The Correlation Between State Gun Laws and Homicide Rates

Is zero. Discuss.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tween-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

 

What is preventing interstate transport of guns? This is like finding there is no correlation between cars produced by state and cars purchased per person by state. When looking at it from a national level, more gun availability does correlate with more homicide (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/), as was referenced in the Washington Post before (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/). The idea that the correlation between states would yield a meaningful result is ludicrous given any ground-level spot check. Take Chicago for example. Tough gun laws, but you can easily purchase them in neighboring cities/states and drive them in. Same with Washington DC, which is often cited as evidence against the effectiveness of gun legislature.

Stricter gun laws also have the unintended side effect of lowering suicide rates (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/health/gun-laws-lead-to-suicide-drop/).

Also interesting to note that the number of mass shootings by nation does correlate to firearm ownership (http://www.cw.ua.edu/article/2015/0...n-between-mass-shootings-and-gun-control-laws). I'm not advocating banning guns, I'm just pointing out there is indeed a correlation-- which isn't surprising in the least.


I'm all for a discussion, I just wanted to point out the obvious fly in the ointment of proclaiming the gun control issue to be a conspiracy and without merit. In my opinion, the opinion piece linked in the OP is intentionally misleading by overlooking other data to highlight a lack of a correlation with an explanation as obvious as a four lane freeway.

 

You might be interested in this too: http://conference.nber.org/confer/2015/SI2015/CRI/Donohue_Weber_Aneja.pdf

 

It's funny that 10 different organizations can do the same study and come up with whatever they want the results to be.

 

Other than the guy who did the study saying so, where are you seeing the results of the study?

 

Wow, what a waste of 80 pages. I imagine their stats reviewer didn't once mention that correlation does not imply causation. Must have been undergrad.

 

Not the same study at all.

 

I'm just saying in general. When one of these organizations want to make their point, they use what helps, don't use what they don't like.

 

Many studies have come to similar conclusions. Even in the pro-gun book, "More Guns, Less Crime," the correlation is mentioned.

 

Anti-vaxxers have spent millions on autism studies that end up refuting their claims.

 

Why would one mention that in a paper that isn't written to the level of the general public? You think everyone should write to an 8th grade level?

 

You're right. We need more 80 page studies detailing global warming and its relationship to pirates. Because that's not only accurate, but useful...

And the general public (that'd be you, here), just used it to make a point. So yea, it should have a huge disclaimer. Maybe then you wouldn't have linked it, as evidence of something.

 

That's not what I asked. Or have you completely lost your skepticism, and are now just taking statements at face value? I want to see the results. Not because I don't believe they exist, but because I want to see the results.

 

Wow, you're way down the rabbit hole on this. You think a relationship between hand guns and violent crime in the US is completely out of the question? No link whatsoever? I think that's contradictory to the position that guns prevent crime. Shouldn't we see a negative relationship between guns and violent crime? Right?

 

the war on drugs is the driving force behind the majority of our gun violence.

 

I think it is pretty obvious that gun related crime requires a gun. Otherwise, it wouldn't be gun crime.

I think there are a plethora of reasons why you'd see gun related crime increase in states like Montana, and it isn't because of carry. In the same period of time, meth use, manufacture and selling has increased. As has all drug use in general. People have more and more "things," and others want those "things." Public education has entered the toilet, and there are less and less jobs available to those without a solid education.

All of these things point towards more crime in general. At the same time, a lot of our carry laws have gotten more loose. It is easier to get a carry permit now than ever before. So you are naturally going to see an increase in carrying, and if there is an increase in violent crime too, you could point and say "Hey look, guns."

You could do the same thing, and it would be equally as questionable, to pick a few years where carry has gone up, and violent crime has gone down, and say "Hey look, guns." When in reality, it was just better and more sophisticated police work to prevent crime.

Both are dumb.

 

Weird, you don't care about the results when they don't support your position. But NOW you want to see these results. It is accepted, but isn't published until 2016. He presented it at a conference in August. You can read about where and how he achieved his results:

https://www.rt.com/usa/313209-us-guns-mass-shootings/
https://publichealthwatch.wordpress...otings-are-an-exceptionally-american-problem/

Here is a graphic that strengthens the point about how many more mass shootings we have here (note that the order and bar graph is showing fatality rate from MS per 100,000):



MotherJones noticed the same trend back in 2012: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation, along with this factoid that seemingly flies in the face of pro-gun arguments:



Again, I'm not advocating for banning guns. I am just speaking against the the opinion piece in the OP that laid things out like this is some emotionally driven power plot. It is not. There are completely rational reasons for concern.

 

What about mass shootings?

 

Duh. I didn't say otherwise. The opinion piece in the OP is using all murders for a reason.

I accept these takes. That still leaves the issue of mass shootings and suicides.

 

We put too much emphasis on protecting people from themselves. I'm not concerned with suicides. Should I be? It is unfortunate for the family, especially when non-adults use a family's firearm. I'm not even sure safes fix this problem, especially if kids know the combination, or can find where they're parents wrote it down (which is inevitable). This is beyond our discussion, but paying attention to behavior by parents, guardians and those around the family member will help way more than just locking up the firearm. Because at least then the kid might get help.

When an adult commits the act, well, they are adults. They made a choice. A choice made out of emotion, but, again... we're protecting individuals from themselves.

Mass shootings is a different animal. Guns allow for the capacity to carry out the act. It is as obvious a statement as my other. The question shouldn't be how are mass shootings being carried out... but why? Removing the gun from the gun from the equation means that, yea, maybe there aren't mass shootings anymore. But there are still deranged, angry and psychopathic people, who if they had the access, would commit the act. All we've done is mask the problem, while at the same time trampling on what some see as essential liberty.

I'd rather look at the why, rather than the how, and the entire gun debate that surrounds mass shootings masks the actual issue.