Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns = More Murders

Via Think Progress:

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

…The conclusion: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent.

Remember that previous studies have already established that rates of gun ownership are strongly correlated with gun deaths (including accidents, suicides, and homicides).

Gun deaths graph

The three states with the highest rate of gun ownership (MT, AK, WY) have a gun death rate of 17.8 per 100,000, over 4 times that of the three lowest-ownership states (HI, NJ, MA; 4.0 gun deaths per 100,000).

Elisabeth Rosenthal:

Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

UPDATE: Right-Wing Media Rush To Politicize Washington Navy Yard Shooting

  1. #1 by tumwater on September 15, 2013 - 9:28 pm

    The gun murder rate has been dropping in the states as gun ownership broadens and increases..so this study is utter bullshit..on the other hand, the cities where concealed carry is banned have the highest murder rates in the nation..like Chicago..try again with thy rubbish.

  2. #4 by brewski on September 16, 2013 - 5:08 pm

    Maybe the causality is that gun deaths lead to more gun ownership.

  3. #6 by Nathan Erkkila on September 16, 2013 - 8:26 pm

    Maybe the causality is that gun deaths lead to more gun ownership.

    I never agree with you, but dammit, you do have a point.

  4. #7 by brewski on September 17, 2013 - 8:59 am

    Whenever one sees an association between A and B there are three possibilities:

    A caused B
    B causes A
    C causes both A and B
    It’s just a coincidence.

    • #8 by Cliff Lyon on September 17, 2013 - 9:03 am

      Brewski,

      Perhaps you have an opinion of the cause of the correlation in the study?

      …or were you just going to take us back to junior high school?

      • #9 by brewski on September 17, 2013 - 10:09 am

        I am not allowed to give my opinions in One Utah. Your fellow Authoritarian Glenden keeps deleting my posts.

    • #11 by cav on September 17, 2013 - 9:53 am

      Dog did it.

  5. #12 by Richard Warnick on September 17, 2013 - 9:34 am

    The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010

    “We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.”

    Excerpt from conclusions:

    The final GEE negative binomial model revealed 6 significant predictors of firearm homicide rates: gun ownership proxy (IRR=1.009; 95% CI=1.004, 1.014), percentage Black, income inequality, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, and incarceration rate (Table 2). This model indicates that for each 1 percentage point increase in the gun ownership proxy, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

    In the final model, rerun with standardized predictor variables to ease interpretation of results, the IRR for the gun ownership proxy was 1.129 (95% CI=1.061, 1.201), indicating that for each 1-SD increase in the gun ownership proxy, the firearm homicide rate
    increased by 12.9% (Table 3).

    After we controlled for all the measured potential confounding variables, rather than just those found significant in the final model, the gun ownership proxy was still a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (IRR=1.008; 95% CI=1.004, 1.012; Table 4).

    I believe this study destroys the standard gun-lobby cop-out where they claim that although overall gun deaths correlate with the rate of gun ownership, gun homicides don’t.

  6. #13 by Richard Warnick on September 17, 2013 - 11:23 am

    Here’s a correlation fail for you:

    Fox News: Guns Don’t Kill People, Video Games Do

    • #14 by brewski on September 17, 2013 - 11:30 am

      As Bowling for Columbine pointed out at length, there is a huge cultural explanation component in all this. Pretty tough to legislate culture, as much as you Authoritarians try.

    • #16 by brewski on September 17, 2013 - 11:33 am

      I think the media coverage encourages people who are mentally unbalanced and people who want to go down in a narcissistic blaze of glory to do things like this. It’s like how suicide bombers convince themselves that they will achieve martyrdom. In the US, they get their 15 minutes.

      • #17 by Richard Warnick on September 17, 2013 - 11:49 am

        I wish news organizations would not focus so much on the life story of the shooter, or even mention his name more than strictly necessary.

  7. #18 by tumwater on September 17, 2013 - 2:25 pm

    Geezus..is Cliff on here again blathering? By now he’s like obama, his freak prince, always getting the opposite of what he wishes to steal from others whenever he opens his yap piehole.

    Fer Cris’sakes!!

  8. #19 by tumwater on September 17, 2013 - 2:37 pm

    Where do you get this garbage, declining? federal numbers after the freak prince opened his yap piehole registered 65 MILLION new semi automatic weapons during the gun sales binge couple years back..you can’t even find ammo you Knotheads!!

    Why are you believing the lies that suit you? Are you that weak minded? Stunning.

    This is not even including the massive sales of unregistered guns free flowing like river now, now that the freak prince’s push for tyranny is now obvious.

    As well, after Fast and Furious and the arming of head chopping psychotic jihadis terrorists against the sovereign Syrian government, the height of this stunning hypocrisy and stupidity in you carrying this fascist president’s water, is simply..

    ..BREATHTAKING!! You will fail, the USS FREAK PRINCE is dead in the water and about to be SUNK!!

    • #20 by Richard Warnick on September 17, 2013 - 3:51 pm

      My source is The New York Times. What is your source?

      Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline

      The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data…

      Note that while some paranoid Faux-News-watching gun nuts obsessively stockpiled assault rifles and ammo, the majority of sane Americans realized that firearms are too dangerous to have around the house.

  9. #21 by tumwater on September 17, 2013 - 8:34 pm

    hahah..the new york times? That is absolutely farcical!! Check the federal registration numbers you Knothead!!

    Um, KNOTHEAD!! The number one assault weapon identified by the FBI is a BASEBALL BAT!! Most dangerous, used more than ANYTHING in assaults..

    “Stop it Sponge Bob, your only hurting yourself” Your friend Patrick..

    • #22 by Richard Warnick on September 18, 2013 - 10:33 am

      There is no federal gun registration. In fact, federal law prohibits the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.

  10. #23 by tumwater on September 18, 2013 - 3:48 pm

    You really are a Knothead, they do not attach names to the purchases but the federal gov’t makes public the number of background checks requested for gun purchases that are finalized. Public information.

    I mean really are you that stupid?

    • #24 by Richard Warnick on September 18, 2013 - 4:10 pm

      You said “federal registration,” not me. There is no such thing. Also, gun sales and number of households owning guns are two different things. Are you going to come up with actual facts, or just complain without evidence that The New York Times got it wrong?

  11. #25 by tumwater on September 19, 2013 - 9:14 am

    It’s crap and you know it fool..every person who buys a gun must go through a background check, FBI, the number these upon purchases in public information.

    ..and who believes anything from that irrelevant rag of misinformation that even Jon Stewart calls the jew york times.

    So complete confirmations.. You are some kind of duplicitous shill Knothead. Period! Exclamation point. End of sentence.

    Between the jew that runs this site, and that winged monkey feinstein, we well know these zionazis want Goyim America disarmed and helpless before the filthy totalitarian government they would love implement.

    What’s your angle on it richard, or are you some kind of stupid idiot?…Knothead.

    • #26 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2013 - 10:11 am

      Here’s what I know: anybody can buy a gun online without a background check. Forty percent of all firearms purchased in the United States are sold without background checks because the guns aren’t purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

      Also, you still haven’t come up with any facts to back up your assertion that the number of American households with guns is not declining.

      Please join the reality-based community. I’m here to help.

  12. #27 by tumwater on September 19, 2013 - 12:12 pm

    You increase the evidence of your knotted head with every post. You here shill for some crap”study” from the proven lie mop NY times..yet cannot wrap your head around the fact that 65 million more semi automatic weapons are now in the hands of Americans.

    Now you blather on about online purchases we need no check for..good, the point is the sales are COUNTED! As it should be, as the personal right to bear arms shall not be infringed..

    I truly wonder if you are retarded, you are literate, though there are literate chimps with more than you seem to have. With the facts now coming in that even now our criminal government tortures, renders, bombs innocents, drones innocents like Nazis did, sets up and executes false flags at every opportunity to compel the citizenry to terror like a bunch of filthy animals…yet here you are willing to shill for some mindless gun control like that bat shit crazy winged monkey feinstein.
    I read you are former military, this means you are oath sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic so help you God…FOREVER!!

    I recommend you review this and get on the right side of history before the People acknowledge you as a traitor to your oath..the penalty for which can be swinging from the end of a rope.

    That is all soldier.

    • #28 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2013 - 12:18 pm

      Got a source for “65 million more semi automatic weapons”?

      There is no record whatsoever of private gun sales, including online sales.

      If all you have to offer is personal insults directed at a person you don’t even know, then you have NOTHING.

      • #29 by brewski on September 19, 2013 - 3:06 pm

        Sort of like every single one of your posts.
        You got nothing and then you have the temerity to tell him he has nothing?

  13. #30 by tumwater on September 19, 2013 - 3:19 pm

    Here ya go ya blithering Knothead!

    http://m.cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/654-million-gun-purchases-obama-took-office-91-more-bushs-first-term

    Geezus, incredible the total vapid disconnect..

    Retarded Knothead!

    • #31 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2013 - 4:05 pm

      Finally, a link!

      So, the gun nuts are buying more guns because they watch Faux News Channel and they are convinced President Obama is going to restrict their little hobby. Whatev.

      The fact remains the percentage of households that own guns has been declining. Try and understand.

  14. #32 by brewski on September 19, 2013 - 3:55 pm

    Tumwater, you have to realize that Richard isn’t very smart. He doesn’t know the difference between his emotions and data. He knows his emotions and he just ignores data. If you ask him for data he will tell you his emotions or provide you with a link which shows someone else’s emotions or is irrelevant to the question. But he won’t know the difference.

  15. #37 by brewski on September 19, 2013 - 4:57 pm

    I’m in moderation

    • #38 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2013 - 6:19 pm

      Ah, the dreaded socialists. For example, every British politician that’s to the left of President Obama (i.e. all of them).

      • #39 by brewski on September 19, 2013 - 6:48 pm

        Enoch Powell?

        • #40 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2013 - 9:32 pm

          He’s long dead, but as Minister of Health (1960-63) Powell was responsible for the National Health Service, and promoted an ambitious ten-year program of hospital building.

          Can you imagine the reaction if President Obama proposed a plan to build a chain of government-run public hospitals that would not charge patients for health care?

          • #41 by brewski on September 19, 2013 - 10:44 pm

            There are lots of examples where conservative Americans are far more liberal than liberals in Europe on other issues. So if you want to go policy by policy and cherry pick, then you are welcome to it.

  16. #42 by brewski on September 20, 2013 - 8:57 am

    If you spend some time talking with Richard, he reveals that he had some sort of emotional breakdown in 2003. So because of that, he is so blind crazy that he cannot make sense out of anything. He reveals it most when he keeps maintaining that he is part Libertarian and then wants the government to control everything. He defends Marx and then talks about freedom. He makes no sense and it is all due to his breakdown.

    • #43 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2013 - 9:29 am

      brewski– You have never spent one minute talking with me. You don’t know me. It’s easy to hurl unfounded accusations under cover of anonymity, but that’s not going to win any arguments. Therefore, I suggest we stick to the issue under discussion here.

  17. #44 by cav on September 20, 2013 - 9:57 am

    Marx was such a tyrant!

    Thanks brewski. Another astute observation from the clown car.

  18. #45 by brewski on September 20, 2013 - 12:04 pm

    I know what you say makes no sense, even Cliff pointed that out. I know that you contradict yourself on a daily basis. I know that you have no concept of history or facts. I know that you wave away everything else when it gets in the way of your preconceived emotional conclusions. What else do I need to know?

    • #46 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2013 - 1:46 pm

      What I say makes sense to members of the reality-based community. Join us.

      • #47 by brewski on September 20, 2013 - 2:07 pm

        I’m too educated to join the willful ignorance club.

        • #48 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2013 - 2:41 pm

          “Educated” = “I watch Faux News Channel and read right-wing blogs to stay current with the latest Republican talking points.”

          • #49 by brewski on September 21, 2013 - 8:34 am

            Hahahahahahahahahaha

  19. #50 by Thomas Atwater on September 21, 2013 - 12:49 pm

    This Richard has the quality of some delusion..has he had a breakdown and is yet offering his opinions here? That would not lend and credibility to this site..

    Perhaps the admins should look into it.

    Richard, to clear the air, have you had a mental breakdown in your past, and are you now or have ever been on a regimen of psychoptropic drugs? Full disclosure would serve the truth here.

    • #51 by cav on September 21, 2013 - 1:18 pm

      Thomas Atwater

      And who are you to show up here from nowhere, prescribing recipes for credibility and truth?

  20. #52 by Thomas Atwater on September 23, 2013 - 11:08 am

    This is an open forum is it not cav, or are you the blog’s nazi gestapo enforcement arm?
    Pretty pathetic.

    • #53 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 1:13 pm

      Thomas, no this is not an open forum. They delete postings which prove that they are wrong all the time. They are afraid of informed people. They believe in censorship and even admit to it. They have Authoritarian Personality Disorder.

    • #54 by cav on September 23, 2013 - 1:22 pm

      It couldn’t be more open. I was calling into question your credentials as a shrink or arbiter of…actually, anything of value.

      • #55 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 1:26 pm

        I seem to be the only one on here who knows the difference between spin and fact. Quoting paid hacks is just bullshit and Richard seems to not know the difference.

        • #56 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2013 - 1:35 pm

          The reason I keep serving up actual facts is because there is so much bullshit emanating from the right.

          • #57 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 2:09 pm

            You’ve never served up any facts. You give me op-ed pieces from Regressives and you can’t tell the difference.

  21. #58 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2013 - 2:54 pm

    brewski–

    You ignore the facts I give you – they contradict your Faux News Channel talking points.

    • #59 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 3:42 pm

      You haven’t given me any facts at all and I wouldn’t know what Faux News talking points are to even know to use them or not. Where did I cite them?

      You are desperate and it isn’t pretty.

      • #60 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2013 - 3:49 pm

        Come on. I’ve spent hours showering you with links to sources, posting graphs and statistics. It’s not just for you, of course, which is good because you don’t pay attention, or respond by linking to a JPEG.

        • #61 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 4:50 pm

          Come on. You’ve spent hours showering me with op-ed pieces from paid partisan hacks. Don’t you know the difference?

          • #62 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2013 - 5:01 pm

            Their facts are good, and checkable. Most of what you have to offer is out-of-context quotes and unsupportable claims.

          • #63 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 6:16 pm

            Feelings
            Nothing more than feelings,
            Trying to forget my feelings of love

            Teardrops,
            Rolling down on, my face
            Trying to forget my, feelings of love

            Feelings,
            For all my life I’ll feel it
            I’ll wish I’ve never met you, girl
            You’ll never come again

            Feelings,
            Wo-o-o feelings
            Wo-o-o feelings
            Again in my heart

  22. #64 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 10:20 am

    brewski–

    Of course, when you lose the debate you also offer bad singing and occasionally name-calling.

    • #65 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 10:24 am

      I’ve won every debate in a smack down. You just don’t understand the difference between facts and op-ed pieces by paid partisan hacks, so don’t realize you’ve been schooled over and over.

      • #66 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 10:27 am

        Says the guy who doesn’t understand the difference between a direct quote from the President of the United States and some filler in a budget document.

        • #67 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 10:35 am

          Coming from a guy who doesn’t understand the difference between “some filler in a budget document” and the official explanation in The President’s Budget for the financial crisis.

          Boom.

          • #68 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 11:07 am

            The true explanation is FRAUD. But the Obama administration could not say that because then they would have to explain why they didn’t prosecute.

          • #69 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 12:08 pm

            Source please.

            No op-eds either.

  23. #70 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 12:24 pm

    brewski–

    You have to be kidding. You believe that securitizing subprime mortgages and selling them like AAA-rated bonds is NOT fraud? I’d love to see a source for that.

    Anyway, how does it make sense that you’re unhappy with the Obama administration’s failure to prosecute Wall Street if you don’t think there was fraud?

    • #71 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 4:14 pm

      I take that as a concession.

      Thank you.

      • #72 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 4:20 pm

        Which one of your two mutually contradictory positions do you think I conceded to?

        • #73 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 5:31 pm

          You conceded you don’t have a source that is not an op-ed piece.

          Thank you.

          • #74 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 6:13 pm

            I have not conceded anything. Would you care to explain how selling subprime mortgages as AAA is not fraud, in your opinion?

            The NCUA thinks it is fraud.

            BTW the sun comes up on the eastern horizon, if you were wondering. Also this is a gun safety post. ;-)

          • #75 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 7:56 pm

            I never said it wasn’t.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: