Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
grimreefer

Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

grimreefer

Just wanted to post this for future reference. And the number 8 stubborn fact merits special attention since concealed carry has a causal effect with drops in murder rates. Also, as in stubborn fact 7, my AR-15 is our primary defense weapon at home.

 

 

 

Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America

 

The Heritage Foundation

Mar 14th, 2018

 

Commentary By

John Malcolm

Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government

 

Amy Swearer

Visiting Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

 

excerpt:

 

In the wake of the tragic murder of 17 innocent students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students, educators, politicians, and activists are searching for solutions to prevent future school shootings.

 

As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it is vitally important to supply facts so that policymakers and professionals can fashion solutions based on objective data rather than well-intended but misguided emotional fixes.

 

Are there ways to reduce gun violence and school shootings? Yes, but only after objectively assessing the facts and working collaboratively to fashion commonsense solutions.

 

Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America:

 

1. Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.

2. The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.

3. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.

4. Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.

5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.

6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.

7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.

8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.

 

Each of these facts is firmly based on empirical data. Here’s a deeper look.

 

1. America is relatively safe, and the trend is toward becoming safer.

 

  • According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, violent crime has been declining steadily since the early 1990s.
  • The 2011 homicide rate was almost half of the rate in 1991, and according to Pew Research, the 2013 gun-related death rate was half of the rate in 1993.
  • The number of non-fatal firearm crimes committed in 2011 was one-sixth the number committed in 1993.
  • In the past few years, there have been minor increases in certain types of violent crimes, mainly in large metropolitan areas. However, these increases are nowhere near those seen in the 1990s and are largely related to gang activity.
  • It should be remembered that it takes at least three to five years of data to show true trend lines. It appears that the collective homicide toll for America’s 50 largest cities decreased modestly in 2017 after two consecutive years of increases.

 

 

 

*SNIP*

 

 

 

7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.

 

  • In 2013, President Barack Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to assess existing research on gun violence. The report, compiled by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, found (among other things) that firearms are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times every year.
  • According to the CDC, “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.” Recent CDC reports acknowledge that studies directly assessing the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
  • Semi-automatic rifles (such as the AR-15) are commonly used as self-defense weapons in the homes of law-abiding citizens because they are easier to control than handguns, are more versatile than handguns, and offer the advantage of up to 30 rounds of protection. Even Vox has published stories defending the use of the AR-15.
  • AR-15s have been used to save lives on many occasions, including:
    • Oswego, Illinois (2018) — A man with an AR-15 intervened to stop a neighbor’s knife attack and cited the larger weapon’s “intimidation factor” as a reason why the attacker dropped the knife.
    • Catawba County, North Carolina (2018) — A 17-year-old successfully fought off three armed attackers with his AR-15.
    • Houston, Texas (2017) — A homeowner survived a drive-by shooting by defending himself with his AR-15.
    • Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (2017) — A homeowner’s son killed three would-be burglars with an AR-15 (the man was later deemed to have acted in justifiable self-defense).
    • Ferguson, Missouri (2014) — African-American men protected a white man’s store from rioters by standing outside armed with AR-15s.
    • Texas (2013) — A 15-year-old boy used an AR-15 during a home invasion to save both his life and that of his 12-year-old sister.
    • Rochester, New York (2013) — Home intruders fled after facing an AR-15.

 

8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.

 

 

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

 

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto

Just wanted to post this for future reference. And the number 8 stubborn fact merits special attention since concealed carry has a causal effect with drops in murder rates. Also, as in stubborn fact 7, my AR-15 is our primary defense weapon at home.

Too long, didn't read...all outliers.

 

 

 

(Am I doing this right?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection

Just wanted to post this for future reference. And the number 8 stubborn fact merits special attention since concealed carry has a causal effect with drops in murder rates. Also, as in stubborn fact 7, my AR-15 is our primary defense weapon at home.

 

That link is a goldmine of facts.

 

Bookmarked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Too long, didn't read...all outliers.

 

 

 

(Am I doing this right?)

 

You missed one, Evil Trump will kill us all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

I agree with one particular statement:

 

4. Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.

 

Yes, I agree with that. Much of the the rest might be a statistical abstract of he USA as a whole but doesn't necessarily apply to any given area as an individual unit. Sure, gun crime as a whole might be down in the USA.... and I'll bet the residents of Chicago or Detroit or Milwaukee or even Atlanta are just thrilled to pieces to know this.

 

The author does acknowledge that... "In the past few years, there have been minor increases in certain types of violent crimes, mainly in large metropolitan areas"...but treats this like a mere footnote.

 

There is no "mere" to this; it's where ALL the problem is. Take out the 40 largest of the 383 "Metropolitan Statistical Areas" in the USA (#1 NYC Area, #2 LA Area, #3 Chicago Area...#9 Atlanta Area... #21 St Louis Area... #39 Milwaukee Area, #40 Jacksonville FL area), and the remainder of the USA if a country of it's own would rank in the top 5 safest in the world with a homicide rate of ~0.75/100,000, somewhere between Switzerland (0.49/100,000) and Japan (1/100,000).

 

But... Include those large MSAs, and the USA is not in the top 5 safest but drops down to 141st, with an overall "intentional homicide" rate of 5.53 per 100,000 per year.

 

 

There is no "mere" to this; it's where ALL the problem is. And, yes, Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.

 

But there's not a single politician out there who can say this out loud and get elected. :angry:

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

There is no "mere" to this; it's where ALL the problem is. And, yes, Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.

 

But there's not a single politician out there who can say this out loud and get elected.

 

Probably because it's reductive nonsense:

 

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.

 

Gun%20ViolenceEDIT-thumb-600x600-40178.jpg

 

So what are the factors that are associated with firearm deaths at the state level?

 

Poverty is one. The correlation between death by gun and poverty at the state level is .59.

 

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). Though this association is likely to infuriate many people, the statistics are unmistakable. 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.

 

Firearm deaths were far less likely to occur in states with higher levels of college graduates (-.64) and more creative class jobs (-.52).

 

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)...

 

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).

 

While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.

 

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

Probably because it's reductive nonsense:

 

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.

 

Gun%20ViolenceEDIT-thumb-600x600-40178.jpg

 

So what are the factors that are associated with firearm deaths at the state level?

 

Poverty is one. The correlation between death by gun and poverty at the state level is .59.

 

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). Though this association is likely to infuriate many people, the statistics are unmistakable. 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.

 

Firearm deaths were far less likely to occur in states with higher levels of college graduates (-.64) and more creative class jobs (-.52).

 

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)...

 

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).

 

While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.

 

LINK

 

 

Sooo...

 

Why does Houston have less than half the murder of Chicago?

Both have about the same average income. Racial statistics are close. Oh that's right, Houston is much warmer.

This whole poverty is the reason is utter b.s. if that was the case then the 1930's should have been an utter blood bath, especially in the black ghettos. In reality they where by in large as safe or safer then the predominantly white areas.

 

By the way....

Why did Milwaukee have 140 times the number of Murders then Green Bay in 2017? They are also on track to do it again?

They also have about 20 times the number of Madison for 2017? Do tell. Please explain.

Same laws, same rules, same state.

 

Also, despite making up less than ten percent of the states entire population they account for over half the murders.

But, I must apologize A LITTLE. Despite being full of hunters, and law abiding gun owners Green Bay had ZERO MURDERS FOR 2017, and so far(knock on wood) has had zero for this year as well. Must be an access to guns issue for the ZERO MURDERS RIGHT?

Like I said really begs the question what's so different about Green Bay and Milwaukee.

 

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/green-bay-wi/

By the way..

average income of Green Bay

is $43.5 K poverty of 18.3 %

 

Milwaukee is $38K

and poverty is 26.7

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/milwaukee-wi/

 

Lower, but not by a huge margin.

And certainly not enough to justify the massive difference in murder rates.

 

 

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe the Pagan

Probably because it's reductive nonsense:

 

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.

 

Gun%20ViolenceEDIT-thumb-600x600-40178.jpg

 

So what are the factors that are associated with firearm deaths at the state level?

 

Poverty is one. The correlation between death by gun and poverty at the state level is .59.

 

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). Though this association is likely to infuriate many people, the statistics are unmistakable. 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.

 

Firearm deaths were far less likely to occur in states with higher levels of college graduates (-.64) and more creative class jobs (-.52).

 

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)...

 

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).

 

While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.

 

LINK

 

I can't believe it. A leftist on Right National actually posted the source to the graph.

 

I still don't think Koggy read the article. He would have seen this line

 

Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

I can't believe it. A leftist on Right National actually posted the source to the graph.

 

I still don't think Koggy read the article. He would have seen this line

That line is irrelevant to the left because stopping violent crime and protecting vulnerable demographics from crime isn't part of their agenda, stopping guns is. This has always been the case when it comes to guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

Probably because it's reductive nonsense:

 

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.

 

Gun%20ViolenceEDIT-thumb-600x600-40178.jpg

 

So what are the factors that are associated with firearm deaths at the state level?

 

Poverty is one. The correlation between death by gun and poverty at the state level is .59.

 

You're getting warm. More on that in a moment.

 

 

And, not surprisingly, firearm-related deaths are positively correlated with the rates of high school students that carry weapons on school property (.54).

 

That one's a Freebie. In my day (1970s) in Indiana it wasn't illegal to have firearms on school property, plenty of kids old enough to drive had shotguns or hunting rifles in the back window of their pickup trucks. And, yet, there wasn't a single school shooting in the entire state of Indiana in the 1970s.

 

These days, it *IS* illegal in most places I know of. Ipso facto, anyone carrying a firearm onto school property these days is, by definition, up to something illegal.

 

But you missed one on your chart. Factor this in: Not just "poverty" by itself, but poverty + population density (residents per square mile). Feel free to graph "number of residents per square mile below federal poverty level vs. homicide rate.

 

Yes, I know the number. Do YOU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...