Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It may not have cherry picked data - but it sure chose to ignore data that is contrarian to their clearly pre-determined conclusion.
It made no attempt to explain that Alaska's inclusion in the top 10 was solely due to its gun suicide rate. I'm sorry but gun suicides are not a threat to you or me.
Because that's not the case. Alaska is high on several other measures of gun violence: Alaska has the highest gun homicide rate for children age 0 to 19 years of all states, and one of the highest female firearm homicide rates in the nation. In 2009 Alaska had the fourth-highest rate of guns sold inside the state that went on to be used in crimes in other states—more than double the national average. These “crime-gun exports” are a key marker of illegal gun trafficking.
And gun suicide is a risk, not only for those who take their own lives, but because of the incidence of murder/suicides in which an individual first kills their mate and sometimes their children before taking their own life. In fact, that is a very common way that women who are victims of domestic violence homicide die.
No, that's not the case. The study found a statistically significant correlation between the state gun laws and gun violence outcomes.
The study results are in a pdf file so I can't cut and paste the figures,tables, and graphs. But the graph showing this relationship is on page 31 of the report which is here:
Which many posters above me have disproven. The study is obviously bogus and your grasping at straws.
I enjoy debating you on gun control because it is easy. You trot out obviously biased studies and emotional ploys that are so easy to refute and then you stand behind them like they are the end game even after they are thouroghly debunked. Anyone who doesn't have blinders on can see this.
Which many posters above me have disproven. The study is obviously bogus and your grasping at straws.
I enjoy debating you on gun control because it is easy. You trot out obviously biased studies and emotional ploys that are so easy to refute and then you stand behind them like they are the end game even after they are thouroghly debunked. Anyone who doesn't have blinders on can see this.
You're right: SunBelt States are crime-free utopias
Which many posters above me have disproven. The study is obviously bogus and your grasping at straws.
I enjoy debating you on gun control because it is easy. You trot out obviously biased studies and emotional ploys that are so easy to refute and then you stand behind them like they are the end game even after they are thouroghly debunked. Anyone who doesn't have blinders on can see this.
Nobody has disproven anything. This study is not the be-all and end-all of studies of gun violence. There is no such thing. It's not obviously biased at all. It's not statistically biased either. "Thoroughly debunked?"---I'll bet most posters haven't even clicked on the link to the article on the study let alone the study itself.
Nobody has disproven anything. This study is not the be-all and end-all of studies of gun violence. There is no such thing. It's not obviously biased at all. It's not statistically biased either. "Thoroughly debunked?"---I'll bet most posters haven't even clicked on the link to the article on the study let alone the study itself.
So what's your response for it not being controlled for gun ownership rates or socioeconomic status? What about the discrepancies between high crime rates in metropolitan areas with strict gun control and low crimes rates for the surrounding areas with little gun control?
Not to mention it is funded and conducted by a group who wants stricter gun control, this study doesn't even pass the smell test.
It is a bad study and it is the only thing you are hanging your hat on. It really is sad.
So what's your response for it not being controlled for gun ownership rates or socioeconomic status? What about the discrepancies between high crime rates in metropolitan areas with strict gun control and low crimes rates for the surrounding areas with little gun control?
Not to mention it is funded and conducted by a group who wants stricter gun control, this study doesn't even pass the smell test.
It is a bad study and it is the only thing you are hanging your hat on. It really is sad.
If those factors were not statistically controlled for, it would actually make it less likely statistically that they would find a significant result. If you statistically control for a variable, it's like you take some of the noise (variability) out of a signal--you improve your chances of a clear signal.
There was a recent study of "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States" conducted by Harvard researchers in JAMA 2013 that did control for some of those variables, and it also found a relationship between the strength of gun laws and gun violence. Hope this link works:
Demographics and socioeconomics are much more a factor than gun laws. As has been pointed out, some of the states with the weakest gun laws have the lowest murder rates, and some states with strong gun laws have high murder rates. Also some states with vastly different gun laws have essentially the same murder rates (look at CA and TX.)
Gun laws have essentially no effect on murder rates. In cities/states with high murder rates, remove the criminal element, by increased and more aggressive law enforcement, and longer sentences for offenders, and the murder rate drops. This is how NYC went from >2,200 murders a year to, IIRC <500.
Demographics and socioeconomics are much more a factor than gun laws. As has been pointed out, some of the states with the weakest gun laws have the lowest murder rates, and some states with strong gun laws have high murder rates. Also some states with vastly different gun laws have essentially the same murder rates (look at CA and TX.)
Gun laws have essentially no effect on murder rates. In cities/states with high murder rates, remove the criminal element, by increased and more aggressive law enforcement, and longer sentences for offenders, and the murder rate drops. This is how NYC went from >2,200 murders a year to, IIRC <500.
Take a look at the study I linked to in the post right above yours.
california, washington dc,detroit, NYC and chicago are all crime free utopias too right?
Detroit is not in a gun control state.
DC crime is fastly declining.
California is not even on the top 20 when it comes to the most murderous states.
NYC is among the safest cities, with San Jose and San Diego.
Chicago crime is quite bad, unfortunately: but there are several cities with higher murder rate.
Also, let me remind you that the thread is about STATES' murder rate, not cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
