I believe as a blogger that one of our purposes in writing is to ask the question, 'Is that true?', and then to try to correlate more than one source to answer the question. One of the things we are here to do is to challenge assumptions. In the 1/14/'11 Friday Factcheck.org weekly update was this little gem fact checking a claim made by Senator Mike Lee of Utah:
Lee: And to the contrary, I think there is abundant research suggesting that in cities where more people own guns, the crime rate, especially the murder rate actually goes downFactcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania countered this false claim by Senator Lee:
I was intrigued by this study, the article by Richard Florida with the assistance from Charlotta Mellander. The Geography of Gun Deaths, which included great visuals in the form of maps showing various correlations. To begin we have their map showing the number of deaths by firearm injury per 100,000 population in 2007. I would like tomake the distinction that this is not a perfect correlation to Senator Lee's statement, as he refers specifically to cities, while these stats pertain to entire states (and D.C.) and there figures are not limited to murder, but rather reflect all gun deaths: murder and other homicides, suicides, self-defense or police shootings of criminals or by criminals, and accidental gun deaths of all kinds.That’s not true. A causal relationship between prevalence of gun ownership and crime hasn’t been established by researchers.
I couldn't help but notice the difference in he rates of gun deaths between Alaska and Hawaii. What most interested me about this article was that it was more nuanced and comples in correlating multiple factors in understanding gun violence, whether we deem those shootings good or bad, instead of simply making simplistic claims which were not supported by evidence.
"With these data in hand, I decided to look at the factors associated with gun deaths at the state level. With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, we charted the statistical correlations between firearm deaths and a variety of psychological, economic, social, and political characteristics of states. As usual, I point out that correlation does not imply causation, but simply points to associations between variables."Looking at the first factor addressed in the Florida article, which relates directly to the events in Tucson last Saturday, we begin with what factors do not appear to correlate, following the refutation by factcheck.org that gun ownership equates to lower murder rates in cities, we have this:
"It is commonly assumed that mental illness or stress levels trigger gun violence. But that's not borne out at the state level. We found no statistical association between gun deaths and mental illness or stress levels."
Another factor which is self-reported to the NCIS in passing a federal gun purchase check, is drug use; this was also a factor in the Giffords shooting, with allegations that alleged shooter Jared Loughner had past brushes with the law relating to drug use. Apparently....no; it is another false assumption that this correlation exists in gun deaths.
We found no association between illegal drug use and death from gun violence at the state levelThe next two factors examined by Florida in his study that showed no correlation were unemployment and inequality.
Some might think gun violence would be higher in states with higher levels of unemployment and higher levels of inequality. But, again, we found no evidence of any such association with either of these variables.
What does correlate to gun deaths? What factors, unlike Senator Lee's statement, actually DO relate to gun deaths? We have three that loosely relate to each other [my emphasis added - DG].
Poverty is one. The correlation between death by gun and poverty at the state level is .59.Then we got into some really interesting statistical correlations between gun deaths and political ideology [my emphasis again].
An economy dominated by working class jobs is another. Having a high percentage of working class jobs is closely associated with firearm deaths (.55).
And, not surprisingly, firearm-related deaths are positively correlated with the rates of high school students that carry weapons on school property (.54).
What about politics? It's hard to quantify political rhetoric, but we can distinguish blue from red states. Taking the voting patterns from the 2008 presidential election, we found a striking pattern: Firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain (.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-.66). ...Partisan affiliations alone cannot explain them; most likely they stem from two broader, underlying factors - the economic and employment makeup of the states and their policies toward guns and gun ownership.There are some other factors which actually correlate to lower rates of death by firearms. I would draw our readers' attention to the last one, immigration, as this statistical correlation also demolishes a common assumption.
Firearm deaths were far less likely to occur in states with higher levels of college graduates (-.64) and more creative class jobs (-.52).Next we move on to gun control - does it reduce the rate of deaths? Not surprising to some of us, yes it does.
Gun deaths were also less likely in states with higher levels of economic development (with a correlation of -.32 to economic output) and higher levels of happiness and well-being (-.41).
And for all the terrifying talk about violence-prone immigrants, states with more immigrants have lower levels of gun-related deaths (the correlation between the two being -.34).
And what about gun control? As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Might tighter gun control laws make a difference? Our analysis suggests that they do.
Florida and Mellander provide another excellent map to lay this out in a clear visual; a picture is worth a thousand words. They sum up the three main varieties of gun control, and the correlation to firearm deaths.
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).And Florida and Mellander provide us another great visual to illustrate these correlating stats:
Thanks so much for the mention. You know, what I find so fascinating about the gun debate is that both sides are saying exactly opposite things and both are so convinced they're right.
ReplyDelete@More guns equals less crime@ is one of the favorite pro-gun themes, which to me seems absolutely ridiculous.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting Mike.
ReplyDeleteI hope there are differences in our convictions that we have the correct view.
Neither Pen nor I are anti-gun, so much as I believe I can correctly speak for both of us that we are in opposition to guns as a fetish.
In case what I mean by a fetish is perhaps unclear, here is the dictionary definition that sums up all the aspects of that gun attitude.
fet·ish
–noun
1. an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.
2. any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.
3. Psychology . any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.
dictionary meaning.
If there is any question that the (alleged) shooter of the victims in Tucson had a fetish for his Glock, I believe the recent photos of him in a red g-string with the weapon puts his relationship in perspective. I also believe that it was sadly true that the shooter was most likely a person who without his Glock felt powerless and a failure. Because the gun, and what he did with it, made him more of a failure, and more alienated from people in his state, not more successful or more powerful or more accepted.
Sadly, too many who are pro-gun also seem to have made firearms a fetish as well, which I think offers some insight into the position that all we need to be safe is.......more guns. And more guns, there are never apparently enough guns for some people.
Instead, what I think we need is to understand when guns are owned so as to be safe, and under what conditions they are used violently. But that is a more nuanced and complex question, and it is one which is best answered objectively and analytically, not ideologically.
What isn't addressed here is the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in McDonald v. Chicago 561 US ____ (2010) in which the court held that the 2nd amendment DOES apply, through the 14th amendment, to state and local governments. You can lament all you want about firearms laws and the lack thereof. You can whine all you want about a need for more gun control, (which is usually a thinly veiled disguise for making most people ineligible to own and buy firearms), but you can't run away from that decision.
ReplyDeleteWashington, D.C., prior to Heller v. U.S. 554 US 570 (2008) had some of the strictest gun control laws of any US jurisdiction. Most private persons were not allowed to own firearms under any circumstances, and getting a buy permit was next to impossible. Yet, there were 1,461 murders in DC between 2001 and 2008. The DC law was passed in 1976, yet between then and 2008, over 8,400 people were killed by handguns in Washtington, DC. That averages 262 people per year. I wouldn't say that "handgun control" was particularly effective. I note that the year after Heller v. U.S., 2009, handgun murder rates dropped to 141.
Let's not use this tragedy to demonize guns and those who own them. I realize that DG does not intend to do this, but harping on this theme is merely giving additional ammunition (no pun intended) to those who would like to completely disarm Americans.
ToE wrote:
ReplyDelete"You can lament all you want about firearms laws and the lack thereof. You can whine all you want about a need for more gun control, (which is usually a thinly veiled disguise for making most people ineligible to own and buy firearms), but you can't run away from that decision."
I'm not lamenting, whining, or making any thinly disguised threat against anyone's gun rights here.
I AM arguing for a more objective, complex, and thoughtful understanding of what does - and does not - cause gun deaths. Which is not the simplistic, inaccurate, conservative faux 'common sense' approach that regards gun with a fetish attitude rather than a more objective and thoughtful approach, to implement what is effective in reducing gun deaths.
If you read what I wrote, there were MULTIPLE factors which equated to markedly lower gun deaths. (The attitude that we simply need more people carrying more guns was not one of them.)
We need to pay attention to ALL of those factors to reduce gun violence - both injuries and death.
What IS important is to reduce those deaths and injuries if we can. We at least should try. Clearly, simply having gun laws doesn't help, especially if we don't enforce the ones we have with the federally mandated NCIS check by maintaining an even remotely current and complete list.
So far, the only suggestions I have advocated is bringing that data base up to date, not restricting anyone who legally can own a gun from having one. And closing the guns show / private party sales loophole for gun sales without those sales going through that check.
I strongly protest the idea that either of those two suggestions are some kind of threat against gun rights, thinly disguised or otherwise. They certainly don't contradict any SCOTUS decisions.
ToE, could you post the link, please, for the stats you cited? I'm curious if there is anything that shows a cause and effect correlation that a decline in gun deaths was from a more permissive gun law, or if it could be from multiple other factors (like, oh, cracking down on guns in schools with metal detectors or a change of tolerance for guns in schools). Thanks.
dog gone, I like your last comment very much. Effectively we don't have gun control in America, in spite of the mish-mash of overlapping and easily circumvented laws.
ReplyDeleteWhat your commenter said about folks wanting to completely disarm Americans is just so much paranoia. There are people who say that, but it's certainly not the main thrust of the gun control movement nor is it likely to ever happen.
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
ReplyDelete-Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum. The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
-Janet Reno
Tell me again how the gun control movement is just trying to make a few reasonable changes and not totally ban gun ownership.
Here is a neat page also
ReplyDeletehttp://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry
They use FBI stats on violent crime and show that after concealed carry laws take effect the murder rate went down in Texas, Michigan, and Florida. Also although we have a lot more guns than cars deaths in cars make up over 30% of fatal accidents while accidental gun deaths make up less than 1% of the total.
Tuck, Sarah Brady is one person, not an entire movement.
ReplyDeleteI believe that (if memory serves) if you look at the comment made by Janet Reno in context, it was relating to assault weapons, not all weapons.
So.......yes, we are talking about reasonable changes here - closing the gun show loophole, bringing the federal data base current (unless you disagree with the existing criteria for prohibiting gun sales?), and banning the oversized magazines.
While the Tea Party talks about 2nd Amendment remedies, apparently to mean that they are intending to start a shooting war with the government and their fellow citizens, based on factually inaccurate disinformation.
It isn't the gun regulators folks that worry me; they're not the ones who show up with weapons and talk of shooting people. They talk about compromise and reasonable legislation, that would require some cooperation between conservatives and liberals.
What agenda there might have been in 1994 was a decade and a half ago. This is now.
The gun "control" movement in the US has stated for a long time that they want nothing less than a total ban on most if not all guns. This is the political mantra, and I've never seen anything countering the points that Tucker brought up.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the gun control group won't get its way. McDonald v. Chicago 561 US ____ (2010) made it perfectly clear that the 2nd amendment applies to states as well as the federal government, and that banning handguns is not going to pass constitutional muster. This isn't something that can be overturned except by the SCOTUS itsself (i.e. reversing itsself, not likely), or by a Constitutional amendment, (again, unlikely)
However, the opinion in McDonald and in District of Columbia vs. heller 554 US 570 (2008) both made it clear that this was not a blanket pass. Some regulation will pass constitutional scrutiny, but the justices, as usual, did not elaborate on the extent of the regulation.
ToE wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe gun "control" movement in the US has stated for a long time that they want nothing less than a total ban on most if not all guns.
The only gun control legislation that was a ban was on assault weapons, not a ban on all firearms.
The gun 'control' movement has never been as monolithic as you are attempting to paint it.
In any case, I doubt anyone in the gun regulation movement post Heller expects that there will be an elimination of firearms. In Minnesota, the right to hunt, including with firearms, is part of our state constitution, for example.
Given the opinion of 2nd amendment advocates such as Robert Levy, see the above post, I suspect that despite the declared position of Speaker Boehner, a ban on large capacity clips may very well pass both the House and Senate, and survive a SCOTUS challenge as well.
I've asked Pen to write something about the premise that U.S. residents should be free to arm themselves to a parity with the U.S. military to fulfill the 2nd Amendment intention that citizens should be able to overthrow their government if they so choose. Somehow, I'm just not seeing the civilian ownership of 50 caliber machine guns, rocket propoelled grenade launchers, etc. any time soon. But I leave Pen to address that subject, when he has time and when and if he finds an inclination.
Unless you would like to, ToE? Tuck? Or perhaps all of the above?
The SCOTUS didn't directly address the issue of civilians owning things such as 50 caliber machine guns, rocket launchers, etc. However, the opinions in Heller and McDonald made it clear that the 2nd amendment isn't open ended. I think that the restrictions on 50 caliber machine guns, the prohibitions against owning artillery, etc, will continue and continue to pass constitutional muster.
ReplyDeleteI think that if a bill is passed banning 30 round magazines it would also pass constitutional muster. However, banning guns and gun parts isn't going to solve the problem. This is the fallacy that the anti-gun lobby (i.e. gun control) groups don't understand.
While its perfectly LEGAL to ban say... 30 round clips, you can't eliminate them entirely. And, banning the sales of handguns won't necessarily make the guns less prevalent, it just forces the sales underground where there is no records check (however flawed), and no restrictions on sale.
ToE wrote:
ReplyDelete"However, banning guns and gun parts isn't going to solve the problem. This is the fallacy that the anti-gun lobby (i.e. gun control) groups don't understand."
I wrote this because I felt the myth being promoted by Senator Lee was inaccurate, and that we need to look at facts, not myths, in determining policy and legislation.
What Lee claimed was not only wrong, it was simplistic.
Out of all the other sources I could have used, the Geography of Gun Deaths provided the most insightful, fact-based, nuanced understanding of what our problems are relating to gun violence, in contrast to Senator Lee.
I don't know how many times it will be necessary to point out here that I am not promoting outright banning guns, rather I am looking at what the causes are of gun violence, and how we can keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people - children, criminals, those who are dangerously mentally ill.
I have only advocated in what I have written on this blog for enforcement of existing laws, like the more complete maintenance of the NCIS data base. The only changes I have supported are modest, and supported by gun rights advocates like Levy - banning the oversized clips, closing the gun show loophole in background checks.
What I have written here UNDERLINES that we need a more complete, more complex understanding of the factors which contribute to gun violence in order to try effectively to reduce that violence with a multi-pronged approach.
The argument for more guns on the one side, or gun bans on the other, are both too simplistic, and inadequate, and will only divide us further, and fail to resolve the problem exasperating that divide.
In 2008, factcheck.org addresssed this question about guns and violent crime:http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_violent_crimes_more_or_less_common.html
Q. Are violent crimes more or less common in areas where handgun ownership is higher?
A. Some studies have found that murder rates (not crime rates in general) are higher where guns are more prevalent. But social scientists have not found a direct causal relationship between the two factors.
This question is one raised by both those who advocate fewer restrictions on gun ownership and those who call for stricter controls. The former group hopes to prove that more guns do not equal more crime (or even could lead to less crime due to guns being used for protection or self-defense). The latter group hopes to prove that lower rates of gun ownership mean less crime occurs. But major studies on the topic have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between the two factors, though they have found statistical relationships.
and this is significant to the discussion, from the end of the 2008 factcheck.org study:
"In comparing the United States to industrialized democracies, the Academies says data show the U.S. has the highest rate of homicide and firearm-related homicide. But this also raises a chicken-and-egg question. "A high level of violence may be a cause of a high level of firearms availability instead of the other way around."
This is a situation we MUST address; our level of violence, including deadly gun violence, and violence which is intended to change our democracy by intimidation, even assassination, needs to change. And if we are to be successful in doing that, we have to first RATIONALLY understand the problem and agree on some fundamental, underlying facts, not rely on myths.
People make the statistics say what they want. DG is right (OMG did I just say that!!?) the murder rate goes up where there are more guns. I was also right that the FBI statistics show the murder rate goes down when concealed carry is enacted. The difference is the FBI stat is talking about legal gun owners with no criminal record and no mental health issues. Giving more people like that the right to carry cuts down on violent crime. In DG's stat it just says more guns in an area. This includes guns owned by gang members, criminals, mentally ill and others who could not legally get a carry permit.
ReplyDeleteOne thing DG, the assualt weapons ban did not ban a single assault weapon. Assualt weapons were always defined as being capable of automatic fire until that law passed when Congress changed the definition. Automatic weapons have been banned for quite some time without having some very expensive federal permits.
Ttuck wrote:
ReplyDelete"People make the statistics say what they want."
Ummmmm.......I think I did a pretty good job of NOT cherrypicking statistics to do that Tuck. One of the things for which I applaud factcheck.org is that they are pretty darn honest about presenting information, having their conclusions driven by the facts, not picking facts to support a predetermined conclusion.
Ditto the effort I took to point out the differences in the comparisons between factcheck, and 'the geography of gun deaths'.
Canda has a lot of guns too, but not near the problem with gun violence that we have. We should be looking at why.
I found those stats from the Swiss study about how many more guns we have in this country compared to the rest of the world's gun ownership a very sobering one, and I think we should be considering why that statistic is what it is.
Clearly there IS a correlation between state gun control legislation and death rates.
ReplyDeleteSee my blog for additional data:
http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/01/important-data-trends-nra-doesnt-want.html
The correlation has been shown many times, and fits with public opinion, outside of the pro-gun extremists. It's time for our legislators to recognize this.