State Statistics

Frank over at Perfectly Frank put up a post; one we often see from gun control advocates.

I’ve taken his chart – from the VPC and added a column.

Rank State Firearm Related Rate Firearm Ownership
1 Alaska 19.59 57.8
2 Louisiana 19.15 44.1
3 Alabama 17.79 51.7
4 Mississippi 17.55 55.3
5 Wyoming 17.51 59.7
6 Montana 16.94 57.7
7 Arkansas 16.93 55.3
8 Oklahoma 16.41 42.9
9 Tennessee 15.86 43.9
10 New Mexico 15.63 34.8
11 South Carolina 15.6 42.3
12 West Virginia 15.1 55.3
13 Missouri 14.56 41.7
14 Arizona 14.2 31.1
15 Nevada 14.16 33.8
16 Kentucky 14.15 47.7
17 Idaho 14.08 55
18 Indiana 13.04 39.1
19 Georgia 12.63 40.3
20 Florida 12.49 24.5
21 North Carolina 12.42 41.3
22 Michigan 12.03 38.4
23 (tie) North Dakota 11.89 50.7
23 (tie) Maine 11.89 40.5
25 Oregon 11.76 39.8
26 Colorado 11.75 34.7
27 Utah 11.69 43.9
28 Kansas 11.44 42.1
29 Pennsylvania 11.36 34.7
30 Ohio 11.14 32.4
31 Delaware 10.8 25.5
32 Texas 10.5 35.9
33 Virginia 10.46 35.1
34 Vermont 10.37 42
35 Wisconsin 9.93 44.4
36 Maryland 9.75 21.3
37 South Dakota 9.47 56.6
38 Washington 9.07 33.1
39 Nebraska 8.99 38.6
40 Illinois 8.67 20.2
41 Iowa 8.19 42.9
42 California 7.89 21.3
43 Minnesota 7.88 41.7
44 New Hampshire 7.03 30
45 New Jersey 5.69 12.6
46 Rhode Island 5.33 12.8
47 Connecticut 4.48 16.7
48 New York 4.39 18
49 Massachusetts 3.18 12.6
50 Hawaii 2.71 6.7

 

 

Since Frank is still trying to figure things out; I’m going to keep this real simple. Let’s just look at the top ten states for the two variables; Firearm Related Homicides and Firearm Ownership. One of the most common gun control mantras is “more guns = more death”

Top Ten by Firearm Homicide Rate Top Ten by Ownership
1.  Alaska 5.  Wyoming
2.  Louisiana 1.  Alaska
3.  Alabama 6.  Montana
4 . Mississippi 37. South Dakota
5.  Wyoming 4. Mississippi
6.  Montana 7. Arkansas
7.  Arkansas 12. West Virginia
8.  Oklahoma 17. Idaho
9.  Tennessee 3 Alabama
10. New Mexico 23. North Dakota

The Numbers in both columns are the states’ ranking for Firearm related homicide rate. So Frank, if More Guns equals more firearm related deaths; why does Wyoming have a higher percentage of firearms but fewer deaths then Alaska or Louisiana or Alabama or Mississippi?

Why does Mississippi have more firearms then Louisiana but Louisiana have more firearm related homicides?

7 Responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Frank on 29.01.15 at 20:27

    Hi Bob,

    What’s the source for the Firearm ownership data? I didn’t think we had databases on those sort of things. Is it normalized in the same way? Is it a percent or a number per 100,000 people as well? I apologize if you’ve source this is other posts/comments and I’ve missed it.

    Also, the VPC post isn’t making the supposition you’re arguing against. They’re making the argument that more controls/legislation over firearms equates to fewer gun deaths, not that fewer guns equates to fewer gun deaths. Two very different things.

    Also, I’m not sure I’m understanding your counter-argument. With your new ranking the order is somewhat different but its still highlighting states that I think VPC is arguing has less firearm legislation.

    Frank

  2. Posted by Bob S. on 29.01.15 at 20:27

    Frank,

    I used Wikipedia for these numbers
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

    But I have seen and studied other surveys that support the same conclusion.

    it is a percentage of population of each state.

    So what is the purpose of the Firearm Legislation? To make it more difficult for people to own firearms; to reduce the number of firearms in each state because as I stated “more guns = more deaths” — a common gun control advocate meme.

    Surely if you are pushing for more legislation it is because you think that people will obey the law and not use firearms for suicide, right?
    Surely if you are pushing for more legislation it is because you think that too many people have guns that shouldn’t?

    Well the percentages show that there is no little correlation between the number of guns and the number of firearm deaths.

    Look at #37 in firearm related deaths — South Dakota they have almost as high of a percentage as Alaska but far fewer deaths. Why ?

    Please answer the question I asked — let’s not get off topic with what the VPC is saying – I’m just using the data YOU cited and pointing out one of the common arguments.

    Let me cite back your words from “It’s the sanctity of Human Life, Stupid”

    A few days ago I wrote that I’d like to see the elimination of virtually all guns

    If fewer guns are your goal, it is because you see that as a way of reducing the number of deaths, right?

    48 New York 4.39 18
    49 Massachusetts 3.18 12.6
    50 Hawaii 2.71 6.7

    So why does New York with less that twice as many firearms as Hawaii have nearly 3 times the death rate? Why does Massachusetts with less than half a percentage more firearm have nearly twice the death rate?

    Think here and see if the number of firearms is related to the number of deaths.

  3. Posted by Frank on 29.01.15 at 20:27

    Hi Bob.

    So what is the purpose of the Firearm Legislation?

    I think that depends on the legislation doesn’t it? I don’t know how many laws or proposed laws in each state are classified as Firearm legislation, what the current status of those laws are in terms of challenge or enforcement, or how many of them are attempts at reducing the number of guns vs. tracking guns/ammo or trying to ensure their safe use.

    Surely if you are pushing for more legislation it is because you think that people will obey the law and not use firearms for suicide, right?

    It hadn’t occurred to me push for legislation that would attempt to keep people from committing suicide, no. But I wouldn’t totally discount the possibility now that you mention it. I assume that is what some of the “cooling off” periods are for? It wouldn’t seem like a terrible idea to make a person wait to buy a gun if they’re distraught, give them a chance that someone might notice they need help.

    Surely if you are pushing for more legislation it is because you think that too many people have guns that shouldn’t?

    Yes I think that is true, I think there are people that shouldn’t have firearms. You don’t?

    In terms of your comparisons, I’ll answer them generally. I suspect an intellectually dishonest debate tactic is being used her but I can’t quite put my finger on it or label it. There is a 50 item list here. It would seem to make sense to compare states that are distant from one another on that list more-so than ones with little variation. If I compare number 1. Alaska with 50. Hawaii, there were certainly seem to be a correlation no?

    Please answer the question I asked — let’s not get off topic with what the VPC is saying – I’m just using the data YOU cited and pointing out one of the common arguments.

    You are responding via ping back to an article I posted from the VPC. How is the VPC’s reason observations of the data not on topic?

    A few days ago I wrote that I’d like to see the elimination of virtually all guns”

    Here you have taken a sentence I’ve written out of the context of it’s paragraph enough to alter the meaning I was trying to convey. Again, an intellectually dishonest debate tactic. For those that would like to see the full context…

    As I’ve said, I’m still processing all of this reading material and would still like to see both fewer abortions and fewer people shot. A few days ago I wrote that I’d like to see the elimination of virtually all guns. In a perfect world that is true. But when I think less emotionally about both of these subjects of individual rights, I realize I’d be willing to compromise on both of it meant more lives saved in the end.

    As one can see, here I am stepping back from that assertion a bit and am thinking about compromise.

    Bob, are you going to debate cleanly? If so, I’ll continue our dialog. If not, I see no value in continuing to dialog.

  4. Posted by Bob S. on 29.01.15 at 20:27

    Frank,

    Be very careful about your accusations. I am getting really tired of you accusing me of not debating honestly. My post wasn’t about the VPC article. I clearly and distinctly stated that I took that chart — one we’ve seen many times and asked a completely different question.

    I didn’t say I was addressing the VPC points or argument. I’m trying to frame the debate from the ground up.

    Have you or have you not heard people claim there are too many guns? Have you or have you not heard people say we should have fewer people owning firearms. In fact, while you may have stepped back from your argument, you still support it — as i showed in your statement — in a perfect world you would like to see the elimination of virtually all guns. That isn’t dishonesty – that is using your own words.

    And for you to do so immediately after using my quote selectively is extremely hypocritical of you.

    So what is the purpose of the Firearm Legislation? To make it more difficult for people to own firearms; to reduce the number of firearms in each state because as I stated “more guns = more deaths” — a common gun control advocate meme..

    The majority of firearm legislation is to keep ‘people who shouldn’t have guns from having them’ — a common theme in gun control. So don’t get pissy with me for pointing out that.

    Yes I think that is true, I think there are people that shouldn’t have firearms. You don’t?

    Especially when you agree with the idea and concepts of gun control legislation. To be honest, no. I don’t think there are people who shouldn’t have firearms. I think there are people who should be locked up or prohibited from interacting with society because they are a proven danger to themselves or others.

    but to say there are people who shouldn’t have firearms — without qualification — is to state that those people do not deserve their rights. Would you say “there are people who shouldn’t have the right to free speech, that they shouldn’t have the right to worship as they choose or not?

    In terms of your comparisons, I’ll answer them generally. I suspect an intellectually dishonest debate tactic is being used her but I can’t quite put my finger on it or label it. There is a 50 item list here. It would seem to make sense to compare states that are distant from one another on that list more-so than ones with little variation. If I compare number 1. Alaska with 50. Hawaii, there were certainly seem to be a correlation no?

    Sorry to say but this indicates a very superficial analysis — how about Texas and Louisiana?

    There is no dishonest technique here – stop making accusations — the question is “If firearm availability is related to firearm deaths; why do the states with high deaths not have the corresponding high ownership rates?

    Part of debating honestly Frank is to look at the questions ask and answer those.

    Let’s see from your list —

    Questioning the motives of the opponent:
    Accusation of taking a quote out of context:

  5. Posted by Frank on 29.01.15 at 20:27

    Hi Bob,

    I have to go pick up my son from school so I’ll answer the rest of this later, but please realize, I’m not labeling you as dishonest. I merely felt some of the debate constructs you were using ended up being intellectually dishonest. I realize the word dishonest carries baggage, perhaps the author of that debate post could have thought of a better word.

    But believe me, the last thing I’m trying to do is generate more negative feelings for people.

    Frank

  6. Posted by Paul Kanesky on 29.01.15 at 20:27

    Homicide includes, Suicide, Murder, Self defense, and justified police shootings, so any correlation between gun ownership rates is pointless. Suicides will only find another method (look at Japan)
    Murder is illegal, making it more illegal somehow helps? Justified homicide (citizen and police) is
    a good thing. Kind of a contradictory mix.
    What I would like to see is a fair comparison showing murder rates broken down by rural and urban areas. It may be living in densely populated areas is a contributing factor to violence of all types.
    Maybe we should ban cities?
    Paul in Texas

  7. Posted by Bob S. on 29.01.15 at 20:27

    Paul,

    You remind me of the smart kid in class that jumps in when the teacher is trying to lead the rest of the class to the right answer 🙂

    Definitely you are pointing Frank in the right direction. Stay tuned for tomorrow’s post.