, there aren't THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, just a handful of researchers covering it. If there are thousands of people, then you should be able to support Hemenway's work easily, right???
David Hemenway, author of Private Guns, Public Health, said he agreed more research was needed, but that he was frustrated by how few foundations support such studies.
The Joyce Foundation, in Chicago, which has supported his studies, is "the only game in town" in terms of providing consistent support on efforts to reduce gun use, said Mr. Hemenway, who is a professor of healthy policy at Harvard University's School of Public Health.
Roseanna Ander, who oversees grants to prevent gun violence at the Joyce Foundation, said that organization has spent $42-million on the topic in past decade.
http://philanthropy.com/free/update/2007/05/2007050301.htm
Sounds like the source of his funding is a little biased...could there be an expectation that his work should support the foundations position?
Shouldn't most researchers start from a position of neutrality?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteWhen the Joyce people want to fund some projects, who are they going to go to? Someone who believes in their cause, obviously.
That is exactly the problem, there is no neutrality when the Joyce Foundation funds the research.
That is like asking the Tobacco companies to fund research and expecting that research to find tobacco to be harmful, it might happen but not likely.
But, I've read similarly well-worded apologies for the concept of men living in a society of their fellows, about those men making sacrifices for the greater good.
ReplyDelete"[M]en making sacrifices for the greater good" is one thing--what Snyder is talking about (and via my plagiarism, what I am talking about) is something entirely different--men (and women, and children) being sacrificed for the greater good. Certainly you can see the difference between the nobility of self-sacrifice, and the tyranny of mandated sacrifice.
I know, by the way, that you claim not to support a total ban on firearms, but you constantly harp on the evils of excessive "gun availability." If you manage to achieve your goal of reducing that availability, at some point, inevitably, you will cause lifesaving firepower to be unavailable to someone who needs it. You can justify that, if you want, by arguing that the greater good is served by that imposed sacrifice, but don't you dare deny having played God, and having played a role in forcing that person to make the sacrifice.
In my ideal world, you gun owners need not be "punished" because of the wrongdoers, just "inconvenienced" a bit.
I don't know about your ideal world, but in the real world, it's not your place to decide what constitutes punishment to us. Yes--I get the idea that you think of punishment as retribution, and you don't think of oppressive regulation of guns as being retributive, so it's not "punishment," but again, don't deny that in some cases--even if only a very few--some of the "inconvenience" to which you refer will be fatal. I call that punishment--and a rather harsh punishment, on someone who has committed no crime.
And yet you dispute FBI numbers for the exact reason that you feel they have an agenda.
ReplyDeleteQuite the double standard you're presenting there.
And you still can't dispute the facts I presented showing how Hemenway doctored the numbers in his paper.
What we're saying Mike, is that this "academic research" is nothing of the sort. Joyce are the folks actually PAYING for the "research" and "studies."
ReplyDeleteThey are the sole funding source for much of this research. If you don't think Joyce has an agenda look at their website. They are solidly anti-gun.
If the people bankrolling your research are on a particular side of an issue and they're paying you MILLIONS then the conclusions of that research ARE going to support their cause. (and if the data doesn't support it you will find a way to come to the "correct" conclusion lest you lose the funding)
Why do you think that every Joyce funded study comes down in the anti-gun camp?
Would you consider academic research suspect if the NRA was paying researchers to come to particular conclusions? Of course you would, and I would as well.
Interesting that every anti-gun study is bankrolled by Joyce or one of their subsidiaries, yet we don't see that kind of consistent bias in pro-gun academic research.
Read this
ReplyDeletehttp://www.joycefdn.org/
Programs/GunViolence/Default.aspx
Then click on over to their grants list and take a look. I see at least 2 large grants to Harvard school of public health.
They don't just fund existing groups, they create new shill groups to push their agenda.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/joyce_foundatio.php
They also pay for bogus law review symposiums.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/07/joyce_foundatio_5.php
In academia, most people are interested in epistemology, not propaganda.
ReplyDeleteYou're obviously blind to the attitude of those in academia towards guns, gun owners, and the
2nd Amendment. They are interested in nothing but propaganda, lies, and rampant hysteria.
A lauded professor with a Ph.D. from Harvard... I don't care how anti-intellectual you are (or apparently threatened by someone with superior credentials) the academy, in general, does not reward crappy or skewed research.
ReplyDeleteI prefer to look at the mans actual work to determine whether it's valid and unbiased. You can take him at face value because he's a "Harvard intellectual" but I prefer to look at the actual DATA behind his methodology, which shows it to be flawed and selectively skewed.
Third - Don't you love how "gun free" DC's numbers are always omitted in order to help skew things for the anti's?
Just remember. The published work of Bellesiles was 'peer reviewed' as well.
ReplyDeleteMike W., If, "we don't see that kind of consistent bias in pro-gun academic research," then who funds Professors Lott and Kleck when they do research? Do they pay for it out of their own pockets?
ReplyDeleteYou're obviously blind to the attitude of those in academia towards guns, gun owners, and the
ReplyDelete2nd Amendment. They are interested in nothing but propaganda, lies, and rampant hysteria.
To be fair, Mike W, you have to admit that propaganda, lies, and rampant hysteria do work much better for them than objective logic would.
Just remember. The published work of Bellesiles was 'peer reviewed' as well.
And "award winning," as well, until the award had to be rescinded
MikeB - We've shown you that anti-gunners have funded your academic studies.
ReplyDeleteDo some research and find out if Lott or Kleck were funded by one obviously biased group. It should be easy to find out.
It also tells you alot about the validity (or lack thereof) of the academic conducting the study
"And "award winning," as well, until the award had to be rescinded"
ReplyDeleteAnd he was forced to resign.
"then who funds Professors Lott and Kleck when they do research? Do they pay for it out of their own pockets?"
There ya' go MikeB. That's a perfect research question for you to spend some time on.
Especially since neither you nor skyewriter have been able to dispute the fact that Hemenway doctored his numbers.
From Dr. Hemenway's bio on the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:
ReplyDelete"David Hemenway, Ph.D., is an economist and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. A former Pew Fellow on Injury Control, he was a Senior Soros Justice Fellow and held a Robert Wood Johnson Investigator Award in Health Policy Research. He is past president of the National Association of Injury Control Research Centers and won the Excellence in Science Award from the injury section of the American Public Health Association. Dr. Hemenway is the sole author of five books and first-author of over 55 peer-reviewed journal articles on such topics as motor vehicle crashes, falls, fractures, fires, suicides, and child abuse. His most recent book is a collection of success stories in injury prevention. Dr. Hemenway has won more teaching awards than any other faculty member at Harvard School of Public Health."
I've emailed him directly to ask about his funding.
It's really disappointing how small minded and rather rude some on this thread are when in reality, Dr. Hemenway's work seeks to move beyond blame to solutions... something it seems none of you are interested in discussing.
But what do I know... I'm just one person in academia who has actually read this scholar's work and am amazed that in the face of all of his many accomplishments and accolades, some of you still insist he is a liar.
How unhappy and powerless you all must feel.
My best to you, Mike B. As always.
Both Kleck and Lott use personal as well as University funds for their research...you know like REAL Academic Scientists. Kleck might have also accepted money from Police departments. (you know, the ones you claim to be for further gun control)
ReplyDeleteBut I just came here to drop off this post for you and Skye (she's Banned most of us from her blog for having the gall to have a different opinion.)
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/523441.html
Unlike here dissenting comments are welcome at my blog!
Courtesy of Linoge
ReplyDeleteGuns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review
by Edgar A. Suter MD
Chair
Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
5201 Norris Canyon Road, Suite 140
San Ramon CA 94583-5405 USA
510-277-0333 Voice
510-277-1283 FAX
707-935-1713 or 914-876-1540 BBSs
DIRPP@HVBBS.COM Internet
Permission is granted to distribute this file in unaltered form on Electronic Bulletin Boards.
Abstract
Errors of fact, design, and interpretation abound in the medical literature on guns and violence. The peer review process has failed to prevent publication of the errors of politicized, results-oriented research. Most of the data on guns and violence are available in the criminological, legal, and social sciences literature, yet escapes acknowledgment or analysis of the medical literature. Lobbyists and other partisans continue to promulgate the fallacies that cloud the public debate and impede the development of effective strategies to reduce violence in our society. This article examines a representative sample of politicized and incompetent research.
http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html
Weer'd says, "Skye (she's Banned most of us from her blog for having the gall to have a different opinion.)
ReplyDeleteUnlike here dissenting comments are welcome at my blog!"
I doubt very much if Skye banned you for that reason. She probably did it because the name-calling and personal attacks became too vicious.
And actually, dissenting comments are most welcome here. I reject only the most vile nonsense, of which you are the number one purveyor.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteOnce again you libel us without facts!! And I resent that.
I never called names or subjected Skye to any personal attack when she banned me. So once again, you take the people you say you want to have a discussion with and accuse us of things....how is that furthering the discussion?
Skye,
Again nice appeal to authority attempt. Too bad we aren't impressed with mere academic credentials.
Then you try to make an adhominen attack
It's really disappointing how small minded and rather rude some on this thread are when in reality,
Why do you consider us rude? Because we don't fall over our feet in an attempt to worship at Hemenway's academic credentials?
Then you flat out lie
Dr. Hemenway's work seeks to move beyond blame to solutions... something it seems none of you are interested in discussing.
I've discussed many times on this blog and others "solutions", actual solutions to the problems.
If you are talking about MIKEB as not being interested in discussing solutions I might agree. He seems to have only 1 solution in mind....getting rid of our firearms.
Hemenway's problem and the problem we have with his work is he tried to present falsified data to drive to the same solution as MikeB....getting rid of guns.
I notice that you aren't dropping any solutions in your comments. Why is that?
I'm just one person in academia who has actually read this scholar's work
Again, nice appeal to authority. Too bad we've seen that trick too many times.
You might be surprised to learn that many,if not most gunnies on this board has actually read Hemenway's work. I might have a copy on my work computer in the same folder as Kellermann's 'study'.
and am amazed that in the face of all of his many accomplishments and accolades, some of you still insist he is a liar.
So, in light of all his "accomplishments and accolades" we should over look any errors in his research?
You really love that appeal to authority, don't you?
Are we expected to kneel when he walks into the room? Or would a simple bow recognize his "brilliance" to your satisfaction?
Wow
How unhappy and powerless you all must feel.
Weer'd called that one on his livejournal....psychological projection.
Amazing you can type some many words, so many paragraphs and not include one bit of evidence to support his work.
You can spend all that time trying to insult us, yet you can't find the time to show how his work isn't biased.
"How unhappy and powerless you all must feel."
ReplyDeleteAnd STILL skyewriter is unable to dispute the fact that Hemenway doctored the numbers in his bought and paid for gun control propaganda articles.
And she knows it.
His 'solutions' consist of ineffectual bans and restrictions on firearms supported by faulty information and distortions. Just like I've proven already and none have been able to dispute w/ any facts or evidence, just rhetoric and appeals to authority.
Nope MikeB, she banned me specifically because she could not stand to be told she was wrong.
ReplyDeleteSkye - His "solution" is more gun control, which is not a solution at all but rather more of the same failed policy.
Why can you not accept that his funding came from where I showed you it did? Of course I of all people already know just how averse you are to facts. I've never seen someone get so damn pissed off when she ASKED for facts and someone was nice enough to provide that which she'd asked for.
The truth hurts, and some people can't deal with it.
mikeb,
ReplyDeleteBack to the original topic, when were you going to get us the list of states that were included in each of the numbers?
"She probably did it because the name-calling and personal attacks became too vicious."
ReplyDeleteSo provide evidence. Simple enough request, isn't it?
And another Joyce Funded John Hopkins study. Before even reading it, can anyone guess what the conclusion is?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090707111749.htm
Third - Gotta love that study. They say Camden & Newark NJ have the lowest in-state gun trafficing. Funny how they don't mention the violent crime rates of those cities.
ReplyDeleteThey also say,
For the study, researchers examined state laws governing gun sales using data from ATF crime gun traces from 54 U.S. cities
Remember that the ATF itself supports the Tiarht Amendment and believes that such trace data should NOT be used in such studies.
Why am I not surprised he left out Washington D.C., which is a "low gun" state with VERY high violent crime rates.
ReplyDeleteThe violent crime rates in his selected "high gun states" are actually LOWER than in the "low gun states"
Hmm, but I thought high gun ownership rates and "gun availability" rates meant higher crime rates?
From SIH:
ReplyDelete...if you look at the average violent crime rate for the cities mentioned that have the least gun trafficking, it’s 1083 per 100,000. If you look at the cities mentioned that have the most gun trafficking, it’s 884 per 100,000. So it would seem if your city has more gun trafficking, it’s actually safer.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/07/08/more-on-that-joyce-study/
mikeb,
ReplyDeleteYour population is way off (try closer to 21 million). In anycase, I have started a rebuttal to your statement that is chock full of all that data that you like to ignore. Please read and respond at your liesure: http://myreputo.blogspot.com
Mike W.,
ReplyDeleteThat's why they had to cite selectively chosen urban areas to get their numbers the way they wanted them to.