American Progress
Fact Sheet
Arizona Gun Violence
Arizona’s gun death rate is 40 percent higher than the national average.
• Arizona is the 11th-worst state for gun deaths: There were 14.6 gun deaths for
every 100,000 people in the state in 2010. That’s 40 percent higher than the
national average of 10.3 gun deaths for every 100,000 people.
Somebody is murdered by a gun in Arizona almost every day.
• In Arizona there were 271 gun homicides in 2010.
• From 2001 through 2010, 3,303 people were murdered by guns in Arizona. That
number is almost double all U.S. combat deaths in the Afghanistan war.
Women are more at risk of being killed by a gun in a domestic dispute in Arizona
than almost anywhere else in the country.
• Arizona had the eighth-highest rate of women killed by men, many of which
were committed with a firearm.
It had the 13th-highest gun homicide rate for women in the country.
Arizona has received abysmal gun safety ratings. Weak gun laws put Arizonans at
risk.
• The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Arizona an “F,” ranking it 49th
out of 50 states.
• The Daily Beast listed Arizona as the second “deadliest gun state” in the United
States in 2011 because of its combination of permissive gun laws and a high rate
of gun deaths.
Weak laws make Arizona a favorite source state for gun traffickers.
• Arizona had the 13th-highest rate of crime gun exports in 2009, a marker of
illegal trafficking. Arizona supplied guns to out-of-state criminals at a rate of 75
percent above than the national average.82 Center for American Progress | Fact Sheet: Arizona Gun Violence
According to this article, criminals murdered 271 people in 2010 with a firearm. Given that Arizona's population is around 6.5 million, that means a murder rate of 4.1 per 100,000. How does that compare with the murder rate of other states?
ReplyDelete-- TruthBeTold
But you guys told us more guns mean less crime. Arizona should rank number one in safety and security.
DeleteWe could do what you do, Mikeb, and claim that without those guns, Arizona would make Camden look safe.
DeleteUnless you suggest that murder by blunt instrument is somehow preferable to the "endemic" gun murders, how is a violent culture without guns any better than one armed to the teeth?
DeleteOne only needs to look to the "disarmed" nations of Africa and Asia to observe what may be achieved with heroin and farm implements.
"Gun deaths"
ReplyDelete"Gun deaths"
"Gun deaths"
You're incapable of citing a valid metric like murder rates, aren't you?
Also tell me how any of this changed when they enacted constitutional carry? The point of your quote was that Arizona would change for the worse.
No, you're the ones who claimed all forms of goodness by loosening the gun laws. That hasn't happened in AZ.
DeleteBut it has. 14% decrease in murder rate so far. Of course you know I don’t claim this to be a result of expanded gun rights, but it sure proves you wrong when you said it would get worse.
DeleteI keep harping on how an individual state is just one data point. We need to look at the whole, and the whole shows no correlation. Arizona is slightly worse than the national average of 4.7, but so is California. The fact that California and Arizona have similar murder rates while one has the most restrictive laws and the other has the most lax should tell you something. But again, those are just two data points, I keep showing you the whole calculation and you keep rejecting it.
"Just one data point," but it is the one we're talking about. As you said, AZ is WORSE than the national average. How can that be?
DeleteBecause there is NO CORRELATION! How many times do I have to keep saying that? No correlation means that we will see gun friendly states at the bad end (like Louisiana), and the good end (like Utah), and in the middle (like Arizona). That’s why we also see California WORSE than the national average. To ask your question: how can that be?
DeleteYou pull out the "no correlation" bit when it suits and ignore it when it doesn't.
DeleteThe fact is there is a major correlation and you know it. The difference between LA and UT is in the other factors. Gun availability is only one of the factors that make for violent crime but you want to pretend it has nothing at all to do with the end results.
Then why is Virginia's murder rate lower than Maryland's and D.C.'s? Why is New Hampshire's lower than Massachusetts's? Why is Philadelphia safer than Newark?
DeleteWhen do I ever ignore "no correlation"? Mike, I've probably written 20,000 words on the subject on your blog over the years. Don't start pulling out baseless accusations of me being inconsistent just because you are backed into a corner.
DeleteCorrelation is straight up math. It is not up to interpretation and manipulation the way a more complicated causation study would be. The math says gun laws are not correlated to murder rates. Sorry, but you can't change the math.
May I offer some explanations as to why your world is turned upside down by these numbers? You talk about "other factors". We'll if those other factors (like socio-economics) are a thousand times more powerful than "gun availability" in driving murder, then you are not going to see any correlation with guns. Second, if the laws simply don't work to keep guns out of bad people's hands, again, you won't see any correlation. Finally, and this is a big one that you will forever struggle to grasp, if guns also have a positive effect of crime prevention, you may see no correlation, or even an opposite correlation.
I'm not the one who's backed into a corner. And I'm not going to search the past comment threads for an example of your ignoring things that are inconvenient. "Correlation is straight up math?" Is that right? To me, that sounds like double talk. Maybe you can explain what that means - briefly please.
DeleteI'm saying it is a calculation that will spit out the same number each time for a given set of data. People can argue over causation when a correlation is present, but you can't say that there is a correlation when the calculation says there is not. It's like saying 2+2=5.
DeleteThat's a bunch of bullshit double-talk. There is a correlation between the dissemination of firearms in Arizona and their disgraceful murder rate. The causation may not be provable, but the correlation exists. The reason other places don't have the same high murder rate depends on a number of other factors and certainly doesn't disprove that guns are involved in AZ.
DeleteWhy don't you show us the correlation then, Mike.
DeleteDown below you just said CA has the same "disgraceful murder rate" as AZ because people posses the ability to move around. So then... gun laws aren't correlated to murder. Right?
DeleteAZ murder rate since constitutional carry:
ReplyDelete2010: 6.4
2011: 6.1
2012: 5.5
Uh, hardly "incontrovertible". It is not even going in the right direction for your cause.
You're boasting about a 5.5 murder rate? In a state awash in guns, according to you guys, the murder rate should be WAY below the national average. It's not.
DeleteHe was pointing out the decline in the rate. You missed that?
DeleteMike, here is a link to the thread where you made that quote:
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizonas-new-laws.html#comment-form
You said Arizona would get worse. You didn’t say anything about Arizona being “above average” in murders, or one of the least violent states, you said this law will make it worse. It didn’t get worse. It got better.
Not only did you say that, but you made an actual bet with Stephen. You made a bet that Arizona would see an increase in violence and murder over the next five years (specifically, committed by people with no priors, but that data might be hard to find). That was in April of 2010. You have a year and a half left where Arizonians better start murdering a whole lot of people to make up for the decreases in violence/murder that they have had since constitutional carry was passed- or you’re going to have to post favorably about unlicensed concealed carry. You’re not the type to renege on a bet, are you?
Here are the highlights (my emphasis), but go read the whole thread:
MikeB: “I predict over the next five years, Arizona will give us incontrovertible proof that gun control is needed.”
What I think is there will be undeniable increase in gun violence. That's all. I never said "blood in the streets" or "people are primed and ready to murder." A solid increase is what it'll take to convince reasonable people.”
Stephen: “So how about a bet? If we're both still blogging in 2015, and using verifiable sources like the FBI UCR we can't find any increase in violence because of this law (i.e. an increase in the people with no prior record killing/shooting others) you must post favorably about non-licensed CCW for other states as we expand it. If there is a notable increase, I'll post against it.
Game on? Sounds like a safe bet from my side!”
MikeB: “Stephen, I'll take the bet. Actually I'm already planning on doing just that because the way things are going, the debate cannot stay this balanced for long. By 2015, one of us will have to acquiesce.”
To quote me, as quoted by you, "What I think is there will be undeniable increase in gun violence."
DeleteSo, how'd we get back to the overall murder rate?
Besides, as I said before, the overall murder rate that you posted is horrible. Even if it represents a minor decrease, it's nothing to boast about. You lose already, we don't need another year and a half.
MikeB: “So, how'd we get back to the overall murder rate?”
DeleteBecause I talk about murder rates. I care that people are dead, not whether or not a gun is used. Guns can be used to thwart any violent attack, so we need to account for that. How many times have I explained how meaningless “gun violence” stats are? But if you really must focus on only gun murders- that went down too! You said it would go up. I just posted how AZ’s murder rate went down, and now you’re saying that wouldn’t matter to you if “gun violence” went up. You would call that a win for your point. But that didn’t even happen. How about you show me that increase in “gun violence” that this law supposedly caused? I’ll also point out that your bet with Stephen was not used “gun violence” as a metric of success.
Mike: “Besides, as I said before, the overall murder rate that you posted is horrible.”
It’s not “horrible” It is slightly above the national average, and very similar to California’s. And it is going DOWN at a faster rate than the national average since the carry law was passed.
Mikeb, you're wriggling, but just admit it. You were wrong. You continue to be wrong. You will always be wrong. TS keeps showing you how wrong you are.
DeleteTS, I know you like to talk about overall murder rates, but in this discussion you were talking about my being wrong. I was talking about gun violence in Arizona.
DeleteSince you also like to talk about things in context and not only "one data point," let's consider that Arizona's "improvement" has been less than the national average. That means it is getting worse if taken in the larger context.
I realize that's a shameless spin job, one which I usually leave to your side. But the main point I'm making is that the level of violence and murder in Arizona is disgraceful. It's way worse than most states. And that's what makes you guys all wrong about the benefits of gun ownership.
MikeB: “I was talking about gun violence in Arizona.”
DeleteThen show me how “gun violence” has gone up in Arizona since 2010. That’s what you said would happen. An “undeniable increase in gun violence”, you said, so show us that increase or admit you were wrong. Do it. I’ll wait (you’re not going to find it).
MikeB: “let's consider that Arizona's "improvement" has been less than the national average”
That is not true either. National murder rate:
2010: 4.8
2011: 4.7
2012: 4.7
The national rate saw a 2% decrease, while Arizona had a 14% decrease. But why don’t you go find some stat that you find more important than murder rate to show how Arizona’s rate of decrease was less than the National rate of decrease?
MikeB: “But the main point I'm making is that the level of violence and murder in Arizona is disgraceful. It's way worse than most states.”
It is not “way worse”. It’s about average. And so is California- in both violent crime and murder rates. And that's what makes you all wrong about the benefits of gun control.
Actual figures (once again):
DeleteUSA Violent crime rate 2012: 386.9
USA Murder rate 2012: 4.7
AZ Violent crime rate 2012: 428.9
AZ Murder rate 2012: 5.5
CA Violent crime rate 2012: 423.1
CA Murder rate 2012: 5.0
So tell me why you call Arizona “much worse”, and you wouldn’t use that same language to describe California? I guess you draw a sharp line in the sand between “safe” and “horrible” and it just so happens to be at 5.2 murders and 425 violent crimes, huh?
I’ll also point out how in the comment thread below, you praised California for having a bigger percent decrease in their murder rate than the rest of the nation, while here you admonish Arizona because they are still only average and not one of the best (though the same holds true for California).
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-california-model-twenty-years-of.html#comment-form
I know I'm not as statistically savvy as you, but can you please break this one down for me and explain.
Delete"That is not true either. National murder rate:
2010: 4.8
2011: 4.7
2012: 4.7
The national rate saw a 2% decrease, while Arizona had a 14% decrease. "
How can 4.8 to 4.7 be 2%? And where does the 14% come from?
"How can 4.8 to 4.7 be 2%? And where does the 14% come from?"
Delete4.7 is 97.9% of 4.8. Therefor its a 2% drop.
See above ^^^
DeleteThe 14% drop for AZ is from 6.4 down to 5.5.
Fine. I was wrong when I predicted Arizona would worsen. But that still doesn't explain how AZ is so violent still in spite of all your good guys with guns.
DeleteThanks, Mike. I know that wasn't easy for you to say (it sure was hard getting it out of you from my end).
DeleteRegarding AZ's position, I already answered that several times. No correlation. Why don't you answer my question about how AZ is similar to CA (both close to average)? Answering this yourself will give you incite to your question.
Mike, how do you explain how CA is "so violent" still in spite of all the gun control?
DeleteWhen you answer that question the way you want to, it will be the same answer for Arizona.
The question doesn't make sense. There is no gun control in California, not when Nevada and Arizona are a short drive away.
DeleteOk, you just answered the question. Gun control doesn't work. At least you are admitting that at the state level it doesn't work. Whether or not states enact strict laws on guns has no bearing in violence because people have cars (or something). Now do you see how when we crunch the numbers, we see there is no correlation.
DeleteNo, what I said is the mish-mash of easily circumvented laws we have now cannot be called gun control.
DeleteYou're sure getting more slippery lately. Are you frustrated?
Yes, I'm frustrated. I can't seem to make any progress with you, even on indisputable things like the way math works.
DeleteCA and AZ have similar rates of violence and vastly different gun laws. You just admitted that CA's laws don't work well because since we don't live in a police state, people are free to travel around. That's a decent explanation for why when we crunch the numbers we see that gun laws have no affect of violence.
If "we can't call it gun control" how on Earth can you say it is correlated to violence?
Mike, six of the eleven footnotes for data on this "fact" sheet are from anti-gun advocate groups. Incontrovertible is a word that shouldn't even be on the same webpage, just as you would object if it were a "fact" sheet from the NRA.
ReplyDelete"In the Tucson shooting where Jared Loughner shot and killed six people, an armed
civilian almost shot the bystander who tackled and disarmed Loughner."
" The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."
So this man, is being used as a reason civilians shouldn't have guns because he DIDNT shoot the wrong guy. Do you suppose that if the police had shown up at that moment the guy with the gun might have been treated the same way? Namely shoved up against the wall?
In the Laughner case we know Zamudio was not the only one present with a gun. Neither he or any of the others were able to intervene. That's the perfect metaphor for the feckless bullshit you guys are pushing about concealed carry. AT BEST it does not make matters worse.
DeleteYou may "know" that, but your evidence remains unclear to rational people.
DeleteNo, rational people can do a little arithmetic and determine that in any large crowd in a place that allows guns, Arizona folks enjoying Constitutional Carry at a rate of 6% of the overall population, are carrying. To say that not a one of them was is irrational.
DeleteStatistics are calculations of the overall probability, not predictions of how a given single event will turn out. Besides, a rate of six percent is not large enough to guarantee that a given crowd will have anyone in it who is armed.
DeleteThe Federal gun free school zone act of 1990 largely supersedes all State law which may allow "Constitutional" carry.
DeleteIt is therefore generally considered a Felony to publicly carry or display any firearm unless you are the holder of a State issued permit to carry such a firearm AND you are within the State that issued said permit.
Any such law passed by State legislatures are completely irrelevant.
Mikeb, that's not how population data work, and you should know that by now.
DeleteSure Greg. That's not how it works when it proves you wrong.
DeleteBut that's the point: It doesn't prove me wrong. You'd do well to learn how data interpretation works.
DeleteYeah, there's no evidence. So lying biased gun rights fanatics can deny the obvious.
DeleteThe obvious? Too much is obvious to you that is, in fact, simply wrong.
DeleteSo a bunch of control freak sources don't like Arizona, and the state ranks eleventh or thirteenth in some figures? What this fails to recognize is that many other states have gun laws that are effectively identical to Arizona's. It's funny how the gun laws matter only when certain states are being discussed, even though you've been shown that there is no correlation between gun laws and levels of violence.
ReplyDeleteNo, or next to no states have gun laws that are effectively identical to Arizona's. Yet, with all those good guys carrying guns with the fewest possible restrictions, the state still comes up on the shitty end of the lists. How can that be?
Delete" Law Center ranked each state based on a review of state laws in 29 different firearms-related policy areas. Vermont ranked 45th out of 50 – having some of the worst gun violence prevention laws in the country."
Delete"The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Arizona an “F,” ranking it 49th
out of 50 states."
"California ranked 1st out of 50 – having enacted the strongest gun violence prevention legislation in the nation."
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws-matter-2012-understanding-the-link-between-weak-laws-and-gun-violence/
Arizona violent crime rate in 2012 was 429 and the homicide rate was 5.5
California's violent crime rate for the same period was 423 and its homicide rate was 5.0
Vermont's violent crime rate was 143 and the homicide rate was 1.3.
Vermont is another one of those dangerous states with Constitutional carry. Clearly it looks like there are other factors that have a larger effect on violent crime and homicide than gun laws.
Interestingly, Minnesota only received a "C" on this anti gun groups system, but was also one of the top ten states with the lowest gun death rates.
The Brady Campaign gave Arizona zero points. They also have zero points to Utah, and they are on the shiny end of the list. How can that be?
DeleteMikeb, seriously? More and more states are going constitutional carry. Only a handful of states have the kind of wretched laws that you want.
DeleteI would also like to know Arizona's exact murder rate when the attacker used a firearm for the murder weapon and the victim was NOT a criminal involved in criminal activity. In other words what is the murder rate of citizens (not criminals) in Arizona where the attacker used a firearm?
ReplyDeleteThe exact data may not exist so here is an accurate estimate. If I remember correctly, criminals involved in criminal activity are the murder victim in about 80% of murders nationwide. That means about 216 of Arizona's murder victims in 2010 were criminals involved in criminal activity when they were murdered. And that leaves us with 55 citizens who were not engaged in illegal activity when they were murdered in 2010. Thus Arizona's per capita murder rate of citizens should be on the order of 0.8 murders per 100,000 residents ... which is incredibly low.
Now that's an eye opener, eh?!?!?!
-- TruthBeTold
The only problem with your dizzying attempt to differentiate the lawful gun owners from their criminal cousins with guns is that the criminals all get their guns from you.
DeleteI thought they got their guns from the manufacturers. Or is it the NRA?
DeleteGee wonder where this crack head gets his data. Seems he is pulling it out of his lower orifice. Right after he removes his head from the same orifice.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter where we get our data, so long as we have the ability to control you.
DeleteWe don't have to be morally or statistically correct to pass and sign legislation, and send the militia to disarm the subjects.