Study: States With Loose Gun Laws Have Higher Rates Of Gun Violence
Source: ThinkProgress
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its allies in Congress frequently claim that gun violence is highest in places with the toughest crime laws. But a new study from the Center for American Progress (CAP) suggests something closer to the opposite is true the states with laxer gun laws tend to be the ones contributing the highest shares of national gun deaths and injuries.
The authors of the report, called America Under The Gun, developed a list of ten indices of gun violence, ranging from gun homicide levels to firearm assaults to crime gun export rate (the number of guns sold in that state used in crimes around the country), and ranked each state from 1-50 along each index. They then took the average of each states ranking to determine its overall level of gun violence relative to other states. Lousiana was the highest, with an average of fifth-worst across all ten indices, while Hawaiis 45.4 ranking was the best.
A statistical regression comparing these rankings with strength of gun law found a correlation between weak gun laws and violence levels as measured by the 10-index average. Comparing a states relative ranking in strength of gun law (as judged by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence) to a states relative gun violence ranking yielded clear evidence that states with looser gun laws contributed more to the national gun violence epidemic:
While many factors contribute to the rates of gun violence in any state, our research clearly demonstrates a significant correlation between the strength of a states gun laws and the prevalence of gun violence in the state. Across the key indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high104 percent higherthan the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/03/1811311/study-states-with-loose-gun-laws-have-higher-rates-of-gun-violence/
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,308 posts)Drale
(7,932 posts)I am shocked SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!!
beevul
(12,194 posts)It is dishonest at best. The only way this argument is made is by using per capita rates, and looking only at the "type" of crime that fits the narrative. Arkansas murders= 294 Illinois murders= 1378 but this study ranks AR as one of the worst & IL as one of the best...c'mon. These sort of cherry picked stats also leave out relative info like the fact that IL number of violent crimes committed without a gun death was 645,408, burglaries 527,572, rape 4,313, etc . Total reported crimes for the ENITIRE state of AR in 2011 was 124,424..IL 12,869,257. If AR had the same overall crime rate as IL EVERY citizen of AR would be the victim of a crime 6 times per year. I have lived in Chicago, Atlanta, San Antonio, & now Arkansas..trust me, I'm safer here
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)That map makes Arkansas look like the Wild West. But I have been in places in California, New York, New Jersey, and other states where I wouldn't want to enter day or night.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And in any case, my mathematically-challenged friend, the rate of death is a more accurate way of determining the actual effect of a particular law in a community. If a town has 1000 people, and 200 people are killed each year, is that town safer than a city of 100,000 that has 300 people killed each year? The death rate for the town in 20%, for the city it's 0.3%.
Stop with the extremist RW NRA stupidity, OK?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Those who are "mathematically-challenged", wouldn't likely know the difference between rates and raw numbers, or why that difference is significant. I do.
I live near a small town we'll just call bumfuck, for sake of discussion.
"Bumfuck" has a real, factual and true population of 34 people.
If theres a single death in "Bumfuck" with by gun, thats 1 in 34.
Thats a RATE of 2941 per 100k. If one were to look ONLY at that rate, it would seem bumfuck has a gun violence epidemic of monumental proportions on their hands, wouldn't it? Gee, is there something in their water or what?
On the other side of the coin, a larger population example of say 20 million, with the same rate, would have 1188200 hypothetical gun deaths. For sake of discussion, well call it "megaville".
So say this hypothetical city of megaville DOES have a gun death epidemic. Say 100000 die by guns. Thats 200 per 100k. A rate roughly 14.5 times Roughly lower that Bumfuck. Without looking at the exact numbers, it sure looks like bumfuck has a huge problem on their hands, compared to megaville, doesnt it?
Put simply, this study implies that states with the loosest gun laws have the worst gun violence problems. Clearly, they don't. That's what we have here. Nothing more, nothing less, and it isn't "nra extremism" to point it out.
But you knew that, even before you hit the "post my reply!" button.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I know what you mean about the rates, but I was struck by a few things.
1) The four largest states are all over the map so to speak. Florida is orange, New York and Texas yellow, and California is green. It his were merely biased on population, they would be closer together I would think.
2) There appears to be no correlation at all to population. You have a wide range of population densities that are labeled red. Truth is, the red appears to some extent to be a "southern" problem. Although it is notiable that Texas is not among them. In fact, there is a strange "break" in the "belt" with Texas and Oklahoma.
3) There doesn't appear to be a strong "border" problem. i.e. you can have a green state up against red states. You have states "surrounded" by other states of different colors. Look at Nebraska.
At the end of the day gun laws are probably contributing to this phenomenon, although I suspect "culture" for a lack of a better expression may have more to do with it. Some correlation there as well because the necessary culture probably also produces the necessary laws.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)
And to say that urban areas are of course violent places simply because they're urban areas, while rural areas aren't violent simply because they're rural shows great deal of bigotry on your part, don't you think?
America has a huge problem with gun violence, and it starts in the states with lax gun laws. It's people like you who stand it the way of sensible gun laws who are responsible for that problem.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"And to say that urban areas are of course violent places simply because they're urban areas, while rural areas aren't violent simply because they're rural shows great deal of bigotry on your part, don't you think?"
And to say imply or assert, that I actually said such a thing, shows a great deal of dishonesty and disingenuousness on your part, don't you think? To get that out of what I said, you had to expose my words to a degree of torture which would make waterboarding look like a manicure. Nothing accidental about that. Is that what your side of the issue means when they say "we need to have a discussion"?
"America has a huge problem with gun violence, and it starts in the states with lax gun laws. It's people like you who stand it the way of sensible gun laws who are responsible for that problem.
I don't deny gun violence exists, or that it exists at problem levels. I don't even disagree that some states with laxer laws have higher "rates". What I do disagree with, is that higher "rates" mean a bigger problem.
And I disagree with you and your smug assumption that You and your entire side of the gun debate, are the soul arbiters of definition of the word "reasonable", when the fact is, you aren't.
looking at it as "per capita" rates & looking ONLY at gun deaths and not total violent crime is a way to make the study say what they want it to say.
fredzachmane
(85 posts)of violent crime in IL vs AR. Do only victims of gun crime matter?
samsingh
(17,571 posts)I totally agree with you
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)My home state of Oregon, for example...
So even without confirming the study's methodologies, it would still seem that the correlation isn't all that firm...and that region matters more than comparative stringency of gun regulations.
Aggregating by state seems misleading, too: of the five cities with the highest rates of violent gun-related crime (according to 2010 FBI figures), three are in high-control states which have an overall low level of violence. Yet those cities are subject to the same regulations as the rest of their respective states...
fredzachmane
(85 posts)Drownings go up at the beach when Ice Cream sales go up,
Ice cream causes drownings.
There is clearly a correlation.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)Regional cultures clearly count for something. The honor-based culture of the South is always going to make for more crimes of violence. But within the New England/New York area, Vermont and New Hampshire are the only states that show up in light green. And that looks like it's the effect of those loose gun laws.
formercia
(18,479 posts)I can go down the road a bit and buy a suppressed Machine Gun, not that I would or care to. The Gunsmith will even customize it to suit your tastes.
Most of what is seen here, could be described as Crimes of Passion with a few Drug related incidents thrown in.
My opinion is that this chart has a bias built into it. It's so easy to figure out: Big blocks of Red and Green. One doesn't even have to study the Data to come to an easy conclusion.
I think it's a societal issue, not a Gun issue. It takes an Asshole to pull a Trigger.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)there may be a reason for that division based on actual data and reality
tabasco
(22,974 posts)because it snowed this winter.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:54 AM - Edit history (1)
It's a fact - Vermont and NH have some of the 'loosest' (whatever the f that means - I prefer liberal) gun laws in the country.
Also, Kentucky, Utah, Kansas and are known to have very liberal gun laws.
So do Arizona and Texas.
Except for Arizona, none of those states are that glowing fire engine run away and hide red color on the map. Vermont, Utah and NH are that nice cool cucumber green.
This is what the article says:
While many factors contribute to the rates of gun violence in any state, our research clearly demonstrates a significant correlation between the strength of a states gun laws and the prevalence of gun violence in the state. Across the key indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high104 percent higherthan the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.
STUDY: States With Loose Gun Laws Have Higher Rates Of Gun Violence
The actual study uses these criteria to rank states according to their gun laws:
In November 2012 the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence released an extensive analysis examining the relative strength and weakness of each states gun laws.29 It considered 29 policy approaches to addressing gun violence, and states received points for having strong laws designed to prevent gun violence such as requiring background checks for all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and requiring an applicant to demonstrate the need for a concealed weapon before being issued a permit to carry one. States lost points for laws that impede law enforcement or protect the interests of gun manufacturers such as laws providing legal immunity to gun sellers and bans on doctors providing information regarding the risks of firearms to patients. Using this methodology, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ranked the states based on the strength of their gun laws.
While many factors influence the rate of gun-related violence in any state, comparison of these rankings with the aggregate ranking of states based on gun-violence outcomes reveals a significant correlation between weak state gun laws and increased gun violence in a state. Across the key gun-violence indicators that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high as the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.
America Under the Gun A 50-State Analysis of Gun Violence and Its Link to Weak State Gun Law
Most people accept that climate change is happening. However, not all people accept or understand the difference between correlation and causation. Personally, I am not particularly impressed with an R squared value of .4214.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,163 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,361 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)seems pretty clear cut to me.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)Illinois isn't even close to being one of the worst states.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Sandy Hook and other murders of innocents minding their own business vs two rival gangs feuding. Some will see a death and why doesn't matter. Others will see a difference and weigh one higher than the other. Does public opinion match better when certain types of deaths are weighted differently?
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Science is so prosaic.
yellowcanine
(35,692 posts)Are criminals less likely to commit violence with a gun? And who stops the "bad guys with guns" if the "good guys" can't get guns? Is the NRA lying?
lark
(23,003 posts)This is another NRA myth. The shooting at Ft. Stewart proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you have a gun in your home, you are 4 times more likely to be shot than a home without guns and 5 times more likely to have a suicide. Guns are only good for killing, not protection, in the vast majority of cases.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)yellowcanine
(35,692 posts)This could be fun!
happyslug
(14,779 posts)It was know by the 1600s, that the American South and the American North had different attitude to how society should be organized, how much violence should be permitted, how much support for the poor, and how much taxes should be paid.
In many ways, the US has always been two Countries with a huge overlap.
The Puritans of New England, when they establish a new town, first built a Church. Now a Puritan Church was more then a place for religious people to meet, it was a place EVERYONE was expected to meet when community meetings took place (including people NOT of the Puritan Faith). The Puritans forced people to pay high taxes, so that the towns could have good central meeting places, the poor was taken care of. People as early late as the 1800s noted that a frontier town founded by New Englanders continued this Puritan tradition, the towns were well organized, the poor were taken care of, fire departments were formed, Churches were built and maintained (and used as meeting places). If someone was hurt, the town would turn out.
The South, had a different start and different outlook, again notice first in the 1600s, and was still seen in new frontier towns founded in the 1800s. Unlike the Puritans when came over to build a better home for themselves and their children (the City on the Hill Concept), the South was settled by Second sons of the Nobility of England who wanted to make a quick buck. Thus violence to Native America was common, violence against other people of the colony was common. These second sons wanted to make money as quickly as possible and did not care how, thus slavery appeared to them. The chief problem with slavery is how do you keep a man (or woman) a slave, when the frontier was less then a week's walk away? (Escaped slaves forming "Maroon" colonies were a problem till the Civil War). The answer was simple, violence and even death if a slave even gave someone the impression he or she was thinking of running away. Whippings were common, including be whipped to death. The Slave owners even demanded that the Sheriff's of the Colony form "Sheriff's Patrols" to guard certain intersections for escaped slaves. Every free White male of the South had to do this Patrol at least once a month. When on Patrol, the members of the Patrol had the right to detain anyone who came by and even kill any African American (free or slave) if they thought is was "needed" (and if they did kill an African American, the county paid the owner of the slave the value of the slave, if the African American was a Freeman, he and his family was out of luck).
While the Puritans were the dominate church in New England and to the area later settled by New Englanders (Including Ontario and most of areas on both sides of the Great Lakes), the Church of England was the Church of the South, but then only as a state Church (more a place where someone went to make sure certain papers were signed and recorded and where you went if you were poor and needed welfare). In many ways, do to how the Church of England in the South was run prior to the Revolution, it was more Un-churched then the rest of the Country (in fact it was the Southern States that "Freed" the State Church by embracing Separation of Church and State right after the Revolution, less to do with wanting Church and State Separate, then to get out of paying welfare, which every state had but run via the State Church in Colonial America, Puritan Massachusetts did not separate its Church and State till 1837, through again it was a State cost cutting move, Cutting the State Budget by Cutting Welfare which was run through the Churches, but then claiming you doing it for Separation of State and Church).
Yes, religious leaders in the South Justified Slavery, but that was after such churches were "Freed" from the State and had to rely on donation from their members (and following the attitude the South had to the State, i.e. paying the least for State and Church Services).
As you can see, the South had less a sense of Community (Nothing, but business for the urban centers they did have, churches and other activities were given almost no support, unlike the North, where churches and other community activities became the center of most of the towns founded by New Englanders).
Now, the south did develop a habit of males having a lot of friends, most of whom were people who often were in the same Patrol Shifts. Thus upstaging each other in intimidation of Slaves became common, Worse, looking weak became something to fear. All of this lead to a high level of violence in the days before the Civil War.
On the other hand, the South, tended to be settled from people of North England, the highlands of Scotland and Protestants from Ireland (We are talking 1700s here, some the Catholic Irish migrated to the US in the 1700s but the numbers were quite small, the big move by the Catholic Irish was after the famine of the 1830s). These populations, Northern England, Highlands of Scotland and from Protestant Ireland also tended to come from herding communities, with a long history of stealing other people's cattle and watching for such attempted thieving themselves. Given that cattle and be moved miles within days, it was customary for such herding communities NOT to wait for justice through a court system, but to stop the thieving as it was occurring. This tradition was brought with these groups to the American South and increase the level of Violence, a Level already high do to the need to keep the Slaves in line.
Now, after the Civil War, this tradition of violence did NOT go away, dueling died out, or more accurately, formal duels that were published in the papers as duels died out by the 1880s (most were died out during reconstruction, when bans on dueling were enforced), but people would still show up for fights when called out by someone else. A Study done in the 1990s showed that Rural White Southern Males were much more ready to fight in a given situation then were other white males from the same collage. This tendency was less seen in Urban areas, but mostly due to the influx of people from the North making such urban areas more North in attitude.
One of the comment about the 1960s was that the Murder rate in most Northern Cities started to exceed the National Murder Rate for the First time in history, even called it a huge urban crime rate. The problem was, a lot of Middle Class whites left the inner city, and took they low murder rate with them. African Americans from the South moved to those old urban areas and brought with them the High Southern Murder Rate (Just because African Americans had been the victim of such murder rates did not mean they did not absorb them when they lived in the south). This dual move, meant the South could maintain its high rural murder rate (Often higher then any inner city murder rate), but inner cities became known as murder centers, not the rural south
African Americans raised in the South appears to have absorb the Southern tendency to violence. Most such African Americans moved North in the 1940s and 1950s, by the 1960s most African Americans who were going to make that move, had done so and with it you saw a steady increase in urban violence.
Then, as that immigration ended and the children of the people who had moved north prior to 1960 came of age (and later their Grandchildren and great grand children) you saw a steady DECLINE in the urban and African American Murder rate. The reason was simple, bring in the north each generation slowly absorbed the dominant culture in their area, but that culture was that of the NORTH, not the South. Thus as you get more and more generation away from the Rural South, African American murder rates slowly drops.
My point here is the South is noted for its high crime rate, its high murder rate, and its refusal to pay for anything that can reduce it. Given a free choice the South will prefer to NOT to enforce any law, and leave people kill each other in the open street if the rest of the world would leave them (and it would NOT drive to many businesses away).
Thus the map shows the traditional split in the US, between the North and the South, Between New England (and its sister states directly south of the Great Lakes and California) and the American South and its sisters states (which include Southern California before LA boomed starting about 1900, thus LA, in many ways, still a Southern City, but has strong liberal tendencies due to the Movie Industry AND aerospace industry (Both like areas that are livable but have as little rain as possible, but still have something you can call grass in the front yard). LA is thus a confusing mixture of both cultures, something that happens in other places in the US, but not to the extend in an URBAN area as in LA.
Side note: New York City was tied in with the South from the Revolution to the Civil War, it is where the South went to get mortgages on its slaves so they can have money to buy more land and slaves. Thus New York City has strong Southern Ties. much like LA. The Middle States really starts with Philadelphia, to a limited degree New Jersey and Maryland. Works around Pittsburgh (Which, in many ways a New England, Middle and Southern City, but also its own given its coal and steel history). Then along the Ohio to Missouri, then it tends to mingle with New England's movement West. The South influences this Middle State movement, but it was balanced by New England movement. The overlapping becomes to extreme once you hit Denver and the Rockies and thus almost impossible to separate, but then the Rockies do NOT have the high murder rate of the South or New Mexico and Arizona. Just a comment on the overlap of these three movement west, and how they show up, over 150 years after most of the area I just mentioned was settled,
LarryNM
(493 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,219 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The only major 'ban' in WA is on fully automatic weapons. No class III.
Other that that we have open carry, silencers, assault weapons, etc.
sakabatou
(42,083 posts)bubbayugga
(222 posts)of any kind. I can drive around with an AR15 in the gun rack mounted on the back window of my pickup truck. yet we have one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country. How is that even possible? I think there must be something else contributing to this correlation.
Judi Lynn
(160,219 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Apple:
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its allies in Congress frequently claim that gun violence is highest in places with the toughest crime laws.
Orange:
But a new study from the Center for American Progress (CAP) suggests something closer to the opposite is true the states with laxer gun laws tend to be the ones contributing the highest shares of national gun deaths and injuries.
The usual deception.
Suicide is doubtless included in the "gun deaths and injuries" number, which has nothing to do with tough crime laws.
And the relative strength of a state's gun laws is determined by an anti-gun organization, which doubtless gives weight to such useless measures bans on assault weapons (rifles with pistol grips) and magazine-capacity limits (very few murders involve shooting more than 11 rounds).
You can also draw a direct correlation between total violence and things like poverty and education quality and educational level.
If we are able to push through the corporate money and get our liberal values of quality and free primary and secondary education, unionization, clean environment, prison and drug law reform, and health care implemented, then not only will the violence rate go down (including gun violence), but the quality of life will go up.
Lowering the gun-ownership rate instead will not really lower the violence rate, and definitely will not raise the quality of life.