More Guns = More Murder

[dan_c00000]

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder

By Zack Beauchamp on September 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm


The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.

No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.

Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.

The actual study is here.

It's really quite simple. The more people you have with guns the more people will get shot and die.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Daniel san, wax on, wax off.

 

[MNGuy]

Those 80 people don't deserve to be saved.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Let me explain to you why this shooting confirms everything I think about politics while refuting everything you think.

 

[Recidiva]

Okay, what I want to see is the meta comparison study that doesn't prove that more guns equals more murder, but that tells me whether or not no guns = more knife murder and about the same number of people dying.

Are fewer people dead? Probably not. It's just that fewer people can defend themselves at range and people can get close enough to stab you without being stopped.

 

[EducatedOwl]

Okay, what I want to see is the meta comparison study that doesn't prove that more guns equals more murder, but that tells me whether or not no guns = more knife murder and about the same number of people dying.

Are fewer people dead? Probably not. It's just that fewer people can defend themselves at range and people can get close enough to stab you without being stopped.

I'm not sure I'm reading you right. Are you suggesting that taking away guns would reduce the number of violent deaths or not?

 

[Recidiva]

I'm not sure I'm reading you right. Are you suggesting that taking away guns would not reduce the number of violent deaths?

Yes. I'm saying that murder rates do not go down because you take away guns. It means that more people die from poison and knifings.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I'm not sure I'm reading you right. Are you suggesting that taking away guns would reduce the number of violent deaths or not?

I am utterly stunned that the laws against these guns being transported in Wash DC did not immediately stop him. What is up with that?

 

[EducatedOwl]

I am utterly stunned that the laws against these guns being transported in Wash DC did not immediately stop him. What is up with that?

What's up with that is that it's very difficult to enforce local gun laws without searching everyone who comes into town.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Okay, what I want to see is the meta comparison study that doesn't prove that more guns equals more murder, but that tells me whether or not no guns = more knife murder and about the same number of people dying.

Are fewer people dead? Probably not. It's just that fewer people can defend themselves at range and people can get close enough to stab you without being stopped.

The stats suggest that yes fewer people dead. Suicide attempts for example are much more likely to succeed if you use a gun. You almost never hear about accidental knifings either but every year we lose several people to accidental gun fire. Now if you're like me those largely fall into Darwin Award categories and I don't really care, I'm just aware that they exist. Large scale massacres are virtually impossible without fire arms. Yeah somepeople can build bombs but by and large people lack the skill set to do so and thats the only way you're going to rack up a high score is a bomb or a gun. You also have a much better chance of surviving a knife wound.

In the end though this is just what happens because it happens and we need to stop pretnding we care.

 

[richard_daily]

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder

By Zack Beauchamp on September 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm


The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.

No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.

Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.

The actual study is here.

It's really quite simple. The more people you have with guns the more people will get shot and die.

IF this is true, and your hypothesis of "more guns = more murder" is right, then how do you explain the cities with the most strict gun laws: NYC, Washington DC, Baltimore, and Chicago having so many murders?

 

[EducatedOwl]

IF this is true, and your hypothesis of "more guns = more murder" is right, then how do you explain the cities with the most strict gun laws: NYC, Washington DC, Baltimore, and Chicago having so many murders?

There are tons of guns in all those cities. You are confusing legal gun ownership with the presence of guns.

 

[Recidiva]

The stats suggest that yes fewer people dead. Suicide attempts for example are much more likely to succeed if you use a gun. You almost never hear about accidental knifings either but every year we lose several people to accidental gun fire. Now if you're like me those largely fall into Darwin Award categories and I don't really care, I'm just aware that they exist. Large scale massacres are virtually impossible without fire arms. Yeah somepeople can build bombs but by and large people lack the skill set to do so and thats the only way you're going to rack up a high score is a bomb or a gun. You also have a much better chance of surviving a knife wound.

In the end though this is just what happens because it happens and we need to stop pretnding we care.

Which stats though? Overall crime drops are dropping precipitously across the globe and how are the stats reflecting that?

Overall crime rates are going down, not up, in trend. So if having guns caused that, then let's have more of them.

But in my mind, Freakanomics made the best argument about crime rates dropping. After reviewing areas where birth control and abortion were not available and then available, and then not available and then available again (like in a place with a decent government, then a tyrant, then a decent government) It appears that having fewer unwanted children reduces the crime rate.

So I think abortion causes less murder, and now I can't wait to see what people make of that.

I think the guns are a near irrelevancy in the data, because people are asking the wrong questions. Guns don't "cause" anything, people cause things. If some evil fuck around the world wants to kill someone, not having a gun won't stop them. It might stop someone wanting to kill a whole lot of people with a knife, but they just build bombs anyway.

 

[richard_daily]

There are tons of guns in all those cities. You are confusing legal gun ownership with the presence of guns.

So you're saying that gun control laws are ineffective then.

 

[EducatedOwl]

Which stats though? Overall crime drops are dropping precipitously across the globe and how are the stats reflecting that?

Overall crime rates are going down, not up, in trend. So if having guns caused that, then let's have more of them.

But in my mind, Freakanomics made the best argument about crime rates dropping. After reviewing areas where birth control and abortion were not available and then available, and then not available and then available again (like in a place with a decent government, then a tyrant, then a decent government) It appears that having fewer unwanted children reduces the crime rate.

So I think abortion causes less murder, and now I can't wait to see what people make of that.

I think the guns are a near irrelevancy in the data, because people are asking the wrong questions. Guns don't "cause" anything, people cause things. If some evil fuck around the world wants to kill someone, not having a gun won't stop them. It might stop someone wanting to kill a whole lot of people with a knife, but they just build bombs anyway.

Do you have any statistic evidence that bombs are as effective method of killing a large number of people as guns? I suspect the vast majority of bombings in the United States don't kill anyone.

 

[EducatedOwl]

So you're saying that gun control laws are ineffective then.

Gun control laws as they presently exist and are enforced in this country are clearly ineffective are clearly ineffective.

 

[richard_daily]

Gun control laws as they presently exist and are enforced in this country are clearly ineffective are clearly ineffective.

I'm going to have to extrapolate a meaning out of that sentence.


The gun control laws in the 4 cities that I mentioned are exactly what is being promoted by the anti-gun lobby, led by the mayor of NYC. Who happens to be willing to throw any democrat the bus who doesn't agree with him. It's sort of a scorched earth tactic.

If the laws don't work there, then maybe it's a good idea to not promote them as a flagship method for the rest of the country?

Since we're both in agreement that the harsh gun control laws don't work as penned, what do you believe is the solution?

 

[Recidiva]

Do you have any statistic evidence that bombs are as effective method of killing a large number of people as guns? I suspect the vast majority of bombings in the United States don't kill anyone.

So look that up. I've tried to do my own analysis, but this is like trying to find out if autism is caused by vaccines.

A lot of people REALLY BELIEVE one way or the other and there's absolutely no subjective measure, it's just a lot of people asking the wrong questions, sometimes obviously, sometimes subtly, sometimes kinda relevant but not really.

I know I own a gun and I am not a mindless killer tempted to knock over a fruit stand because I can and it gives me some almighty power.

I just own a gun. I know how to defend myself. What are the statistics on people defending themselves? Why do cops wear guns if they're wrong? If they're a good idea to defend yourself with one in dangerous situations, well, that's why I have one and why I know how to use one.

 

[Sean Renaud]

IF this is true, and your hypothesis of "more guns = more murder" is right, then how do you explain the cities with the most strict gun laws: NYC, Washington DC, Baltimore, and Chicago having so many murders?

City wide state laws are rather pointless. Hell statewide ones are pointless on the East Coast where you're rarely more than an hours drive from another state with laxer laws. It's pretty much federal or nothing.

Even with that being true States with stricter gun control have fewer gun related death.

Which makes sense because the more certain you can be that the other guy doesn't have a gun the less you need one. Arms races work the exact same way whether it's cops and robbers or Israel and Iran.

Which stats though? Overall crime drops are dropping precipitously across the globe and how are the stats reflecting that?

Overall crime rates are going down, not up, in trend. So if having guns caused that, then let's have more of them.

But in my mind, Freakanomics made the best argument about crime rates dropping. After reviewing areas where birth control and abortion were not available and then available, and then not available and then available again (like in a place with a decent government, then a tyrant, then a decent government) It appears that having fewer unwanted children reduces the crime rate.

So I think abortion causes less murder, and now I can't wait to see what people make of that.

I think the guns are a near irrelevancy in the data, because people are asking the wrong questions. Guns don't "cause" anything, people cause things. If some evil fuck around the world wants to kill someone, not having a gun won't stop them. It might stop someone wanting to kill a whole lot of people with a knife, but they just build bombs anyway.

Most people lack the skill set to make a bomb and detonate it, a lack of guns will stop most of the crazies. We just had a guy in China try to prove you right, 22 injured, 0 fatalities. Turns out for as much as the Right tries to build them up knives are simply less effective tools than guns if you want to kill.

It's not really debatable that having abortion available has a noticible effect on crime. Less unwanted babies, less single mothers, less desperate people making desperate decisions. There are a LOT of things that factor in to these things obviously.

Gun ownership is down in America by the way. There are more of them yes, but they are increasingly in the hands of one guy who's got a garage filled with fifty guns than every family having one over the mantle piece. Which probably causes two things at once, it restricts over all access to guns and the people who do have guns are increasingly likely to be responsible and knowledgible. Both of which are good things.

So you're saying that gun control laws are ineffective then.

They are less than perfect.

With this guy, like with Jared Laughner before him it seems that he was suffering some mental break down and our mental health in this country sucks. Our general attitude seems to amount to "suck it up and stop acting like a little bitch. I hear voices in my head too but you don't see me whining to a doctor!" This guy sought help at least twice that we know of and I can only assume he didn't get it.

It would be one thing if we could just man up and admit we don't care. We're secretly planning the American Revolution 2.0 where once again the average man and woman will stand up and topple the biggest baddest military the world has ever known and we'll probably remember to play down how much help we got doing that again as well.

 

[EducatedOwl]

I'm going to have to extrapolate a meaning out of that sentence.


The gun control laws in the 4 cities that I mentioned are exactly what is being promoted by the anti-gun lobby, led by the mayor of NYC.

If they don't work there, then maybe it's a good idea to not promote them as a flagship method for the rest of the country?

Since we're both in agreement that the harsh gun control laws don't work as penned, what do you believe is the solution?

I don't claim to have a solution. It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that fewer guns equals less violent killing, but it's just as obvious that this country hasn't figured out a way to effectively regulate guns within the constraints of even the most liberal reading of the Constitution.

 

[Recidiva]

Most people lack the skill set to make a bomb and detonate it, a lack of guns will stop most of the crazies. We just had a guy in China try to prove you right, 22 injured, 0 fatalities. Turns out for as much as the Right tries to build them up knives are simply less effective tools than guns if you want to kill.

It's not really debatable that having abortion available has a noticible effect on crime. Less unwanted babies, less single mothers, less desperate people making desperate decisions. There are a LOT of things that factor in to these things obviously.

Gun ownership is down in America by the way. There are more of them yes, but they are increasingly in the hands of one guy who's got a garage filled with fifty guns than every family having one over the mantle piece. Which probably causes two things at once, it restricts over all access to guns and the people who do have guns are increasingly likely to be responsible and knowledgible. Both of which are good things.

I've heard the anecdote of the one guy with a knife, but that doesn't prove he's your standard for the general crazy Anyman. Again, I don't think focusing on "big groups of 12 being killed at once" trumps the fact that if a wife hauls off on her husband violently, she doesn't need a gun, she needs to be a light sleeper and have a frying pan.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I just own a gun. I know how to defend myself. What are the statistics on people defending themselves? Why do cops wear guns if they're wrong? If they're a good idea to defend yourself with one in dangerous situations, well, that's why I have one and why I know how to use one.

First, that's a little like asking why does America have nukes and poison gas if they are wrong. Just because you either A) grew up and realized what you were doing before wasn't the best option or B) live in a world where it's better to be alive and slightly less moral than a dead pacifist.

Cops however carry guns because criinals carry guns. That isn't true world wide, there are plenty of countries where the cops carry just batons because their chances of running into an armed suspect is nil to none. That doesn't make the gun right or wrong, ultimately it's a tool but it's a damn effective one.

 

[EducatedOwl]

So look that up. I've tried to do my own analysis, but this is like trying to find out if autism is caused by vaccines.

A lot of people REALLY BELIEVE one way or the other and there's absolutely no subjective measure, it's just a lot of people asking the wrong questions, sometimes obviously, sometimes subtly, sometimes kinda relevant but not really.

I know I own a gun and I am not a mindless killer tempted to knock over a fruit stand because I can and it gives me some almighty power.

I just own a gun. I know how to defend myself. What are the statistics on people defending themselves? Why do cops wear guns if they're wrong? If they're a good idea to defend yourself with one in dangerous situations, well, that's why I have one and why I know how to use one.

Here you go:
http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-us-bomb-data-center.html

According to the ATF, bombings since 2004 have resulted in about 0.0035 deaths per incident. Statistically, bombs are much, much less deadly than guns.

 

[richard_daily]

They are less than perfect.

With this guy, like with Jared Laughner before him it seems that he was suffering some mental break down and our mental health in this country sucks. Our general attitude seems to amount to "suck it up and stop acting like a little bitch. I hear voices in my head too but you don't see me whining to a doctor!" This guy sought help at least twice that we know of and I can only assume he didn't get it.

It would be one thing if we could just man up and admit we don't care. We're secretly planning the American Revolution 2.0 where once again the average man and woman will stand up and topple the biggest baddest military the world has ever known and we'll probably remember to play down how much help we got doing that again as well.

They aren't just "less than perfect", they don't work.

The "assault weapons" ban didn't work. You can't find a drop in shootings under the ban, and you can't even find a drop in shootings with "assault weapons" under the ban.

Laughner was a mental case. He should not have been allowed to own a firearm. Establish regular mental screenings... Question is, are YOU willing to pay for it? Go ahead and raise the minimum age to 24 if you think it will help, but then also raise the age of military service to 24, and the age of consent to 24, and the age to drink to 24. I'm fine with all of that, but be consistent... and then you can see how the 18-23 year olds vote.

If the "biggest baddest" army in the world got stopped by rice farmers and sheep herders, it's fair to say that it's an adequate check on government.

 

[richard_daily]

I don't claim to have a solution. It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that fewer guns equals less violent killing, but it's just as obvious that this country hasn't figured out a way to effectively regulate guns within the constraints of even the most liberal reading of the Constitution.

So, you want a "work around" to the second amendment... Are you also ok with a "work around" of the first? The fifth?