Gun ownership and murder rate

[Green Rabbit]

Hi all,

I thought I'd share this.

Browsing my facebook feed, I found yet another "concerned mother about gun control" share. I typically ignore it as these articles have little facts and a lot of BS, but this time decided to read it and found rather bold statement in the article - "more guns = more homicide". I thought that should be easy to verify - as someone has already done my homework and all the numbers are here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

It's 2010 data though, and according to FBI national murder rate is down from 5.0 to 4.5 between 2010 and 2014, but whatever - numbers are numbers.

So the idea is simple - if I put gun ownership rate and murder rate on one graph, a positive trend line would prove that statement

So here is the graph, murder rate and gun ownership, by state:



while it's scattered all over, the trend line is that thin dotted one - and it's negative. Means statistically speaking, one is less likely to be murdered in a state with higher gun ownership rate.

Well, I thought - ok, that theory is busted, credibility of the article author drops to zero in my eyes.

But what if we build another graph - gun ownership and GUN murder rate? Gun is a tool, a very handy for someone planning a murder, right? So at least that trend gotta be positive - as convenient tools are more widely available, potential murderers are more likely to use them, right?

So here is another graph I built - gun murder rate vs gun ownership


Still a negative trend!

Anyway, I thought - at least some of the claims must be, well, not true maybe, but at least somewhat defensible. Let's say, in a state with fewer guns per capita, for a murder victim chances of being killed by a gun (rather than by something else) must be higher, right?

so here is another graph for ya


You see the dotted trend line? yes, according to 2010 statistics, in the United States chances that a murderer would use a gun in the murder are LOWER in states with higher per-capita gun ownership.

Btw, did you notice the dot in top left corner on first two graphs? Highest murder (including gun murder) rate with lowest gun ownership, with worldwide ranking somewhere between Myanmar and Guyana (yes, there are such countries), way higher than let's say Zimbabwe?

It is District of Columbia.

PS feel free to use the data in any way you like.

Read More

 

[Koda]

I read an article just the other day on Huffington Post that claimed the states with the most restrictive gun laws has the least amount of gun violence.

Of course my credibility for Huffpo was already out the window but it just amazes me how stupid the people are.

I've done similar comparisons as you and find the same results. Your way more scientific than I am so its nice to see some presentable graphs to back up the data. Thanks for sharing.

 

[PaulB47]

So the idea is simple - if I put gun ownership rate and murder rate on one graph, a positive trend line would prove that statement

No. There are very many factors that influence murder rate; gun ownership is only a minor one.

Look at Lott's studies. He is famous for actually controlling for all these other factors (or at least, he took a good shot at it). It's very difficult getting these studies done correctly. Or honestly.

Anyway this is known as utilitarianism. I don't own guns for the greater benefit of all, I own them because it suits me, and I don't care what the studies say about the utility of gun ownership.

 

[Pops1911]

I ran across a news piece where allegedly the Mayor of Seattle was quoted as saying that guns kill more people than automobiles. Really?!?

 

[jinxx4ever]

only in chicago, obama's home town

 

[Green Rabbit]

No. There are very many factors that influence murder rate; gun ownership is only a minor one.

I know. That was not my assertion I am trying to verify; I was merely checking if the statistic supports it. And it does not.

In fact, I strongly believe that poverty, poor educational system, other social factors, combined with high population density drive crime rates (including murders) up. An attempt to apply gun control to high crime jurisdiction decreases gun ownership rates among law abiding citizens but hardly has any positive effect on the crime rates. As a result, that negative (high crime/low gun ownership) trend is created.

 

[PaulB47]

No, you are missing the point. You have not proven anything, you just drew a line on the graph that is meaningless. It's no more valid than saying "more guns = more homicide". Control for one or two uncontrolled factors such as poverty, and the line might slope the other way. You can't say anything valid if you ignore those factors.

This is why social studies is so disreputable among the sciences.

 

[41Slinger]

I never was very good with graphs, I thought those little dots were impact hole locations in the upper torso and the one high left was in the shoulder, silly me.

 

[Green Rabbit]

No, you are missing the point. You have not proven anything, you just drew a line on the graph that is meaningless. It's no more valid than saying "more guns = more homicide". Control for one or two uncontrolled factors such as poverty, and the line might slope the other way. You can't say anything valid if you ignore those factors.

This is why social studies is so disreputable among the sciences.

My point was quite simple: the statement "more guns = more homicide" is not supported by statistics. You might still think I am wrong here, but that simply means you insist that it IS supported by the statistics.

And I am not trying to go beyond that. That definitely does not mean that a conclusion can be drawn here that adding guns will decrease crime rate. My explanation of the negative trend observed is that gun ownership and murder rates are hardly connected - thus removing guns has little effect on the crime rates.
Without gun control applied the trend would likely be opposite - people living in high crime areas are more likely to arm themselves.

Good luck

 

[Koda]

I thought crime rate was a matter of percentage of population that's always consistent. The US population has tripled in the last 100 years alone, is the only reason were seeing 3x more violent crime... the percentage per population hasn't gone up.

 

[Green Rabbit]

I thought crime rate was a matter of percentage of population that's always consistent. The US population has tripled in the last 100 years alone, is the only reason were seeing 3x more violent crime... the percentage per population hasn't gone up.

yes, there is no steady rate increase. Violent crime rates between 60s and 90s have almost doubled, but then were declining since 90s - and now it's close to the rates of 60s.

http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/TrendsInOneVar.cfm

 

[PaulB47]

My point was quite simple: the statement "more guns = more homicide" is not supported by statistics. You might still think I am wrong here, but that simply means you insist that it IS supported by the statistics.

That's NOT what I said. I said - or I meant to say, anyway - that NEITHER was supported by statistics.

In fact, a huge amount of what people read in the newspapers, and a lot of so-called studies too, are not supported by statistics.

If you understand that the world is 80% BS, you won't go wrong.

 

[Koda]

technically both sides are supported by "statistics", the problem is that the statistics are never conclusive but most of all in cases of political opinion (gun control) statistics are skewed in favor of the study groups opinion. Its never been a good strategy to argue gun rights with gun rights statistics because for every study there is an anti-gun statistic (probably more). In this subject, arguing statistics is a wash.

 

[edslhead]

Fact. After purchasing over 15 guns in the past year, the murder rate at my home has remained exactly the same as before.

 

[Mark W.]

The part I am curious about is how did they determine the gun ownership rate for the various states, And wouldn't a state with say one major population area and a huge percentage of rural population tend to have a different rate of ownership then say a state with 4 major population centers and little rural population. And to the best of my knowledge since people tend to not answer the survey no state knows what its ownership rate is.

 

[Koda]

OP should share a link to the article.....

 

[Green Rabbit]

The part I am curious about is how did they determine the gun ownership rate for the various states, And wouldn't a state with say one major population area and a huge percentage of rural population tend to have a different rate of ownership then say a state with 4 major population centers and little rural population. And to the best of my knowledge since people tend to not answer the survey no state knows what its ownership rate is.

Wikipedia refers to this article - http://usliberals.about.com/od/Elec...s-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm, which in turns sources http://www.usacarry.com/ without particular link though

 

[Ruger Rich]

Hi all,

I thought I'd share this.

Browsing my facebook feed, I found yet another "concerned mother about gun control" share. I typically ignore it as these articles have little facts and a lot of BS, but this time decided to read it and found rather bold statement in the article - "more guns = more homicide". I thought that should be easy to verify - as someone has already done my homework and all the numbers are here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

It's 2010 data though, and according to FBI national murder rate is down from 5.0 to 4.5 between 2010 and 2014, but whatever - numbers are numbers.

So the idea is simple - if I put gun ownership rate and murder rate on one graph, a positive trend line would prove that statement

So here is the graph, murder rate and gun ownership, by state:

View attachment 269575

while it's scattered all over, the trend line is that thin dotted one - and it's negative. Means statistically speaking, one is less likely to be murdered in a state with higher gun ownership rate.

Well, I thought - ok, that theory is busted, credibility of the article author drops to zero in my eyes.

But what if we build another graph - gun ownership and GUN murder rate? Gun is a tool, a very handy for someone planning a murder, right? So at least that trend gotta be positive - as convenient tools are more widely available, potential murderers are more likely to use them, right?

So here is another graph I built - gun murder rate vs gun ownership

View attachment 269576
Still a negative trend!

Anyway, I thought - at least some of the claims must be, well, not true maybe, but at least somewhat defensible. Let's say, in a state with fewer guns per capita, for a murder victim chances of being killed by a gun (rather than by something else) must be higher, right?

so here is another graph for ya

View attachment 269577
You see the dotted trend line? yes, according to 2010 statistics, in the United States chances that a murderer would use a gun in the murder are LOWER in states with higher per-capita gun ownership.

Btw, did you notice the dot in top left corner on first two graphs? Highest murder (including gun murder) rate with lowest gun ownership, with worldwide ranking somewhere between Myanmar and Guyana (yes, there are such countries), way higher than let's say Zimbabwe?

It is District of Columbia.

PS feel free to use the data in any way you like.

 

[Ruger Rich]

What you say is true. Additionally, when the anti-gun folks are quoting death by guns they seldom point out that those statistics include suicides. And almost 2 out of 3 gun deaths are suicides. Obviously suicide is a very sad issue, and intense. If a person has got to the point in their life where they feel they need to end it, they will. And if guns were never invented or unavailable those folks would find a way to do it anyway.

 

[PaulB47]

There are "lies, damned lies, and statistics."