States with more gun regulations had lower rates of gun deaths, and states with less gun laws had higher gun death rates, both in terms of suicide and homicide.
Direct causation could not be determined, but at the very least, such a strong correlation should make it clear that existing public policy in many states with lax gun laws comes at a high price: more dead mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and others.
In addition, higher firearm ownership rates were also heavily correlated with higher firearm fatalities, and lower ownership rates were correlated with stronger gun control legislation.
And if you are going to say "Well, that's just one study..." remember that the reason that government funding has been cut for ANYTHING which can provide this type of data has been cut on the basis that it could be used to "promote gun control".
Why cut the research funding if the truth is on your side?
I guess that makes BS out of what SS has been saying.
ReplyDelete"I guess that makes BS out of what SS has been saying"
DeletePerhaps you should take a look at the three states on the list with firearm homicide rates so low that they put an NA in the column which apparently means less than 20 homicides in the whole state for the year. The highest gun law strength score of the three is just one point above Texas, and the other two either tie or score lower.
Perhaps you should accept what is clear. The more guns, the more gun deaths, the more gun injuries, the more gun negligence, the more gun accidents, Comparing the US to other countries around the world give the same results. There are all sorts of reasons different cities and States give different results. The causation becomes clear and is undeniable when looking at the total picture.
Delete"States with more gun regulations had lower rates of gun deaths, and states with less gun laws had higher gun death rates, both in terms of suicide and homicide."
ReplyDeleteHow exactly do you get a causation when for example California, which so proudly sits in second place with a gun law strength score of 22, yet 31 states have a lower homicide rate? And even with suicides included, 11 states still rank lower.
Even Texas with a gun law strength of 3 has a lower homicide rate. And then of course we already went round and round on this report about five months ago.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/01/lets-face-it-facts-are-anti-gun-no.html
California shares borders with some of the loosest gun states. Plus, it contains some serious hot spots which contain many of the other factors that contribute to violence rates.
DeleteAbout Laci's post, I have to mention what TS made clear to me. We need to look at overall murder rates and overall violence rates otherwise it doesn't mean much. Fewer guns is going to result in lower gun violence, but if it results in lower overall violence, then we've got something.
Statistics wizards can easily come up with lengthy explanations why fewer guns do not lead to lower overall violence rates, but I have a simpler way of determining the truth. In order for fewer guns to result in the same number of murders, the murderers would have to be using knives or bats or something else to do exactly the same number of killings. This is such a bizarre hypothesis that I reject it outright. In other words, if 70% of murders are done with guns, how can gun control not have a positive effect and save lives?
Bravo, Mike. I appreciate you recognizing the difference between "gun deaths" and murder. I don't like Laci is there yet. This correlation calc is exactly what I did, except I did it for murder and violent crime rates. But you won't believe me. That's why I think you should ask POed Lib or Baldr to run the calculation and we'll compare notes. Those two claim to be knowledgeable about statistics. Does that sound fair?
DeleteThis is not "just one study". There are many studies that do this from multiple sources (including the Brady Campaign). As I pointed out numerous times, they all use "gun deaths" or "gun homicides". Why do you think they all do it this way, when you've acknowledged that murder rates is the relevant metric? Don't you think they would have also thought to do this with murder rates? Yet we see the ONLY ones to use murder rates are arguing from a pro-gun position. That should tell you something. I'm sure the gun control advocates ran the numbers on murder rate- it's just they wouldn't dare publish the results.
DeleteThere are two problems with your calculations and if Baldr or POed Lib did it and came up with the same results the problems would persist. They are, 1. gun availability is not the only factor in violence and murder rates, and 2, strict gun laws are not a good identifier of lower gun availability - California for example shares borders with some of the loosest states.
DeleteThis is why we have to use common sense and unbiased honesty. If 70% of murders are committed with guns, limiting the access of guns to the unfit, would have to work and would save lives.
We can measure how much gun laws work for murder. It comes out at zero- no correlation. Are you agreeing that this might very well be true when you make excuses for why California and other gun control states don't have measurably fewer murders? It hasn't worked because most of the other states are pro gun? You can run with that if you like, but the numbers are what they are. At least you are disagreeing with Laci and this study which is trying to claim these little differences in state laws save lives. California is surrounded by pro gun states after all, so that explains why even though they have the must gun control, and one of the lowest household gun ownership rates, the criminals have just as many guns and still use guns to commit 70% of the murders.
DeleteDo you believe my calculations? Or are we still not able to get passed that point? That's why I asked you to bring in somebody on your side into the numbers debate.
Yeah, I guess I believe your calculations, as far as I can follow them.
DeleteI forgot to mention another point in the above comment. Besides the fact that gun availability is not the only factor, which works against CA since it has several urban hot spots, and besides the fact that lax gun states are an easy drive from any place with stricter gun control laws, the fact is even California does not have proper gun control policies. What I consider proper gun control, applied nation-wide, would do the trick. Short of that, we're just spinning our wheels.