Always have...always will...
This is a discussion on Homicide Rates Higher in States with More Guns at Home within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Always have...always will... OMO ret...
Always have...always will...
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member[/B]
isn't it said that guns don't kill people, people kill people? the statistics show death as death and decided to link "said " guns to it. macgyver could do it with a paper clip and a wad of gum. doesn't prove anything but I'm sure people will lag on to it only to complicate things.
What's this button do?
Alaska, South Dakota and Wyoming the highest murder rates????
I don't believe that for a moment.
When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.
I knew all those TV shows had it wrong! All this time I was watching my back when I walked down the streets in LA, DC, NYC, and Baltimore. I should have been more careful when I was in Anchorage or Wyoming or South Dakota. I always heard that you gotta watch out for those Gangsta's in South Dakota. Sure as hell better have your windows up and doors locked.
The thesis of this "report" seems to be that the incidence of guns is what causes a crime rate to skyrocket. Well, let's take a simple look at the numbers reported by the FBI for 2001, as compared to the rates of gun ownership reported in this piece.
It would seem to me that the rate of violent crime, itself, is what prompts someone to acquire a firearm ... but maybe that's just me.
According to Bryner's "report," the five states reporting the highest incidence of firearms in the home are, along with the rate of violent crime in that state:
- Wyoming -- 59.7%, 257 per 100K
- Alaska -- 57.8%, 588 per 100K (worse than the median)
- Montana -- 57.7%, 352 per 100K
- South Dakota -- 56.6%, 155 per 100K
- West Virginia -- 55.4%, 279 per 100K
In only one instance (Alaska) was the rate of violent crime for the state higher than the median of all states in the USA for 2001.
And the "state" with the worst rate of violent crime? You guessed it: the District Of Columbia, with a rate of 1737 per 100K, in 2001. Dang! Look how good that is. We should enact more laws right away, 'cause they seem to be working.
It would seem that this "report" is showing something other than what she says it is. Not surprising, when a report so transparently begins with a premise and then seeks to justify the bias with "facts." In a nutshell, there is indeed a correlation between these numbers ... just, not quite to the degree she reported.
Below is the complete list of states, showing: State, % of homes reporting a firearm in 2001; the rate of violent crime in 2001 (per FBI stats); and whether that state was better or worse than the median rate of violent crime (390 per 100K) in 2001.
The rates of violent crime come from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, state statistics for 2001.
The numbers for all states, including D.C., are shown below. Apologies for the formatting.
State %Yes Rate_Of_VC Condition
Alabama 51.7 439 worse
Alaska 57.8 588 worse
Arizona 31.1 540 worse
Arkansas 55.3 453 worse
California 21.3 617 worse
Colorado 34.7 351
Connecticut 16.7 336
Delaware 25.5 611 worse
District_of_Columbia 3.8 1,737 worse
Florida 24.5 797 worse
Georgia 40.3 497 worse
Hawaii 8.7 255
Idaho 55.3 243
Illinois 20.2 637 worse
Indiana 39.1 372
Iowa 42.8 269
Kansas 42.1 405 worse
Kentucky 47.7 257
Louisiana 44.1 687 worse
Maine 40.5 112
Maryland 21.3 783 worse
Massachusetts 12.6 480 worse
Michigan 38.4 555 worse
Minnesota 41.7 264
Mississippi 55.3 350
Missouri 41.7 541 worse
Montana 57.7 352
Nebraska 38.6 304
Nevada 33.8 587 worse
New_Hampshire 30.0 170
New_Jersey 12.3 390
New_Mexico 34.8 781 worse
New_York 18.0 516 worse
North_Carolina 41.3 494 worse
North_Dakota 50.7 80
Ohio 32.4 352
Oklahoma 42.9 512 worse
Oregon 39.8 307
Pennsylvania 34.7 410 worse
Rhode_Island 12.8 310
South_Carolina 42.3 720 worse
South_Dakota 56.6 155
Tennessee 43.9 745 worse
Texas 35.9 573 worse
Utah 43.9 234
Vermont 42.0 105
Virginia 35.1 291
Washington 33.1 355
West_Virginia 55.4 279
Wisconsin 44.4 231
Wyoming 59.7 257
2001 median rate of violent crime per 100K persons: 390
Highest rate of violent crime (2001): D.C., 1737. Amazing what tough gun laws can do, hm?
Lowest rate of violent crime (2001): ND, 80.
* The FBI classifies "violent crimes" as one of the following: murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
EDIT: One way to spin things. By simply grouping the states into different buckets, there seems to be little difference between states in terms of ... Region (ie, South, Northeast, West), Higher-than-median incidence of gun ownership. Interestingly, if you divide states by population growth rates into fast-growing and slow-growing buckets, there IS a marked difference in the rates of violent crime. According to the U.S. census, from 1990-2000, 25 states had > 10% growth in population, whereas 26 states had < 10% growth. If you lived in a slow-growth state, you had a 10-in-26 chance of your state having worse-than-median rates of violent crime. However, if you lived in a fast-growth state (>10% pop. growth 1990-2000), you had a 15-in-25 chance of having higher-than-median rates of violent crime. In other words, higher population growth rates correspond to a 50% greater likelihood of "bad" rates of violent crime. Correlation? Perhaps, though unclear. I've always thought the Rats In A Cage explanation was the most-likely explanation for more stressors and the results, but that's just a pet theory.
Last edited by ccw9mm; February 14th, 2007 at 08:03 AM. Reason: clarification, edit
Quote from her article:
"In the top firearm-household states, homicide rates were more than double the rates found for states in the lowest firearm group. Overall, the top-gun states showed homicide rates that were 60 percent higher than all other states."
The above statement is not only misleading, its downright fraudulent.
The so-called "homicide rates" she refers to are not homicide rates at all, but homicide rates adjusted to fit her agenda:
"The analysis controlled for factors that could affect homicide rates, including socioeconomic status, urbanization, non-lethal crimes, unemployment, and alcohol consumption."
Example: (using made up SociaEco factors, since these are not given in the article)
Massachusetts rate 480 per 100K
SociaEco factor 0.5 adjusted rate 240 per 100K
Wyoming rate 257 per 100K
SociaEco factor 2.0 adjusted rate 514 per 100K
A more correct and more truthfull statement would be:
"In the top firearm-household states, homicide rates, after being manipulated to fit our hypothesis , were more than double the rates found for states in the lowest firearm group. "
Notice that she doesn't dare list the actual homicide rates. Neither does the article give any info whatsoever about how they "adjusted" the homicide rate numbers. This is the way "liberals" work in science. Its amazing that articles like these pass "peer review".
Wait, no, its not so amazing. Editors of journals like this article is published in choose referees that agree with their "liberal" agenda.
I use to subscribe to "Scientific American". I canceled my subscription a few years ago, that magazine went downhill due to "liberal" science, and is now in same league as "National Enquirer".
Last edited by quantum36; February 14th, 2007 at 09:19 AM.
This is not an offense committed only by "liberals"..it is a tactic used by those who are either unwilling or unable to accurately research their argument.Notice that she doesn't dare list the actual homicide rates. Neither does the article give any info whatsoever about how they "adjusted" the homicide rate numbers. This is the way "liberals" work in science. Its amazing that articles like these pass "peer review".
They start with an assumption (hypothesis) that they want to prove i.e. "Homicide Rates are greater in states that have more guns". They then either conduct their own studies or look for existing numerical data, such as from CDC. Then, to their dismay, when they find that the data DOESN'T support their hypothesis (homicide rates actually being less in states with more guns), they invent ways to "change" the data so that it does support their hypothesis. (i.e adjusting homicide rates due to "socio-economic factors").
Most of the so-called "science" we hear about in the main stream media is done this way. In order for scientists to get research funding from US Government, many try scare tactics... "we are all going to die....thousands are at risk...etc". When actual data doesn't support their hypothesis, they then manipulate the data so that it does. Then, it is reported to the news media before any peer review. Many times, the results are then subsequently rejected by peer review because of the manipulation. Of course, the main stream media never mentions this rejection, and the previous unsubstantiated claims become "fact" (although wrong) in the unknowing public eye.
The problem is, is that most people are unaware of the deception that is practiced by many scientists. When they hear the results in the main stream media they tend to believe it as absolute fact. As for myself, I am highly skeptical of any scientific results reported by the media (I have a Ph.D in Physics and am good with math!).
Last edited by quantum36; February 14th, 2007 at 10:11 AM.