Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 05:32 PM Apr 2013

Gun Ownership Neither Increases Nor Decreases the Crime Rate

Last edited Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:41 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.psmag.com/culture/gun-ownership-neither-increases-nor-decreases-crime-rate-55473/


Recently, Alex Berezow analyzed the correlation between the number of privately-owned guns per capita in a country and the rate of homicide by firearms. This is a sensible first step to answer the question of whether reducing the number of guns in a society makes it safer. However, the greater purpose of gun control is not to reduce firearm homicide specifically, but to reduce the overall rates of murder and violent crime in a country.

...

A simple correlation analysis cannot tell us which of these ideas, if any, are correct, but it can shed light, to some degree, on whether gun control is associated with less violent crime. Let’s look first to see if there is a correlation between the number of guns per capita and the number of intentional homicides, of all types, per capita in 172 countries:



The answer, clearly, is no. In fact, the statistically insignificant trend is toward slightly (as inferred from the negative slope of the line) fewer homicides as gun ownership increases.

Further, we will follow Alex’s lead investigating this correlation by removing some countries. Let’s remove all countries with very poor development (e.g., some African and South and Central American states), states with extremely high murder rates (nearly all of which have very low gun ownership) and states currently involved in civil wars or major domestic unrest. This leaves 72 more developed countries to analyze. Are homicide rates higher in these countries with more guns?



The answer is still no. There is no reasonable way to cherry-pick any sample of countries to arrive at a significant correlation, or even a hint that reduced gun ownership lowers overall homicide rate.



...

First, there is no correlation between the number of guns per capita and the overall homicide rate. So people who believe fewer guns will reduce the homicide rate may be wrong. Second, there is no correlation between the number of guns per capita and the rate of assaults and robberies. So people who believe guns make society safer by reducing overall crime may be wrong, too.


This is presenting familiar data in a new way (it asks about all homicides whereas previously people have been posting gun deaths: you are more likely to be killed by a gun in a country with more guns, but you're not particularly more likely to be killed).

That aside, I'm interested in the US here. Guess which dot we are? Not very difficult, is it?

We're very far to the right, meaning we have more guns than most other countries.

Now check out that line, that's the regression. That's what tells us where our homicide rate "should" be if our homicide rate varied with gun ownership like it does for other countries. We're way above that. (We're also way above it on the version of this chart that gets posted more often on DU, looking at only gun deaths rather than all homicides.) That is, we're more violent than the model says we should be. If we lower our gun ownership rate to the median and maintain that variance we would still be among the most violent countries on earth (and, per this correlation, we would have a higher homicide rate than we do now, though it would be a lower gun death rate).

EDIT:

I did a regression below for the G-20 (which basically matched Hartsfield's results) and the G-8 (which showed an equally weak positive correlation), FWIW. And, while I'm editing, why not include the charts:



127 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gun Ownership Neither Increases Nor Decreases the Crime Rate (Original Post) Recursion Apr 2013 OP
It most certainly adds to the death rate though... Bandit Apr 2013 #1
The death rate, yes, because it makes suicide much easier Recursion Apr 2013 #3
There have been more Americans killed by gun violence in the last decade than in every Bandit Apr 2013 #6
And twice as many were killed the decade before that Recursion Apr 2013 #9
I imagine it allows the data more context LanternWaste Apr 2013 #13
Fair enough. Like I said, we're more violent than the regression would suggest we "should" be Recursion Apr 2013 #15
+1 uponit7771 Apr 2013 #4
I have used guns as directed Jenoch Apr 2013 #8
So because you personally have not destroyed any humans, none could possibly have been destroyed? Bandit Apr 2013 #11
Guns were invented to kill. Jenoch Apr 2013 #12
Guns were *invented* to knock down walls and scare horses Recursion Apr 2013 #14
I suppose it depends on the definition of a 'gun'. Jenoch Apr 2013 #16
Neither have I. nt Mojorabbit Apr 2013 #24
Have you ever sold one, had one stolen, will you ever sell one, do you have kids? Hoyt Apr 2013 #35
The only gun I have sold was to my Jenoch Apr 2013 #49
There are a lot of Zimmermans, Loughners, NRA President's son, etc., too. Hoyt Apr 2013 #87
You are all over the place with this post. Jenoch Apr 2013 #108
If your favourite writer posted it, you still wouldn't accept it. Hoyt Apr 2013 #109
Accept what? Jenoch Apr 2013 #111
Perfect example of statistical misuse Progressive dog Apr 2013 #2
What are you talking about? The data are right there Recursion Apr 2013 #5
Holy crap-his interpretation of the data is a CONCLUSION Progressive dog Apr 2013 #7
His CONCLUSION is "guns don't make us more or less safe" Recursion Apr 2013 #10
Oh I get, you just made up your conclusion Progressive dog Apr 2013 #17
Both of those are true, though I only posted the data for the second half Recursion Apr 2013 #19
When data contradicts "common sense", what you thought was "common sense" was wrong Taitertots Apr 2013 #25
You are joking, right Progressive dog Apr 2013 #36
How convenient... Only analysis and data that you agree with is "Real evidence". Taitertots Apr 2013 #64
Yeah, kind of like climate change Progressive dog Apr 2013 #86
We live in the most peaceful era in human history, including before guns existed Taitertots Apr 2013 #94
Don't continue to make stuff up Progressive dog Apr 2013 #98
Hilarious. Just claim that anything that disagrees with your ideology is just made up Taitertots Apr 2013 #103
And so if we have more guns we have less gun crime Progressive dog Apr 2013 #119
All the world is now an NRAtalkingPoint (TM). If you don't agree with the data. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #91
Almost cute Progressive dog Apr 2013 #118
Congratulations, you're the most perfect example of confirmation bias I've seen. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #114
For more stats & graphs Vol.18 No.1 Skeptic magazine www.skeptic.com olddots Apr 2013 #18
If there was NO guns, the murder rate in the USA would be lower. No doubt. Guns..... Logical Apr 2013 #20
Well, that's not what those data suggest Recursion Apr 2013 #21
So you really think if there was no guns just as many murders would be carried out with knifes, etc? Logical Apr 2013 #27
Again, that's what those data show. Gun deaths would go way, way down, but not homicides. Recursion Apr 2013 #29
We live in the most peaceful era in all of human history Taitertots Apr 2013 #33
Homicide in North America since 1700 Recursion Apr 2013 #38
Oh lordy! Is today gun propaganda day? DanTex Apr 2013 #22
No, it doesn't. Recursion Apr 2013 #23
Yes, it does. Do you ever wonder why the peer reviewed research comes to the opposite conclusion DanTex Apr 2013 #26
Look at the ****ing data points. This isn't a difficult question Recursion Apr 2013 #28
You're an engineer? Really? DanTex Apr 2013 #43
No, we don't Recursion Apr 2013 #53
Umm, yes, we do. DanTex Apr 2013 #58
I'm doing the G-8 and the G-20 right now (I've done them before, too) I'll post in a minute Recursion Apr 2013 #60
Brazil ranks #85 in the human development index. DanTex Apr 2013 #66
Another good group is OECD. The problem with G-20 is it includes places like China and Russia, DanTex Apr 2013 #68
Here's G-8 (positive correlation) and G-20 (negative correlation) Recursion Apr 2013 #71
Fot the top 30 in human development index, I was able to find data for 27 countries. DanTex Apr 2013 #81
So we do worse than largely homogeneous social Democracies Recursion Apr 2013 #83
So there's a statistically significant positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates DanTex Apr 2013 #84
Even you didn't find a significant correlation Recursion Apr 2013 #85
Umm, yes I did. Unless my stats software is broken, or I entered the data wrong (a possibility), DanTex Apr 2013 #88
We don't know what the rate would be with significantly fewer guns today. Hoyt Apr 2013 #42
It's the same countries as Berezow, which I have seen *you* post Recursion Apr 2013 #50
HA HA HA HA HA! Nice try with this bullshit from a known conservative Uzair Apr 2013 #30
That's why he doesn't draw a conclusion Recursion Apr 2013 #32
Check out the "conservative" findings in post #69. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #99
Garbage in garbage out XRubicon Apr 2013 #31
Who cares that the "homicide by firearm" rate goes down if the "homicide by any means" rate doesn't? Recursion Apr 2013 #34
I care. XRubicon Apr 2013 #41
He says he excluded the same countries for the same reasons. I suppose he could be lying Recursion Apr 2013 #45
I count 25 pts on my plot and about 50 on yours XRubicon Apr 2013 #55
Fine, I'll run the regression for the G-20 if you want. Give me a minute. Recursion Apr 2013 #57
I did G-8 and G-20 in Post 71 Recursion Apr 2013 #72
Because there is no statistically significant effect of guns on non-gun homicide. DanTex Apr 2013 #46
Interesting data. Wish they could isolate crime rates amongst gun owners only. geckosfeet Apr 2013 #37
Even that's possibly confounded. Does owning a gun make you more likely to be killed... Recursion Apr 2013 #48
Don't know. But this method of commingling crime rates geckosfeet Apr 2013 #92
Would the Newtown massacre have happened without an assault rifle? No. El Fuego Apr 2013 #39
Why not? VA Tech had more deaths without an assault weapon Recursion Apr 2013 #40
Seriously??! You're going to split hairs between guns with clips and assault rifles? El Fuego Apr 2013 #80
Ummm... yes. That's not "splitting hairs". Cho used handguns. Ordinary handguns Recursion Apr 2013 #82
Wait ... Am I on Candid Camera? El Fuego Apr 2013 #96
The VT murderer used a pistol. With standard mags. He killed more people. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #100
Do you think I said something funny? (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #115
The VT murderer used a pistol. With standard mags. He killed more people. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #95
Ah, the "people on the left." You're expressing aggravation with those "people on the left." El Fuego Apr 2013 #102
No "aggravation," just a little dismay. But you may not be on the left yourself, so... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #105
LOL. Oh, I get it. The guy who wrote this is a right-winger who wrote a book about DanTex Apr 2013 #44
Right, because data points care about ideology Recursion Apr 2013 #47
Right, because a person with an agenda can't tweak a regression to get the result they want. DanTex Apr 2013 #52
No, you really can't "tweak" a linear regression. It just can't be done. Recursion Apr 2013 #56
You can if you get to pick which countries you include and which you don't. DanTex Apr 2013 #61
So, yes, Hartsfield and Bezerow can both have done that. Like I said I'm running it for G-8 and G-20 Recursion Apr 2013 #63
obscuring the issue sigmasix Apr 2013 #106
FYI study written by RW "microbiologist" Progressive dog Apr 2013 #51
It's not a "study". It's a linear regression. Recursion Apr 2013 #54
And neither was the Laffer curve Progressive dog Apr 2013 #59
The Laffer curve wasn't empirical or statistical Recursion Apr 2013 #62
It's hell on the people getting shot rate, though. DirkGently Apr 2013 #65
I have a hard time believing that the "success" rate for other weapons would be as high as guns. n-t Logical Apr 2013 #67
More people are killed with bare hands in the US than rifles Recursion Apr 2013 #73
LOL, machine guns also, who cares. A handgun is a gun. I do not think as many murders would happen.. Logical Apr 2013 #75
I guess it depends on whether the G-8 or the G-20 represents us better? Recursion Apr 2013 #78
See also the National Academy of Sciences Report Viking12 Apr 2013 #69
The increase in suicides when firearms are available is, however, basically undeniable Recursion Apr 2013 #74
Yes, the linked report ackonowledges such an association Viking12 Apr 2013 #90
Gibberish. NRA: giving math a bad name since 1950. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #70
We're *entirely* an outlier, in both directions Recursion Apr 2013 #76
The negative effect of the guns is partially mitigated by our standard of living. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #112
Note #69. More NRAtalkingPoints(marcus registrada)? Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #97
It definitely increases the accidental-deaths-with-guns rate. pnwmom Apr 2013 #77
Definitely. The increase in suicides is pretty much indisputable too Recursion Apr 2013 #79
LOL, people here react on emotion, this funny math thing will not persuade them pediatricmedic Apr 2013 #89
Well, so much for the hallowed position of math/science in some "progressive" circles. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #101
Yeah right. moondust Apr 2013 #93
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #104
No. It's a data plot. Nothing here is a "study" (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #116
How did he assign a number to privately owned guns in the US? ashling Apr 2013 #107
A Harvard study disagrees. former9thward Apr 2013 #110
How does it disagree? pediatricmedic Apr 2013 #113
LOL. You guys crack me up with your pseudoscience. That's not a "Harvard study". DanTex Apr 2013 #121
Still waiting to hear a legal scholar who agrees with your "collective rights" theory. former9thward Apr 2013 #122
So are you going to try to defend your pseudoscientific study? DanTex Apr 2013 #124
I link to things in my posts. former9thward Apr 2013 #125
Is that a "yes"? So you're actually standing by that study? DanTex Apr 2013 #126
Peer reviewed? Nope. GeorgeGist Apr 2013 #117
This message was self-deleted by its author Ond Apr 2013 #120
You should look at the number of households that have guns Ond Apr 2013 #123
Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin Apr 2013 #127

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
1. It most certainly adds to the death rate though...
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 05:56 PM
Apr 2013

Also the injury rate..Guns if used as directed destroy things, even humans..

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
3. The death rate, yes, because it makes suicide much easier
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 05:59 PM
Apr 2013

These data, at least, suggest it slightly decreases the homicide rate, while not affecting the violent crime rate in general. Not sure what to make of that combination.

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
6. There have been more Americans killed by gun violence in the last decade than in every
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:03 PM
Apr 2013

WAR the USA has been engaged in COMBINED

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
9. And twice as many were killed the decade before that
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:05 PM
Apr 2013

Sorry, was that just an emotional sentence to make people ignore the data?

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
13. I imagine it allows the data more context
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:47 PM
Apr 2013

I imagine it allows the data more context, regardless of the light it may cast on the data...

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
15. Fair enough. Like I said, we're more violent than the regression would suggest we "should" be
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:50 PM
Apr 2013

And our variance from that regression in the "violence" direction is greater than our variance from the mean in the "more guns" direction, even.

I don't know why Americans like to kill each other so much, but we do, and we always have. We're doing it at pretty much the lowest rate we've ever done it, but I'd like for us to do it even less.

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
11. So because you personally have not destroyed any humans, none could possibly have been destroyed?
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:41 PM
Apr 2013

Guns were created to kill... That is their main purpose in being...

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
14. Guns were *invented* to knock down walls and scare horses
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:48 PM
Apr 2013

They weren't effective as or intended to kill people for the first several centuries of their existence.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
16. I suppose it depends on the definition of a 'gun'.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:51 PM
Apr 2013

I was thinking of handheld guns as opposed to cannons.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
35. Have you ever sold one, had one stolen, will you ever sell one, do you have kids?
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:19 PM
Apr 2013

Point is, you might be god's go to guy on responsible gun use, but you might screw up tomorrow. Or your support of more guns in more places, may result in an issue -- directly or indirectly.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
49. The only gun I have sold was to my
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:37 PM
Apr 2013

brother who is a police officer with a larger gun safe than mine. I do not support more guns in the hand of those not eligible to own them. The vast majority of misuse of guns is by those who do not legally own them.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
87. There are a lot of Zimmermans, Loughners, NRA President's son, etc., too.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:00 PM
Apr 2013

And almost every gun that enters the gun supply in this country started out as "legal" gun purchase.


And let's not forget the militia types who hope to take control in event of a disaster.
 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
108. You are all over the place with this post.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 11:06 PM
Apr 2013

Do you have an actual point? If so, make your point in coherent sentences with complete thoughts.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
111. Accept what?
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 11:51 PM
Apr 2013

From what part of Canada is it that you originate? (My grandmother came from Canada and I have Canadian cousins in Onterio, BC, and SK).

Progressive dog

(6,864 posts)
2. Perfect example of statistical misuse
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 05:58 PM
Apr 2013

So the new NRA talking point writers are testing the waters. A study that concludes a reduction in homicide by gun would increase homicides doesn't rise to the level of pathetically stupid propaganda.

The gun worshipers continue to amaze me with their lack of common sense.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
5. What are you talking about? The data are right there
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 05:59 PM
Apr 2013

Are you saying he made those homicide data up? I mean, in fact, a reduction in homicide by gun seems to slightly increase the overall homicide rate. Don't blame the facts on the messenger...

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
10. His CONCLUSION is "guns don't make us more or less safe"
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:06 PM
Apr 2013

There is a statistically insignificant negative correlation between firearms ownership and homicide overall. That is not a conclusion, that's just the data (regressions are automatic; there's no conclusion being drawn). His conclusion was "we can't say guns make us more or less safe, because the data don't indicate that".

Progressive dog

(6,864 posts)
17. Oh I get, you just made up your conclusion
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:56 PM
Apr 2013

"you are more likely to be killed by a gun in a country with more guns, but you're not particularly more likely to be killed)." together with your headline don't have to be true if you can find a study that's a little like it.
Thank you for pointing that out.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
19. Both of those are true, though I only posted the data for the second half
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:59 PM
Apr 2013

The data I posted show that your risk of being murdered does not increase with the rate of firearms ownership of your country.

That's not arguable. You can have your opinion but not your own facts. The regression is right there.

I also mentioned your risk of being killed by a gun does increase with the rate of firearms ownership of your country. Those data have been posted several times on DU (and are a subset of these data). If for some reason you doubt that, I will do what I can to dig them up.

 

Taitertots

(7,745 posts)
25. When data contradicts "common sense", what you thought was "common sense" was wrong
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:09 PM
Apr 2013

Otherwise all you are doing is saying "I reject reality because it doesn't match my preconceived notions and opinions."

Progressive dog

(6,864 posts)
36. You are joking, right
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:21 PM
Apr 2013

No, people who read stuff on the internet that is unsupported by any real evidence, are ignoring reality. In this case we know why they are ignoring reality and why they want it to be different.
People that then push the conclusions of an already statistically challenged study, well past the conclusions of the study itself, know why they are ignoring reality and why they want it to be different.

I am sorry that you and your fellows to reject reality.

 

Taitertots

(7,745 posts)
64. How convenient... Only analysis and data that you agree with is "Real evidence".
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:56 PM
Apr 2013

And everyone who disagrees with your opinion (with evidence) is just "ignoring reality". Your position amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

More to the point.... Claiming "common sense" in the face of contradictory data doesn't support your opinion.

Progressive dog

(6,864 posts)
86. Yeah, kind of like climate change
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:56 PM
Apr 2013

or evolution and other stuff where all the evidence (data) points in one direction and some self proclaimed scientist disagrees, and especially in this case where the same old evidence deniers come forth to promote his "guns don't cause gun violence or how I can kill as many with a knife" fable.
Let's put the common sense in really simplistic form, so even gun worshipers might get a clue.

Guns are necessary to commit gun crimes.
Guns are used in many more homicides in the US than any other weapon.
Guns are easier to use than knives, fists, hammers, etc.
So when gun crimes decrease due to gun regulation, the crimes which are mainly committed with guns will also decrease.

You can't really believe this made up crap, can you?





 

Taitertots

(7,745 posts)
94. We live in the most peaceful era in human history, including before guns existed
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:36 PM
Apr 2013

How much more simple and common sense could you get? The number of guns in private hands has increased exponentially and crime has continued to trend downward. I'm not claiming gun ownership caused the unprecedented drop in crime. I'm claiming that there is no reason to believe that limiting private access to firearms is going to be a panacea that reduces crime.

All your "common sense" statements are non-sense and they don't support harsher gun laws.

Progressive dog

(6,864 posts)
98. Don't continue to make stuff up
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:47 PM
Apr 2013

Panacea, indeed. If your criteria for any action is that it must be a panacea, then you must do nothing. How simple would it be to stop making stuff up.
All your denial of your position does not change the fact that stricter gun laws will cut violence. And I agree, they are not a panacea. If you can point me to any existing laws that are a panacea, I'd appreciate it.

 

Taitertots

(7,745 posts)
103. Hilarious. Just claim that anything that disagrees with your ideology is just made up
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:12 PM
Apr 2013

The fact remains that we live in the most peaceful era in all of human history. It is clear that the explosion of private firearms ownership has not caused an increase in violence. I'm not claiming a causal relationship, but it disproves the assertion that more guns = more crime.

"All your denial of your position does not change the fact that stricter gun laws will cut violence"
That is an assertion, not a fact. Relaxed gun laws (Carry laws) have not resulted in more violence.

Progressive dog

(6,864 posts)
119. And so if we have more guns we have less gun crime
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 04:00 PM
Apr 2013

I am sure that at some point before the invention of guns there was no gun crime.
Yes, I equate your claims with intentional ignorance. If you do a study and you can show no mechanism by which the input results in an output, your study is meaningless. There is and can be no believable mechanism by which assault rifles, lack of background checks, or higher capacity magazines can cut crime. Since these are the proposed mechanisms for reducing gun crimes, your argument is meaningless.

Get a grip, how can you explain an increase in guns reducing crime. Ask your data buddy, you know the self described scientist what his hypothesis is, I'm looking forward to his response.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
91. All the world is now an NRAtalkingPoint (TM). If you don't agree with the data.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:21 PM
Apr 2013

Please put the TM, copyright, or other intellectual property i.d. or someone might steal it from you.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
114. Congratulations, you're the most perfect example of confirmation bias I've seen.
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 03:59 AM
Apr 2013

For you to accuse someone else of "statistical misuse" is just laughable, I'm afraid.

 

olddots

(10,237 posts)
18. For more stats & graphs Vol.18 No.1 Skeptic magazine www.skeptic.com
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:59 PM
Apr 2013

most of the issue deals with the guns & violence theme.

the articles are as unbiased as I have seen .

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
20. If there was NO guns, the murder rate in the USA would be lower. No doubt. Guns.....
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:02 PM
Apr 2013

make it much easier to kill people. But guns are here to stay. Too many of them.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
21. Well, that's not what those data suggest
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:03 PM
Apr 2013

I mean, that's certainly possible, but the slope of the line is actually negative, if you'll notice.

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
27. So you really think if there was no guns just as many murders would be carried out with knifes, etc?
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:12 PM
Apr 2013

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
29. Again, that's what those data show. Gun deaths would go way, way down, but not homicides.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:13 PM
Apr 2013

Look at the data points; what do they say to you?

What would go way, way down would be suicides, which are far and away the majority of gun deaths.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
22. Oh lordy! Is today gun propaganda day?
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:04 PM
Apr 2013

Yes, gun ownership does increase the homicide rate.

There have been several peer-reviewed studies on this, both at the international level, as well as at the level of states and counties within the US. Internationally, the US has by far the highest homicide rate of any developed nation, and also by far the highest gun ownership rate. Within the US, there have been detailed multivariate studies at the county level which controlled for the effects of other socioeconomic factors and found that gun owhership increases the homicide rate -- each additional 10,000 gun owning households increase the number of homicides in a county by between 1 and 3, and this increase is entirely due to gun homicides.

If you're interested in the actual science, as opposed to googling for any link that will support your pre-determined conclusions, this should get you started.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
23. No, it doesn't.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:05 PM
Apr 2013

Not on a national level, at least.

There's no arguing that. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. The data points are right there in my post.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
26. Yes, it does. Do you ever wonder why the peer reviewed research comes to the opposite conclusion
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:10 PM
Apr 2013

of the NRA propaganda, time after time?

Are you even interested in the actual scientific research on the topic? Because it's really odd that you find some blog entry that agrees with you, but refuse to examine the peer-reviewed studies I linked to. Maybe, just maybe, a study by the head of gun violence research at the Harvard School of Public Health, and published in a peer-reviewed science journal is slightly more reliable than some random blog entry. Ya think?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
28. Look at the ****ing data points. This isn't a difficult question
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:12 PM
Apr 2013

We have data points of "intentional homicides per 100k" and "gun ownership per 100".

If you want to say there are other confounding factors, that's your look-out. I asked the very simple question "is the gun ownership of a country correlated with its intentional homicide rate?" That is answered by looking at those data points. (I'm an engineer; this is what we do for a living.) The answer is, "yes, weakly and slightly negatively".

That's not something you can argue any more than you can argue that 2 + 2 = 5. It's just math.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
43. You're an engineer? Really?
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:26 PM
Apr 2013

Because I find it hard to believe that anyone who has even cracked a book on statistics would think it's a good idea to throw the US into the same pool of data as El Salvador and Somalia, do a simple uncontrolled univariate regression, and then jump to the conclusion that gun ownership doesn't increase the homicide rate, all the while refusing to even look at the peer reviewed studies done by qualified professionals that come to the opposite conclusion.

You seem to have some kind of allergy to legitimate peer-reviewed scientific research. If you restrict the data set to a group of similar countries -- first world nations -- then you get a clear positive correlation between guns and homicide. If you do a multivariate time-series analysis at the county level in the US, there is a clear positive correlation. There is also clear evidence of a mechanism -- it is known that gun assaults are much more likely to result in death than non-gun assaults.

If you are actually an engineer, that bodes very poorly for our educational system. As a scientist, I shudder at the thought that someone claiming to be an engineer would draw a simple univariate correlation and then bury their head into the sand the way you are doing. There's a reason that this kind of crap doesn't appear in peer reviewed journals.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
53. No, we don't
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:40 PM
Apr 2013
If you restrict the data set to a group of similar countries -- first world nations -- then you get a clear positive correlation between guns and homicide.

No, we don't. That's the "selected countries" in Hartsfield and the "countries minus South Africa" in Berezow. That gives us homicides by firearm increasing very clearly with firearm ownership, but homicide overall decreasing very slightly with gun ownership, and the US well above the predicted level from the regression in both cases.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
58. Umm, yes, we do.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:50 PM
Apr 2013

Get back to be when some of this junk science makes into a peer reviewed journal.

I have no idea how these guys chose their "developed nations" -- I'm not aware of any criterion for high development that includes 72 nations -- but I know that the peer-reviewed studies looking at first-world nations find a statistically significant positive correlation.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
60. I'm doing the G-8 and the G-20 right now (I've done them before, too) I'll post in a minute
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:52 PM
Apr 2013

I know this is a sacred ox being gored, but the data are pretty simple here.

Actually, this gets to another issue, whether we're "more like" Brazil or Germany, which gets to what the right countries to compare us with are.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
66. Brazil ranks #85 in the human development index.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:05 PM
Apr 2013

How about running the top 30 nations in HDI. These seem like a pretty decent group of "first-world" nations.
1 Norway 0.955 0.003
2 Australia 0.938 0.003
3 (1) United States 0.937 0.003
4 (1) Netherlands 0.921 0.002
5 (3) Germany 0.920 0.004
6 (1) New Zealand 0.919 0.002
7 (2) Ireland 0.916
7 (3) Sweden 0.916 0.003
9 (2) Switzerland 0.913 0.001
10 (2) Japan 0.912 0.003
11 (6) Canada 0.911 0.002
12 (3) South Korea 0.909 0.004
13 Hong Kong 0.906 0.006
13 Iceland 0.906 0.005
15 (1) Denmark 0.901 0.002
16 (1) Israel 0.900 0.004
17 (1) Belgium 0.897 0.001
18 (1) Austria 0.895 0.003
18 (8) Singapore 0.895 0.003
20 France 0.893 0.002
21 (1) Finland 0.892 0.002
21 (1) Slovenia 0.892
23 Spain 0.885 0.001
24 (16) Liechtenstein
25 (1) Italy 0.881
26 (1) Luxembourg 0.875
26 (2) United Kingdom 0.875 0.001
28 (1) Czech Republic 0.873 0.002
29 Greece 0.860 0.006
30 (2) Brunei Darussalam

Maybe drop Greece and Brunei, greece because of the recent turmoil, and Brunei because it's Brunei.

If you're in the mood, you can also try running another regression including HDI as a control, and see what happens.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
68. Another good group is OECD. The problem with G-20 is it includes places like China and Russia,
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:10 PM
Apr 2013

which is based on their sheer size, rather then their developedness.

AUSTRALIA
7 June 1971
AUSTRIA
29 September 1961
BELGIUM
13 September 1961
CANADA
10 April 1961
CHILE
7 May 2010
CZECH REPUBLIC
21 December 1995
DENMARK
30 May 1961
ESTONIA
9 December 2010
FINLAND
28 January 1969
FRANCE
7 August 1961
GERMANY
27 September 1961
GREECE
27 September 1961
HUNGARY
7 May 1996
ICELAND
5 June 1961
IRELAND
17 August 1961
ISRAEL
7 September 2010
ITALY
29 March 1962
JAPAN
28 April 1964
KOREA
12 December 1996
LUXEMBOURG
7 December 1961
MEXICO
18 May 1994
NETHERLANDS
13 November 1961
NEW ZEALAND
29 May 1973
NORWAY
4 July 1961
POLAND
22 November 1996
PORTUGAL
4 August 1961
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
14 December 2000
SLOVENIA
21 July 2010
SPAIN
3 August 1961
SWEDEN
28 September 1961
SWITZERLAND
28 September 1961
TURKEY
2 August 1961
UNITED KINGDOM
2 May 1961
UNITED STATES

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
71. Here's G-8 (positive correlation) and G-20 (negative correlation)
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:30 PM
Apr 2013




Let me see what I can make of OECD. Then again it's not clear why we should be excluding any countries at all; isn't that what R&R did wrong? Why shouldn't China and Russia be included here? That runs dangerously close (to my mind) to saying "let's look at the homicide rates of social democracies only", which we all know will be better than our homicide rates.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
81. Fot the top 30 in human development index, I was able to find data for 27 countries.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:49 PM
Apr 2013

For those 27 countries, I get a positive correlation of 0.5 between guns per capital, with statistical significance at p=0.007.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
83. So we do worse than largely homogeneous social Democracies
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:50 PM
Apr 2013

But we knew that.

OTOH I take back my "it's simple" rant from earlier: this is entirely about which countries you think we should compare ourselves to, I guess.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
84. So there's a statistically significant positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:54 PM
Apr 2013

among highly developed nations. Since HDI is the most common and natural choice for defining developed nation, it means that the blogger who wrote this sentence:

There is no reasonable way to cherry-pick any sample of countries to arrive at a significant correlation, or even a hint that reduced gun ownership lowers overall homicide rate.

is either lying, or a complete idiot, or both.

It also means you should probably amend the OP to point out that if the top nations are selected by the most natural and common measure of human development by social scientists, then there is in fact a positive correlation.

Todays lessons?
1) Don't trust right-wing bloggers to do your regressions for you
2) There really is a difference between peer reviewed science and blog posts.
3) Yes, more guns means more homicide, at least it does in nations similar to the US.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
85. Even you didn't find a significant correlation
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:56 PM
Apr 2013

You used 27 of the 30 highest HDI countries. Why? Do they include many countries with as non-homogeneous a population as the US? No. Do they include many countries with US-levels of poverty? No. Do they include many countries with US-style barriers to health care? No. Apples and oranges. Let's not R&R this: just compare countries. And why is 27 of the 30 highest HDI countries better than the G-20, other than that HDI makes your point and G-20 makes mine? Especially since your choice leaves out a whole lot of low-gun-ownership high-homicide countries.

But, I'll grant this much: if you leave out the countries with low gun ownership and high homicide rates, there is a positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
88. Umm, yes I did. Unless my stats software is broken, or I entered the data wrong (a possibility),
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:05 PM
Apr 2013

then, yes, I found a statistically significant correlation.

I picked the top 30 HDI countries because 30 is a nice round number, and it looked like a good cutoff as to what is meant by "developed". I could only find data for 27 of them. I didn't cherry pick at all. I picked all the countries before I did the analysis. If you want, go ahead and do the top 40, or the top 20, you'll probably find a similar result.

Remember, your blogger is the guy who said that there is no way to pick a set of countries to get a positive correlation, much less a significant positive correlation. This is obviously a lie, or else the guy is an idiot who has never heard of HDI. Either way, that's not someone you want to be associated with. At least I hope not.

Why is HDI better than G-20? Because G-20 is a based on total economic power, which is a function of population as well as economic strength. That's why you get countries like Russia and Brazil and China, which are nothing like the US. If you want to pick the top 20 countries by per capita GDP, that would make more sense.

As you told me earlier, if you want to claim confounding, go right ahead. Take a look at the peer reviewed multivariate analyses among US counties which I linked to. But stop trying to claim that there's no international correlation between gun ownership and homicide among highly developed nations similar to the US. There is one. Period.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
42. We don't know what the rate would be with significantly fewer guns today.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:25 PM
Apr 2013

Comparing two periods of time, with different population demographics, poverty rates, conviction rates, effectiveness of survelliance, etc., make such raw data useless. Well unless you are talking with people bent on distorting things to keep access to guns wide open.

 

Uzair

(241 posts)
30. HA HA HA HA HA! Nice try with this bullshit from a known conservative
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:14 PM
Apr 2013

This "study" completely ignores how the guns get into the hands of the population in the first place. Any country with a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of gun crime has sensible and properly enforced REGULATIONS on the possession and sale of guns. They don't have a stupid "right to bear arms" written in their constitutions, thus are able to pass COMMON SENSE LAWS to ensure that the right people own guns. They also restrict the type of guns people can legally own, the magazine size, etc.

You can't just put "number of guns per capita" on one axis without looking at the stupid laws that allow people to own those guns in the first place. That's why, as this bullshit "study" and you readily admit, there is NO CORRELATION found. No correlation means that you can't draw ANY conclusion about your data: the statistical analysis is fundamentally flawed from the start.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
32. That's why he doesn't draw a conclusion
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:16 PM
Apr 2013
This "study" completely ignores how the guns get into the hands of the population in the first place.

So?

The study asks if firearms ownership is correlated, on a national level, with homicide rates (and, later, assaults and robberies). The data show that, in fact, there is no significant correlation which is why he says guns aren't making us more or less safe. Any conclusions you are drawing are yours; I've already pointed out several times on this thread that reducing the number of guns would cut down greatly on suicides, which are much more common than homicides.

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
31. Garbage in garbage out
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:15 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/the-correlation-between-guns-and-homicide-rate.html

Look at the last plot.




Now, a clear correlation exists. When the numbers are crunched, they are highly statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Thus, when we consider countries that are similar to the United States, a strong correlation exists between the number of guns per capita and the gun-related homicide rate.

Perhaps the U.S. should consider modeling its gun laws after some of the other developed nations

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
34. Who cares that the "homicide by firearm" rate goes down if the "homicide by any means" rate doesn't?
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:19 PM
Apr 2013

In fact, let's put those graphs next to each other:



So, as ownership of firearms increases, homicide by firearm increases. Definitely. I am with you there.



But, as you see here, as ownership of firearms increases, homicide by any means does not increase; it actually decreases (but by a statistically insignificant amount).

Why do you care about reducing "homicide by firearm" if it doesn't reduce homicide as a whole?

And, I'd add, in both cases we're way, way above the regression, which is something I'd like to figure out.

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
41. I care.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:25 PM
Apr 2013

More guns equal more gun homicides period.

edit
Does your plot have the same developed countries excluding south Africa? I bet it doesn't. So we are not comparing apples to apples.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
45. He says he excluded the same countries for the same reasons. I suppose he could be lying
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:32 PM
Apr 2013

I don't have the raw tabular data for either one.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
72. I did G-8 and G-20 in Post 71
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:33 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022742722#post71

G-20 has Hartison's negative correlation, G-8 has a similarly small positive correlation. Where do we go from there?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
46. Because there is no statistically significant effect of guns on non-gun homicide.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:32 PM
Apr 2013

The effect of guns on gun homicide is signal. The correlation between guns and non-gun homicide -- which can go either way, depending on how you set up the regression and choose the dataset -- is mostly noise.

So isolating the effect on gun homicide makes sense. Particularly due to the fact that in most countries, or at least most first-world countries, the number of gun homicides is very small, which means that if you correlate directly to homicide, you're getting a lot of noise.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
48. Even that's possibly confounded. Does owning a gun make you more likely to be killed...
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:34 PM
Apr 2013

... or do people at a higher risk of being killed buy guns more?

geckosfeet

(9,644 posts)
92. Don't know. But this method of commingling crime rates
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:29 PM
Apr 2013

against gun ownership rates seems not to make any sense at all.

It just appears as an attempt to relate two completely separate data sets in a (desperate) effort to demonstrate an ideological view.

El Fuego

(6,502 posts)
39. Would the Newtown massacre have happened without an assault rifle? No.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:23 PM
Apr 2013

A would-be mass murderer attacking a school with a knife would not get far before he was tackled. And you can RUN from a knife-wielding attacker since they require close proximity to stab you.

Would you tell the parents of those 20 children take solace in statistics, and which dot they are?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
40. Why not? VA Tech had more deaths without an assault weapon
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:24 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Cho used handguns with standard clips. The largest mass murder in a school in US history was with explosives.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
82. Ummm... yes. That's not "splitting hairs". Cho used handguns. Ordinary handguns
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:49 PM
Apr 2013

He didn't even use high-capacity clips; he used standard clips.

Or are you saying any weapon with detachable magazines is now an "assault weapon"?

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
100. The VT murderer used a pistol. With standard mags. He killed more people.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:49 PM
Apr 2013

That ain't splittin' hairs, that's a scalping. And you are the victim.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
95. The VT murderer used a pistol. With standard mags. He killed more people.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:37 PM
Apr 2013

Used to be that people on the left had a greater respect for data, at least enough to evaluate it.

El Fuego

(6,502 posts)
102. Ah, the "people on the left." You're expressing aggravation with those "people on the left."
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:05 PM
Apr 2013

Riiightt. Pun intended.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
105. No "aggravation," just a little dismay. But you may not be on the left yourself, so...
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:25 PM
Apr 2013

my comment might not apply to you anyway.

But I did enjoy a time some years ago when intellectual inquiry was not held in such suspicion. If you are not on the "left," which may very well be the case, then my comments are not directed to you.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
44. LOL. Oh, I get it. The guy who wrote this is a right-winger who wrote a book about
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:29 PM
Apr 2013

the "fallacies" of the "anti-science left".
http://www.scienceleftbehind.com/

The picture is starting to emerge.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
47. Right, because data points care about ideology
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:33 PM
Apr 2013


But, I'll take the attack on the messenger as a concession.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
52. Right, because a person with an agenda can't tweak a regression to get the result they want.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:38 PM
Apr 2013

That never happens! Right-wing ideologues using misleading statistics? I'm shocked!

LOL. A non-peer reviewed blog entry by a right-winger.

You know, I still remember when I thought you were one of the reasonable pro-gun people, who didn't go for this kind of crap. Now I fear like it's just a matter of time until you start talking about how gun control caused the holocaust.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
56. No, you really can't "tweak" a linear regression. It just can't be done.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:43 PM
Apr 2013

It's the simplest math in the world. The only way he could be "tweaking" it is if he lied about which countries he's using. Hell, maybe he did; I don't know.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
61. You can if you get to pick which countries you include and which you don't.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:54 PM
Apr 2013

For example, you can pick a whole bunch of different sets of countries and pick the one set that favors your political outlook.

Another thing you can do is choose different variables. For example, "gun ownership" can mean either guns per capita, or percentage of people owning guns, or percentage of households owning guns. You can run all three of those regressions and only report the one that comes out the most in your favor.

And so on.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
63. So, yes, Hartsfield and Bezerow can both have done that. Like I said I'm running it for G-8 and G-20
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:55 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Which I have done before, and I doubt the data have changed much in the past 2 years. Will post in a few.

sigmasix

(794 posts)
106. obscuring the issue
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:55 PM
Apr 2013

Right wing anti-intellectualism disguised as critique is still right wing Anti-intellectualism. The CDC and many other legit peer reviewed studies have indicated repeatedly that there is a relationship. There is a particularly virulent strain of irresponsibility being displayed by the NRA and the rest of the "guns on demand" crowd. Grown-ups take responsibility for thier actions, words and deeds. Gun nuts, the NRA and other domestic terror organizations have been working overtime to communicate this type of anti-American refusal to take responsibility for thier actions to as many paranoid right wingers as possible.
I understand the desire to see yourself as a maverick gun owner, but adults dont continue the games of childhood. "shoot! shoot! bang! bang! I'm the hero!" is what little boys do. Grown men and women actually understand that the world is more complicated than the imaginary cops and robbers games of little boys.

Wasnt this OP a good refresher on the lengths right wing gun nuts will go to to evade responsibility and scientific facts. Next time we hear from them they can explain how smoking tobacco doesnt cause cancer.

Progressive dog

(6,864 posts)
51. FYI study written by RW "microbiologist"
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:38 PM
Apr 2013

See what he says about Paul Krugman's opinions on economics, it's right there. He doesn't do studies, he does attacks masquerading as studies.
For shame.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
54. It's not a "study". It's a linear regression.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:42 PM
Apr 2013

Berezow wasn't a "study" either.

This is two people answering two different questions using very simple statistics.

Berezow asked "does the rate of ownership of firearms correlate to the rate of homicide by firearm?" The answer is "yes".

Hartman asked "does the rate of ownership of firearms correlate to the rate of homicide?" The answer is "no", or "yes, very slightly negatively" depending on the level of significance you accept.

None of these are "studies"; they're simple looks at simple data.

Progressive dog

(6,864 posts)
59. And neither was the Laffer curve
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:52 PM
Apr 2013

What is your point? Berezow is a RW hack who says he is a microbiologist who has the chutzpah to attack Paul Krugman in his economics.
There is nothing simple about comparing data from different cultures, different circumstances, and different times. There are tens or hundreds of variables to account for to be able to see the response to a single variable. It is not looks at simple data unless the looker is also simple.
Apparently Mr' Berezow does meet the simple test or his readers do.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
62. The Laffer curve wasn't empirical or statistical
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:54 PM
Apr 2013
There is nothing simple about comparing data from different cultures, different circumstances, and different times. There are tens or hundreds of variables to account for to be able to see the response to a single variable. It is not looks at simple data unless the looker is also simple.

Obviously that's the case, and really what this argument is a proxy for is whether the US is "really" like Brazil or like Germany, and (more to the point) whether we can use gun regulations to make us more like Germany and less like Brazil. (Though Brazil's and Germany's gun laws are rather similar.)

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
65. It's hell on the people getting shot rate, though.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:01 PM
Apr 2013

America has a general problem with violence, and a particular problem with gun violence. Gun lobby rhetoric likes to hop all over and look at overall violence rates, shootings in areas that always have shootings, and on and on. A rhetorical grab-bag of whatever they say has to be proven to justify us not swimming in a sea of "tools" for murdering people.

People mostly get shot with guns. Mass shootings work best with high-capacity weapons. Countries without a lot of guns have fewer shootings.

Let's start there.

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
67. I have a hard time believing that the "success" rate for other weapons would be as high as guns. n-t
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:06 PM
Apr 2013

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
73. More people are killed with bare hands in the US than rifles
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:34 PM
Apr 2013


Crime doesn't always work the way we think it does.
 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
75. LOL, machine guns also, who cares. A handgun is a gun. I do not think as many murders would happen..
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:36 PM
Apr 2013

if people had to use non-guns.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
78. I guess it depends on whether the G-8 or the G-20 represents us better?
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:38 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022742722#post71

I did the same thing for G-8 and G-20. If the G-8 regression is more accurate, our homicide rate would go down with fewer guns. If the G-20 regression is more accurate, our homicide rate would go up with fewer guns. Are we more like Sweden and Germany, or Brazil and Mexico? I think that's an open question...

Viking12

(6,012 posts)
69. See also the National Academy of Sciences Report
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:10 PM
Apr 2013

FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE: A CRITICAL REVIEW
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

Date: Dec. 16, 2004
Contacts: Vanee Vines, Senior Media Relations Officer
Heather McDonald, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Data on Firearms and Violence Too Weak to Settle Policy Debates;
Comprehensive Research Effort Needed

WASHINGTON -- The role of guns in U.S. society is a subject of intense policy debate and disagreement. However, current research and data on firearms and violent crime are too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of various measures to prevent and control gun violence, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. A comprehensive research program on firearms is needed if criminal-justice and crime-prevention policy is to have a sound basis.

Some of today's most pressing policy issues in this area cannot be tackled with existing data and research methods, which are weak, the report says. For example:

-- There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. To date, 34 states have enacted these laws.

-- There is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effects on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms. More than 80 such programs exist.

-- Research has found associations between gun availability and suicide with guns, but it does not show whether such associations reveal genuine patterns of cause and effect.

"Policy questions related to gun ownership and proposals for gun control touch on some of the most contentious issues in American politics: Should regulations restrict who may possess firearms? Should there be restrictions on the number or types of guns that can be purchased? Should safety locks be required? These and many related policy questions cannot be answered definitively because of large gaps in the existing science base," said Charles F. Wellford, professor, department of criminology and criminal justice, University of Maryland, College Park, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. "However, we do know what kind of data and research are needed to fill those gaps and, in turn, inform policy debates in a more meaningful way."

The study committee was not asked to address any issues of policy and did not do so. Rather, the committee evaluated the research base on firearms violence and on prevention, intervention, and control strategies. It also explored how new methods of merging scientific findings and data could inform strategies for reducing gun-related crime, suicide, and accidental fatalities. The federal government should support a robust research program in this area, concluded the committee.

Firearms, Criminal Violence, and Privacy Issues

Research linking firearms to criminal violence and suicide is seriously limited by a lack of credible information on who owns firearms and on individuals' encounters with violence, the report says. Moreover, many studies have methodological flaws or provide contradictory evidence; others do not determine whether gun ownership itself causes certain outcomes.

Assessing the potential of several ongoing national surveys to provide useful data on firearms should be a starting point, the report says. For instance, questions about gun use and access could be added to or fine-tuned in the Monitoring the Future project or the Youth Risk Behavior Survey. For research purposes, scientists also need appropriate access to federal and state data on gun use, manufacturing, and sales.

One of the largest barriers to better understanding gun violence is the lack of high-quality and extensive data on gun ownership and use. Some people have expressed concerns about expanding the government's data on gun ownership. Others have noted that some individuals -- especially those who use guns illegally -- will always be reluctant to disclose ownership information. Yet scientists in other fields, such as health care, have found effective ways to collect individual data on sensitive topics while protecting privacy. Research is needed -- and can indeed be done -- to determine whether ownership data can be accurately collected with minimal risk to legitimate privacy concerns, the report says.

Do Firearms Deter Crime?

Many Americans keep firearms to defend themselves against criminals, but research devoted to understanding the defensive and deterrent effects of guns has resulted in mixed and sometimes widely divergent findings, the report says. In addition, the accuracy of responses in gun-use surveys is a topic that has not been thoroughly investigated. The committee called for systematic research to define what is being measured in studies of defensive and deterrent effects of guns, to reduce reporting errors in national gun-use surveys, and to explore ways that different data sets may be linked to answer complex questions.

Likewise, new research tools are needed to evaluate right-to-carry laws. Existing studies that use similar methods and data yield very dissimilar findings. Some studies indicate that the laws reduce violent crime. Other studies show negligible effects, while still others suggest that they increase violent crime. It is impossible to draw any strong conclusions about their effects from these studies, the report says.

A Look at Interventions

Firearms are bought and sold in both formal markets, such as gun shops, and informal ones, such as the underground economy. Market-based interventions aimed at reducing criminals' access to guns include taxes on weapons and ammunition, limits on the number of firearms that can be purchased in a given time period, and gun "buy back" initiatives. Arguments for and against these approaches are largely based on speculation rather than scientific evidence. Data on gun markets -- on how many guns are sold through various channels, or how systematically background checks are performed, for instance -- are virtually nonexistent. Greater attention should be paid to research design and data needs regarding gun markets, the report says. More studies also should be conducted on potential links between firearms policies and suicide rates.

Programs created to prevent gun violence are common in the nation's public schools. However, the actual effects of particular programs on violence and injury rates are difficult to predict, the report says. Some studies suggest that children's curiosity and teenagers' attraction to risk make them resistant to the programs or that the projects actually increase the appeal of guns. But few programs have been adequately evaluated. Gun-safety technologies, such as trigger locks, also have been proposed as a way to prevent injuries. Yet how these technologies affect injury rates remains unknown. Government programs for prevention of firearm violence should include evaluation.

Available scientific evidence on how policing interventions and tougher sentencing policies affect firearms violence is both limited and mixed, the report adds. Several cities, including Boston and Richmond, Va., have implemented highly publicized programs designed to suppress crime and gun offenses. It is difficult to gauge the value of the measures because social and economic factors behind criminal acts are often complex and interwoven, and the efforts are narrow in scope. Without much better research, the benefits and costs of policing and sentencing interventions remain largely unknown.

Data limitations are immense in the study of firearms and violence, the committee emphasized. The report calls for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System. No single data system can answer all questions about violent events, but it is important to start collecting accurate and reliable information that describes basic facts about violent injuries and deaths.

The report includes a dissenting opinion written by one committee member regarding the effects of right-to-carry laws on homicide rates, and a response by the committee.

The study was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Joyce Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.

Copies of Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. The cost of the report is $47.95 (prepaid) plus shipping charges of $4.50 for the first copy and $.95 for each additional copy. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?recordid=10881


* Note to mods: press release

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
74. The increase in suicides when firearms are available is, however, basically undeniable
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:35 PM
Apr 2013

Though Hawaii confounds that a little bit if you go state by state in the US.

Viking12

(6,012 posts)
90. Yes, the linked report ackonowledges such an association
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:16 PM
Apr 2013

Bullet point from the press release:

-- Research has found associations between gun availability and suicide with guns, but it does not show whether such associations reveal genuine patterns of cause and effect.

Details available within the report.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
70. Gibberish. NRA: giving math a bad name since 1950.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:25 PM
Apr 2013

Let's look at the second chart,


The trendline means exactly fucking nothing. See that outlier on the far right? That's us, and if all of our guns made us as safe as our standard of living would tend to suggest, we wouldn't be in the upper third of all countries for number of violent crimes.

If our standard of living were as low as most of the countries represented in this chart, yet retained all those guns it would be complete pandemonium.

Speaking of the relationship between guns and standard of living, it stands to reason that the citizens of the countries with the most guns probably have the disposable income to purchase this consumer good. What you're seeing here could be better plotted as violence vs standard of living - with the US being an outlier... arguably because of all the weapons.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
76. We're *entirely* an outlier, in both directions
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:36 PM
Apr 2013

We have many more guns than other countries, and much more violence than we "should" based on the number of guns we have.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
112. The negative effect of the guns is partially mitigated by our standard of living.
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:28 AM
Apr 2013

There isn't a straight line effect. Doubling our weaponry won't double the crime rate.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
77. It definitely increases the accidental-deaths-with-guns rate.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:37 PM
Apr 2013

I don't need any charts to prove that.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
79. Definitely. The increase in suicides is pretty much indisputable too
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:39 PM
Apr 2013

Though accidents are a relatively small percentage of gun deaths. Suicides are the vast majority of them.

pediatricmedic

(397 posts)
89. LOL, people here react on emotion, this funny math thing will not persuade them
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:13 PM
Apr 2013

And this might be beyond their understanding as well. Confused people just get angry and more stubborn.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
101. Well, so much for the hallowed position of math/science in some "progressive" circles.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:52 PM
Apr 2013

I pointed out post #69, which states much the same thing in a broader context. But I guess that's an NRAtalkingPoint (TM) as well.

Response to Recursion (Original post)

ashling

(25,771 posts)
107. How did he assign a number to privately owned guns in the US?
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:58 PM
Apr 2013

Sorry, I skimmed your post to get the jest. You may have mentioned this already.

former9thward

(31,807 posts)
110. A Harvard study disagrees.
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 11:42 PM
Apr 2013
“where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest,
and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

pediatricmedic

(397 posts)
113. How does it disagree?
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 12:32 AM
Apr 2013

If you want to cherry pick some sentences out of that, here are some:

"Thus, it is not just the murder rate in gun‐less Russia that is four times higher than the American
rate; the Russian suicide rate is also about four times higher than the American rate."

"There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death."

"To reiterate, the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism."

"The explanation of this correlation may be political rather than criminological: jurisdictions afflicted with violent crime tend to severely restrict gun ownership. This, however, does not suppress the crime, for banning guns cannot alleviate the socio‐cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates."


The study the OP sited was just a linear regression showing there is little to no correlation between firearm ownership and overall homicide rates. To put it in simple terms, if everyone in the US was forced to carry a gun, there would be virtually no change on homicide rates. The harvard study theorizes that suicide rates would not be affected much either.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
121. LOL. You guys crack me up with your pseudoscience. That's not a "Harvard study".
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 08:06 PM
Apr 2013

It's a non-peer reviewed article written by two gun advocates, and published in a right-wing law review edited by Harvard students.

Does the ignorance of gun fanatics have any limits?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
124. So are you going to try to defend your pseudoscientific study?
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 08:10 PM
Apr 2013

Or just run away with your tail between your legs.

Be honest. Did you actually think that was a "Harvard study"? Really?

former9thward

(31,807 posts)
125. I link to things in my posts.
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 08:12 PM
Apr 2013

You link to nothing because you have nothing. Have some study that disproves it? Post it.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
126. Is that a "yes"? So you're actually standing by that study?
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 08:15 PM
Apr 2013

Wow.

Do you know what peer review is? Or do you even care?

If you're interested in some actual, peer reviewed, science, help yourself. Be careful though. There's, like, math and stuff in there. Don't hurt yourself!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022745525

Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #117)

Ond

(2 posts)
123. You should look at the number of households that have guns
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 08:10 PM
Apr 2013

Using the number of guns per capita is useless, as it doesn't take into account the number of people that actually have guns.

A proper analysis of previous studies can be found here: http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf

Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more
likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in a
home without guns.Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8-fold increased risk of suicide in the home.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gun Ownership Neither Inc...