Homicide Rates Higher in States with More Guns at Home

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; One of my friends sent me this link... http://www.livescience.com/othernews...un_crimes.html I'd really like to hear some views from our side, the liberals just love to skew ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Homicide Rates Higher in States with More Guns at Home

  1. #1
    Member Array airbornerangerboogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    478

    Homicide Rates Higher in States with More Guns at Home

    One of my friends sent me this link...
    http://www.livescience.com/othernews...un_crimes.html
    I'd really like to hear some views from our side, the liberals just love to skew stats.
    “Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today.” James Dean
    Phil (NRA Member and Vietnam Vet)
    ------------- My CCW ----------------
    No Guns Here Boss
    I gave them to the naked Pigmy's in New Guinea


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array obxned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OBX, NC
    Posts
    2,655
    Jeanna Bryner, author of the article, is a DAMNED LIAR – the states listed with the highest number of guns are actually all way below the national average.

    I have checked the murder rates from several reliable sources. Hope she sues me!

    Jeanna Bryner has no respect for the truth, no respect for my rights, and no respect for freedom of the press.
    "If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    The argument doesn't correlate. 1+1 !=3. There is no evidence whatsoever that the presence of more firearms increases the murder rate. It just happens to be that way.

    Since most of the guns owned in those states are never going to be used in a crime, it's impossible to say that the presence of them increases the murder rate. A better culprit would be that most of those states are more poor and have higher unemployment, or whatever. There are a million issues that go together to determine murder rate. None of them are private ownership of firearms.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  4. #4
    Member Array denverd0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    388
    At about the same time that the British are having their mid-morning tea in London, Americans are beginning to wake up on the East coast. Obviously it is the sound of all that tea slurping that wakes up the Americans.

    The argument above is called a "false correlation." The arguments in the article are also a "false correlation." There is a very old saying about what happens when you ASS-U-ME. Those who make a false correlation are doing a whole lot of assuming.

  5. #5
    Member Array foreveryoung001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by SammyIamToday View Post
    The argument doesn't correlate.
    +1

    I have to agree that from this article, the conclusions they've drawn are very poor. There were no statistic from this survey given to back up the conclusions, so it is basically meaningless. I would be interested in seeing the data from the whole survey, but I couldn't find it on-line.

    That said, it is easy to find unrelated evidence and draw conclusions from it. If they asked all of the people surveyed if they had a loaf of bread in their home, I guess you could say, "Bread eaters are more likely to be victims of crime." It doesn't make sense of course. Just as taking a poll on the number of gun owners and then blindly relating that to crime doesn't make sense.

    The only way to prove that gun ownership directly correlates to the murder rate is to prove that a murder was a direct result of owning a firearm. Compiling that kind of data would require direct access to police and FBI reports. To get the chance of error low enough to be statisically accurate, it would require a massive amount of research, that is proably not done on this large of a scale.

    Comparing a particular murder to whether or not that particular victim owned a firearm is the only way to truely come up with the result that this study is trying to prove. Once you had researched several hundred direct crimes, then you start to put something together. But then it gets even more compicated because gun ownership can mean a lot of different things.

    For years I was a gun owner, but keeping my father's old Mossberg 12 gauge in the house (never any shells) would make it impossible for that gun to be used to murder me... unless he wanted to beat with me it. So, you would need very detailed police reports saying if the home owners gun was the actual gun used in the crime, and then you could also start to draw some other conclusions, such as the effect of gun safes, trigger locks, personal carry, and a whole host of other factors that might or might not directly relate.

    So yes, I think the anti's will of course jump on this, but from an actual scientific standpoint, from the evidence stated in the article, there is absolutely nothing for them to base their conclusions on... of course that won't stop them.
    When the messenger arrives and says 'Don't shoot the messenger,' it's a good idea to be prepared to shoot the messenger, just in case.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array obxned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OBX, NC
    Posts
    2,655
    Quote Originally Posted by obxned View Post
    Jeanna Bryner, author of the article, is a DAMNED LIAR – the states listed with the highest number of guns are actually all way below the national average.

    I have checked the murder rates from several reliable sources. Hope she sues me!

    Jeanna Bryner has no respect for the truth, no respect for my rights, and no respect for freedom of the press.
    It would be a "false correlation" IF the states with the highest rates of firearm ownership (Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, South Dekota, and West Virginia) actually had the highest murder rates. The opposite is true.

    Jeanna Bryner is a just a DAMNED LIAR
    Last edited by rstickle; February 12th, 2007 at 12:56 PM. Reason: typos
    "If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan

  7. #7
    Member Array 500Mag's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    West Chester, PA
    Posts
    418
    There is a very old saying about what happens when you ASS-U-ME.
    That's to assume the data from the survey is representative. Click on the link to it and it seems a little off. Only 36% of Texans have a gun in the house. Along with that sample sizes seemed to have a little something to be desired. I refuse to believe you can get an accurate representation with a sample size of less than 1% of a states population.
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array obxned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OBX, NC
    Posts
    2,655
    You seem to be missing the point. The title of the article is " Homicide Rates Higher in States with More Guns at Home". The author sites 5 states with high gun ownership. Those states do have very high rates of guns in the home.

    She then says that those states have the highest murder rates, but where are her statistics to back this up - they are not there because every reliable source of those figures (FBI, DOJ, etc.) says the exact opposite. If she didn't know the true statistics, which are readily available, then she needs to make sure that every reader knows her writing is fiction. But she is a 'professional', she knew that actual statistics showed that the states she singled out were below the national average for the homicide rate. Put more simply, Jeanna Bryner is a just a DAMNED LIAR
    Last edited by obxned; February 12th, 2007 at 12:33 PM. Reason: spelling
    "If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan

  9. #9
    Distinguished Member Array SixBravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Prescott, AZ
    Posts
    1,692
    So Wyoming, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana and South Dakota have the highest murder rates by firearm than any other state? I see no statistical evidence to back it up - nor does it make any damned sense. They're telling me that California is safer Alaska? BWAHAHAHA!!!! That's retarted. I'd feel safer in the worst town in Alaska than I would in Compton, that's for sure!

    And another thing... why is it that DC was left out of their "study" if it was included in the University of North Carolina gun ownership survey? Mark Twain nailed it with "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics."

    In summation... to qoute a funny movie: "I'll believe that when me [brown] turns purple and smells of rainbow sherbert."
    The Gunsite Blog
    ITFT / Quick Kill Review
    "It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon." - Justice Scalia, SCOTUS - DC v Heller - 26 JUN 2008

  10. #10
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    +1 to the DAMNED LIAR analysis. The states with the highest murder rates (in 2005, the latest year I could find data on) are (in order) Louisianna, Maryland, Nevada, Alabama, and Arizona.

    The states she lists are as follows:
    Wyoming #37
    Alaska #26
    Montana #45
    South Dakota #40
    West Virginia #39

    All are well below the national average. That article is much more than an example of false correlation, it is an outright, complete, and utter lie.

    Interestingly, Massachussets (which the article singles out for it's very low incidence of gun ownership) has a higher murder rate than three of the "Top 5 Gun Owning" states...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  11. #11
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    It's also a false premise to take ''homicide figures'' per state and draw this crazy conclusion. PA also is well ''up there'' with firearms ownership, and carry too in fact.

    It so happens that here and many states the figures (even if accurate) have little or nothing to do with guns in homes - they have to do with mostly big cities where punk-on-punk ........ gangsta-on-gangsta homicides are the ever present big winners!

    This author is quite frankly talking out of where the sun don't shine - another example of misinformation to further the anti's cause.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array raevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    4,849
    She is basing he article on the survey done by the CDC in 2001-2003.Wasn't that the Junk Science one?

  13. #13
    Member Array tj1231's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    190
    Wyoming has the highest ownership rate...59%, 2005, 14 murders. Roughly 500,000 people.

    DC has the lowest...3.8%, 2005, 195 murders. Roughly 550,000 people.

    This doesn't add up. I'd sure like to see how they adjusted for socio-economics blablabla..

  14. #14
    Member Array Pickpocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    241
    You know what they say:
    There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    All she does is string two similar-sounding statistics together to form one statement of opined "fact".

    Her analysis is incomplete at best, or poorly conducted at worst, and I would wager that she knows it. All the article does is point out that high probability of variable A also coincides with high probability of variable B. The problem is that she leaves it there as though that were enough; to simply infer a direct correlation.

    The Title:
    Homicide Rates Higher in States with More Guns at Home
    What data was used here? Were cases where the deceased had been shot at one time but lived and then died of a heart-attack included? Were cases where a gun was found on-scene but the person died of a car wreck included? How about cases where the person owned a gun at home but were shot by police? Are they using police reports or hospital reports?
    The title is purposefully vague and meant to stir things up.


    "Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes," said lead researcher Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health.
    A statement such as this must be supported by data that actually links the two variables. Unless it can be shown that the guns used in said crimes were obtained/stolen from those homes then the inference is pure speculation.

    The analysis controlled for factors that could affect homicide rates, including socioeconomic status, urbanization, non-lethal crimes, unemployment, and alcohol consumption.
    Through some arcane, secret method of regression analysis. Unless the methods are transparent, the results are suspect.

    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.
    So what is the statistical relationship between the highest and lowest "household-firearms" states? In their own example, in Alabama more than 50% of the households have guns. Yet, the homicide rate there is no more than double that of a state which has 4 times fewer households with guns.

    Most women victims of homicide are killed by guns that were already in the home, while men tend to be killed outside of the home. From past studies, Miller said, women are more likely to be killed by people they know, such as ex-boyfriends or ex-spouses.
    How is it that their "study" was able to compensate for variables such as alcohol consumption, socioeconomic status, urbanization, and unemployment but yet still keep those cases where people were killed by an angry spouse/ex/etc.? Not only that, if they compensated for certain "conditions" within the sample - what data did they then use to extrapolate the theory that most "women victims of homicide are killed by guns already in the home"... ? What data do they use to tie this hypothesis into the main premise? If they have access to which guns were used in which crimes, why do they not apply the data across the entire argument?

    Overall women are more likely to die in states where there are more guns (in homes)
    Overall, bananas are more likely to fall off of trees in those geographic areas where there is a higher concentration of banana trees than in those areas with no bananas (in trees).

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,286

    Wink Isn't that how the Anti works

    If you cannot get evidence to support your synopsis then just make up what you need and swear it is the truth.
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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.