STUDY: States With Loose Gun Laws Have Higher Rates Of Gun Violence - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;40152164]I hate these types of statistics. They mean nothing. A proper way to analyze stuff like this would be to look at crime rates before and after the individual state implements gun laws. People do this kind of shit when it comes to capital punishment as well, i.e. "States with capital punishment have greater crime rates than those without it". Fuck statistics[/QUOTE] If there is proper proof, you can correlate any two things.

I would like to cite a study, which studied people who used firearms for self defense. [quote]Objectives—To determine the relative incidence of gun victimization versus self defense gun use by civilians in the United States, and the circumstances and probable legality of the self defense uses.[/quote] In other words, to see how often guns really are being used for self defense, and if the manner if which they were used was legal. [quote]Methods—National random digit dial telephone surveys of the adult population were conducted in 1996 and 1999. The Harvard surveys appear unique among private surveys in two respects: asking (1) open ended questions about defensive gun use incidents and (2) detailed questions about both gun victimization and self defense gun use. Five criminal court judges were asked to assess whether the self reported defensive gun uses were likely to have been legal.[/quote] Using a random sample, and asking questions so as to generate both quantitative and qualitative data, they were able to find out information about people who use firearms for self defense, with this information being sufficient enough for a judge to decide upon the legality of it. [quote]Results—Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.[/quote] Now please do not get angry, but this is solely the results of this particular study. I am happy to see the results of other studies to see if the results contradict this. However, the results, in summary: Despite removing many people who reported being victimized (i.e a gun was used against them), many people surveyed still said that they had been threatened or intimidated with by people who used firearms, this being much more than those using a gun to protect themselves. Secondly, when the judges did look at the cases where the person said they would use a gun, they ruled that many of them were unjustified, and hence illegal. [quote]Conclusions—Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.[/quote] Pretty straightforward. [url]http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full[/url] [quote]Consistent with results from the NCVS and private one shot surveys,2 we find that far more respondents report criminal gun uses against them than self defense gun uses by them. The results hold even though, in order to be as conservative as possible, we (1) eliminate many of the reported hostile gun uses against the respondent, and (2) include virtually all the reported self defense gun uses.[/quote] Even here, it is stating that it tried to look at self-defense whilst leaving out victimization. Despite this, firearms were used to intimidate much more than to protect.

The point is proving it, which I think this study does a decent job of doing.

While the study seems to cite a bunch of blatant anti-gun sources, the conclusion at the end presents some good points, like how the authors believe in restrictions on the mentally ill.

[QUOTE=person11;40152322]If there is proper proof, you can correlate any two things.[/QUOTE] The thing is, if you asked someone who didn't know the political ramifications of private gun ownership what they think about this study, they would just think "no shit". States that legislate less on how cars should be used will experience more car accidents. States that legislate water safety will see more illness. States that legislate firearms would see more firearm accidents (suicides, homicides et al). Only in bizzaro-conservative wild-west fantasy world is this logic reversed. Clearly legislating guns less would mean more "good guys" get guns to defend all the sheep from the bad wolves.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40152120]I knew this would have happened. The first two are through and through academic reports - just like you asked for, and the last one is a standard peer-review. Its like showing studies on fossils to someone who doesn't want to believe in evolution.[/QUOTE] Both studies get data on how much more likely one is to be killed from the study by Arthur Kellermann (I said David in error earlier), and this study was criticized heavily in peer review, on a number of accounts, including flaws in its sources, or simply not providing them for appropriate peer review. The first study admits to only being able to find conclusive data to suggest a link between suicide and a firearm in the home, and it neglects to provide data on if the firearms was expressly purchased for such an act (as would be indicative if the gun was purchased within a week of suicide). It says that it cannot conclude decisively that a firearm in the home leads to greater homicide risk, and suggests further study. The second study suggests more about keeping guns from those who have committed domestic partner violence or removing guns from a potentially violent domestic dispute than banning them outright, and as I mentioned, much of their data for rates or percentages was either from a study considered flawed or a dated study (Some sources for data were from 1992). The final one, as I said, is an interpretation rather than a study. The study Sobotnik posted has downfalls not included in the study, such as people being reluctant to report self-defensive use of a firearm for various personal or legal reasons, as much of the study was conducted prior to widespread CCW, also making it a dated study, considering by the end of this year CCW will be possible in all states, and thus I believe a new study on the topic should be in order, rather than one more than a decade old.

The study says they used the list from [url=http://smartgunlaws.org/]here[/url] for 'strength of gun laws' but their deadliest states don't match the list I can find from their source? [img]http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/top10states.jpg[/img] Also that website is obnoxious to navigate

ThinkProgress is pretty good at being blatantly leftist without forgoing facts, but yeah the interface of the website is terrible. Not to mention that the "Health" section basically tells you that you are going to die.

Seriously though only three of the states match up am I reading something wrong or are they just blatantly ignoring what they sourced?

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40152578]Both studies get data on how much more likely one is to be killed from the study by Arthur Kellermann (I said David in error earlier), and this study was criticized heavily in peer review, on a number of accounts, including flaws in its sources, or simply not providing them for appropriate peer review. The first study admits to only being able to find conclusive data to suggest a link between suicide and a firearm in the home, and it neglects to provide data on if the firearms was expressly purchased for such an act (as would be indicative if the gun was purchased within a week of suicide). It says that it cannot conclude decisively that a firearm in the home leads to greater homicide risk, and suggests further study. The second study suggests more about keeping guns from those who have committed domestic partner violence or removing guns from a potentially violent domestic dispute than banning them outright, and as I mentioned, much of their data for rates or percentages was either from a study considered flawed or a dated study (Some sources for data were from 1992). The final one, as I said, is an interpretation rather than a study. The study Sobotnik posted has downfalls not included in the study, such as people being reluctant to report self-defensive use of a firearm for various personal or legal reasons, as much of the study was conducted prior to widespread CCW, also making it a dated study, considering by the end of this year CCW will be possible in all states, and thus I believe a new study on the topic should be in order, rather than one more than a decade old.[/QUOTE] I know it's going to be hypocritical of me to criticize sourcing anti-gun groups and I'm about to source pro-gun sites to back up my criticisms of Kellermann, but I've found some scholarly articles from other locales, and one of the pro-gun site's studies has a doctoral name for the counter, not to mention not all studies or criticism papers are available free, and/or easily sourced on google. [url]http://www.tbuckner.com/KELLERMANN.htm[/url] [url]http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html[/url] (Blatant pro-gun source, but has a Ph.D endorsement on the study) [url]http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html[/url] (Pro-gun, no researcher's name attached, therefore on professional endorsement) [url]http://www.haciendapub.com/medicalsentinel/public-health-and-gun-control-review-part-i-benefits-firearms[/url] Other locations talking of known Kellermann criticisms: [url]http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Arthur-Kellermann[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann[/url] [quote=Wiki]While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher[/quote] A notable point, which brings, in my opinion, much of his work into question.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;40151963]What?[/QUOTE] [url=http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/headlines/horse-apparently-date-raped-in-western-north-dakota/]I'm not even joking about this[/url]

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40150799]So why is the state which is in the top 5 of highest gun ownership(North Dakota) has some of the lowest crime rates? I mean seriously, the headline news of this state when I first moved here was about someone's race horse getting drugged and raped, and kids spray painting.[/QUOTE] you just answered your own question. it's fucking north dakota. nobody lives in north dakota.

Minnesota has some pretty laxed gun laws, the only thing we can't own is a suppressor. Yet somehow we fall in the lowest percentile for gun violence. Hmm, something tells me there has to be something more to this than just lax gun laws.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;40153163]Minnesota has some pretty laxed gun laws, the only thing we can't own is a suppressor. Yet somehow we fall in the lowest percentile for gun violence. Hmm, something tells me there has to be something more to this than just lax gun laws.[/QUOTE] This was already stated in the study...

All they do in Ohio is a background check. And you get your gun the day you buy it, there is no "cool down" period

[QUOTE=Herfjotur;40150913]"gun deaths and injuries" would include suicides and ND's, which has nothing to do with violent crime.[/QUOTE] This actually would affect these type of statistics pretty drastically. Suicide is a HUGE problem in rural areas when compared per capita to urban areas.

Illinois is listed more towards the safe side of the scale. I'm sorry, but what? Everyone who cries for regulation or less restrictions uses Chicago as an example. We have strong gun laws, but we have one of the highest murder rates. There's big pockets of violent areas all through the state. The rating should be higher.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40151785]CDC has had an anti-gun bias in the past[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1[/url]

[QUOTE=Super Muffin;40153850]Illinois is listed more towards the safe side of the scale. I'm sorry, but what? Everyone who cries for regulation or less restrictions uses Chicago as an example. We have strong gun laws, but we have one of the highest murder rates. There's big pockets of violent areas all through the state. The rating should be higher.[/QUOTE] given the size of illinois the gun homicide rate is lower than most other states. It's like the 5th most populous state, so of course it's going to have more gun homicides in absolute numbers, but that doesn't say anything.

[img_thumb]http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/percent_in_poverty.gif[/img_thumb] [img]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-shot-2013-04-03-at-8.03.53-AM-e1364990755473.png[/img] Its pretty funny how closely these maps match up.

[QUOTE=its shortie;40153973][img_thumb]http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/percent_in_poverty.gif[/img_thumb] [img]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-shot-2013-04-03-at-8.03.53-AM-e1364990755473.png[/img] Its pretty funny how closely these maps match up.[/QUOTE] yeah its pretty funny how little they match up isnt it nevada seems to have less poverty than cali yet noticably more gun crime, idaho, south dakota, texas, new york and maine all seem to fall off their expected results as well [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] "the bottom of the map looks pretty red in both pictures, haha take that guns rule"

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40154127]yeah its pretty funny how little they match up isnt it nevada seems to have less poverty than cali yet noticably more gun crime, idaho, south dakota, texas, new york and maine all seem to fall off their expected results as well [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] "the bottom of the map looks pretty red in both pictures, haha take that guns rule"[/QUOTE] Maybe like the thread topic there isn't much of a correlation between the two. Although I'd put more weight on poverty causes gun crime over loose gun laws cause gun crime.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40154139]I'd put more weight on poverty causes gun crime over loose gun laws cause gun crime.[/QUOTE] A combo of those two is undeniable a unstable cocktail begging to cause trouble.

the issue with these conclusions is that it's not really logical to simplify a very complex issue such as gun crime with a "x amount of y equals z" kind of study. there are so many factors that lead to crime and murder and shit, it's not JUST gun ownership/control [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] imo part of the reason for this shit is that an average person isn't going to want to read an entire fucking novel about how each and every county/city/town of each and every state in the entire US is affected by gun ownership, average living conditions, population density, average income, etc. having a simple "oh, texas has a fuckload of guns so a fuckload of people get shot" is much easier to take in.

Ugh not this bullshit again... [quote]the states with laxer gun laws tend to be the ones contributing the highest shares of national gun deaths and injuries.[/quote] FROM THE REPORT!! [quote]The data analyzed in this report relate to the following 10 indicators of gun violence: 4. Firearm suicides in 2010[/quote] The USA is know for having an increasing suicide rate ever since the recession of 2008. There are almost twice as many suicides by firearms than homicides, just take a look trough the report!! The way this article is pushed is typical fearmongering, people who hate guns and are afaid of them just don't know how guns really work, guns are the best tools for personal defence. Remember the goverment actually doesn't have to protect you, the first line of defense starts with yourself!!

Can someone please post a map of the overall violent crime rates. Concentrating on just gun violence is like saying there are alot of joints in amsterdam.

[QUOTE=person11;40150508]Article: [url]http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/03/1811311/study-states-with-loose-gun-laws-have-higher-rates-of-gun-violence/[/url] Study (pdf): [url]http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AmericaUnderTheGun.pdf[/url] [img]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-shot-2013-04-03-at-8.03.53-AM-e1364990755473.png[/img] I know Think Progress is not exactly objective in its reporting, but it certainly is no Mother Jones in its exaggerating. This is still a legitimate study. Let's poke holes in it, Facepunch![/QUOTE] Oh yeah it's legitimate, no doubt about that, just because a Sheeple thinks it's true doesn't make it true. CAP is the current Administrations PR agency to spread their agenda. The study is nothing but propaganda. Stop selling your soul to the liars. [url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_American_Progress[/url] [quote]According to SourceWatch, “CAP’s Progressive Media project emerged as a major communications war room on behalf of Obama’s domestic and foreign policy agenda and CAP became a strong advocate for escalation in Afghanistan. Progressive Media is run through the Center for American Project Action Fund, the more political 501(c)4 arm of CAP. It coordinates closely with the Common Purpose Project, an effort to create message discipline among the pro-Obama organizations, with a direct tie to the White House.” According to Center for American Progress director Jennifer Palmieri, the organization is focused around “driving the White House’s message and agenda.” Think Progress is also closely allied with Media Matters under the umbrella of Podesta’s Progressive Media propaganda campaign. An investigation by the Daily Caller last year revealed that Media Matters is an Obama administration front that strategizes with the White House on a weekly basis on how to influence and direct the news media.[/quote] Basically, you guys are wasting your time discussing this fake "news". [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;40151785]CDC has had an anti-gun bias in the past, but they're still a government institution, so their data could still be considered valid, and the FBI reports are considered unbiased, however their inclusion of a lot of "data" from known gun control groups, and apparently anti-gun news articles as well, is making me question severely the legitimacy of this study. Only data provided by the Federal/State Government should be used when trying to write an unbiased report, not to mention the people publishing the report have a bias themselves, they're anti-gun, and self-proclaimed "progressives." This is far from an academic study, this is another propaganda publication from a gun control group. After checking their website, the group publishing this has an inherent bias as well. Why can't a decent academic institution publish an unbiased report using only government statistics? It seems every one of these kinds of "studies" is done by a group with their ball in one corner or the other.[/QUOTE] CDC is not trustworthy as well, all part of the same agenda. People need to stop worshipping the officiality of the mafia, just because they wear suit and tie doesn't make them innocent. Move along, propaganda topics should be locked.

Brilliant poe's law. [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;40152693]I know it's going to be hypocritical of me to criticize sourcing anti-gun groups and I'm about to source pro-gun sites to back up my criticisms of Kellermann, but I've found some scholarly articles from other locales, and one of the pro-gun site's studies has a doctoral name for the counter, not to mention not all studies or criticism papers are available free, and/or easily sourced on google. [url]http://www.tbuckner.com/KELLERMANN.htm[/url] [url]http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html[/url] (Blatant pro-gun source, but has a Ph.D endorsement on the study) [url]http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html[/url] (Pro-gun, no researcher's name attached, therefore on professional endorsement) [url]http://www.haciendapub.com/medicalsentinel/public-health-and-gun-control-review-part-i-benefits-firearms[/url] Other locations talking of known Kellermann criticisms: [url]http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Arthur-Kellermann[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann[/url] A notable point, which brings, in my opinion, much of his work into question.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but the only strong criticism of Kellermann has came from Pro-gun blogs. Unless you can find something more 'academic', I'll take it more seriously. Even your ~wiki~ article said criticism only came from pro-gun groups. If the hypocrisy in you wasn't so hilarious, this would be rather depressing. You have no interest in knowing the truth outside everything you've already predetermined.

Wouldn't it make more sense to look at gun violence relative to general violence? [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;40155400]Can someone please post a map of the overall violent crime rates. Concentrating on just gun violence is like saying there are alot of joints in amsterdam.[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg[/IMG] [quote]Map of violent crime per 100,000 people in the USA by state in 2004. "Violent crime" includes Homicide, rape, robbery and serious assault.[/quote] From [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States [/URL]Yeah looks like it correlates with their map quite nicely. This is pretty dumb.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40156119]Brilliant godwin. [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] I'm sorry but the only strong criticism of Kellermann has came from Pro-gun blogs. Unless you can find something more 'academic', I'll take it more seriously. Even your ~wiki~ article said criticism only came from pro-gun groups. [/QUOTE] [quote=Wikipedia]The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer, J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck, Don Kates, and others.[/quote] Ph. D.s sound like a lot more than "pro-gun blogs" to me. [quote]If the hypocrisy in you wasn't so hilarious, this would be rather depressing. [B]You have no interest in knowing the truth outside everything you've already predetermined[/B].[/quote] And you're any better? You've pre-determined "guns r bad, m'kay" and refuse to accept any evidence or argument to the contrary, repeatedly, despite numerous arguments and sources being provided in the past. You have no high ground, stop acting like it.