Gun Ownership vs. Gun Homicides

[~Trigger~]

More garbage propoganda from the VPC...

~~~VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, “The equation is simple. More guns lead to more gun death, but limiting exposure to firearms saves lives.” ~~~~~

Umm, not quite, idiot....

Again if we look at the raw data for gun-related homicides, rather than the "Per Capita" statistics, it shows us this....

For 2008
> Wyoming - 60% ownership --> 0 homicides
> Alaska - 58% ownership ---> 15 Homicides
> South Dakota - 57% ownership ---> 10 homicides
> Idaho - 55% ownership ---> 13 homicides
> West Virginia - 56% ownership ---> 37 homicides

But yet...

> New York - 18% ownership --> 508 homicides
> California - 21% ownership --> 1,569 homicides
> Illinois - 20% ownership --> 631 homicides
> Florida - 25% ownership --> 886 Homicides
> Mayland - 21% ownership --> 379 homicides

Once again the VPC uses statistics to skew the facts. Its what they do.

 

[sooner]

Yes indeedy!

 

[jkray]

You list all of the homicides are those only homicides at the hands of guns or are the all homicides in the state? Wouldnt want the antis trying to say we skew our facts too.

 

[K31]

What? Gun grabbers lie? They lump in 18 and 19 y/o gang banging drug dealers as "children" with their statistics? They include suicides to bolster they're claim that you are X-times (X being any number greater than 2 but less than 1000) and more likely to be killed by your gun than kill a criminal?

I'm shocked that you would suggest that, shocked!

 

[erwos]

Again if we look at the raw data for gun-related homicides, rather than the "Per Capita" statistics, it shows us this....

I'm not trying to defend the VPC here, but I am going to call out people who use bad statistics, even on our own side. Comparing gun ownership percentages to homicide absolute numbers is not a valid comparison. You need to normalize the homicide rate to population (the usual metric is per 100k, I think?) for your numbers to be worthwhile.

Simply put, if gun ownership was 100%, NY, CA, IL, etc. would still have higher absolute numbers of homicides simply because there are way more people in those places than, say, Wyoming, Alaska, etc. More people = higher absolute number of crimes, holding everything else equal. That's why we normalize.

Also, a link to the VPC study you're criticizing would be good.

 

[A. Wayne]

well just for conversation, don't more guns equal more death? If there were none, no one would die from the use of the weapon.

 

[Robert]

Once again the VPC uses statistics to skew the facts. Its what they do.

It's just like the BGE Slogan... "Its what we do.."

 

[Robert]

well just for conversation, don't more guns equal more death? If there were none, no one would die from the use of the weapon.

More guns = greater deterrent. IMHO

 

[K31]

well just for conversation, don't more guns equal more death? If there were none, no one would die from the use of the weapon.

Yeah, there were no homicides before the invention of gun powder. People just peaceably passed in their sleep

 

[A. Wayne]

Yeah, there were no homicides before the invention of gun powder. People just peaceably passed in their sleep

good to know! I just figured if there weren't any guns, no one could die as a result of them. Somehow I must have figured wrong, again...

 

[paxfish]

I'm not trying to defend the VPC here, but I am going to call out people who use bad statistics, even on our own side. Comparing gun ownership percentages to homicide absolute numbers is not a valid comparison. You need to normalize the homicide rate to population (the usual metric is per 100k, I think?) for your numbers to be worthwhile.

Simply put, if gun ownership was 100%, NY, CA, IL, etc. would still have higher absolute numbers of homicides simply because there are way more people in those places than, say, Wyoming, Alaska, etc. More people = higher absolute number of crimes, holding everything else equal. That's why we normalize.

Also, a link to the VPC study you're criticizing would be good.

Agreed. Both attempts to correlate these are useless.

 

[~Trigger~]

You list all of the homicides are those only homicides at the hands of guns or are the all homicides in the state? Wouldnt want the antis trying to say we skew our facts too.

These are Homicides by firearm.

 

[~Trigger~]

I'm not trying to defend the VPC here, but I am going to call out people who use bad statistics, even on our own side. Comparing gun ownership percentages to homicide absolute numbers is not a valid comparison. You need to normalize the homicide rate to population (the usual metric is per 100k, I think?) for your numbers to be worthwhile.

Simply put, if gun ownership was 100%, NY, CA, IL, etc. would still have higher absolute numbers of homicides simply because there are way more people in those places than, say, Wyoming, Alaska, etc. More people = higher absolute number of crimes, holding everything else equal. That's why we normalize.

Also, a link to the VPC study you're criticizing would be good.

Actually I totally agree....

There are no real correlations between number of homicides and gun ownership, for or against. What the VPC has done is arbitrarily taken the top 5 and bottom 5 states from the CDC gun-death rate statistics, and said AH HAH!!, look more guns = more deaths. That alone, completely overlooks a number of other more important contributing factors.

What Im doing here is comparing the raw data with the CDC's statistics. And these two items when comapred with eachother produce polar opposite conclusions.

And yes, the only real correlation with gun deaths so far, as you mentioned, is more people. Ive found that gun homicides jump up after a population of more than 9 million people. Gun homicides also drop considerably when the state population is less than 3 million people.

VPC story link: http://www.vpc.org/press/1110gundeath.htm

 

[krucam]

good to know! I just figured if there weren't any guns, no one could die as a result of them. Somehow I must have figured wrong, again...

Continuing to work the theory:

Take away guns from everyone (yes, even M&P) and there will be no more gun deaths.

Also, take away all cars and there will be no more auto deaths.

Oh, no more multi-story buildings and there will be no more injuries on steps.

 

[~Trigger~]

I never liked statistics. I prefer to just stick with the raw data from which the statistics were derived from.

I find that usually to be much more enlightening.

 

[A. Wayne]

Continuing to work the theory:

Take away guns from everyone (yes, even M&P) and there will be no more gun deaths.

Also, take away all cars and there will be no more auto deaths.

Oh, no more multi-story buildings and there will be no more injuries on steps.

facts is facts

 

[rambling_one]

Continuing to work the theory:

Take away guns from everyone (yes, even M&P) and there will be no more gun deaths.

Also, take away all cars and there will be no more auto deaths.

Oh, no more multi-story buildings and there will be no more injuries on steps.

Some time back IIRC the PG Police were quoted as saying something like: If stores would close their doors at 6pm there would be no more night robberies.

 

[Atlasarmory]

100% of people die from death

 

[A. Wayne]

100% of people die from death

Now THAT could easily be a headline on Fox,CNN, or MSN!

 

[Gambler]

If you are going to discuss statistics, you definitely need to take into account other factors such as population density, etc.

I am curious what the statistics are on the percentage of murders by somebody who legally owns the firearm.