1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!
  2. We're giving away over $850 in prizes this week -- enter now for your chance to win!
    Dismiss Notice

homicide rates from 1885 to 2012

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by kumabear17, Apr 15, 2013.

  1. kumabear17

    kumabear17 Issaquah Active Member

    Likes Received:
  2. RyanGun

    RyanGun Oregon New Member

    Likes Received:
    whats the number on the left?

  3. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    I have an issue with the "States move to shall issue" WA had shall issue permits since at least 1983 when I got mine and my father had one in the late 50's but his was job related. Seems the loggers don't like tax collectors!

    Maybe Dave Workman has better info on WA shall issue permits?
  4. kumabear17

    kumabear17 Issaquah Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Here's a better link

    Here is the apparent original post and detail
    The column scale on the left is per 100,000

    This forum link about half way down has the chart broken out as a table

    As to WA being a "shall issue" state, I don't remember when exactly that became official. I do remember in 1971 I got out of the Army and decided never to be unarmed again. To get my original concealed carry license I had to go to the downtown police department and have an interview with a butt-h_ _ _ detective. All I told him was I needed it for "recreation and protection", but he spent 10 minutes grilling me as to why as I kept repeating myself. Maybe he had a bad day. Currently I just walk up to the counter, pay my money and renew. And, yes, personally I do not agree, especially with WA State's Constitution, any license should be required. Should be like Arizona.
  5. meener777

    meener777 King County Active Member

    Likes Received:
    I have one problem with this chart and that is the labels. They imply causality in a few cases by pointing at a dramatic change in the graph and labeling it with some event. That is a little bit misleading. Correlation is not causality and that point cannot be stressed enough. Causality is extremely hard to show from one data stream (i.e. one experiment). What we can show on graphs like this is that when gun control is enacted the homicide rates do NOT go down. (You can look on similar graphs for Australia, UK, Chicago, DC, California, and see the same lack of effectiveness) But its hard to say that rates went up BECAUSE of something, say for example gun control legislation being passed - we need a lot more proof if we're going to make that claim. Its a subtle but very important difference. Graphs like this one can show LACK of causality, but we should be very careful when trying to show a causal effect using a single event in a single time series.
    CJ1089 and (deleted member) like this.
  6. Provincial

    Provincial Near Salem, OR Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Good point. For instance, the rapid rise in homicides after 1900 coincides with urbanization, so that could be a contributing factor. It would be interesting to see charts that compare homicide rates in urban areas compared to rural areas (using the same demographic areas in each case to keep the comparison more accurate) to see if rural homicides followed the same pattern as the general chart.
  7. One-Eyed Ross

    One-Eyed Ross Winlock, WA Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    The problem with this kind of display is always "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ( after this, therefore because of this).

    There are so many reasons that the death rate by firearms changed, it is simplistic to say that one thing caused another. But, the question at the end is good, regardless of the other things. If the death rate is dropping, why do we need to "fix" things now.
    meener777 and (deleted member) like this.