HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Gun ownership vs. gun dea...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:06 AM

 

Gun ownership vs. gun deaths, by state

61 replies, 4252 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gun ownership vs. gun deaths, by state (Original post)
michigandem58 Feb 2013 OP
Sheepshank Feb 2013 #1
freshwest Feb 2013 #2
enlightenment Feb 2013 #29
freshwest Feb 2013 #31
cali Feb 2013 #3
hack89 Feb 2013 #4
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #5
Major Nikon Feb 2013 #7
FarCenter Feb 2013 #8
valerief Feb 2013 #11
No Vested Interest Feb 2013 #14
loyalsister Feb 2013 #36
The Magistrate Feb 2013 #15
FarCenter Feb 2013 #25
The Magistrate Feb 2013 #30
FarCenter Feb 2013 #37
The Magistrate Feb 2013 #41
treestar Feb 2013 #18
kooljerk666 Feb 2013 #21
ohiosmith Feb 2013 #54
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #56
Major Nikon Feb 2013 #59
Loudestlib Feb 2013 #17
srican69 Feb 2013 #22
srican69 Feb 2013 #20
FarCenter Feb 2013 #32
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #33
EOTE Feb 2013 #35
Fla_Democrat Feb 2013 #45
EOTE Feb 2013 #46
Fla_Democrat Feb 2013 #48
EOTE Feb 2013 #58
Fla_Democrat Feb 2013 #61
Cali_Democrat Feb 2013 #49
cali Feb 2013 #6
cali Feb 2013 #9
baldguy Feb 2013 #26
cali Feb 2013 #42
EOTE Feb 2013 #47
DanTex Feb 2013 #55
treestar Feb 2013 #10
valerief Feb 2013 #12
treestar Feb 2013 #16
guyton Feb 2013 #27
valerief Feb 2013 #53
adieu Feb 2013 #38
DeadEyeDyck Feb 2013 #13
samsingh Feb 2013 #19
Recursion Feb 2013 #23
adieu Feb 2013 #40
Flagrante Feb 2013 #24
michigandem58 Feb 2013 #51
hack89 Feb 2013 #28
FarCenter Feb 2013 #39
Blue_In_AK Feb 2013 #50
melm00se Feb 2013 #34
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #43
Fla_Democrat Feb 2013 #44
markgee Feb 2013 #52
year of the cat Feb 2013 #57
indepat Feb 2013 #60

Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:22 AM

1. Correlation will be ignored and refuted with anecdotal excuses and stories.

.....but women feel more empowered etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:15 PM

2. I can't figure out where Washington state falls, appears to be missing its dot.

But we do have gun deaths here. And other kinds. Many times, the death toll is related to recreation. Drowning, going off cliffs, treefalls, avalanches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:28 PM

29. It's there.

beneath Pennsylvania.

About 36% horizontal and 9 on the vertical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enlightenment (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:34 PM

31. I hate those kind of graphs. Percentages not that great for WA, although

I thought it had good gun control laws. Definitely has a provision that those who have gone through MH court to escape incarceration and adjudicated incapacitated can't own. I've seen it on documents and it was a good diversion program that allowed those there to get treatment instead of jail time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:17 PM

3. over what period of time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:19 PM

4. Are those rates increasing or decreasing? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:34 PM

5. Include suicides?

Does the number of deaths include suicides, shootings by law enforcement, homicides by strangers? Without more information, this chart is essentially meaningless. One would think that Wyoming and Montana are hotbeds of violent, out-of-control gun crime by looking at this graph, which certainly does not seem to be the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:51 PM

7. Are people who commit suicide any less dead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:55 PM

8. Suicides are not generally a danger to other people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:04 PM

11. Let's hope you never get depressed when there's a gun handy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:07 PM

14. Suicides inflict great damage on individuals and society

Families have to deal with the results of suicide, sometimes for generations.
Suicides are an aberration, very different from natural death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Vested Interest (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:42 PM

36. With youth- one suicide is sometimes followed by others

And failed attempts influence future attempts by others. In the 80s gun ownership was not exactly popular. Reagan having been shot and the Brady campaign had a lot of influence. At least in the suburbs of KCMO.
Guns were popular among hunters and rural homes. I was 14 in 1984 and lived in a suburb - pop 20,000. Our school included students from more rural areas. There were 4 gunshot inflicted suicides in my school in the mid 80s.

The idea of access to guns was shocking to most of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:08 PM

15. You Think, Sir, There Are No Consequences To Others Owing To Suicide?

You think there is no toll in psychological suffering exacted from family and friends? Do you imagine there are not material costs in many instances, such as loss of income, even loss of a family's home or business?

And it remains a cost in life, and a significant hazard of gun ownership. Since suicide by fire-arm is the quickest and most certain means available, it is certain that a portion of suicides committed with a gun would not have occurred had the gun not been ready to hand, and that a further portion of those which would still have been attempted absent the gun would have failed.

The degree to which suicide by firearm exceeds murder by firearm makes hash of the idea owing a firearm makes a person safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:22 PM

25. Suicides do not increase one's risk of having death or injury inflicted on them by someone else

Murders, indeed, fall into two classes:
- murders where the victim knows the murderer, such as spousal killings, drug deals gone wrong, etc.
- murders where the victim does not know the murder, such as clerks shot during robberies, victims of mass killings, etc.

It is only the latter type which cause danger to most members of society at large.

The consequences of a suicide are similar to any sudden and unexpected death, which would include auto accidents, heart attacks, etc., except for the non-payment of life insurance, if any.

There are lots of ways to commit suicide. A relative hanged himself.

Another relative was in an auto accident, and no one will ever know whether it was an accident or a suicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:31 PM

30. That Is a Very Narrow View Of Risk, Sir

The question of what is proper social policy regarding firearms ownership necessarily must take account of the full range of risks, if there is to be any sensible risk-benefit analysis made. A great many suicides by firearm doubtless were committed with a weapon purchased for the stated motive of self-defense, and by a person who was blithely unaware of what the actual dangers he was putting himself at risk of were. The fact remains that a person who owns a gun is at far greater risk of death or injury by that gun in his own hand than he is from a gun in the hand of another. This being the fact of the matter, the idea owning a gun increases one's safety is simply nonesense, and that a number of people believe it does not make it any the less nonesense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:47 PM

37. A failure to properly categorize and evaluate risks leads to bad policy

By conflating all gun deaths together you tend to render the concept meaningless -- it is sort of like "weapons of mass destruction" being used to label everything from tear gas to thermonuclear bombs.

Actually, the risk of death by gunshot from an unfamiliar assailent is very low and declining almost everywhere in the country.

Media exaggeration of "gun deaths" and hyping of the very rare mass killings tends to raise fears that should not in fact exist. The fears engender knee-jerk legislative proposals that are likely to be ineffective, and they motivate another large audience to go out and buy more guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:56 PM

41. Suicide Is A Major Risk Of Gun Ownership, Sir

That is a fact, which anyone considering policy needs to take into account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:10 PM

18. they still count as gun deaths

The idea being a gun makes it easier to do and more likely to be successful. Without the gun, the person might have tried and not succeeded and gotten help. But a gun around makes that a lot less likely.

The Australian situation was impressive for that - suicides by gun went way down with the gun control/ban/buyback. But then we'd need to see if the suicide rate went down or whether the persons simply went with another method.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:15 PM

21. yea, fuck YOUR family & end it................

 

is that no harm?

Studies show suicides lead to greater family bonding at the FUNERAL & VIEWING. (i pulled this out of my ass)

BTW I am for assisted suicide for sane people that want it, depressed, bipolar, PTSD suicides are different than being diagnosed with terminal cancer or Alzheimers or tons of other things & ending it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:12 PM

54. This post was alerted on. By a vote of 3/3 it is allowed to stand.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:06 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

yea, fuck YOUR family & end it................
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2414181

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

subject line alone is enough

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:09 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't think the poster is saying "fuck your family" they're saying if you kill yourself you "fuck your family"--disagreeing with the post they're replying to.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: A bit more civility would be nice.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Too harsh a response to a completely stupid OP. Suicide hurts all the people who love the victim and that is ignoring the murder/suicide category entirely.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Unkool. Sickening, really.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:18 PM

56. suicides

The 50% of people who commit suicide with a gun in this country are just as dead as the 50% who commit suicide by some other method. But if you are going to include suicide deaths in a graph that appears to be being used to portray the dangers of having a gun, then maybe there should also be a graph showing the danger of owning razor, blades or pills or any other items that are employed to commit suicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #56)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:41 PM

59. I'm not sure what purposes that would serve other than obfuscation

The graph clearly correlates gun ownership to gun death. So now you want to see a graph of how owning a rope correlates with suicide? If you really want to know the suicide risk associated with gun ownership, you can google one of a number of studies done on the subject, all of which say the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:10 PM

17. Guns kill better than pills

People who attempt suicide with a gun are much more likely to be successful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudestlib (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:18 PM

22. that is irrelevant - as you are only counting gun related deaths in the first place. But

the point you are making is very valid in the larger argument against gun ownership ...

but with respect to the OP ... efficacy of Gun as an instrument of suicide vs efficacy of other methods is not a useful argument to make

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:14 PM

20. removing suicide data will not invalidate the correlation ... let me explain

Assuming that the death rate includes suicides and that suicides are about 70% of the gun related death everywhere ...

taking out the suicide data only has a scale effect on the Y - Axis ... ( sure - some states have a greater proportion of suicides than other - but not by much) .. so in effect the correlation will be preserved - which is the main point of the graph.

Do you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:37 PM

32. I don't think a constant 70% ratio is correct

The "gun deaths" appear to be almost all suicides. See "Guns and Suicide" at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/14/us/guns-and-suicide.html

The graph tells you essentially nothing about whether the average citizens risk of being murdered by gunshot increases with increased gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:38 PM

33. I do not.

Particularly if we accept the 4x multiplier offered by some sources, as to the risk increase having a firearm in the home.

In states with the lowest rate of gun ownership, the number of firearm suicides is 3,971, to 6,781 for non-firearm suicides.

In states with the highest rates of gun ownership, there were 14,361 firearm suicides, and 6,573 non firearm suicides.


Deduct the suicides with firearm from that graph, and Washington state would have far higher gun ownership, and a lower firearm death rate than New York.


So I object to your specific objection, however, that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree we should ignore the firearm suicide rate. Being aware of the makeup of the numbers in that graph would be helpful though, I think.

Edit: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:40 PM

35. Wyoming and Montana are not hotbeds of anything.

That's due to them have extremely sparse population. That's why the RATE of gun deaths is listed. If you live in Wyoming and Montana, you're more likely to die by a gun than those who live in a number of big cities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:14 PM

45. Distance to medical help

May be the deciding factor. More likely to bleed out when you're miles from medical help, than when you are blocks from it.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla_Democrat (Reply #45)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:21 PM

46. Ahh, so the states with loads of guns ONLY have higher rates of gun deaths...

because all the victims bleed out. That makes plenty of sense. Simple cause and effect couldn't possibly be the case. You'll also notice there are states with high gun ownership and a large number of metropolitan areas. Somehow those people manage to die even though they're close to medical assistance. It couldn't POSSIBLY be the guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:34 PM

48. No, was referencing those two states only

And to ignore distance is just plain ignorant of facts. Another reason I asked down thread about breaking it down by city/county.

A person suffering a heart attack, 45 miles from the closest medical help has a higher chance of dying, than a person suffering a heart attack 15 blocks from the emergency room. Can you at least see that? No guns there, so maybe the logic can work it's magic.

Now, if someone is gut shot, out hunting on a ridge, 45 miles from the closest medical help..... is it reasonable to think that they stand a lower survivability rate than the thug robbing a convenience store and the owner gut shoots him.. blocks from Memorial Hospital.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla_Democrat (Reply #48)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:49 PM

58. Again, there are plenty of high gun violence states

that also have plenty of urban areas as well. There's very little correspondence between the prevalence of urban areas and the incidence of gun deaths, but there IS a great correspondence between the prevalence of guns and the incidence of gun deaths. The average person in Texas has easier access to medical facilities than someone living in New Hampshire, yet you're far more likely to die from guns in Texas than NH.

This is rather simple here. States with a higher rate of gun ownership have higher incidences of gun deaths/gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #58)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:40 PM

61. So, now Wyoming and Montana has morphed into

Texas and New Hampshire. Ok, whut evah.

Speaking of simple...

This is rather simple here. States with a higher rate of gun ownership have higher incidences of gun deaths/gun violence.


If the chant is gun ownership = more dun deaths.. why does Nevada at around 31% give or take ownership, have 16 per 100K, and South Dakota at around 60% give or take ownership have 9 per 100k?

Why does Montana have a higher rate of gun deaths than South Dakota? They are comparable on the % of ownership, yet much higher on the rate of deaths. Doesn't that contradict the very premise? Shouldn't they be the same, or a hell of a lot closer in both sides of the equation.. guns=deaths?


You know, since the chant is more guns equals more death, no other factors could be considered, since it dilutes the 'message' of the chart.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:39 PM

49. So suicides don't count?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:40 PM

6. OK, upon further research, the MJ chart isn't really useful

Vermont has the 2nd lowest rate of violent crime in the country and murder rates here have been decreasing in recent years. Furthermore, the phrase "gun deaths" is usually inclusive of suicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:58 PM

9. In 2010 there were 7 murders in Vermont. Only 2 of those murders were committed with guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:23 PM

26. Good attempt at obfuscation.

But know the difference between deaths and murders, and the difference between quantities and rates. Vermont has a lower population, so there's obviously not going to be as many people for the guns to kill as more populous states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:58 PM

42. that doesn't even make any sense, sweetie.

"so there's obviously not going to be as many people for the guns to kill as more populous states."

we're talking per capita here. And two murders where a gun was used out of a population of 625,000 is low comparatively.

And sorry, but Vermont still has a very low incidence of gun violence or any form of violent crime. What part of "Vermont has the 2nd lowest incidence of violent crime in the country", is so very difficult for you to wrap your mind around?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:24 PM

47. I'm sure those folks who died accidentally from guns have so much relief that they weren't murdered.

Vermont IS one of the outliers on that graph, but it's fairly easy to see that the more guns per capita that a state has, the more gun violence it experiences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:17 PM

55. That's one datapoint.

The idea is to look at the entire dataset, rather than just cherry pick a single point that favors one's political views. Otherwise, the fact that GDP growth was enormous in the third quarter of 2003 could prove that George W Bush was a great economic president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:03 PM

10. So relatively speaking, Minnesota has responsible gun users

Lots of guns, relatively fewer deaths.

Whereas in Nevada, they manage a lot more gun deaths with relatively fewer guns.

The correlation seems to work generally though. Alaska is right on the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:05 PM

12. 30% ownership in Nevada seems like a helluva lot of gun owners to me!

And Alaska, with 60% ownership, had 15 * 100,000 gun deaths (that's 1,500,000). Not trivial considering the population is 800,000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:09 PM

16. I was thinking more along the lines of correlation

The idea seems to be more guns, more gun deaths. So those two states were the ones that struck me as being the most off the correlation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:24 PM

27. ah, no ... not 1.5 million

That axis in the chart is gun deaths PER 100,000 people. Not times 100,000. So assuming you're correct that Alaska has a population of 800,000, that'd be 120 deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guyton (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:23 PM

53. Thanks. I'm using Friday brains today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:50 PM

38. You're not doing the math right.

It would be 15 * 8 = 120 gun deaths. The 15 is per 100,000 people. If Alaska has 800,000 people, that's eight 100,000 people, so 8 times 15 or 120 gun deaths.

Sounds like you should take yourself out of making any other comments about the graph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:06 PM

13. can you provide a link to the article?

I want to walk the data back.
Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:13 PM

19. more gun ownership means more gun deaths right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:18 PM

23. The standard deviation seems to be wider than the underlying regression

You have some low-gun, low-gun-death states (HI, NJ, RI, MA, CT, NY) and some high-gun, high-death states (WY, MT, AL, AR, MS, LA, TN), and then you have a horizontal band that's essentially as wide as the linear regression you're aiming for.

Take the gun-death peers of CA, IL, DE, OH, WA, ME, VT, ND, and SD. They have essentially the same gun death rates. You can tell this is a problematic regression because it doesn't give you any confidence about where you should put them if you were reassembling the data (which is the whole point).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:56 PM

40. You're over-reading the graph

The graph should just tell you that there is a positive correlation between percent of ownership versus gun deaths (by whatever means they occur, presumably by ejecting a bullet through the nozzle, and not by being beaten by the butt of a rifle, say).

This graph is to refute the claim that pro-gun owners make, averring that owning a gun makes the person safer. Well, no, it does not, at least not by gun deaths. In fact, the graph suggests that the more guns out there in a state, the more likely someone out there in that state (and we're assuming gun deaths due to shootings across state lines are rare) will die by a gun.

The pro-gun claim would have shown the negative correlation, or the slope of the average going downwards from left to right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:21 PM

24. Most all the the red states are above the trend line

just sayin...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flagrante (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:47 PM

51. That's a hell of an interesting observation

 

Looks like ignorance compounds the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:26 PM

28. The right hand side of the chart is a powerful argument for mental health reform

I would guess it reflects a lot of suicides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:54 PM

39. Murder rated have been declining, while suicide rates have been increasing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:40 PM

50. Exactly

Suicide is a serious issue here. I doubt that Alaskans are any more murderous than anyone else. There are a lot of guns here because it's a rural state, with many people relying on subsistence hunting and weapons for protection against wildlife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:39 PM

34. gun ownership

based upon legal gun ownership only or does it include illegal gun ownership?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:59 PM

43. Thank you for posting this! It shows clearly the correlation of gun deaths and gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:04 PM

44. Be interesting to see each state by city/county.

It shows Florida as meh, 28% or so gun ownership, but I would estimate North Florida, especially the big bend/pan handle as closer to 50-75%, and that is lowballing it for the area I live.

How would gun ownership/ gun deaths of say Jefferson, Franklin, Wakula, Liberty and Taylor counties stack up vs. Duval, Orange, Dade, Broward, and Hillsborough County.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla_Democrat (Reply #44)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:59 PM

52. Indeed

 

It would be nice to see that. I bet most states only have a couple-few areas that collectively make up over 75% of those stats. Just a guess

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:19 PM

60. Seems to be a distinct correlation between gun deaths per capital and red states, but

surely such is not the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread