Well clearly tighter gun controls would have nothing to do with it. The highest crime rate is in DC.
This is a discussion on Study of Gun Deaths and Possible Influences That May Affect It: within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; \This study I believe was in the ATLANTIC, although I'm not sure it originated there - and it's purpose was to take what were thought ...
\This study I believe was in the ATLANTIC, although I'm not sure it originated there - and it's purpose was to take what were thought to be the main influences, everything from "a sense of well being" to "trigger locks", that could be associated with gun deaths, and to see if their was factual information on that - also including Gun Control with positive, negative, or neutral association between Gun Deaths and that, and also with a few other influences usually disagreed upon. In other words, for a number of influences, is there a factual indicator that points to objective facts towards one having significant association or not - beyond just opinion. Some of the study was done geographically (states), I guess because there would be more data available that way per area:
(*NOTE 1: The study was done in 2011 after the Tuscon shootings, I imagine after the Colorado shooting and so much talk of causes for both, the study was published again.
*NOTE 2: Keep in mind that when an Association or Correlation is found it doesn't mean 100% association, just that it is a significantly higher than a lower association. I don't believe any influence was 100% Associated with Gun Deaths.)
*NOTE 3: A significant Positive or Negative Correlation, either means there seems to be a strong influence on Gun Deaths.
-A made-up example of each: Positive Correlation: "A high level of wealth is associated with a high level of Gun Death."
........................................ Negative Correlation:"A high level of education is associated with a low level of Gun Death")
The Geography of Gun Deaths
By Richard Florida
Jan 13 2011, 10:38 AM ET
Terrible tragedies like last week's mass shootings in Tucson cause us to search for deeper answers. Many were quick to blame America's divisive and vitriolic political culture for the violence; others portray the shooter as an unhinged, clinically deranged person with his own unfathomable agenda. Arizona has been ground zero for the battle over immigration. Were the state's political and economic travails a contributing factor? There has been some talk about guns, too. Might tighter gun control laws have made a difference?
The map above charts firearm deaths for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes. As of 2007, 10.2 out of every 100,000 people were killed by firearms across the United States, but that rate varies dramatically from state to state. In Hawaii, at the low end, it was 2.6 per 100,000; in New York and New Jersey it was 5.0 and 5.2 respectively. At the high end, 21.7 out of every 100,000 residents of the District of Columbia were killed by guns, 20.2 in Louisiana, 18.5 in Mississippi, and 17.8 in Alaska. Arizona ranked eighth nationally, with 15.1 deaths per 100,000....
The Geography of Gun Deaths - Richard Florida - The Atlantic
Last edited by walleye; July 30th, 2012 at 07:34 PM.
Well clearly tighter gun controls would have nothing to do with it. The highest crime rate is in DC.
Reading the "study" is pointless. From everything contained in the article posted, it's clear that the author is using just the statistics that will come to his preconceived conclusion. It's as agenda driven as the articles you continually post.^^^And what about gun control? As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Might tighter gun control laws make a difference? Our analysis suggests that they do.
This is the only point of the "study". Use a bunch of selective statistics to justify that conclusion - and of course to also suggest that voting Republican kills people.
Give me a break. I think you need to be a little more subtle if you're going to continue to try and get people on a pro-gun, pro-self-defense forum to willing call for the government to confiscate all of our weapons.
**Moved to General Firearms**
As for the article, what's the point? Less guns = less gun deaths? Gotcha' just like you see less automobile fatalities where they don't have cars.
Not exactly a shocker there.Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes
The DC has 21.7 per 100,000 well for crying out loud that just SHOCKS me.
If out of the 4 or 5 highest associations you hate one of them - well, that's your opinion.
To quote something said recently: "Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but not to his or her facts".
So, it's one or the other with your claims.
"but NOT to his or her facts" Facts are facts."Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but to his or her facts".
Wikipedia says Richard Florida is an "urban studies theorist," and his web site says he's a cartographer.
Simply making color-coded maps about where gun deaths occur is misleading. He does "qualify" his data by saying it includes ALL deaths by firearm, but it's being presented in the context of gun control possibly "making a difference." What ISN'T spelled out is that a huge number of gun deaths (for example, here in Arizona) are related to criminal activity - good guys, bad guys, cops alike. It would be far more revealing and conducive to an intelligent debate to show deaths due to criminal activity separated out from gun deaths by accident and suicide.
AZCDL Life Member
NRA Patron Member
NROI Chief Range Officer
The only thing the numbers prove is that the larger the group of people together, the higher the "gun death" rate. Which has been the strongest correlation for decades now.
Tough or light gun laws, it does not matter. More people equates to more violence in almost all cases. Weapon type matters not.
Some of the fuedal lords in Japan banned swords back in the day for the same reason people want to control guns today. They fear those wielding them that are not controlled by them. A story as old as humanity.
Is this correct? Not even a statistician?Richard Florida is an "urban studies theorist," and his web site says he's a cartographer.
That is a trashcrapdogsmashinyourface title for sure. Yea, I give Mr. Urban Studies Theorist high marks. Right.
It takes an Epidemiologist (A Ph.D) with a couple of decades of experience to really filter data.
An Urban Studies Theorist
Let's all give the Atlantic HIGH MARKS for publishing his trash too? I think not, just for forgetting to do some due diligence?
Drowning caused by water <gasp>
Car accidents involve cars <gasp>
Spare me.Richard Florida (born 1957 in Newark, New Jersey) is an American urban studies theorist. Florida's focus is on social and economic theory. He is currently a professor and head of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.
Prof. Florida received a PhD from Columbia University in 1986. Prior to joining George Mason University's School of Public Policy, where he spent two years, he taught at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College in Pittsburgh from 1987 to 2005. He was named a Senior Editor at The Atlantic in March 2011 after serving as a correspondent for TheAtlantic.com for a year.Well, he does have some bona fides, mainly an ability to self-promote, but a Ph.D from Columbia is no sneezing matter, even for a elitist.Florida's theories are the source of both praise and controversy. Florida's ideas have been criticized from a variety of political perspectives and by both academics and journalists. His theories have been criticized as being elitist, and his data have been questioned. Researchers have also criticized Florida's work for its methodology. Terry Nichols Clark (University of Chicago) has used Florida's own data-sets to question the correlation between the presence of significant numbers of gay men in a city and the presence of high-technology knowledge industries.  Harvard economist Edward Glaeser performed statistical regressions on Florida's data sets and came up with a similar critique, contending that educational levels rather than the presence of bohemians or gay people is correlated with metropolitan economic development. Other critics have said that the conditions it describes may no longer exist, and that his theories may be better suited to politics, rather than economics. Florida has gone on to directly reply to a number of these objections.
I correct myself, and don't really care.
Haven't read many posts, it's late, but a heads up: the first few reacted as if this was an editorial polemic for gun regulations. It's study of associations based on data, or another way of saying that: the experiences of many. I saw no scientist or statistician finding problems with methods or data, which is Public, after all, you wouldn't need Sherlock Homes to spot major errors.
It has no special focus on gun regulations. A list of discussion points on what caused the violence in AZ and likely was thought the same in Colorado since the study was re-published, lists several causes put forward: gun regulations are last.
Out of 20 or more factors possibly associated with gun-deaths, only 2 or 3 have anything to do with gun regulations, 18 or more don’t, or 85% - 90%.
The factors that had a high association with gun-deaths included gun-regulations but 4 or 5 others also, and all were stated just as a list, gun regs 20% - 25% of it. No focus was aimed on any, no conclusions were drawn including that association proved causation instead of just indicating a suggestion of it, no policy was offered, nothing: it is what is: a study of associations among which gun regs are one of many.
If you see nothing but gun-control, confiscating guns and all that here, you've got gun-control-colored glasses on, a fixation, like any belief everything is about poverty, or education or "a sense of well-being". If you have one of those you're in a population that would know least about whichever one it was - for fixation only sees a mirror, which reflects back the fixation and strengthens it as well as more and more strengthening the conviction that one is RIGHT.
It's nice feeling that Right about something - or everything - but at the end of the day you don't know much.
Last edited by walleye; July 31st, 2012 at 06:03 PM.