States with Stricter Gun Control Laws Are Less Safe
During a recent John Stossel show on gun control, Brady Campaign Vice President Dennis Henigan presented his case for “reasonable” gun control laws.
Henigan cited last year’s murder of four police officers in Lakewood, Washington, as proof that mass murders occur in non-gun free zones. One incident in the face of a majority of active shootings occurring in gun-free zones isn’t evidence of a trend, especially since that particular tragedy was the result of a justice system failure to keep a violent felon in prison. The justice system presumes future innocence even when cases like this indicate otherwise.
On the other hand, Henigan’s idea of justice for law-abiding gun owners is the presumption of guilt until they prove innocence by getting investigated by police prior to buying guns (licensing) and then keeping tabs on the suspected gun owner/criminal by maintaining a list of guns owned (registration).
Henigan considers all this “reasonable.”
He also called Washington, D.C., a “city” in order to invalidate crime comparisons between D.C. and the 50 states. However, in 2007, D.C. Mayor Fenty stated during his inauguration:
Together, we pledge, steadfastly, that our goal is to become the 51st State. None of us can, or should, rest easy until we all have the opportunity to participate fully in our great democracy.
Via their duly elected representative, D.C. residents declared their desire to be recognized as a state. In keeping with democratic (small d) values, it’s reasonable to compare D.C. to other states.
In 2008, D.C. had 3.2 and 5.9 times the violent crime and murder rates, respectively, of the rest of America.
Also, D.C. has a larger population than Wyoming, which has the highest gun ownership rate, plus below-average murder and violent crime rates. Anti-rights groups commonly trim the national dataset in order to create numbers supporting their rhetoric.
Henigan also declared that it’s “absolutely false” that the Brady Campaign is trying to take away Americans’ right to own guns. But the following data indicate it’s his assertion that’s “absolutely false.”
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is “operated by state health departments in collaboration with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” a department in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). BRFSS state-level gun ownership surveys for 2001 and 2002 are available online. (Includes D.C.)
Beginning in 2001, the Brady Campaign published annual “report cards” grading states on their gun control laws. Brady’s “A” states had the most gun control, while “F” states had the least.
After collating Brady grades with the BRFSS data, interesting correlations appear:
- Brady’s favorite (A) states average the lowest gun ownership rates.
- Brady’s “worst” (F) states average the highest gun ownership.
- As grades drop from A to F, gun ownership consistently rises.
| Brady Grades Versus Gun Ownership Rates | ||
| Grade | Average Percent Gun Ownership | |
| 2001 | 2002 | |
| A | 14.0 | 13.8 |
| B | 20.4 | 23.3 |
| C | 39.2 | 40.4 |
| D | 41.7 | 42.7 |
| F | 51.0 | 53.4 |
Brady’s “A” states were the only group with decreasing gun ownership rates from 2001 to 2002, indicating that gun control laws may make it harder and/or more expensive for law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms: if people either don’t bother or move to gun-friendly states seeking more liberal gun rights, ownership rates decline over time.
Despite Henigan’s denial, his “reasonable gun restrictions” correlate with reduced gun ownership.
After collating gun ownership rates with FBI violent crime rates, other interesting correlations appear:
- As gun ownership levels increase, Brady grades decrease.
- States with higher gun ownership levels have less violent crime and murder.
| Gun Ownership vs. Brady, Violent Crime, Murder | ||||||
| Percent Gun Ownership |
2001 | 2002 | ||||
| Ave.
Grade |
FBI Rates | Ave.
Grade |
FBI Rates | |||
| Violence | Murder | Violence | Murder | |||
| Under 30% | B+ | 610.0 | 7.6 | B+ | 599.7 | 8.2 |
| 30-40% | D+ | 424.5 | 4.9 | D+ | 422.4 | 5.0 |
| 40-50% | D+ | 410.7 | 4.9 | D+ | 406.5 | 4.8 |
| Over 50% | D- | 319.6 | 4.2 | D- | 314.8 | 3.9 |
Brady’s “reasonable” gun control correlates with reduced gun ownership and higher rates of overall violence and murder.
Collating gun ownership rates with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) homicide data underscores the above conclusions:
- States with the lowest firearms ownership average the highest firearm and non-firearm homicide rates.
- As firearms ownership rates increase, homicide rates generally decrease.
- States with the highest gun ownership have the lowest firearms homicide rates.
| Gun Ownership vs. CDC Homicide Rates | ||||||
| Pct. Gun Ownership |
2001 | 2002 | ||||
| Total | Firearm | Non-FA | Total | Firearm | Non-FA | |
| Under 30% | 9.32 | 4.90 | 4.42 | 8.09 | 5.61 | 2.47 |
| 30-40% | 5.52 | 3.31 | 2.20 | 5.47 | 3.46 | 2.01 |
| 40-50% | 5.63 | 3.58 | 2.04 | 5.24 | 3.49 | 1.75 |
| Over 50% | 5.12 | 3.22 | 1.90 | 5.22 | 3.18 | 2.04 |
(Note: the CDC collects information from death certificates, while the FBI collects data from law enforcement agencies.)
As a political columnist myself, I’ve been writing about gun control for years now.
I’ve posted a lot of facts backing up my opinions on how states and/or cities that have some form of gun control usually have a high rate of crime. (Chicago is a good example of this, as well as D.C. before the famous rulings.) In fact, England has strict gun control and the crime rate is very high.
People need to learn that criminals are called “law breakers” for a reason and the honest citizen has the right to defend him- or herself with a firearm.
The issues larger metropolitan areas are worried about is not crime, but gun related fatalities. This article takes too simple a look at the issues. Vermont has almost no fire arm regulations, and very low homicide rates and crime rates. However, Chicago by itself has over four times the entire population of Vermont. Obviously when you have condensed population crime goes up. It is a logical fallacy to assume that murder and crime rates will not increase with more guns in Cities. I will wager that gun related deaths will increase in Chicago in the next couple of years. I might be wrong, we will see. However, if the amount of gun related deaths increase would you then agree that a state has the right to self regulate without the federal government infringing on the states rights?
Brian, the DC violent crime and murder rate dropped post-Heller. According to your criteria, that means that federal intervention in upholding the Bill of Rights is justifiable, and states have no right to regulate them.
It is a logical fallacy to assume that murder and crime rates will not increase with more guns in Cities.
—-
Actually, it is a logical fallacy to assume that more people must result in a higher per-capita crime rate.
The logical way to look at this is to compare the same locality just before and just after changes in gun laws.
When you do this, you will always find that greater controls on guns results in more crimes and lessened controls on guns result in fewer crimes. In neither case do the per-capita rate of gun accidents change.
You figure that Chicagos firearm death rate is going to go up? How many cities have had an increase in firearm deaths after the gun laws were loosened? Miami? Pheonix? Denver? Anchorage?
To evaluate the situation in role playing games terms (sortof):
Granny Monster can do 2 points damage and it takes 10 points to kill her. Mugger Monster can do 30 points damage and it takes 100 points to kill him.
Obviously, GM is toast in a confrontation between the two.
Add a handgun able to do 100 points damage.
Now MM can do 130 points damage, but it only takes 100 points to kill Mugger Monster. GM is able to do 102 points damage.
MM can start carrying a bazooka able to do 1000 points damage, but it’s not going to increase the number of points needed to kill him, and Granny can now do the damage.
Criminals do not like 50-50 odds.
I see what you’re saying Brian, however, I would rather make sure that the honest citizen has the right and ability to have a gun for self protection, since the criminal cares less about gun laws as it is.
No state has a right to prevent one from defending his life.
You really believe that a murderer would be morally above obtaining an illegal firearm that the intended victim-law abiding citizen would not be allowed to have for self-defense? Tightly grouped population just means more victims per criminal. If the precedent is set that you will be shot in a home invasion or armed robbery it wouldn’t be as glamorous in the eyes of the future career criminal.
Total population is not the deciding factor… they calculate crime per capita: # of crimes / # of people = crime rate.
I agree that guns make us safe.
Let’s all bring one to the House of Representatives.
Let’s all bring one to the next RNC meeting.
Let’s all bring one to the next Sarah speech.
Let’s all bring one to Fox News.
Let’s put our guns where our mouths are.
John
Is your comment designed to evoke some kind of a scare? I always carry my firearm at the NRA range, and I am surrounded by others who carry as well. Guess how many massacres occurred at the range? Zero. Would you like to know why? Because you would have to be insane to pull out your gun and start waving it around those who have a firearm and know how to use it.
If everyone in a large crowd has a firearm then there is a good chance that nothing will happen. Most of the criminals are cowards and if they know there will be consequences for their actions they will think twice before committing a crime.
So, assuming there are no gun control laws preventing you from doing this… Feel free to bring a gun to Sarah Palin’s speech, RNC convention, Fox News etc, but if you value your life you will keep it holstered.
An interesting article, and I have seen quite a few like it in various venues around the web. Although it intuitively makes sense to me, I feel that one huge factor is left unaccounted for in the data: population density. It is possible that the gun ownership CORRELATION with homicide rates is not CAUSATION. For example, in the article you compare Wyoming homicide rates to DC homicide rates. These two “states” have very different levels of population density. It is possible that the correlation of homicide rates and population density are the CAUSATIVE factor underlying the data. I think, for the sake of rigor, one needs to compare “A” through “F” states on a county/city basis in order to compare homicide rates in comparable “population density” sample. Not sure if this is possible with the data that is readily available, but it would provide a clearer picture of any observed CAUSATION between high and low gun ownership areas.
Black part of town, most cities prior to 1960, high density, high poverty rate, minimal crime. China town, San Francisco, prior to California’s 1968 gun control act. Extremely high density, extreme poverty, minimal crime rate.
Matt, as you suggested in another post, it is impossible to ‘prove’ causation by correlation, no matter the number or characteristics of the data points. Strongest statistical evidence comes from comparing the same population pre- and post-gun legislation. Essentially this is a paired T-test (i.e., before and after treatment), which can be a very good predictor of causation.
Comparing DC crime statistics before and after Heller would be a pretty good study, I think, if other variables were adequately controlled.
Correlation is not causation.
I am a strongly pro-RKBA, gun owner, NRA member for years, and in fact a qualified range officer and marksmanship instructor. That said, I also have graduate level coursework in statistics, and the author’s analysis is flawed. Fatally so.
Big cities have a huge crime problem, and it kills young men of color in large numbers. They die from gunshot wounds, typically gained in the course of dealing drugs, or fighting for territory for dealing drugs. The rest of the US doesn’t have anything like this phenomenon – it’s basically as safe as living in Canada or Europe with respect to the risk of being murdered, and safer in some other measures.
The crime problem in out cities does not justify disarming the law-abiding – either morally nor on a utilitarian basis. Making the criminals job easier is entirely the wrong thing to do. As a result of recent court decisions ending gun prohibition in several of our larger cities, I predict a short run spike in urban homicide as citizens re-arm and kill their criminal attackers. A new normal will be defined when the criminal class adjusts to the increased risks associated with their chosen profession by seeking alternate employment. That or they’ll die in droves like the scum they are. Either way we make our country better.
I thought the same thing. However, this is not born out in real life.
Correlation isn’t causation, but–if the right tests are done on the right data–you can infer some directionality and identify the likelihood your driving factor(s) are among what you’re studying.
I doubt that the author of the article intended for the rebutting statistics to be anything greater than just that, rebutting statistics. The basic point being made is that gun-control laws do not equate to less homicides, and that the quandary of the Opposite Outcome are visible and pertinent. The article is not meant to “prove” anything, except expose the fallacy of “reasonable gun-control laws”.
Hurray! I am glad to know some of my readers get the point of the article. I seriously doubt that anybody will ever use population, gun ownership, and crime data to PROVE causation either way. But we need to ask Brady et all some hard questions about their assumption that more guns CAUSE more crime, and we need to vote out politicians who parrot Brady. We also need to ask our alleged representatives why they could possibly give credence to Brady, which has maybe 50,000 members, while calling pro-rights organizations-containing about 12 million members according to a recent Christian Science Monitor article-extremists.
An armed society is a polite society.
You’re comparing one out-of-control, insane place with another slightly less out-of-control place. Compare the whole US with other countries that have much, much stricter gun control and a tiny fraction of the gun crimes. This article, like the whole gun situation in the US, is insanely out of touch with reality, and the result is much needless violence.
In response to Rob. I assume that you are including Mexico where they have killed THOUSANDS in Juarez alone and Gun ownership by private individuals is banned throughout the nation? Better revisit your claims.
And Sweden, a country with incredibly low crime rates and a country where EVERY adult male is mandated to own a gun.
Ken, you mean Switzerland.
That would be nice except you’re ignoring the history in all of the systems and the compromises already in place for many of these countries. When you consider many of the bulwarks of gun restrictiveness also include mechanisms of social engineering and control that would cause a major uprising to enact here (as well as having to overcome an entirely different history), in order to actually compare the real effects of their gun control “successes” to the US would be pretty hard to do.
Even with this analysis–and only at a correlative level–the complexity in the US system is pretty understated.
Personally, my favorite is using Japan as an example. By enforcing pretty close to a single set of social norms, restricting the incorporation of other cultures or people into their system, and promoting a degree of economic competition based on Race/Nation between them and the world, you can reduce internal conflict and therefore firearm deaths.
The consequences, of course, are a lot more psychological and social issues including an unsustainable decline in birth rates, a slow fragmentation of the family unit, and several other nifty traits that scream “sick society”.
Yep, and the resulting personal pressures to succeed then make Japan the country that is usually number one in the world in successful suicide rates, without the use of a firearm.
matt, I don’t think it is population density by itself is the issue. If it were you would not see the level of variation between big cities that is in the data. For example, compare two cities of relatively the same size – like Philadelphia and San Diego, San Diego has approximately one third the violent crime that Phillie has. California’s Brady rating is 79 (stricter) and Pennsylvania’s rating is 25 (less strict). BTW I don’t advocate cherry picking examples as I have done as representative. That said urban crime the US is high by international standards, and murder in the US is very high compared to other 1st world countries, and while better than our neighbor Mexico, our murder rate is about 3 times that of Canada or the UK. That said, the US murder rate has been higher than that of the UK since the time our gun laws were pretty much identical (as in none).
I don’t have a lot of social science answers for our crime issues. About the only idea that comes to my mind that I consider even has half a chance of working is to decriminalize dope. As a parent I don’t like that option, but it would take the money out of the business that attracts organized crime, and might even raise some tax money to pay for drying out addicts if done properly. There would be (much) less to kill for – and fewer police or prison guards to pay for as well.
The 40 odd year experiment in national gun control we’ve had since the GCA of ’68 has been a failure by any rational calculation. The gun banners will say it was implemented poorly and what we ought to do is to confiscate all private firearms. For my part I consider it is morally wrong to disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens and leave them without the means of self-defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
and
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
RKV, to keep an apples to apples comparison, Philadelphia had 432 murders in 1995 which was the year Harrisburg made the city accept right to carry. Last year, Philly had 302 murders. The population is about the same.
BTW, back in 1959 when gun control was a bit less stringent — and there with other societal differences such as prayer and Bible readings occurring in public school and abortion being treated as a crime — Philly had 54 murder and 68 manslaughters with a half-million more people living in it.
Rob Davidson @5: “Other countries that have much, much stricter gun control and a tiny fraction of gun crimes.” You may be surprised to learn where the mass gun killings occur. Top scores are places like Germany, England, Scotland. The point being, you can’t rewrite human nature with a feel-good law. Good people will obey gun regulations; bad people will not. Gun control does nothing except disarm the innocent, make the predator’s job easier and create a new center of bureaucratic power. Your motto should be “Let me spend your tax dollars making you less safe!”
Here’s the rub.
Lets say we performed a study that showed a correlation between population density and violent crime rates. Lets say that the results of that study basically mirror Mr. Nemerov’s numbers in that the cities with high crime also have good Brady Scores, low legal gun ownership and high population density.
Those are still nothing more than correlations. There is no PROOF (and I would contend that unequivocal proof of causation is impossible to demonstrate) that either of those factors is the causative element in violent crime rates.
And I would suspect that it is a mixture of those factors along with many others. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that those states with restrictive gun laws also have the highest tax rates, the highest regulatory burdens on business and industry, the highest cost of living, etc etc etc.
All of those things can be contributors to high crime.
But all of that is irrelevant to this post. This post is a direct response to Dennis Hennigan’s claim that high rates of lawful gun ownership lead to higher crime rates.
These numbers demonstrate unequivocally that there is no correlation between strict gun control and reduced crime. It is the anti-gunners who are claiming that gun control laws work, it is on them to demonstrate the validity of those claims. Mr. Nemerov is simply demonstrating that their claims fail any level of scrutiny.
We’re talking about a Constitutionally protected right here. We don’t need to prove anything to justify defending it, the anti’s need to prove their claims to justify infringing upon it. And they simply cannot.
Sailorcurt,
Good points all. I would also similarly argue that as an American citizen I have a right to bear arms protected by the constitution. I also agree that the correlations one might find will not PROVE or disprove the causes of gun crimes. I simply note (more due to my fascination, than any other reason) that it might be possible to identify other factors that might reasonably effect gun crime (my suggestion of population density is one of many). However, a reasonable statistical analysis (assuming sufficient data is available) might very well show that the percentage of gun ownership is inversely proportional to the homicide rate AND is a primary or major factor in it. Proof? Relevant to a legal discussion? Not really, but fascinating non the less.
“the whole gun situation in the US, is insanely out of touch with reality, and the result is much needless violence.”
What “reality” is that? That subjects of other countries do not have the right to defend themselves from violence against them, and American citizens do?
Matt and RKV (et al) apply a double standard based upon their misreading of my special report.
1. Because they ignored the purpose of the report, which was to expose Dennis Henigan’s lies, they attempted to discredit the report for what it didn’t represent, which they assumed to be some sort of statistical analysis based upon a sacred criteria of population density.
2. It is therefore curious that they chose to derogate this report for attempting to equate correlation with causation, while at the same time ignoring Henigan’s, and therefore the Brady Campaign’s, allegation that more guns CAUSE more crime.
These facts call into question the reason why they posted their comments (2&3).
PS – Sailor Kurt (comment 8) gets it.
Mr. Nemerov,
It was not my intent to attempt to discredit your report and I apologize if that was your understanding of the intent of my post. I was only attempting to point out that some more statistical rigor might be very illuminating to the discussion. The obvious purpose of your article was to burst one of the meta-narratives gun control enthusiast like to use, and for that I would say ably done. I find the deeper question how dominant the gun control vs homicide rate correlation is relative to other potential factors an interesting one. As I mentioned in my reply to sailorcurt, it may prove to greatly strengthen your argument. More academically interesting, then relevant to the legal question of gun ownership, which seems pretty plain in the Constitution to me.
Matt, then I suggest you read Lott’s third edition of More Guns, Less Crime. Interestingly, though I am not a statistical whiz like Lott, I find that my research, begun when I still supported civilian disarmament, closely mirrors his. I go more on the preponderance of the evidence theory, especially when the anti-rights groups like Brady continually harp that we would all be safer were we to give up our guns. They don’t even bother with innocent until proven guilty, but go directly to guilty until proven innocent. This in itself should give supporters pause, unless, of course, they already support totalitarianism.
Thanks for the clarification.
You have to take into account population and gun owernship. If you look at gun deaths, gun ownership, and population, and take population squared as a measure of how frequently 2 human beings run into each other, the most dangerous states to live in are Alaska and Delaware (gun deaths/guns per capita/(population squared)).
Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as an algebraic equation equating ‘numbers’ of guns to ‘numbers’ of people and murders and or violent crime. And such an implication is intellectually dishonest in it’s precept.
I am a gun advocate and a gun owner/enthusiast. I own more than one weapon. I have more than one box of ammunition. I shoot regularly and I carry a concealed weapon and a permit. I grew up around weapons. I served 9 years in the military.
I taught my children about weapons when they were old enough to hold one. That’s because accidents happen to the ignorant and the uninformed. I own a gun safe and have for many years. A ‘big’ one. I also take my children out shooting at their request. Always observing strict safety guidelines. Safe habits make safe behaviors.
Statistically according to your ‘algorithm’ many more ‘accidents’ should occur because of human encounter and weapon availability than actually do.
An “accident” is another word for carelessness. And a word that subverts accountability. I do not subscribe to that philosophy. No behavior is outside of the control of the individual who is cognizant of their conscientious and their immediate surroundings.
Lack of discipline and the faith in non accountability through ‘victimization’ pleas have weakened individual resolve to be honor bound, to display and maintain individual integrity and personal ethics at all times. Excuses have become our mantra as a society.
I appreciate cowardice. It’s real and it’s human. Statistics only aid the crutch of non accountability. No one lives forever. And I will NOT be some one’s victim, nor will I go without a fight. I’m an American. I don’t cower. And I don’t roll over.
Others, are more suited to that than I am.
Is there any medical study that specifically identifies how being in the near proximity to an inanimate object affects a humans brainwave patterns and allows the inanimate object to thereby force or control a person into guaranteed violence? No, no such study exists, but the mental health profession has identified mental disorders, “Projection”, progressing to “Fetishism”, and then the advanced stages “Schizophrenia” that bear a striking resemblance to the belief that being in proximity to a gun causes violence.
Rik, Nor do they account for the multiple government studies supported by police studies that 76-80% of ALL violent crimes are committed by career criminals (felons) or gang members to make a valid comparison of how deaths are affected by gun ownership by law abiding citizens, something the anti’s refuse to separate in their , cough, cough, studies so as to be more “frightening”.
In the FBI UCR database in 2008, they identify of the 1.38 million reported violent crimes, only 381k involved a firearm. Then you can also refer to another government annual report USDOJ National Victimization, in 2008 there were 4.8 million violent crimes not involving a firearm not reported. This 75% of crimes not being reported is replicated in a similar Canadian study. This is something one must think about when reviewing the actual number of firearms involved incidents, as how many that do not result in a shooting are not reported? I myself have been involved in 4 such incidents in the last 35 years. No shots fired, but what would the intended attacker have been prosecuted for, minor trespass, in our legal system, lol! Having been around police “family” friends” all my life, one lesson has been hammered home, unless interaction with the police is mandatory, don’t bother.
Nor do the antis like to review against real data, like the following. Multiple studies identify a shot is fire 3-15% of the time a gun is involved in violent encounter. The best hit ratio we see in an encounter when shots are fired are from police studies, avg. 15% of shots fired hit, max 25% (Virginia & NYC). I don’t think anyone can prove that felons are a better shot than the police, do you? Nor is there any evidence that % of shots fired is any different between criminal acts and self defense acts.
Since there were something like 11,000 plus murders by firearms and 70,000 injuries in 2008, you can calculate back, based on hits (injuries and deaths) = max 25% x 4 to equal 100% of shots fired, and number of times shots divided by max of 15% of encounters where shots fired x 100% to calculate the probable number of actual encounters where a firearm is involved. We use the maximum % as this will result in less “scary numbers”. Calculate, review and come back as to how many incidents occurred. Remember too, any claim of less % of hits or shots fired still has to run up against the actual number of deaths and injuries, thereby reflecting an increase in actual incidents.
To be sure, a place like Wyoming has high gun ownership and low crime, compared to Washington DC, which has high crime and strict gun laws. The reason there’s more crime/murders in Washington DC compared to Wyoming is because there’s a huge socio-economic difference between populations, density being only one difference among many.
Could the difference in murder and violent crime rates between Washington D.C. and Wyoming be more due to the density of lawyers in the population, rather than gun ownership?
Double standard? Nope. You’ve written about a complex issue in over-simplified terms. Nor do I disagree with your apparent policy conclusion – though our grounds may differ. What I do suggest is what the facts do support – our rate of murder and other violent crimes IS higher than other similar countries (assuming western Europe to be similar, which is a rebutable presumption). Make the rebutal or don’t, just don’t mis-state my position. I have tried to raise causitive issues (drug prohibition for one) that actually line up with the data. Perhaps readers can suggest others.
Actually, I haven’t misstated anything. You were looking for something that isn’t there in order to make your own point relevant, and you haven’t gone on record that Brady is wrong to allege that more guns CAUSE more crime. Smells like double standard to me, especially since this is an exposé on Henigan, not a statistical analysis. Brady set up the criteria; I am merely asking them to explain their position, considering that I can’t find any data supporting them. Why don’t you ask THEM your questions?
As far as population density, there are many RTC states with high populations and urban centers, like Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania (All Brady D grades in 2002). Wisconsin, a fairly rural state, doesn’t allow concealed carry at all. Population data is all over the map. If you want to allege statistical irrelevance, perhaps you should present your supporting study first.
Guys, you’re hijacking the column for your own debate. Note PJM guideline #2: Stay on topic. Of course, maybe this is an indication of the report’s popularity, if you take readers squared as a measure of how frequently two readers get into an argument over statistical validity during an exposé of Brady rhetoric.
In any case, John Lott’s third edition of More Guns, Less Crime contains all the statistical analysis you could possibly want. No matter the perspective from different variables, he continues to note that more guns SIGNIFICANTLY correlate with less crime. (Causation)
In real life, anybody looking to find the magic link of causation need look no further than websites like Armed Citizen: For those who successfully saved lives using firearms, their causal link was 100% significant. Beyond that, the theorists will plug in their pet variables to “prove” that more guns means more crime, continuing to obfuscate the preponderance of evidence I have uncovered over the years showing that they are wrong.
I have an idea: Why don’t you ask Brady Campaign to prove their point that more guns means more crime, and demand they make it statistically significant? Or do you give them special dispensation like I used to, based on the fact that they “care”?
No one from the gun Rights advocacy side denies that even in “non-gun free zones” murders still occur. But, all of the facts bear out that fewer murders and violent crimes occur where guns are freely carried and people can protect themselves and their property.
It’s the gun regulation advocates that want you to believe that it’s safer where it’s harder to protect yourself. And, once again, the facts clearly state the opposite.
So, when facts aren’t a factor in an argument or in this case the ‘struggle’ for gun regulation and or control, what “IS” the motivation? Fear? Cowardice? Authority? Power? Victim trauma? Idealism? Despotism? Tyranny? Denial? Or is it just simple ignorance?
Ruler, as they say in Minnesota, my home state: Ye betcha.
From Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime, page 323:
“Extending the results up through 1999 showed that when states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings feel even further, on average by 78 percent, as the remaining incidents tended to involve fewer victims per attack.”
Everybody notice that Lott does NOT say that right-to-carry eliminates mass murder. That assertion was made by “gun regulation advocate” Henigan during the Stossel show.
(This research is also in his book The Bias Against Guns.)
Utopian-ism (if there is such a word), I believe, a world with no guns period. Nice thought I suppose, but absolutely impossible. Therefore, I’ll stay prepared.
In a world with no guns, the strong still terrorize the weak.
It is the gun that allows the weak to protect themselves and their families.
to restate your point: God created man; Samuel Colt made them equal.
You have too ways to change someones thoughts or actions. Through reasoned debate or by force. The possession of a firearm on one’s person eliminates the latter and makes and octogenerian the equal of a 6′-2″ 25 year old, 240 lb criminal. Just a thought!
I wonder if those who are trotting out the cities-are-evil/population-density-is-evil arguments really do realize the ramifications of what they are saying?
I’d be very surprised if they do. None of them seem to be good at thinking through the consequences of what they propose.
They, and we, do. Your point?
The point is you’re racist.
As a follow-up to Mr. Nemerov, I might note that major contributory factors to homicide rates are percent of population that is African-American (that’s not meant to be racist – it’s a fact) and percent of the population between 14 and 30. But even when you account for those factors, it turns out that increased gun ownership is negatively correlated with homicide rates.
To get an idea of whether gun ownership rates are causal, the best test would be to examine state homicide rates before and after right-to-carry goes into effect in relation to states where nothing changes. A good review of the issue of guns and crime can be found in books authored by John Lott, Jr. on the issue, although any would be reader should be warned that some of what Dr. Lott has to say is quite technical.
Finally, I observe that after the UK put in place an almost complete ban on guns in 1996 it experienced an astounding increase in all kinds of crime. While not totally dispositive of the argument about correlation and causation, I find it rather compelling.
Prior to Malcolm X saying “Laws are written for Whites by Whites. Blacks don’t have to obey the law”, crime withen the Black community was very low. It went up, drastically after. That was also about the time gun control and AFDC were passed. I’d hate to try to sort out which had the most influence.
There is an uncomfortable elephant in the living room in all discussions of guns and crime. (Indeed of all crime in the US). Cities with large black, amerindian, samoan, certain “hispanic” populations and a few others are much more violent places than others not so burdened.
In truth if these selected easily identifiable groups are subtracted out, not only is the United States a relatively peaceful place but a hugely disproportionate tax burden in the form of policing, courts, prisons, insurance premiums, and a host of transfer payments to the indigent and incompetent also disappear. Consequently large numbers of parasitical “workers” in government
and related employment also disappear.
Yes, I know, it’s neither “politically correct” (the old Stalinist mantra used to shut people up) nor does it led itself to quick and easy solutions to lay out such truths. And yet “it does move”, as Galileo is reputed to have said. Reality is a bitch, isn’t it.
“In any case, John Lott’s third edition of More Guns, Less Crime contains all the statistical analysis you could possibly want. No matter the perspective from different variables, he continues to note that more guns SIGNIFICANTLY correlate with less crime. (Causation)”
Learn some statistics then come back to the argument Howie. That you consider Lott’s analysis to be so great explains a lot. (pardon the pun) About all an honest statistician can infer from the body of Lott’s work is that more guns don’t equate with more crime, not that they have positive preventative ability ceterus paribus.
First, I AM pro-2nd Amendment. Second, I did bring data – see the links I posted. Third you fail to deal with variation within states so that legal issues are equalized – Oakland is many times more dangerous than San Diego for instance. Fourth, making the right argument matters – utilitarianism, which what you are preaching, has its limits – for instance we’d convict more criminals if we did away with double jeaporday, BUT we don’t do that for many other good reasons. Ditto our institutionalization of the natural right of self defense – the 2nd Amendment. Fifth, we ought to be having a rational discussion of how, within our constitutional limits (which preclude banning guns [and carrying them as well - and CCW or open carry we haven't really gotten into here]), we can reduce harm. I was hoping to bring the discussion along to that point. You seem stuck another level.
You made allegations without substantiating with your own research to back it up, just a citation that provides nothing more than a single dataset of violence. I don’t see how that’s “moving it along,” except in your own direction. You cited data that I have referred to (NationMaster). It proves that the USA is not the most violent. Why don’t you correlate that with the Small Arms Survey? I did that, along with David Kopel and Carl Moody, who did the statistical analysis. We found some interesting correlations between firearms ownership, political and civil rights, economic freedom, and government corruption. Carl found them significant.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1090441
Your attempt at derogation only shows that your anger is beginning to drive your discussion. Let’s leave it for now.
Regarding cherry-picking data, Austin in gun-friendly Texas has a much lower violent crime rate than smaller Baltimore in anti-gun Md.; Houston is less violent than notoriously anti-gun Chicago, and Dallas and Las Vegas are less violent than L.A.
And if you want some irony, the cities on the Mexican border (El Paso, San Diego) are safer than the cities on the Canadian border (Buffalo, Detroit).
Reading skills are crucial: Las Vegas has a violent crime rate of 984.6, Dallas has a violent crime rate of 894.8; neither of which is lower than Los Angeles with a violent crime rate of 689.5.
Cherry-picking skills are also crucial when one wants to manipulate the dataset to ‘prove’ their point.
California is “may issue”, so local issue policy effectively gives Oakland and San Diego “different laws”, for practical purposes.
Changing to subject a little, I would expect SD to have a high crime rate due to being closer to Mexico and drug smuggling.
Sorry…Snowbound jumped in there ahead of me. What I said…
CrossBow33, I seriously doubt they do realize the ramifications, for where do you see anyone arguing that we should be dismantling our cities?
Don’t worry, the worst of the cities are very handily dismantling themselves.
touché
what all gun-control advocates ignore. criminals can get guns regardless of the law. clemmons was a convicted felon, paroled from a life sentence by “compassionate” huckabee. If all leftist gun laws that are *already* in place in WA had been obeyed, clemmons wouldn’t have had a gun. BUT, he DIDN’T buy it legally – so the gun laws are totally irrelevant. There is also the little tidbit gun control advocates ignore in this case – that HIS FAMILY knew (and even helped him. the first of FIVE FAMILY MEMBERS has been tried, convicted and sentenced for not nearly long enough) he wanted to kill (preferably white) police officers, and since they weren’t felons, they could legally purchase guns. despite that, he still got it through illegal means.
Want proof? Look at Mexico– private citizens just can’t own guns, only government and criminals have them. Look how safe it is down there with the car-bombing in Juarez and the 18 unarmed people killed at a party recently!
It’s simply a fact that less restrictive laws on gun ownership/bearing rights equal less crime. And it’s also a fact that Wyoming has far fewer murders and less crime than DC, Chicago, Oakland, Detroit and many other cities because it has fewer blacks. It may be politically incorrect to state facts, but they are facts just the same. The left has spent 50 years knowingly and deliberately destroying the black race in the pursuit of votes and power. And as a result, murder and crime rates in black neighborhoods continue to soar. Of course, those left alive do indeed vote for the democrat candidate, so the left is satisfied. But the Brady bunch and the rest of the left must disarm the rest of us because it is both difficult and dangerous to enslave an armed people. After all, how do you tell the 150 million Americans who own firearms that their homes and property now belong to the state?
Why is the data eight years old?
Because that’s the data available for the purpose of this discussion. I generally use the data that is most recent, that addresses the question being asked. Nobody has yet asked the Brady Campaign to produce some data that proves their point.
To complete this report, I needed state-level gun ownership survey data, and 2002 was the most recent available. I seek more recent gun ownership data to extend this study, but Centers for Disease Control is difficult to get answers out of. Look for my upcoming analysis of the 2009 Brady Campaign report card, once the final 2009 FBI violent crime data publishes in September.
Gun kill people… a significantly retarded statement.
Cars kill people. Bridges kill people. Tall Buildings kill people. Flying kills people. Equally retarded.
People using weapons kill people. People with no weapons can kill people. I fly, drive and go into tall buildings all the time. Not once had a building or a bridge tried to kill me. I have heard of people jumping off bridges and buildings.. cars and airplanes crash on occasion. But a car, a gun or an airplane ever killed anybody all by it’s self.
Less guns equals less crime is absurd. Less people equals less crime…. maybe.
I would ask the Brady bunch one simple question: how do you personally defend yourself and your family? Choices are: (1) they have a private security force; (2) they depend on the police (who will always arrive AFTER the crime and have no obligation to defend you); or (3) they don’t and just hope nothing happens.
As for me, I will defend myself and my family.
the right to self defense is fundamental
Guns do not just fall from trees or sprout from the ground. Every gun kept in this country is kept for a specific reason. When you understand the “why”, you can address each issue.
The group that goes to all the trouble and legalities of getting a concealed carry permit are overwhelmingly lawful and usually practiced in the use of their guns. Ditto for licensed hunters, Law Enforcement and Military types. Few problems, generally, with these groups, but exceptions are highly reported.
The legal but “clueless” group who keep a legally-bought gun in their homes for self-defense. Little or no training, practice, understanding of deadly force laws, or perhaps even safe storage rules. These are walking time-bombs. Most cities have few places to get educated or to practice. Creating shooting ranges, offering free or subsidized training would tremendously improve the safety of this group, and their effectiveness against criminals. If we can give out free condoms, why can’t we train honest people in safe gun handling rules?
The illegally used guns, generally for illegal purposes. Cities, to varying degrees, have become havens for illegal activity. Guns have become the court system used between criminals. Real court sentencing for major felonies in big cities is less than in rural counties. I have seen a study on this for PA Counties, and points to many reasons. Criminals in prison acutely know this. City people do not support their police as much as rural people do. This greatly influences the effectiveness of police. Criminals know this. Strangers can’t hide, and less frequent incidences of crime stand out, in inhabited rural areas (excluding wildernesses). Criminals know this. Everyone has a known reputation in inhabited rural areas. Criminals know this. If a gun is used by a victim in self-defense, a DA or a jury will decide if it was legal. A jury will then decide if there are civil damages. There is a big difference between city and rural DAs and juries. Criminals know this. All this directs career criminals to the cities. In 2009, Philadelphia County had a murder rate of 20 per 100K people. In rural Chester County, fifty miles away, the 2009 murder rate was .8 per 100K people. Ditto for all other classes of crime. The real answer is for voting citizens to actively work on each of these contributing factors, and make it difficult for criminal activity to prosper. That’s hard work and career politicians don’t want to do it. Who cares.
Correlation isn’t causation, but–if the right tests are done on the right data–you can infer some directionality and identify the likelihood your driving factor(s) are among what you’re studying.
What I would like to see is a similar study with the following independent and dependent variables:
Independent variables:
*Gun control restrictiveness
*Private gun ownership
*Concealed carry permissiveness
*Population density (and/or Rural/Mixed/Urban)
*Socioeconomic status (SES)
*Racial/ethnic homogeneity
*Religious homogeneity
*Non-violent crime rates (per capita)
Dependent variables:
*Violent crime rate (per capita)
*Homicide rate (per capita)
*Deaths by firearms (include homicide and suicide/accident)
*Deaths by other means
*Median life expectancy (overall and by race)
*Fairness (approaching 50-50 split) with other in an “Ultimatum game”.
(An ultimatum game is an experimental measure where you take two people and give the first a decent amount of money–more than a days wage. The first person decides how much to offer the second person–who knows the total amount. If the second person accepts the split, they both keep their portions. If the second person refuses, they both lose the money. It is a measure of altruism.)
Levels considered:
*State-by-state. (to allow inference by laws.)
*Congressional district by congressional district (only because the populations are about the same and often include rural and urban areas)
My hypothesis is you’ll find a complex model showing that:
*Homogeneity (racial and/or religious), especially near a less homogeneous district/state, predicts a decreased overall crime rate locally and a higher average SES, regardless of gun-related factors.
*Less homogeneous regions will have more and stricter gun laws, more variation of socioeconomic status, and a higher overall crime rate.
*When controlled for homogeneity, gun ownership will go up with SES and gun law permissiveness.
*Controlled for homogeneity, crime will rise with population density in highly restricted gun law areas and decrease with gun ownership.
*The amount expected to be returned or is acceptable in the “Ultimatum game” will go up with: Homogeneity, SES, Gun ownership, carry permissiveness. I believe it will go down with the other factors. I believe there will be an interaction between population density and homogeneity.
Wow, I just read my comment again and that would be hell to pay to analyze.
Would probably have to pare that down a bit.
(Bear with me, I’m almost done with a BS and wanting graduate school, so I’m better at coming up with research concepts than running them yet.)
Matt asked “I think, for the sake of rigor, one needs to compare “A” through “F” states on a county/city basis in order to compare homicide rates in comparable “population density” sample. Not sure if this is possible with the data that is readily available, but it would provide a clearer picture of any observed CAUSATION between high and low gun ownership areas.”
John Lott, a PhD Economist who really understands statistics, did this. He got a book out of it — More Guns, Less Crime — now in its third edition. The correlation is at least as strong as that between smoking and lung cancer and reinforced by a host of incidental correlations that are unexplainable without a strong element of causation. Dr. Lott also examines the causation question through thousands of regression analyses.
Matt asked “I think, for the sake of rigor, one needs to compare “A” through “F” states on a county/city basis in order to compare homicide rates in comparable “population density” sample. Not sure if this is possible with the data that is readily available, but it would provide a clearer picture of any observed CAUSATION between high and low gun ownership areas.”
John Lott, a PhD Economist who really understands statistics, did this. He got a book out of it — More Guns, Less Crime — now in its third edition. The correlation is at least as strong as that between smoking and lung cancer and reinforced by a host of incidental correlations that are unexplainable without a strong element of causation. Dr. Lott also examines the causation question through thousands of regression analyses.
Thanks for an excellent article exposing the gun-ban nonsense. I would like Lott to write “More Laws – More Criminals.” Look how well Prohibition worked out. For that matter, the bite from the prohibited fruit of the tree of knowledge ought to quash any leftist dreams of returning to a utopian garden. The reality is that gun control is an important step towards people control. The progressive dream of a socialist world order will require registration, and a communal New World Order will require confiscation. England tried that with the colonies awhile back, when americans still stood up for themselves. Now, the unseen, powerful, elete, self-annointed few, have unwitting aid from “brady type” groups. Incrementally, they may succeed, that is unless more people like Howard and his readers hang together.
Gloria: Did you know that 60% of the people murdered in the last ten years were killed with handguns.
Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out a window?
There seems to be this fascination, on both sides of the debate, with the object. Why don’t we start asking ourselves why there is such a high amount of homicides?
Does the Brady Campaign differentiate the gun death statistics between those killed by aggressors and those killed by their intended victims using a gun in self defense?
Thank you and my primary point. Dead is dead via gun or knife. Let’s figure out how to reduce the rate, within the constitution that we have now. Thanks.
Does the Brady Campaign differentiate the gun death statistics between those killed by aggressors and those killed by their intended victims using a gun in self defense?
No, they do not.
To the anti-gunners, any gun death is a bad death, even if it was the death of a criminal and saved and innocent’s life.
Conversely, non-firearm homicides, whether aggressive or defensive, and non-firearm suicides, are apparently less egregious than firearm deaths and are unworthy of note.
Some noted Dennis Henigan’s look of pride at mention of the “Brady law,” but we should remember the fight Brady advocates put up AGAINST the NRA’s amendment for background checks to Brady’s “cooling off/waiting period” bill. The background checks, which can be a pain, have never caused anyone to be killed – while there are quite a few news reports of dead women, killed while being forced to “cool off,” without being allowed to lawfully buy a gun that their killers were not subjected to. All aspects of “Brady” have sunsetted and no longer harmful. The Brady bunch, traveling with their armed guards, remain dangerous hypocrites.
I love the reply Larry Pratt gave an anti-gunner who persisted in blaming Washington D.C.’s high crime/murder rate on adjacent states which allow “easy access” to firearms. Of course, a similar situation is said to exist vis a vis Mexico v. Texas.
Just as nearby Alexandria Va. has a fraction of D.C.’s murder rate, El Paso Texas is considered one of the USA’s safest cities. Nevertheless, the guns somehow become “evil” once they cross the D.C. city limits or the Mexican border.
“You are looking at the wrong end of the telescope” said Pratt. Touche.