Skip to main content

This diary is part of the Firearm Law and Policy group's ongoing series Guns and Suicide.  Previous installments of this series can be found here, here, here, and here.

I've constructed this article like an onion: it has layers.  The deeper you go, the more details you will find.  You can read the first section below (the outer layer), and you will understand the main points of the article.  If you want to know some of the details, you can read the second section.  More details still are available by viewing the accompanying supplemental diary, which contains the data table and figures (found here)

Link to data table: http://www.dailykos.com/...

The Overview

This article tries to answer some questions about guns and gun violence in America.
1)  Is the experience of gun violence the same for whites and blacks, or are there racial differences that effect who gets shot in America?
2)  Is there any linkage between the number of guns and the amount of gun violence in America?

To answer these questions, we used public data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC): the numbers of homicides and suicides for whites and blacks came from the CDC’s mortality data, and the data on gun ownership came from a CDC study of health risk factors.

Once the data was collected, we analyzed it using a linear regression statistical test.

And this is what we found out:

1)  In America overall, there are many more suicides using a gun than there are homicides using a gun.  Gun suicides make up roughly 61% of all gun deaths in America.
2)  Homicide with a gun occurs much more frequently among blacks than among whites – on average the rate at which blacks die by gun homicide is almost 10 times greater that the rate at which whites die by gun homicide.
3)  Suicide with a gun occurs much more frequently among whites than among blacks – on average the rate at which whites kill themselves with a gun is 2.7 times greater than the rate at which blacks kill themselves with guns.
4)  There exists a strong positive association of gun ownership (as measured as a percentage of the population) with whites dying by gun homicide, whites dying by gun suicide, and blacks dying by gun suicide.  There exists NO such association of gun ownership and black homicide.
5)  We can predict how many more white suicides, how many more white homicides, and how many more black suicides will occur with increases in the percentage of gun ownership.  However, we cannot make such a prediction for changes in black homicides.
And this is what we conclude from these findings:

Where gun violence is concerned, more Americans die by suicide than are murdered or shot accidentally.  While guns are promoted frequently as a tool of self-defense, those who are most often killed by guns are the gun owners themselves and their family members when they intentionally take their own lives.

Gun violence in America affects whites and blacks in very different ways.  When whites are killed by guns, it is mostly due to an intentionally self-inflicted injury.  But when blacks are killed by guns, it is usually an injury inflicted by someone else.  Even though gun suicides are more common and kill more people, news and media coverage of gun violence tends to focus on gun homicides.  Because of media reporting preferences, Americans tend to get an unrealistic picture of who is dying from gun violence and why.  Policies intended to reduce deaths from gun violence in America cannot focus solely on homicides or criminal attacks, but must also address the use of guns to commit suicide.

The results here show that gunshot injuries, both gun homicides and gun suicides, are higher in states where there are more gun owners.  This is consistent with and provides support for other studies that show an increasing incidence of gunshot injuries with increasing gun availability.  This relationship between the number of guns and the number of gunshot injuries has now been shown using a variety of different methods: 1) here, in a study of gun ownership and gunshot injuries by state; 2) in studies of gun sales and gunshot injuries over time (here, and  here); in studies of the number of gunshot injuries in countries with differing numbers of guns (here, and here), and in studies that compare the circumstances of people who have been shot and those who have not (here, and here).  The inescapable conclusions is that where there are more guns, there are more people getting shot.  And that were we to experience a decrease in the number of guns in this country, we would see an accompanying decrease in gunshot injuries.

The gun industry and its supporters like to claim that if more people have guns than there will be less crime.  In the case of white homicides, white suicides, and black suicides, the evidence presented here is quite the opposite: more guns results in more homicides and suicides.  The situation is somewhat different for black homicides.  The findings presented here demonstrate there is NO relationship between the number of guns and black homicides; that black homicides will not increase or decrease with changes in the number of guns.  So where black homicide is concerned, more guns does NOT result in less crime, nor does it result in more crime.  This also suggests that the forces that cause and influence black homicide are different from the forces that cause and influence white homicide.  Understanding what those forces are and how they work in the world is beyond the scope of this limited data-set, but do deserve our full attention if we hope to reduce the incidence of homicide.

The Details

The data on suicides, homicides, and race for each state and Washington DC came from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Web-based Injury and Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) (link) for the years 2008 – 2010.  

Data on gun ownership was collected by the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey from 2004 (link).  The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is on ongoing telephone survey of US households that collects data about chronic health conditions, health-related risk behaviors, and utilization of preventative healthcare services.  Data is collected from all 50 states, Washington DC, and three US territories.  Every year, over 400,000 US adults are surveyed, either by phone or in-person.

Linear regression was used to examine the data for correlations and trends.

The data table, showing rates of homicides and suicides among blacks and whites for all 50 states plus Washington D.C., can be viewed here.  

For all 50 states plus Washington DC, the average percentage of gun owners was 36.4%; the average rate of homicide using a firearm of any type was 3.73 homicides per 100,000 population (37.3 / 1,000,000 population); and the average rate of suicide using a firearm of any type was 6.06 suicides per 100,000 population (60.6 / 1,000,000).

For all 50 states plus Washington DC, the average rate of homicides using a gun of any type for whites was 15.88 homicides per 1,000,000 population, while the average rate of homicides using a gun of any type for blacks was 155.51 homicides per 1,000,000 population.  On average in the USA, the rate of gun homicides among blacks is nearly ten times higher than the rate of gun homicides among whites.

For all 50 states plus Washington DC, the average rate of suicide using a gun of any type for whites was 83.68 suicides per 1,000,000 population; the average rate of suicide using a gun of any type for blacks was 31.0 suicides per 1,000,000 population.  On average in the USA, the rate of suicide using a gun is 2.7 time greater among whites than among blacks.

Using linear regression, the number of whites and blacks dying by gun homicide and gun suicide in each state was regressed on the gun ownership measurement (percentage in each state who own a gun).  The percentage of gun ownership was highly positively correlated with the number of gun suicides by both blacks and whites.  The percentage of gun ownership was highly positively correlated with the number of gun homicides for whites, but the correlation of gun ownership with number of gun homicides among blacks did not achieve statistical significance (correlation of gun ownership and whites dying by gun homicide r = 0.503 (p < 0.001); correlation of gun ownership and blacks dying by gun homicide r =  -0.109 (p = 0.261); correlation of gun ownership and whites dying by gun suicide r = 0.706 (p < 0.001); and correlation of gun ownership and blacks dying by gun suicide r = 0.567 (p = 0.001)).

The relationships between gun ownership and death from gun homicide and gun suicide are illustrated in the scatterplots presented in the supplemental materials (found here).  Each state is plotted in the graphs by both the percentage of gun owners and number of blacks or whites dying by either gun homicide or gun suicide.  The least-squares regression line was also plotted to show the overall relationship between gun ownership and dying by gun homicide and gun suicide.  (View scatterplots)

The results of the linear regression of gun homicides and gun suicides on the number of gun owners were statistically significant in the case of white suicides, black suicides, and white homicides, but were not significant for black homicides (Homicide among whites regressed on gun ownership: B = 0.347 (t = 3.73, p < 0.001).  Homicide among blacks regressed on gun ownership: B = -0.521 (t = -0.647, p = 0.522).  Suicide among whites regressed on gun ownership: B = 1.83 (t = 6.915, p < 0.001).  Suicide among blacks regressed on gun ownership: B = 0.488 (t = 3.51, p = 0.002)).  The regression allows us to predict how suicides and homicides numbers will change with changes in the number of gun owners.  For the country as a whole, were the percentage of gun owners to increase from a national average of 36.24% to 37.24%, we would expect the rate of suicides among whites to increase from a national average rate of 83.69/million to a rate of 125.44/million, the rate of suicides among blacks to increase from a national average rate of 31.0/million to a rate of 40.98/million, and the rate of homicides among whites to increase from a national average rate of 15.88/million to a rate of 19.90/million.  Similarly, were the percentage of gun owners to decrease from a national average of 36.24% to 35.24%, we would expect the national average rate of gun suicides among whites to decrease to 41.92/million, the national average rate of gun suicides among blacks to decrease to 21.02/million, and the national average rate of homicides among whites to decrease to  11.86/million.  Because the correlation of homicides among blacks with gun ownership did not achieve statistical significance, we would not expect the rate of homicide among blacks to increase or decrease with changes in the number of gun owners.

This study not only provides further evidence that more guns are associated with greater number of gunshot injuries, but also gives us some idea of how increases and decreases in gun ownership might reflect on the number of gun homicides and gun suicides.

There is evidence from other studies that the population density of a community may effect gun violence.  Gun homicides have been shown to be more frequent in densely populated urban communities, while gun suicides have been shown to be more frequent in less populated rural communities (here, and here).  The study data presented here does not include information on the type of neighborhood where the shooting occurred, so we can not independently assess how rural vs. urban communities differ in gun violence.

The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. We also cover the many positive aspects of gun ownership, including hunting, shooting sports, and self-defense.

To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream, and use the link next to the heart to send a message to the group if you have a question or would like to join.

We have adopted Wee Mama's and akadjian's guidance on communicating.  But most important, be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

Originally posted to Firearms Law and Policy on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (20+ / 0-)

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:00:19 AM PST

  •  seems to make sense to me... (15+ / 0-)
    The results here show that gunshot injuries, both gun homicides and gun suicides, are higher in states where there are more gun owners.
    ...it would be surprising if it were any other way.

    thanks for the well written and researched diary.

    We are not broke, we are being robbed...but we can fight back...#KosKatalogue

    by Glen The Plumber on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:19:13 AM PST

    •  The Gun Industry has Always Claimed.... (16+ / 0-)

      The gun industry has always claimed that having a gun in the home is the best way to keep the home and family safe, and that more guns will result in less crime, and the best way to stop a bad gun with a gun is to give a gun to a good guy.  The gun industry has always claimed that if everyone had guns, then we would have more polite society.

      Studies such as this one show these claims by the gun industry have no merit.  What an examination of the data shows us is that where there are more guns, there are more shootings.  The data shows that people who live in a home where there is a gun are more likely to suffer a gunshot injury than people who live in a home where there are no guns.  The data shows that a gun in the home is 6-7 times more likely to shoot a family member or invited guest than to shoot an uninvited intruder.

      The benefits of making guns easily and widely available in the US is that the gun industry reaps greater profits.  The drawbacks of such a policy is more people getting shot.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:36:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No issue whatsoever (4+ / 0-)

        with you (or anybody else) providing information, data, statistics, etc... that allows people to make an informed choice. The issue is when you remove the choice part of that.

        I am well aware that along with providing many potential benefits, having firearms in my home also creates certain risks. I have weighed that and made a choice for me and my family. You are absolutely free to do the same.

        •  Choice - an important word (10+ / 0-)

          I have argued in previous installments of the Guns and Suicide series that people who make a choice to kill themselves (using a gun or any other method) are NOT making a rational choice the way you or I might decide on dinner.

          My argument is that people thinking about suicide are often not in their right mind: they might suffer from a mental illness (depression, PTSD) that effects their judgment and understanding of their situation; that they might be suffering from excessive alcohol or drug use/abuse (known to effect judgment and reality-testing); that they might be suffering a very stressful event (divorce, job loss)  (also known to effect judgment and reality-testing); etc.

          If your significant other was thinking about killing themself, would you give them a gun, or get the guns out of your house?  Who's choice is free in such a situation?

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:08:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If I was aware of the situation (0+ / 0-)

            I would remove the guns from the house. I believe suicide is indeed a choice, but I would not be party to facilitating it.

            •  Restricting guns and free choice (6+ / 0-)

              If I thought my significant other was suicidal, I too would make sure to remove all the nearby guns.

              So we both understand that in some situations, restricting guns and interfering with "free choice" is right and necessary.

              Sadly, too many people only learn this after their kid shoots themselves.

              It is my recommendation that the best way to protect your home and family is to get rid of your guns, and buy a large dog.  If you are worried about intruders, buy pepperspray, a taser, or some other non-lethal form of defense.

              But as you say, the choice is yours to make.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:27:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  ...except it doesn't. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DavidMS, ER Doc, theatre goon, FrankRose

        Gun suicides and gun homicides will always track gun ownership, because of the availability issue.  Few people die of drowning in a desert, that doesn't imply a desert is a safer place to be than anywhere else.

        You have to track total homicides and suicides.  Suicide rate certainly doesn't track across countries by gun ownership.  Japan has a substantially higher suicide rate than the United States, but a dramatically lower gun suicide rate.

        •  Ask and you shall receive (6+ / 0-)

          Here is a study that looked at total number of suicides and total number of homicides: (here: http://www.dailykos.com/...)

          The bottom line: total gunshot injuries and total gun suicides in the USA correlate very highly with gun sales in the USA.  Total gun homicides in the USA do NOT correlate with gun sales in the USA.

          "The gun industry has always claimed that having a gun in the home is the best way to keep the home and family safe, and that more guns will result in less crime, and the best way to stop a bad gun with a gun is to give a gun to a good guy.  The gun industry has always claimed that if everyone had guns, then we would have more polite society."
          Please show me anything written by the gun industry that refutes this.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:33:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, I remember reading that diary. (4+ / 0-)
            The bottom line: total gunshot injuries and total gun suicides in the USA correlate very highly with gun sales in the USA.  Total gun homicides in the USA do NOT correlate with gun sales in the USA.
            ...which is once again just gun statistics, rather than encompassing all homicides.

            The earlier diary had total homicide statistics, but you didn't adjust them for the actual per capita rate.  Homicides stayed roughly the same as the population increased.

            Murder has been declining for well over a decade and continues to slump.

            •  Why no increase in bicycle injuries? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              murrayewv, LilithGardener

              You will notice from that other study that total gunshot injuries increased over time, but total bicycle injuries did not.

              So if you want to claim that increases in the population are the cause of the increasing number of gunshot injuries, you will have to explain why there was no corresponding effect of population on the number of bicycle injuries.  In other words, why are gunshot injuries increasing as a result of population increases, but bicycle injuries do not?

              The data in the study presented here shows differences in homicides and suicides, and the data was collected all at one time (not over a period of years).  Hence, the data here arrives at the same results as the previous study (i.e. the number of guns is tied to the number of gunshot injuries), yet there is no possible confound from changes over time in population.  Interesting, yes?

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 02:06:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Is there an increase in bicycle usage? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener

                There are a lot more firearms out there now. Are there a lot more bicycles?

                •  I think you guessed correctly. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  murrayewv, LilithGardener

                  We're flying way off tangent here, but this report from 2012 seems to indicate commuting by bike in the US has climbed in recent years:

                  1990 % workers commuting by bike            Census 1990    calculation    0.41%
                  2000 % workers commuting by bike            Census 2000    P30    0.38%
                  2005 % workers commuting by bike            ACS 2005    calculation    0.40%
                  2006 % workers commuting by bike            ACS 2006    calculation    0.45%
                  2007 % workers commuting by bike            ACS 2007    calculation    0.48%
                  2008 % workers commuting by bike            ACS 2008    calculation    0.55%
                  2009 % workers commuting by bike            ACS 2009    calculation    0.55%
                  •  bicycles and their operators..... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener

                    are increasingly demanding bike lanes, better signs and are themselves taking action, using helmets, lights and safer street bikes.  Firearms owners are demanding higher caliber bullets, larger magazines/clips and increasing access to military-style weapons.

                    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                    by murrayewv on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 03:53:08 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Yes - my point exactly (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fcvaguy, LilithGardener

                  You have made my point for me: there are more firearms, and more gunshot injuries.  The number of firearms and the incidence of gunshot injuries are positively correlated: as the number of guns increases, we see an accompanying increase in gunshot injuries.

                  Again, the data from the study presented here shows differences in the number of guns - not differences over time, but differences in different locations (all measured at the same time).  So the data presented here is NOT complicated by over-time increases in the population.  

                  YET....the results presented here are the same as when we look at changes in gun numbers and changes in gunshot injuries over time.  The result is that there is a positive correlation of the availability of guns and the incidence of gunshot injuries.

                  So...whether you measure changes in gun availability over time, or measure changes in gun availability in different locations at one time, you get the same result: more guns are positively associated with more gunshot injuries.

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 05:43:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There are also more people. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon, FrankRose, nextstep

                    You still don't show the rate. Raw (total) numbers are only good for some things.

                    •  Ignorance is your Bliss (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sharon Wraight

                      The data table shows the rates of white homicides, white suicides, black homicides and black suicides.  Every number n the data table, with the exception of the column headed "Gun Ownership" is a rate: number of deaths per 1 million population.  Only the data on homicide and suicides rates was used in calculating the correlation of guns and gun shot deaths.

                      So you are sadly but completely wrong.

                      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 05:52:07 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm missing something here. (0+ / 0-)

                        I didn't see two different years in your data tables. I see one. You're taking one year and comparing it to itself or did I miss a link somewhere?

                        •  We may be talking about two different things (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LilithGardener, Sharon Wraight

                          In the analysis presented here (Guns and Suicide: Racial Disparities in Gun Homicides and Gun Suicides), all the data is either in the form of a percentage (percentage of gun owners in each state) or in the form of a rate (number of people killed per million population).

                          In the analysis presented in an earlier diary (Guns and Suicide: Gun Suicides Rise and Fall with Gun Sales) gun sales are presented using the yearly tallies of NICS inquiries, and the number of people killed by guns and bicycles are the yearly tallies of the number of people killed.

                          These 2 different studies use different data.  Not surprisingly (to me anyway, this is the way good science is supposed to work), the two studies arrive at the same conclusion: that more guns is associated with more gunshot injuries.  

                          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 06:58:32 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

        •  If the factors for suicide (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

          in Japan differ from the US, than presumably you would implement different solutions in the Japan than the US.

          That doesn't mean gun availability isn't a huge factor in the US, nor does it mean restricting gun availability would reduce suicides in the US.

      •  This also suggests that many suicides are (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jan4insight

        Actually murders.  If a member of a household kills another member the most obvious defense is to claim suicide.  

         The data shows that a gun in the home is 6-7 times more likely to shoot a family member or invited guest than to shoot an uninvited intruder.
  •  Breaking down homicide victims by state and race, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea

    without further data regarding the racial makeup of the particular states, seems too crude a tool, too easily leading to erroneous conclusions.

    I realize the table is actually in the other diary, but you directed us here.

    Perhaps you could show some comparative population figures, if only Black/White percentages of each state's population, so that the data might provide a more accurate picture-at-a-glance?

    War beats down, and sows with salt, the hearts and minds of soldiers." Brecht

    by DaNang65 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:47:55 AM PST

    •  Please point out any erroneous conclusions (6+ / 0-)

      Please point out any conclusions made in this diary that you find erroneous or questionable.  And for those conclusions in this diary that you think are erroneous or questionable, please tell us what you think the appropriate conclusion should be based on the data presented.

      In general, more data allows for greater investigation.  However, in the real world, getting more data is more time-consuming and more costly.  ALL science is a compromise between the data the scientists would like to have and the logistics involved in getting that data.

      What would you do to improve the study?  How would knowing the percentages of blacks and whites in each state help?

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:57:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry that you read it that way, my poor choice (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

        of language. I never meant to say you'd reached any incorrect conclusions, all I meant was that simply by putting raw numbers of homicides, say, broken down by state and race too easily leads the reader to see totally erroneous comparisons.

        The comparison of raw numbers of black/white homicides in a given state with, say, 25% black population could be very misleading vis a vis a state with, say, less than 5% black population.

        I apologize for not responding more quickly, that comment was almost a throwaway on my way out the door to an MLK Day event. I'd look up the numbers but I'm on my way out to something else.

        Perhaps I can illustrate my point, with hard numbers, later tonight.

        War beats down, and sows with salt, the hearts and minds of soldiers." Brecht

        by DaNang65 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:06:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's an interesting angle (0+ / 0-)

      And what a great idea for a follow up diary! If you should ever take on the endeavor please send us a note so we can support publication of additional research on this topic.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:00:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Data always help. Thanks. (6+ / 0-)



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:11:42 AM PST

  •  I had to read this several times. (5+ / 0-)
    There exists a strong positive association of gun ownership (as measured as a percentage of the population) with whites dying by gun homicide, whites dying by gun suicide, and blacks dying by gun suicide.  There exists NO such association of gun ownership and black homicide.
    So why is that ownership and black homicide have no relationship? Is it because black homicide is with unowned guns. Free-floating, stray guns that have been forgotten by the owners.

    I don't understand why white suicide=yes, white homicide=yes, black suicide=yes, black homicide=no.

    I would wonder if black homicide rests on the number of unowned guns in circulation.

    Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

    by 88kathy on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:21:24 AM PST

    •  I imagine (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      murrayewv

      because the referred to ownership rates are legal or self reported ownership rates. In the areas where most black homicides happen (high crime, poverty blighted areas) a ridiculous (90% would not surprise me) percentage of the guns are illegal and were obtained on the black market after they were stolen from the original owner. A few percentage points one way or the other in legal ownership in these areas is swamped by the huge numbers of illegal guns that don't get counted.

      •  If guns are being 'lost' in huge numbers, doesn't (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Duckmg, greengemini, murrayewv

        that tell you that legal owners have exceedingly butter fingers. Are lost or stolen guns being reported in huge numbers? What are the numbers?

        Chicago gangs don’t have to go far to buy guns

        In their study, U. of C. researchers combed through gun-trace data to determine the weapons most likely bought by straw purchasers.

        Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

        by 88kathy on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:54:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As noted in the article (0+ / 0-)

          It's not clear whether even one gun came from a straw purchase or whether they came from burglaries of people who had bought guns at the store in question.

          I imagine stolen guns are reported in large numbers along with the rest of the property taken. Guy in my small city just had 23 guns stolen when his home was burglarized. They are the jackpot for burglars, at the top of their list of objects to look for.

          I'd certainly report mine stolen if I was burglarized.

          •  Personal Choice? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            88kathy, LilithGardener

            So, the guy with 23 guns made a choice to assume the personal risk of having 23 guns in his home and since they are the "jackpot" for burglars, he assumed the risk that they might be stolen. That placed an entire community at risk, 23 extra guns out there to be used to kill people. His "personal" choice was not so personal.

            •  Do you often blame the victim? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, theatre goon

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:23:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not always (3+ / 0-)

                But, in this case, yes. If you choose to store lethal weapons, you are ultimately responsible for keeping them secure.

                If those chemicals in West Virginia had been released as a result of vandalism, I think we would still hold the company responsible for failing to secure a dangerous chemical.

                •  Thus you would hold the victims of theft of (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  knives, cars and baseball bats to the same criteria?

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:06:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It can be assumed (3+ / 0-)

                    that those things are not generally stolen because they are highly desired by people wanting to use them as a weapon in the commission of a crime, but the same cannot be said for guns.  

                    •  Irrelevant & not true. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon

                      In most cases guns are stolen for the same reason anything is stolen; money.

                      Both blunt objects and knives are used in more murders per year than rifles

                      In light of that fact, I don't see how you can hold firearms to a different criteria.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 06:25:38 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Are you being deliberately obtuse? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TheFern, Sharon Wraight

                        Why can you make quick, easy money with a stolen gun? Because criminals like them. Maybe you can make some good money by taking them to a city that is trying to curtail gun violence.

                        I am not going to explain to you again (because I am sure someone has told you this before) the difference between guns and other objects that might be used to kill someone. Even if you take into account that there are some knives designed strictly for killing, unless you're an expert, they are not nearly as efficient and "clean" as a gun and so not usually the weapon of choice, more a weapon of chance.  

                        What I notice about the chart to which you directed me is that of 12000+ homicides, 8000+ were committed with firearms. I notice you only direct me to the rifles statistic.

                        I think it doesn't matter because I believe that even if guns were the only weapon ever used to kill people, you wouldn't care. Gun people argue with the fervor of someone trying to rationalize and justify a bad habit. If you really were to be honest with yourselves and others, you would just say you believe it's your right and you like it and you don't care if mass numbers of guns in circulation leads to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people. There really is no magic number that can be reached that will make you see gun violence as a societal problem.

                        I feel bad because I have again gotten into a useless argument with you maybe distracting from a diary not my own. I know that it is useless because we have argued before and I doubt we will ever reach any points of agreement.

                         

                        •  Somebody certainly is. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon

                          The reason you can make quick and easy money for guns is because.....they are worth money.

                          [guns are] not usually the weapon of choice
                          Nor are rifles: The FBI shows that blunt objects & knives are used in murders more than rifles are.
                          If you really were to be honest with yourselves and others, you would just say you believe it's your right and you like it and you don't care if mass numbers of guns in circulation leads to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people
                          Thus, I can only assume that in the wake of 9/11 you supported Gitmo, torture & warrantless wiretaps, despite your rights, because of the deaths of thousands.
                          For the record, I disagree. I don't think that infringing on the rights of the innocent because of the crimes of murderers is the moral or the efficient response.
                          I notice you only direct me to the rifles statistic.
                          Correct. I wanted to ascertain if your belief was truly rooted in the usage of objects to commit murder, or because of your personal bias.
                          You have answered that question.
                          Gun people argue with the fervor of someone trying to rationalize and justify a bad habit.
                          Actually we argue with the fervor of standing up for the rights of innocent Americans & also with the arrogance of knowing that we are right both morally & politically.
                          If you really were to be honest with yourselves and others, you would just say you believe it's your right

                          It is.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 08:08:52 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

    •  No one knows - more research needed (4+ / 0-)

      You are bumping up against the limits of our knowledge.

      What this tells us is that if the percentage of gun owners goes up, we are likely to also see an increase in the number of white suicides, black suicides, and white homicides.  It tells us that were gun ownership to decrease, we can expect a decrease in the number of white suicides, black suicides, and white homicides.

      AND, it tells us that we can expect NO CHANGE in the number of black homicides with changes in the number of gun owners, either up or down.

      This also says that whatever forces combine to result in white homicides are very different from the forces that result in black homicides.  But, we don't really know what those forces are or how they work.

      You have made a possible explanation: underground guns.  This seems to make sense, but we would need to do more research to see if this is correct.

      Other possible explanations: 1) differences in the rate of crime between white and black neighborhoods; 2) differences in the rate of poverty in white and black neighborhoods; 3) differences in the policing of white and black neighborhoods; 4) differences in the number of fully employed people in white and black neighborhoods.

      More research is needed to fully explore these and other possible explanations.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:49:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your conclusion here makes no sense. (0+ / 0-)

        Many blacks are shot by guns.  And then you are claiming that fewer guns would not alter this fact.

        •  What part makes no sense? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, 88kathy

          My conclusions are based on the statistical analysis presented above.

          And the statistical analysis shows quick clearly that there exists a positive association (i.e. positive correlation) between the number of gun owners and the number of gun suicides for whites, gun suicides for blacks, and gun homicide for whites.  The statistical analysis also show that there is NO such association between the number of gun owners and the the number of gun homicides for blacks.

          You are correct: many blacks are shot by guns.  The lack of statistical association between the number of gun owners and the number of black homicides leads to the conclusion that (on average) there will be neither an increase nor a decrease in the number of black homicides as the number of gun owners goes up or down.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:51:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Could also be representative (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            murrayewv, LilithGardener, 88kathy

            of a 'lack of borders' when it comes to guns involved in black homicides.

            If such homicides are often related to crimes, or gangs with geographical 'reach', then it wouldn't much matter if gun availability in a particular state or local was restricted. This is similar to the evidence linking a high percentage of Chicago gun crimes to one particular gun shop in a less restricted area.

            http://www.suntimes.com/...

            This doesn't mean that if gun availability were restricted nationwide there would be no effect on black homicides.

          •  I agree somewhat with the above comment (0+ / 0-)

            but also every person that shoots someone is a de facto gun owner.

            It is not logical to have fewer gun owners without fewer folks getting shot.  Suggesting otherwise is a very extraordinary conclusion.  

            •  Fewer gun owners (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              88kathy, LilithGardener

              What the statistical analysis shows is that the incidence of  gun homicides among blacks will stay the same regardless of whether the number of gun owners increases or decreases.

              This is different from saying that fewer gun owners will result in fewer people getting shot.

              F'instance: it is possible we would see a decrease in the number of gun owners, and a decrease in the total number of people getting shot, yet still see the number of homicides among blacks staying the same.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:26:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  "Death Alley" - More questions and data points? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        Circumstances and statistics differ not only by state, but from neighborhood to neighborhood, and even from street to street, or block to block.

        Why so?

        Here's an informative article from the LA Times that  discusses some of the factors --- there are more details and graphics worth seeing in the article:

        South Vermont Avenue: L.A. County’s ‘death alley'

        Tiny Westmont has highest homicide rate in the county.

        In a county of 10 million people, Westmont is among the deadliest places to live. In the last seven years, 100 people — nearly all of them male — have been killed in the 1.8 square miles wedged between the city of Los Angeles and Inglewood. Times analysis of homicide data collected in that time found Westmont’s rate of killings to be the highest overall.

        The community, which has no city government of its own, has fallen through the cracks, said Nathan Arias, who heads a nonprofit group trying to make a difference. There’s a youth center south of Imperial Highway, a general community task force meets weekly and scattered school programs exist, but there has been no widespread effort to reduce violence.

        “It’s amazing that an area with such high need is so underserved,” he said...

        --

        BY NICOLE SANTA CRUZ AND KEN SCHWENCKE
        PHOTOGRAPHY BY GENARO MOLINA
        JANUARY 19, 2014

        Even more perspective unfolds in the Times' comments section.
  •  Thanks for the lucid depiction of the (6+ / 0-)

    relationships here. Too bad this is not common knowledge but then many simply would not accept it as it smacks of science.

    "There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats ..." - Kenneth Grahame -

    by RonK on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:31:10 AM PST

    •  Too bad we don't make policy based on science (8+ / 0-)

      Yes, it is too bad that we as a country do not make our laws and policy based on science (insert favorite rant about our national response to climate change here).

      If we were to make our gun laws based on science, we would immediately understand that allowing more guns results in more shootings, and fewer guns would result in fewer shootings.

      Interestingly, both Canada and Australia (large, industrialized, western, multi-cultural countries similar to the USA) implemented strong restrictions on guns sales and use in recent decades.  The result in both countries was a subsequent decrease in the number of shootings, and the number of suicides and homicides using a gun in both countries.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:54:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Total murder/suicide: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        Australia's gun control laws passed in 1996, but murder peaked in 1999.

        Gun control started in earnest in Canada in 1995, yet the suicide rate today is much higher than it was in the 1950s & 1960s than it is today.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:34:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Murders and suicides (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          When you are reading up on the Australian and Canadian gun laws and the aftermath, be sure to look for data on the number of GUN homicides and GUN suicides BEFORE AND AFTER the laws were past.

          Guns are not the only weapon that causes homicides and suicides.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 07:00:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, theatre goon
            Guns are not the only weapon that causes homicides and suicides.

            Hence the murder rate in Australia peaking 3 years after their gun grab & Canada's suicide rate being higher than it was before their gun control push.

            I don't see how you think this is an argument that supports your arguments.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 07:09:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  His numbers are bunk (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

            Great article just this past article in Washington Post:

            Did gun control work in Australia?

            So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

            by fcvaguy on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 07:44:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No. They aren't. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon

              That is why I linked.

              Your quote is bunk however.
              Total homicide peaked three years after Australia's gun control plan went into effect.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:08:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  tell that to the Washington Post (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

                You quoted absolute number of homicides verses the homicide rate. That was seriously misleading given Australia's dramatic population increase over that period of time.

                If we're going to debate statistics, lets do so honestly ok?

                KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                by fcvaguy on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:20:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The homicide rate peaked in 1999 (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  But it is quite adorable watching you try and argue about the population growth of a span of 3 years.

                  I am talking about people here, not rabbits.

                  If we're going to debate statistics, lets do so honestly ok?
                  Lets.
                  Why don't you start now?

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:17:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  oh lawd (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

          Australia passed its law in 96, the states in Australia did their buyback over the next 3 years. There were 354 homicides in 1996. In 2010, there were 260, a dramatic decline.

          http://www.aic.gov.au/...

          And, those were absolute numbers, not rates. In 1996, the population of Australia was 17.9 million. In 2010, it was 22.2 million, a fast growing country.

          Simple math:  Homicide rate in 1996: 19.7 per million;
          Homicide rate in 2010: 11.7 per million; thats a 40% decline in homicide rate.

          In Canada, per your own link, suicide rate has declined from 13.5/million in 1995 to 11.5/million in 2009, a 15% decline.

          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

          by fcvaguy on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 07:38:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And as per my own link: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon

            1) The suicide rate in Canada was far lower in the 1950s and 1960s before their gun control.

            2) Australia's murder rate peaked in 1999, three years after their gun control took effect.

            During the same period you give, 1996-2010 the homicide & manslaughter rate in the USA dropped from 7.4/100,000 to 4.8/100,000.
            A very comparable 35% drop.

            It would seem that your unreasonable fear is just that.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:02:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

              so now you admit there was a significant drop in the Australia homicide rate. Your first comment implied there was none based on absolute numbers.

              And, what does the suicide rate in Canada in 1950 have to do with gun control being passed in 1996???  One could easily make an argument that suicide rate in Canada increased from 1950 to 1996 due to the lack of control !!

              And, as I said, and as you can read in the WP article, although gun control passed in Australia in 1996, it was not fully implemented for 3 years as various states spun up their buyback program. Since then, its decreased dramatically, and far surpassing any decrease in the US.

              Your numbers were bunk.

              KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

              by fcvaguy on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:18:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  My first comment meant exactly what it said: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon

                1) Murder peaked three years after Australia passed it's gun control.

                2) Canada had a far lower suicide rate in years before it's gun control.

                far surpassing any decrease in the US.
                You mean the 35% drop in murder rate here in the US?
                "Your numbers were bunk"
                My numbers are from the FBI.
                Take it up with them.

                Sorry, son.
                Your unreasonable fears are just that.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:21:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  A song for FrankRose (0+ / 0-)

                  "Troll, troll on the range
                  Who distorts everything we all say
                  For he loves his guns
                  And trolls diaries for funs
                  And moves goalposts all the live-long day."

                  This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

                  by Ellid on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 05:14:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Irony recipe: (0+ / 0-)

                    1) Take 5 servings of Dodged questions, 6 unacknowledged facts, 2 examples of ignoring what was actually said, 3 comments showing an inability to read 'Head of State', 4 heaping helpings of 'twisted words' 2 unsubstantiated accusations of
                    'moving the goalposts', an uprate of a comment that simply says "Dumbass" & 3 false accusations of 'trolling'
                    2) Write a (godawful) song
                    3) Mix.
                    4) Enjoy a Delicious and tasteful dish of unselfaware Irony mixed with a generous twist of hypocrisy!

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 05:52:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  first, why would you split the data? using death (6+ / 0-)

    from one period of time and then use gun ownership data from 6 years earlier?

    Second, If we are to presume this Gov phone survey is correct, then why is the NCVS Gov in person survey wrong when it comes up with over 100,000 defensive uses a year?

    Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
    I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
    Emiliano Zapata

    by buddabelly on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:56:13 AM PST

    •  Getting Good Data (4+ / 0-)

      You make a valid criticism: the data on gun homicides and gun suicides was collected in 2010, while the data on gun ownership comes from a survey done in 2004.

      Sadly, the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey is done every year, but only in 2004 did they ask about gun ownership.  I would have like to use more recent data, if such was available.

      We know from the FBI's NICS data that gun sales have increased every year since 2004, so we can anticipate that the data on gun ownership UNDERcounts gun ownership.  But the good news is that any biases that are present are likely to be similar for all states (given that the same survey was used to collect data on all states).  A much bigger problem would be if we thought the data undercounts some states, but overcounts other states.  There is no evidence to suggest this is going on.

      I am always on the look-out for good data.  Can you suggest a better source of data on gun ownership?  

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 10:15:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A note about NICS (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, WakeUpNeo

        That's a record of a gun (or ammo) changing hands. A single transaction event, or attempted purchase. It includes sales from federally licensed firearms dealers, but does not include private sales.  It might involve a single person purchasing multiple guns or simply a purchase of ammunition.

        E.g. In the Abramski case there are 2 NICS checks for one gun because PA requires background checks for all handgun transfers. OTOH, a single person buying 2 rifles and 2 handguns will count as only 1 NICS check.

        So, it's better to think of NICS as a snapshot of the number of transactions in legal gun/ammo circulation. For increased gun sales, the best we have is the rise in gun manufacturing & importing reported by the BATFE.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 10:43:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  True - Yet... (3+ / 0-)

          Everything you say about the NICS is correct.  It is a record of some ATTEMPTED sale, not a record of all completed sales.

          However, in the study above, the data on gun ownership was collected using a telephone survey of representative state residents.  As such, the data in the accompanying data table records state gun ownership as a percentage of all state resident.

          So, the NICS data was not used for this particular study.  I have used NICS data in some other investigations, but not in this one.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 10:54:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Most states (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, theatre goon

          Don't do NICS for ammo, in fact I think only 1 or 2 do. Mine certainly doesn't.

          Just for clarity for people not familiar with the law.

          •  That's correct, and most states don't require (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WakeUpNeo

            background checks for all gun transfers either.

            Some states require background checks for handguns but not for long guns. It gets complicated very quickly. More than half of federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) are collectors, who can buy and sell curios & relics without undergoing any background check.

            Generally, Curios & relics are guns more than 50 years old that haven't been modified.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 11:49:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Read the long thread on C&R licenses (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly

              Very interesting. I had certainly heard of it, but didn't know the details. My regular use shotgun is a Winchester Model 12, as in 1912, though mine was made in 1935. I use it every year for turkey and squirrel. For some of us that's the fascination, allure, etc... of firearms. If well maintained my great great grandchildren can use that very same shotgun. It also shows the fuzzy line on "military" weapons. The model 12 was used in the trenches of the first world war and carried on patrols in Vietnam as well.

    •  Ok, I can see that problem after doing a few (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, theatre goon, FrankRose

      searches.  My question then is why not use the death figures from 04 also so there's an actual apples to apples comparison?

      Also unless I'm wrong and I often am, it appears you used raw death numbers for some calculations ......Per capita numbers are what really matters as it is what shows your or my risk.  Raw numbers when the population has increased so much in the last decade seems to me to just not work.

      Doing a couple searches, from '01 to '10 according to The FBI report,  Crime in the United States, all violent crime is down including murder

      http://www.fbi.gov/...

      Murder rate down 15% all violent crime rate down 20%....yet at the same time, population increased almost 10% and the firearms inventory has gone up by at least 50 million considering some NICS are for guns already in the inventory, are for multiple guns etc....

      As to my second question, why is this survey to be accepted and the numbers and conclusions considered valid when the NCVS numbers for defensive uses are continually poo poohed by RASA types and we're told they are completely wrong...Even when we use the absolute minimum numbers from NCVS and none of the higher numbers other studies have shown.   This is the answer I really would like to hear.  Because even including suicide in the death numbers,  which imo isn't correct as suicide is a choice that I feel a human should be able to make for themselves, still even including it, Defensive uses are still almost 3 times the death numbers and even adding injuries the numbers are still close to equivalent....  

      So why is that Gov derived statistic not as valid as any of these statistics you used in formulating and writing this diary?

      Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
      I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
      Emiliano Zapata

      by buddabelly on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:43:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Injury rates vs. "raw numbers" (3+ / 0-)

        The numbers in the data table on the number of homicides and suicides are all RATES: number killed per 1 million population.  

        No "raw numbers" of suicides or homicides were used in the correlation analysis.

        I did an entire series of diaries on those studies that sought to count the number of "defensive gun uses", including the NCVS study.  See here (http://www.dailykos.com/...), here (http://www.dailykos.com/...), and here (http://www.dailykos.com/...).

        The reason the NSDS by Kleck et al is poo-poohed is because it was a pretty bad study.  The NSDS study was published in a law journal, not a peer-reviewed medical or public health journal.  The study designers hired a private survey firm owned by one of the study authors (a clear conflict of interest that today would render the study unpublishable).  The authors designed the study to include illegal gun uses in their tally of defensive gun uses, thereby artificially increasing the count of defensive gun uses.

        The study data presented here came from the CDC: not a private company.  The CDC has a great doctors and scientists working for it, and has a good track record of collecting accurate data.  Please: find me a better source of data than the CDC and I will use that data.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:02:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site