Homicide Rates Higher in States with More Guns at Home - Page 2

Homicide Rates Higher in States with More Guns at Home

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...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23
  1. #16
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,751

    Figures Lie and Liars Figure...

    Always have...always will...

    OMO

    ret
    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]


  2. #17
    Senior Member Array downrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    levittown PA
    Posts
    584
    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?

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    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.

  4. #19
    Member Array vinnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    58
    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.

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,978

    Post

    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
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #21
    Ex Member Array quantum36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Southern Alabama
    Posts
    159
    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.

  7. #22
    Member Array Pickpocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    241
    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".
    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.

  8. #23
    Ex Member Array quantum36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Southern Alabama
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by Pickpocket View Post
    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.
    Yes, you are correct. This is an offense committed by many others, not just liberals. Also it is not that they are unwilling to research their argument either. They do, but they manipulate data they find.

    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. States With The Most Guns?
    By Bark'n in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: July 8th, 2010, 01:34 PM
  2. Dare travel with higher end guns?
    By Upland man in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: January 31st, 2010, 09:22 AM
  3. Make of this what you will:More Guns Don't Necessarily Lead to Higher Rates of...
    By paramedic70002 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 6th, 2009, 11:49 PM
  4. Home Invasion Ends In Homicide
    By CT-Mike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2008, 08:26 PM
  5. Double Homicide Home Invasion
    By havegunjoe in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: February 20th, 2007, 07:36 PM

Search tags for this page

homicide rates higher in states with more guns at home jeanna bryner

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors