Guns, Guns Guns

smr wrote:These are same people that are willing to say a person is a bigot because we want rational and sane immigration.

Yeah.... because that's *all* they're doing. Calling for "sane immigration policies".

You know, I've been on this forum a while, and with all the back and forth over carry laws, crime data, etc, etc, I thought it might be an idea to get back to basics. So:

Hypothesis-

The amount of firearms in private hands has a direct correlation to the amount of intentional homicides.

Now I went and compiled a chart, but couldn't figure out how to put it up here So I went and found someone else on the internet who had already done the same thing.

http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Firearm-Ownership-and-Homicides-Rates-per-Country.png

Now if the amount of guns in private hands is directly linked to the amount of intentional homicides, These two sets of data should roughly follow each other.

Just not seeing it. I think that other factors are in play here.

Invictus wrote:You know, I've been on this forum a while, and with all the back and forth over carry laws, crime data, etc, etc, I thought it might be an idea to get back to basics. So:

Hypothesis-

The amount of firearms in private hands has a direct correlation to the amount of intentional homicides.

Now I went and compiled a chart, but couldn't figure out how to put it up here So I went and found someone else on the internet who had already done the same thing.

http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Firearm-Ownership-and-Homicides-Rates-per-Country.png

Now if the amount of guns in private hands is directly linked to the amount of intentional homicides, These two sets of data should roughly follow each other.

Just not seeing it. I think that other factors are in play here.

Of course there are other factors which is what graphics like that intentionally take advantage of by including all nations on earth to bury the correlation under the noise from other influences.

If you have two nations, both with the same per capita gun ownership, and one is a stable affluent western democracy and one is, let's say, some semi-developing nation in the middle of a raging drug war or something... of COURSE the latter is going to have more firearm related deaths. Far more. Mounds more. So many more that looking for contributions from any other factors will become nearly impossible. Which is precisely why some people like graphs like that. They muddy the issue enough for them to declare there's nothing to see here, move along.


When people want to look at useful data on this topic generally they try to select data sets from countries with at least vaguely comparable political and social conditions to minimize those other contributing factors and get some decent signal to noise on the thing we're supposed to be looking at. And if you plot the comparative values for, say, the set of all developed Western democracies the correlation becomes significantly more clear. (And as I do know how to post a compiled chart:)



Note the extremely high R squared indicating a very strongly significant statistical correlation.

The graph got too busy labeling every point, but the included countries are:

UK
Austria
Germany
Switzerland
Italy
Spain
Australia
Denmark
France
Netherlands
Portugal
Poland
Sweden
Belgium
Greece
Hungary
Canada
Finland
Norway
United States

...and I just plotted the latest data off Wikipedia. If you want to quibble statistical sources feel free but it won't shift things much.

gcomeau wrote:

Invictus wrote:You know, I've been on this forum a while, and with all the back and forth over carry laws, crime data, etc, etc, I thought it might be an idea to get back to basics. So:

Hypothesis-

The amount of firearms in private hands has a direct correlation to the amount of intentional homicides.

Now I went and compiled a chart, but couldn't figure out how to put it up here So I went and found someone else on the internet who had already done the same thing.

http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Firearm-Ownership-and-Homicides-Rates-per-Country.png

Now if the amount of guns in private hands is directly linked to the amount of intentional homicides, These two sets of data should roughly follow each other.

Just not seeing it. I think that other factors are in play here.

Of course there are other factors which is what graphics like that intentionally take advantage of by including all nations on earth to bury the correlation under the noise from other influences.

snip

...and I just plotted the latest data off Wikipedia. If you want to quibble statistical sources feel free but it won't shift things much.

Why, when Invictus question was about intentional homicides vs. gun ownership, did the graph cover only gun related homicides vs. gun ownership

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Gun Homicides per 100 people? Dude, that's assuming the conclusion. How many homicides per 100 people? You can't have a gun homicide without a gun. So, excluding gun homicides or using total homicides would get a better picture. The data is dated but the illustration applies.

1994 Switzerland- percentage of households with guns is 27.2% They have .58 gun homicides per 100,000 population and .74 non-gun homicides.

1992 Canada- 29.1% of homes with a firearm. .76 firearm homicides per 100,000 and 1.4 non-gun homicides per 100,000

1994 Scotland- 4.7% of households with firearms. .19 firearms homicides and 2.05 non-firearm homicides.

1994 Australia- 19.4% of homes with firearms. .44 gun homicides and 1.42 non-gun homicides per 100,000 population.

1999 USA- 39.0% of homes with firearms. 3.72 gun homicides and 1.98 non-gun homicides.

The data suggests that Scotland has 12% the firearm availability but 39% of the total homicides. Australia has half the guns and 33% of the homicides. Canada has 75% of the guns availability and only 38% of the homicides. Sane Switzerland has 70% of the gun availability and 23% of the homicides.

Since the US has the most availability of guns in any nation, every nation will have less availability. That means that the if guns ARE related to homicide rates, then the degree that guns are less available than the US is also the degree that homicides occur per 100,000 people in the population. Switzerland should have approximately 70% of the homicides but in actuality it has only 23%. The same applies to Canada but it only has 38% of the homicides not 75%. Scotland shouldn't have 39% of the homicides since it only has 12% of the gun availability.

As you can see the correlation does not exist in any meaningful way. Granted the sample size is small but, there is no statistically significant relationship between availability of guns and homicides. There are other factors working as Invictus has said.

gcomeau wrote:

Invictus wrote:You know, I've been on this forum a while, and with all the back and forth over carry laws, crime data, etc, etc, I thought it might be an idea to get back to basics. So:

Hypothesis-

The amount of firearms in private hands has a direct correlation to the amount of intentional homicides.

Now I went and compiled a chart, but couldn't figure out how to put it up here So I went and found someone else on the internet who had already done the same thing.

http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Firearm-Ownership-and-Homicides-Rates-per-Country.png

Now if the amount of guns in private hands is directly linked to the amount of intentional homicides, These two sets of data should roughly follow each other.

Just not seeing it. I think that other factors are in play here.

Of course there are other factors which is what graphics like that intentionally take advantage of by including all nations on earth to bury the correlation under the noise from other influences.

If you have two nations, both with the same per capita gun ownership, and one is a stable affluent western democracy and one is, let's say, some semi-developing nation in the middle of a raging drug war or something... of COURSE the latter is going to have more firearm related deaths. Far more. Mounds more. So many more that looking for contributions from any other factors will become nearly impossible. Which is precisely why some people like graphs like that. They muddy the issue enough for them to declare there's nothing to see here, move along.


When people want to look at useful data on this topic generally they try to select data sets from countries with at least vaguely comparable political and social conditions to minimize those other contributing factors and get some decent signal to noise on the thing we're supposed to be looking at. And if you plot the comparative values for, say, the set of all developed Western democracies the correlation becomes significantly more clear. (And as I do know how to post a compiled chart:)



Note the extremely high R squared indicating a very strongly significant statistical correlation.

The graph got too busy labeling every point, but the included countries are:

UK
Austria
Germany
Switzerland
Italy
Spain
Australia
Denmark
France
Netherlands
Portugal
Poland
Sweden
Belgium
Greece
Hungary
Canada
Finland
Norway
United States

...and I just plotted the latest data off Wikipedia. If you want to quibble statistical sources feel free but it won't shift things much.

DDHvi wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Of course there are other factors which is what graphics like that intentionally take advantage of by including all nations on earth to bury the correlation under the noise from other influences.

snip

...and I just plotted the latest data off Wikipedia. If you want to quibble statistical sources feel free but it won't shift things much.

Why, when Invictus question was about intentional homicides vs. gun ownership, did the graph cover only gun related homicides vs. gun ownership

Because the question we are obviously trying to answer is "are people getting shot by all those additional guns"


Plotting how many people get strangled seems like a pointless waste of time considering. But if you really want to, go ahead... for all the point it will have.

PeterZ, your post just confirmed the argument, not challenged it. So what if it isn't an exact correlation, it still shows a definite trend?
I can answer why Australia with half as many households with guns has a much lower incidence than the US. I have six guns. All are non concealable long guns (shot guns, 22 & bolt action centre fires). Virtually no private citizen carries a pistol or revolver legally (nor has in living memory), and self loading long guns are banned now as well. Self defence is specifically excluded from reasons to get a gun license. Mine are for hunting and range. So if we become enraged it's fists or such with less chance of death. All our guns have to be locked away with ammunition and bolts stored separately. Where I live the violent crime rate is so low that I feel totally safe at home or in public.
I believe that other developed countries like Switzerland have similar laws restricting the use of guns. This means both that there are less guns immediately available when emotions are high, and that people don't consider guns as problem solvers.

That is my point, Daryl. Guns don't kill people. People do. Guns don't commit violent crimes, people do.

Switzerland and Australia would have fewer gun deaths even if they and you have 5 times the guns as we do in the States. Scotland would likely have as many as we have in the US with a similar availability to own guns.

Does the US have problems? Yes, we do. Making sure all of our citizens are treated fairly is chief among them. Guns are not the cause of the deaths. Anger and a lack of opportunity breed the violence we see in our inner cities.

Daryl wrote:PeterZ, your post just confirmed the argument, not challenged it. So what if it isn't an exact correlation, it still shows a definite trend?
I can answer why Australia with half as many households with guns has a much lower incidence than the US. I have six guns. All are non concealable long guns (shot guns, 22 & bolt action centre fires). Virtually no private citizen carries a pistol or revolver legally (nor has in living memory), and self loading long guns are banned now as well. Self defence is specifically excluded from reasons to get a gun license. Mine are for hunting and range. So if we become enraged it's fists or such with less chance of death. All our guns have to be locked away with ammunition and bolts stored separately. Where I live the violent crime rate is so low that I feel totally safe at home or in public.
I believe that other developed countries like Switzerland have similar laws restricting the use of guns. This means both that there are less guns immediately available when emotions are high, and that people don't consider guns as problem solvers.

Peter, thanks, that was the point I was trying to make.

Daryl, the former soviet Czech Republic does allow handguns for self defense, with concealed carry as a requirement , and they have a lower homicide rate than us.

gcomeau, I thought the question we were asking was whether all of these extra guns were actually affecting the how many people were getting killed. Total.

Invictus wrote:Peter, thanks, that was the point I was trying to make.

Daryl, the former soviet Czech Republic does allow handguns for self defense, with concealed carry as a requirement , and they have a lower homicide rate than us.

gcomeau, I thought the question we were asking was whether all of these extra guns were actually affecting the how many people were getting killed. Total.

And were we thinking they were doing that by causing more people to be poisoned or pushed down stairs or smothered with pillows in their sleep? Because otherwise the manner of being killed relevant to firearms is *shooting*.


(And FFS, would people please stop saying "guns don't kill people people kill people" as if that is some kind of brilliant insightful observation and there is a person ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH that thinks guns shoot themselves and will suddenly read that statement and experience a revelation? Everyone already knows people kill people. And when guns are around people kill people WITH GUNS a hell of a lot more effectively than when guns aren't around and they try to use inferior weapons.)