A graph I thought folks here might be interested in.

[TheWraith]

Since objective correlation is always hard to find here, I thought this was particularly interesting. It's a graph showing the rate of firearms-related deaths, rate of deaths per 100,000 people, rate of deaths per 100,000 guns, US population, number of guns in the US, number of shall-issue CCW states, and the rate of firearm ownership, all figures 1981 to 2006.

[spin]

1. Interesting. K&R (n/t)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. As far as the relevancy of the AWB passage and expiration...

What were the percentages of crimes committed each year with a qualifying Assault Weapon?
Do you think the passage of the AWB (attempted abolishment of these crimes) can account for the drop in firearm related deaths?

If not, I think the drop in deaths is not attributable to the passage of the AWB and there is no relation between firearm deaths and the AWB passage.

[TheWraith]

3. I don't know the numbers for the entire period...

But off the top of my head in 1993, "assault weapons" constituted roughly 2.5% of murders. In the first full year post-ban it was about 1.5%. In 2007 they represented 2.9% of murders and 6% of all crimes involving a gun.

[benEzra]

17. Never that high, unless you're looking at trace data...

and there was a strong Von Restorff bias toward "assault weapon" traces vs. handgun traces in the early '90s.

Given that the 1994 Feinstein law banned zero guns, and vastly increased sales of AR's/AK's/etc., looking for an effect in the homicide stats would be quixotic. My own AK is a 2002 model, FWIW.

[eqfan592]

4. I would say that because....

....the drop started well before the passage of the AWB that there is no evidence (at least not from this graph) that the AWB had any real impact on reducing the number of firearm related deaths. There is some correlation, however, between Shall Issue states and the reduction, but I don't know if this is a causal relationship.

[TheWraith]

5. I would say it's probably not causal...

Since we don't see a similar drop in the late '80s when "shall issue" was first starting to gain traction. Although of course some of that does depend on what states were passing the laws; for instance, "shall issue" in Virginia would have more effect on violent crime than "shall issue" in Nebraska.

Here's an image detailing each state's laws and when they've changed:

[slackmaster]

9. The AWB had no real effect on the availability of any particular kind of weapon

Pre-ban weapons were grandfathered. Firearm manufacturers were able to comply with the ban by making minor modifications to their products. The ban also spurred interest in firearms that were targeted by the ban.

The net effect of the AW "ban" was to drastically increase the number of "AWs" in circulation and the number of people who own them.

Of course it didn't have any effect on crime rates.

[Tim01]

6. Something happened in 1993, economic Ill bet.

Violence is more related to economy than it is to guns. I know we had a balanced budget under Clinton. That probably had a lot to do with it.

[X_Digger]

7. More police officers..

Clinton put over 100k cops on the streets. That's part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that gets overlooked often.

[The Doctor.]

12. Huge correlation. Well cited.

From 1991 to 2004, the number of guns rose by 30%, while the gun deaths per capita dropped by a similar percentage.

What was the biggest difference?

Not enough people to fill available jobs.

[krispos42]

14. Abortion was legalized in 1973

The 90's marked the beginning of the reduction of the population of likely teen criminals due to their mothers getting abortions in the 70's. To paraphrase "Freakonomics", mothers usually know when they won't be able to take care of their kid properly. After Roe v. Wade many pregnant women that were in shitty personal or economic situtations decided to abort instead of carrying to term. The babies that would have been in higher risk groups to become teen criminals, then later on adult felons, simply never materialized.

[slackmaster]

8. The overall trends are familiar to anyone who spends much time studying crime rates

Crime of ALL KINDS peaked in 1993-94 and has been on a downward trend since then.

[gorfle]

10. I know what caused it!

The internet came into popular use around 1993! :)

Now everyone sits on their asses and yells over their keyboard instead of killing each other.

[slackmaster]

11. Oh My Gawd!

I hadn't thought of that.

[hootinholler]

13. You might actually have something there. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Interesting that none of the gn grabbers have the stones to come discuss this.

[rd_kent]

22. I have noticed that too, Dave. Funny how when facts are in front of them

they seem to have nothing to say. Especially iverglas.

[iverglas]

26. you're aware of the rule against calling out?

The graph is interesting. Correlations are always worthy of consideration.

Anything else you'd like?

[rd_kent]

28. No, I see no such rule.

I see where I may not post personal attacks. You are one of the most vocal gungrabbers on this board. Its not personal, its opposition to your stance.

[iverglas]

29. well, you need help

I'm happy to offer it.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member.

[rd_kent]

30. Sorry about the "call out" then, my bad.

[JonQ]

16. You'll notice that the rates were dropping before

The brady act and AWB were passed.

So they got in on a preexisting trend and tried to take credit for it.

Several factors have been tied with a greater correlation to the drop in crime, including legalizing abortion nationally about 18 years prior, a better economy, and more cops on the street.

Unless the brady act was so amazing that it's effects could reverberate backwards in time, reducing crime before it was even written, then I'd say this is more of the "fun with statistics" we've seen from grabbers all along.

[Linoge]

18. Clarifying Origination

While my copyright does appear on the left side of the image (and, in retrospect, I am quite thankful I added that before I posted it), I would like to point out that the original image was developed by me and initially posted at my site here: http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/07/graphics_matter.html . Additionally, the root data of the information portrayed on the chart is also accessible at that post, for anyone's use (the numbers were public knowledge beforehand, I just consolidated them).

Thanks.

[iverglas]

27. more clarification, please

The purpose of your work, you say, is:

A few days ago, I demonstrated that the hypothesis of "more guns equal more deaths" is false, according to numbers accumulated by the CDC and BATFE.

The text in quotation marks links to:

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/07/the_numbers_are_out_there.html

where you say:

One specious myth that crops up from time to time when dealing with hoplophobic anti-rights advocates is that, as the number of firearms owned by citizens increases, so too does the number of firearm-related deaths. On the surface, this myth seems to hold water, simply because it is natural to think that the more pieces of a certain piece of equipment there are, the more often an accident could occur, or someone could misuse it and intentionally hurt someone else.

I'm still not actually seeing a source for the "quoted" text, or this "myth" you refer to.

I don't understand why you would choose to rebut a straw thing, and also why you would not address the question of how many gun owners, which really seems to be rather more relevant than how many guns. The rate of gun ownership has changed very little and very gradually.

I'm also quite curious what the full text of this "more guns more deaths" myth is: more deaths than what? Than if there had been fewer guns (or, to address the more relevant factor, fewer gun owners), in the same circumstances? If so, how would you know this to be false?

[russ1943]

19. Interesting but, of limited value.

The Firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people, on the chart indicates a beginning rate in 1981 of slightly less than 15,000 approximately, level till 1993 then declining till 1999 and stable since at just over 10,000.
It appears someone has charted murder and labeled it something else
Firearm related death isn’t just murder, it isn’t even the largest component of firearm related death, that would be suicide. If someone wants to chart murder then call it murder.
The Firearm related deaths per 100,000 people is widely available. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm and will closely parallel the redlined Number of Firearm-Related Death as they include the same components. Firearms related death and firearms related death per 100,000 people are the same category, one is the number the other is the rate.

As the National Academies (National Academy of Sciences) pointed out in their 2005 paper “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review” The existing data on gun ownership, so necessary in the committee’s view to answering policy questions about firearms and violence, are limited primarily to a few questions in the General Social Survey……………….The inadequacy of data on gun ownership and use is among the most critical barriers to better understanding of gun violence. Such data will not by themselves solve all methodological problems. However, its almost complete absence from the literature makes it extremely difficult to understand the complex personality, social, and circumstantial factors that intervene between a firearm and its use.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=3

The fact that the number of firearms in US.is far too imprecise/unknown to establish relationships and ratios, seriously undermines any “objective correlation” referenced in the OP. That makes three of the six lines of dubious value.

The General Social Survey referred to by the Academy of Sciences notes that; Gun ownership has been declining over the last 35 years.2006 GSS (General Social Survey). Household gun ownership; about a third or 33%. Personal gun ownership; less than a quarter or about 21%
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070410.guns.norc.pdf See Page 11

[russ1943]

21. MY ERROR.

Re; My post #19. Interesting but, of limited value.



(As the OP remarked)
I mistakenly saw "Firearms Related deaths per 100,000" (hundred thousand) and posted my remarks accordingly. The chart actually states "Firearms related deaths per 100,000,000" hundred million.


I apologize. My first paragraph is totally based on an incorrect assumption. I'm not reluctant to criticise information when I think it can be shown to be wrong and I'm able to acknowledge my post, was wrong.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. I disagree with you almost all the time, but you are to be commended for your candidness.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. 10 unrecs how fascist of the grabbers.

[rd_kent]

23. Hey gun grabbers, where are you now?

[rd_kent]

25. kick