Gun Control Statistics

[Savrin]

Found this on the Blaze.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/the-firearms-statistics-that-gun-control-advocates-dont-want-to-see/

[Whirlin]

Correlation is not causation. I'm sure the poverty, immigration, population density, and legalization of weed are all factors in the CA gun violence death rate.

Although I was surprised that they called out Utah, which has been in the top 3 suicide rates of any state for a long time... I was surprised when writing this reply that it's down to #2!
http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/10-states-with-the-highest-suicide-rates-most-depressing-and-suicidal-states-1261/
Would a self-inflicted gunshot wound be considered a crime by the FBI's statistics?...

Also, regardless of laws, whats the ownership rate? Do Utah Mormons really horde guns like Texans?



There are a TON of factors in this debate, and both sides have excellent talking points. This is absolutely a great set of statistics for the pro-gun individuals. But every statistics article that I read just bring up a bunch of questions about context, definitions used in the statistics, and other potentially contributing factors not addressed. And while I know this is related to a pro-gun set of statistics, the same can be applied to anti-gun statistics.

[Parkbandit]

Correlation is not causation. I'm sure the poverty, immigration, population density, and legalization of weed are all factors in the CA gun violence death rate.

Although I was surprised that they called out Utah, which has been in the top 3 suicide rates of any state for a long time... I was surprised when writing this reply that it's down to #2!
http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/10-states-with-the-highest-suicide-rates-most-depressing-and-suicidal-states-1261/
Would a self-inflicted gunshot wound be considered a crime by the FBI's statistics?...

Also, regardless of laws, whats the ownership rate? Do Utah Mormons really horde guns like Texans?

There are a TON of factors in this debate, and both sides have excellent talking points. This is absolutely a great set of statistics for the pro-gun individuals. But every statistics article that I read just bring up a bunch of questions about context, definitions used in the statistics, and other potentially contributing factors not addressed. And while I know this is related to a pro-gun set of statistics, the same can be applied to anti-gun statistics.

I don't think anyone is saying that strict gun controls causes more gun violence... it's illustrating that stricter gun control has no impact on gun violence.

Find a way to legislate against evil and crazy.. and you'll have an impact on gun violence. Forcing good citizens to give up their gun rights isn't the answer... yet it's what our focus is always on.

[Whirlin]

I don't think anyone is saying that strict gun controls causes more gun violence... it's illustrating that stricter gun control has no impact on gun violence.

Find a way to legislate against evil and crazy.. and you'll have an impact on gun violence. Forcing good citizens to give up their gun rights isn't the answer... yet it's what our focus is always on.
Its easy to make evidence that supports no correlation, positive, and negative correlation between regulation and lack thereof.

Isn't EVERY government regulation and law a focused on deterring the evil and crazy, but not necessarily prohibitive from those that want to bipass the rules, and causes additional work/stress/bureaucracy on the law-abiding citizens? I mean... I can drive, why the hell do I need to go to the DMV, RMV, whatnot every few years to get a laminated piece of paper that says I can drive?

Are you preaching you prefer stricter laws against individuals linked towards gun related crimes after the fact rather than attempting to prevent them from occurring in the first place?

[Parkbandit]

Its easy to make evidence that supports no correlation, positive, and negative correlation between regulation and lack thereof.

Isn't EVERY government regulation and law a focused on deterring the evil and crazy, but not necessarily prohibitive from those that want to bipass the rules, and causes additional work/stress/bureaucracy on the law-abiding citizens? I mean... I can drive, why the hell do I need to go to the DMV, RMV, whatnot every few years to get a laminated piece of paper that says I can drive?

Are you preaching you prefer stricter laws against individuals linked towards gun related crimes after the fact rather than attempting to prevent them from occurring in the first place?

How are the current laws preventing anything?

And you are really trying to say that there is no correlation between gun control measures and gun crimes?

[Savrin]

Correlation is not causation. I'm sure the poverty, immigration, population density, and legalization of weed are all factors in the CA gun violence death rate.

Although I was surprised that they called out Utah, which has been in the top 3 suicide rates of any state for a long time... I was surprised when writing this reply that it's down to #2!
http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/10-states-with-the-highest-suicide-rates-most-depressing-and-suicidal-states-1261/
Would a self-inflicted gunshot wound be considered a crime by the FBI's statistics?...

Also, regardless of laws, whats the ownership rate? Do Utah Mormons really horde guns like Texans?



There are a TON of factors in this debate, and both sides have excellent talking points. This is absolutely a great set of statistics for the pro-gun individuals. But every statistics article that I read just bring up a bunch of questions about context, definitions used in the statistics, and other potentially contributing factors not addressed. And while I know this is related to a pro-gun set of statistics, the same can be applied to anti-gun statistics.

I don't know if I'd agree that legalization of marijuana has anything to do with it. Population density, street gangs, immigration, overburdened penal systems and lax public condemnation are all factors that I think play into it.

[msconstrew]

Find a way to legislate against evil and crazy.. and you'll have an impact on gun violence.

5056

[Savrin]

Are you preaching you prefer stricter laws against individuals linked towards gun related crimes after the fact rather than attempting to prevent them from occurring in the first place?

I can't think of any cases where you could legally prevent someone from committing a crime. You can deter, and you can increase the level of commitment required by the individual to do the crime in some cases, but the government can't prevent a person from committing a crime.

[Bobmuhthol]

I can't think of any cases where you could legally prevent someone from committing a crime. You can deter, and you can increase the level of commitment required by the individual to do the crime in some cases, but the government can't prevent a person from committing a crime.The government can kill a person. That's a pretty good method of prevention.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

I don't know if I'd agree that legalization of marijuana has anything to do with it. Population density, street gangs, immigration, overburdened penal systems and lax public condemnation are all factors that I think play into it.

A lot more people die because of Marijuana then you might guess. At least here in CA. If it was completely 100% legal, state and federal, then I'd be willing to bet that you'd see at least a slight drop in gang/drug violence, if not overall, because lets be honest, stoners don't generally kill each other. But if you made it legal, legitimate businesses would form where there might have just been back alley deals before. Sure, storefronts here get robbed here too, but so do banks. I think it couldn't hurt. Aren't there statistics showing CCW states have less violent crime overall than those without?

[msconstrew]

A lot more people die because of Marijuana then you might guess.

I'm just curious what kind of causality you find between marijuana and death.

[Whirlin]

I don't know if I'd agree that legalization of marijuana has anything to do with it. Population density, street gangs, immigration, overburdened penal systems and lax public condemnation are all factors that I think play into it.

Well, from a business Risk Management perspective, ANY change causes risks.
While I have no evidence to support this leap, if there was illegal marijuana trafficking occurring, and those individuals were used to a certain level of comfort associated with the income generated, I could see them turning towards other, potentially violent crime to keep their stature of living.



I can't think of any cases where you could legally prevent someone from committing a crime. You can deter, and you can increase the level of commitment required by the individual to do the crime in some cases, but the government can't prevent a person from committing a crime.
Urgh... going into audit speak... sorry... it's my life..
Deterrents are a manner of preventative controls against the illegal actions.
Secondary Controls occur after the crime have been committed, and allow for faster reactions and corrections of the situations, basically, strong methods of detections that enable actions.

Specific to the gun control issue, deterrents could come in the form of stricter penalties for individuals involved in gun-related crimes (even though it's enforced in a secondary nature, the fear of repercussions is a deterrent), it can also be the amount of time/difficulty in obtaining a weapon. If it requires additional vested interest to obtain a weapon, its less likely to be used for spur-of-the-moment situations.

Secondary and detective controls would come in the form of better tracking/monitoring of firearms to be able increase accountability for the weapons. Who has it, when they obtained it, etc... Simple things that would more quickly trace an item to it's owner.

I'm unsure what other mechanisms there could be for controls against them.

[Latrinsorm]

Regarding the OP: the first thing you should ask when someone cites 1 (or 2 or 3) state out of 50 is what about the other 49 (or 48 or 47)? As it turns out, I have compiled those statistics for you (from 2010):

Concealed carry yes: 202.5m population, 4.87 murder rate, 469.6 violent crime rate
Concealed carry no: 106.7m population, 4.52 murder rate, 458.5 violent crime rate

Brady control-ish: 100.7m population, 4.93 murder rate, 460.0 violent crime rate
Brady no control-ish: 208.5m population, 4.66 murder rate, 477.5 violent crime rate

Please note how you could take either of these data sets to support either side, but not both. How can that be? It is called statistical noise, and it occurs in every scientific experiment. The only statistics you should ever take seriously (and I include the ones I just told you in this criticism) are those that include standard deviations or other description of error. If you don't really know what a standard deviation is, I encourage you to read up on it. The math is just arithmetic; a lot of arithmetic, but arithmetic nonetheless.

Please also note how suicide is mentioned nowhere in the OP report (or even the comments!), even though suicide is a more common cause of death than homicide in America. Why would that be? Well, consider a hypothetical, if you would: a person asks your opinion on purchasing a gun for self-defense, and you tell them that it increases the chances they successfully commit suicide. What are the odds that person responds "well I'm not crazy/stupid/etc., so I wouldn't (ever) try to commit suicide anyway" or "and even if I did, I would just find another way"? About 100%, right? And even though neither response is factually correct, there's no way to talk about them. People take disagreement as an insult, or reject it out of hand.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

I'm just curious what kind of causality you find between marijuana and death.

Its not so much the substance itself causing the death. Its the dipshits that fight over it. At least here in San Diego, we have a metric shit ton of marijuana related robberies, shootings, and other related violence that I would usually associate with meth and cocaine, which we also have issues with, just not as often, probably because marijuana is a bigger, more mainstream substance. If it was legalized I think that would put at least a little dent in the illegal part of the trade which is where the majority of any marijuana related crime comes from, because people would go legitimate instead of running so many risks. There are tons and tons of it coming over the border and you have those people fighting the people here that grow it here. So those two particular parties tend to go after one another quite regularly and sometimes it gets bloody. But if it was being grown here and/or imported, taxed, and sold legally, I think we'd see a lot less of this. People would want to maintain their licenses and what not. I dunno.

[Savrin]

The government can kill a person. That's a pretty good method of prevention.

Assuming you have a person who's there that is legally justified in using deadly force to stop that crime, then yeah.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Assuming you have a person who's there that is legally justified in using deadly force to stop that crime, then yeah.

Can they use drones? Because that would be swell.

[Savrin]

Well, from a business Risk Management perspective, ANY change causes risks.
While I have no evidence to support this leap, if there was illegal marijuana trafficking occurring, and those individuals were used to a certain level of comfort associated with the income generated, I could see them turning towards other, potentially violent crime to keep their stature of living.

I'll make two assumptions here.

1st if it was no longer illegal to sell marijuana, the people dealing it would start selling a different controlled substance, not that they probably aren't already.

2nd 99.9999999999999 percent of the people who would sell marijuana after it became legalized, weren't selling it before that legalization happened.

I base these assumptions off of studies done by people who understand criminality, and the criminals. In other words, it's not what they sell, it's the lifestyle they live.


Urgh... going into audit speak... sorry... it's my life..
Deterrents are a manner of preventative controls against the illegal actions.
Secondary Controls occur after the crime have been committed, and allow for faster reactions and corrections of the situations, basically, strong methods of detections that enable actions.

Specific to the gun control issue, deterrents could come in the form of stricter penalties for individuals involved in gun-related crimes (even though it's enforced in a secondary nature, the fear of repercussions is a deterrent), it can also be the amount of time/difficulty in obtaining a weapon. If it requires additional vested interest to obtain a weapon, its less likely to be used for spur-of-the-moment situations.

Secondary and detective controls would come in the form of better tracking/monitoring of firearms to be able increase accountability for the weapons. Who has it, when they obtained it, etc... Simple things that would more quickly trace an item to it's owner.

I'm unsure what other mechanisms there could be for controls against them.

I'm not sure, but I think you just agreed with me in a smarter sounding way than I phrased it.

[Savrin]

Can they use drones? Because that would be swell.

You'll have to ask the president Sir.