There's No Such Thing as an "American" Homicide Rate

  • Thread starter Thread starter upant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

upant

Guest
as i have been posting. a timely article.
We often hear about homicides are rampant in “America” — presumably caused by high levels of private gun ownership — but any serious look at the numbers forces us to refine our question and instead ask why some parts of the US have some of the lowest homicide rates on earth, while the situation in other areas is considerably different.
Click to expand...
 
Do the Feds still use SMSA’s … Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas … in their data releases?

If the homicide data was released … that showed the SMSA’s … then that would clarify a lot of misunderstandings of where precisely the homicides are taking place.
 
The cognitive dissonance should give gun control advocates a real headache when they compare the homicide rates at state level with their gun ownership (gun availability)
 
The problem with stats is they only proves that “figures lie, and liars figure”. Does where a homicide takes place lessen the grief of the family losing the loved one, or the grief of God who sees the suffering of His people?

I’ve never heard of a family member, after losing a loved one to gun violence, saying, “Well, we’ll miss our loved one, and it might have been avoided if more people (or less people) had access to guns in the state the murder took place”.

Another problem is the understanding of the term “Gun Control”…some, dismiss it immediately because when “Gun Control” is brought up, what they hear is “Abolition of Gun Ownership”…there are guns and accessories that should be controlled, and there are people who should not have access to guns…yet the “slippery slope” argument is always brought forward.
 
Hereiam said:
Another problem is the understanding of the term “Gun Control”…some, dismiss it immediately because when “Gun Control” is brought up, what they hear is “Abolition of Gun Ownership”…there are guns and accessories that should be controlled, and there are people who should not have access to guns…yet the “slippery slope” argument is always brought forward.
Click to expand...
It’s been asked on these forums repeatedly, what are these missing gun regulations that would make a difference?

You can’t provide an answer because there really aren’t any. We’ve implemented all the practical controls and just need to do more on enforcement.

Just look at the maps again, there are multi-state areas with abnormally high gun ownership, yet below average rates of homicide. If anything the data shows no correlation or a negative correlation. Definitely nothing to suggest causation.
 
  1. No sales of semi automatic or fully automatic weapons period. They are not necessary for target shooting or hunting.
  2. No sales of oversized magazines, or accessories allowing grouping magazines.
  3. No sales of accessories that allow converting weapons to semi or fully automatic.
  4. No sales of weapons at gun shows.
  5. No sales without fully veered criminal and medical records.
  6. Increase waiting time from application to sales to at least 30 days.
  7. If accident or murder related to weapon not being completely secured by owner, owner fully legally culpable for the accident or murder.
 
comments inserted with bullets
Hereiam said:
No sales of semi automatic or fully automatic weapons period. They are not necessary for target shooting or hunting.
  • reverting to 1800’s tech is not a viable answer
No sales of oversized magazines, or accessories allowing grouping magazines.
  • so you think criminals and terrorists will balk at taping together a couple mags when they are planning a rampage, because it’s against the law?
No sales of accessories that allow converting weapons to semi or fully automatic
  • That pretty much is illegal or a rarity. Bump stocks did not cause the mayhem in recent shootings
No sales of weapons at gun shows.
  • I take it you’ve never been to a gun show. In my state they can only make the sale after the background check is confirmed, private sales are not allowed unless between members of the local gun club, which requires the background check to become a member.
No sales without fully veered criminal and medical records.
  • So you want to add medical records to the check? I’m for appropriate mental health screening, if you can define what it entails.
Increase waiting time from application to sales to at least 30 days.
  • Would like some evidence this really matters, it’s a huge inconvenience to a woman threatened by a stalker, or someone planning to go hunting next weekend.
If accident or murder related to weapon not being completely secured by owner, owner fully legally culpable for the accident or murder.
  • our court system already allows for allocation of responsibility. It really sounds like you want to pretend the criminal committing the offense isn’t responsible for his/her actions.
Click to expand...
 
No, to your last…the reason is I am a pro life catholic who lost a father in law to gun homicide, and was pallbearer at funeral of a 7 year old victim of accidental shooting by a playmate, and I resent your implications that convenience of anyone who wants a gun is more important than the sanctity of life, and that nothing can be done about it…and I’m sick of all elements of the pro death culture from abortion to euthanasia and includes our gun problem that turns a blind eye to these problems!

But thanks for asking…no reply necessary, because I’m done listening and venting. You are not going to change my mind, and I’m not going to change yours, so let’s just leave at that.
 
Theo520 said:
The cognitive dissonance should give gun control advocates a real headache when they compare the homicide rates at state level with their gun ownership (gun availability)
Click to expand...
I have started the comparison. Based on 2014 data (admittedly not as up to date as yours), the seven states with the highest gun ownership rate are WY, AK, MT, SD, WV, AR and ID. The average gun homicide rate in those states was 4.24 per 100,000. The seven states with the lowest gun ownership were HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, NY, and IL. The average gun homicide rate in those states was 3.17 per 100,000. Admittedly this is not a full correlation coefficient calculation, but before I crank in the remaining 36 states and write a program to do those calculations, do you want to save me the trouble and just write out that $50 check to the charity of my choice now? I pick Habitat for Humanity.

What is even more telling though is the gun death rate (as opposed to the homicide rate) which includes accidents and suicides. When that same 7 top and 7 bottom states are averaged, we find 14.98 per 100,000 for the top 7 states and 4.59 per 100,000 for the 7 bottom states in gun ownership. For the top 7 states, the total gun death rate is more that triple the homicide rate. I don’t think we should write off accidents and suicides as unsolveable problems, so the gun death rate is really the more relevant statistic to compare.

But even if we do restrict our attention strictly to gun homicides, we have a case for fewer guns being a good thing.
 
Last edited:
  1. No sales of semi automatic or fully automatic weapons period. They are not necessary for target shooting or hunting.
    **the constitution does not list these as the reason for the protection of the right. It lists the necessity of the militia for the defense of a free state. The SCOTUS further recognizes other reasons. The constitution doesn’t provide the general government with the power to determine what is a good reason or not. Finally, semi-automatic firearms comprise a huge percentage of the firearms legally owned by citizens. Only a tiny fraction are used criminally.
  2. No sales of oversized magazines, or accessories allowing grouping magazines.
    **you don’t define high capacity, but I want my wife to have a significant number of rounds if faced with multiple intruders in my absence **
  3. No sales of accessories that allow converting weapons to semi or fully automatic.
    Agreed, when converting to automatic.
  4. No sales of weapons at gun shows.
    Nonsense. As long as laws are followed, restricting trade in this way makes no sense.
  5. No sales without fully veered criminal and medical records.
    Criminal records are one thing individuals with adjudicated mental issues ? No problem. But no one should be required to give up their 4th amendment protection in order to exercise their second amendment protection. Medical records are irrelevant, and none of the government’s business.
  6. Increase waiting time from application to sales to at least 30 days.
    Which other protected right should the government be permitted to suspend for days? Search and seizure? Due process? How about cruel and unusual punishment.
  7. If accident or murder related to weapon not being completely secured by owner, owner fully legally culpable for the accident or murder.
    Already in place for those permitted in the house. For those without permission, the confines of the house are the security. If breaking the law is the means of procuring the gun, then the one who breaks the law is fully responsible.
 
Last edited:
Very surprised to see a favourable link to a libertarian think tank on a Catholic site.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I have started the comparison. Based on 2014 data (admittedly not as up to date as yours), the seven states with the highest gun ownership rate are WY, AK, MT, SD, WV, AR and ID. The average gun homicide rate in those states was 4.24 per 100,000.
Click to expand...
Your data skills are lacking, each state is considered a plot point, and you don’t get to cherry pick which states you include and which you ignore, then make your average of your cherry picked groups.

You plot all your points, the good and the bad. The points in the middle are very important in determining whether there is a correlation and the degree of correlation
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I have started the comparison. Based on 2014 data (admittedly not as up to date as yours), the seven states with the highest gun ownership rate are WY, AK, MT, SD, WV, AR and ID. The average gun homicide rate in those states was 4.24 per 100,000. The seven states with the lowest gun ownership were HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, NY, and IL. The average gun homicide rate in those states was 3.17 per 100,000. Admittedly this is not a full correlation coefficient calculation, but before I crank in the remaining 36 states and write a program to do those calculations, do you want to save me the trouble and just write out that $50 check to the charity of my choice now? I pick Habitat for Humanity.
Click to expand...
I did your work for you, and that dog doesn’t hunt. I used the data presented in this thread and the correlation coefficient is 0.22, it doesn’t even qualify as a weak correlation.

Since I assume you knows stat better than you indicated above, I’m very disappointed that you had the gal to ask for money. Really hurts your credibility on any topic, that you won’t examine the facts without gross bias.

Here is a scatter plot of all the states, not cherry picked.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I have started the comparison. Based on 2014 data (admittedly not as up to date as yours), the seven states with the highest gun ownership rate are WY, AK, MT, SD, WV, AR and ID. The average gun homicide rate in those states was 4.24 per 100,000. The seven states with the lowest gun ownership were HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, NY, and IL. The average gun homicide rate in those states was 3.17 per 100,000. Admittedly this is not a full correlation coefficient calculation, but before I crank in the remaining 36 states and write a program to do those calculations, do you want to save me the trouble and just write out that $50 check to the charity of my choice now? I pick Habitat for Humanity.
Click to expand...
I did your work for you, and that dog doesn’t hunt. I used the data presented in this thread and the correlation coefficient is 0.22, it doesn’t even qualify as a weak correlation.

Since I assume you knows stat better than you indicated above, I’m very disappointed that you had the gal to ask for money. Really hurts your credibility on any topic, that you won’t examine the facts without gross bias.

Here is a scatter plot of all the states, not cherry picked.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
Didn’t you initially claim the correlation coefficient was negative? But I thank you for doing the work for me. And I guess you don’t have to contribute to H for H since the agreement was you would make the donation if I could prove the correlation was positive. But I didn’t prove it. You did. So technically you are off the hook.

But wait. Did you run the correlation against all homicides or just gun homicides? I don’t think anyone here ever claimed that gun control was going to reduce knife killing. That’s like expecting the Polio vaccine to cure cancer.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Didn’t you initially claim the correlation coefficient was negative? But I thank you for doing the work for me. And I guess you don’t have to contribute to H for H since the agreement was you would make the donation if I could prove the correlation was positive. But I didn’t prove it. You did. So technically you are off the hook.

But wait. Did you run the correlation against all homicides or just gun homicides? I don’t think anyone here ever claimed that gun control was going to reduce knife killing. That’s like expecting the Polio vaccine to cure cancer.
Click to expand...
Yup, I did suggest it might even be negative, but I have the integrity to look at the data and show it for what it is.

Stop switching the goal posts, if the goal isn’t to reduce overall homicides then it’s a false argument. People still find guns or use other methods, reducing legal gun ownership has no relevant correlation indicating it might have an impact.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Didn’t you initially claim the correlation coefficient was negative? But I thank you for doing the work for me. And I guess you don’t have to contribute to H for H since the agreement was you would make the donation if I could prove the correlation was positive. But I didn’t prove it. You did. So technically you are off the hook.

But wait. Did you run the correlation against all homicides or just gun homicides? I don’t think anyone here ever claimed that gun control was going to reduce knife killing. That’s like expecting the Polio vaccine to cure cancer.
Click to expand...
Yup, I did suggest it might even be negative, but I have the integrity to look at the data and show it for what it is.
Click to expand...
And I expected no less from you.
Stop switching the goal posts, if the goal isn’t to reduce overall homicides then it’s a false argument.
Click to expand...
I think the goal of gun control and the arguments in favor of it have always been the same - to reduce gun deaths. If you think the goalposts have changed, please cite where gun control advocates on this forum have initially set the goalposts for a reduction in the homicide rate from all weapons. As for suicides, I can cite plenty of examples where suicides have been mentioned as a goal. So there is no moving of goalposts here.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I think the goal of gun control and the arguments in favor of it have always been the same - to reduce gun deaths. If you think the goalposts have changed, please cite where gun control advocates on this forum have initially set the goalposts for a reduction in the homicide rate from all weapons. As for suicides, I can cite plenty of examples where suicides have been mentioned as a goal. So there is no moving of goalposts here.
Click to expand...
Nope, I could care less about the method, whether it’s by gun or some other means. It’s the total rate of homicide, or suicide, etc, that matters.

Again the analysis shows there is no relevant correlation between homicide rates and gun availability. That should tell you to look to other factors if you want to impact homicides. My first guess would be jobs, then crime.
 
Last edited:
Not taking a side here but there is also the case that gun ownership reduces some potential homicides through people being able to defend themselves and warding off a potential attacker which would support your choice of using the total homicide rate for a more fuller impact of gun ownership,
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
Not taking a side here but there is also the case that gun ownership reduces some potential homicides through people being able to defend themselves and warding off a potential attacker which would support your choice of using the total homicide rate for a more fuller impact of gun ownership,
Click to expand...
That’s right. It is theoretically possible. But even if we do keep knife attacks in the stats, Theo’s calculation shows a slight (0.22) positive correlation. Remember, a correlation of 1.00 means perfectly correlated, which means the one variable (gun ownership) was the one and only factor influencing the homicide rate. Of course no one believes that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top