Gun-Law Strictness vs. Gun Murder Rates #1 of 3

[TheJPRD]

Gun-Law Strictness vs. Gun Murder Rates

Prepared By: JPRD

29 December 2012

There is an ongoing debate regarding the effect of gun-control laws on the frequency of gun murders in the United States. Numerous “studies” have been conducted with conflicting results and conclusions. Although most of those studies have included some statistical data, they’ve been devoid of statistics that mathematically relate the independent variable of “gun-law strictness” to the dependent of “gun-caused murders”.

Statistics on gun-murder rates per-100,000 population are readily available in most cases. The key, missing element in the above-noted studies has been a mathematical representation of “gun-law strictness”. In other words, one must denote each State’s/City’s gun laws using a number that represents their “degree of strictness” in comparison to other States/Cities.

While browsing the internet, one site was found that indeed provides the statistical “missing link”; i.e., www.bradycampaign.org. The Brady Campaign was named after Ronald Reagan’s Press Secretary who was shot and severely wounded during the gun-assault on the President himself. The organization is a strong supporter of stricter gun control. As part of their campaign they mathematically rate each US State between 0-100 according to the strictness of their gun laws, with 100 being virtually total control of firearms. The Brady Campaign rated all US States for 2011. The ratings as defined on this site should be reasonably acceptable to gun-control advocates, for like their objective, the purpose of the site is to further restrict gun availability.

To conduct the statistical study, the gun-murder rate per-100,000 population for each US State was needed. The data was taken from: www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state. The data on this site was readily available, and the stated data source was the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Statistics for the States of Florida and Alabama were not available as noted on the site.



The following post #2 illustrates the database structured for the subject analysis. Post #3 provides the results and conclusions.

 

[steveox]

The only way to bring back the good old days is get rid of the Miranda warning and no more getting warrents to arrest people. Back in the 50s Cops didnt need a warrent to bust down your door and arrest you nor they didnt read your rights nether. And repeal the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment favors criminals in court. If an prositcuter asks you a question you better answer it or YOURE GOING TO JAIL FOR PERJURY!

 

[TheJPRD]

I'm having a terrible time trying to post the database. I believe it's either too large or has some remaining Excel logic that's not translating into text corectly. This post contains the results and conclusion. I'll try to resolve the database-posting issue, and will post it here once resolved.

The databse was analyzed using linear regression. “Gun-Murder Rate per-100,000” was used as the dependent variable , and “Brady Gun-Law-Strictness Rating” used as the independent variable (x).

Results of linear-regression analysis are intended to describe in mathematical terms the degree to which “x” predicts “y”. Gun-control advocates should expect to see a high degree of correlation between strict gun-control laws and significantly lower rates of gun murders. In this particular case, much-stricter California should have a far lower gun-murder rate than States with far less-strict gun-control States. Utah with a gun-strictness rating of “0” should have a much higher rate of gun-caused deaths than California. As the viewer will note, the opposite is true in the actual data.

Looking at just the two, above-noted examples, however, doesn’t make a statistically-significant argument. To arrive at a significant conclusion, a statistical analysis of all of the data is necessary.

Utilizing the premise of the gun-control community, that stricter gun control reduces the rate of gun murders, the analysis should result in a very high degree of correlation. Correlation in linear regression is typically expressed as “r” or “r2”, with a number less than 1.0 but close to 1.0 indicating a high degree of correlation.

Our analysis resulted in an “r” of .01 and an r2 of .0001, meaning there’s virtually NO correlation between the strictness of gun-control laws and the rate of gun-caused murders.

Advocates on either side of the gun-control debate can find isolated examples that would appear to support their argument. When viewing the data statistically as a “whole”, and using the same general methodology that supports anti-smoking campaigns etc., however, there is NO statistical evidence to support the premise that stricter laws result in lower rates of gun murders!

 

[dogtowner]

may need to settle for a link to where it is. look forward to seeing it.

 

[Openmind]

I'm having a terrible time trying to post the database. I believe it's either too large or has some remaining Excel logic that's not translating into text corectly. This post contains the results and conclusion. I'll try to resolve the database-posting issue, and will post it here once resolved.

The databse was analyzed using linear regression. “Gun-Murder Rate per-100,000” was used as the dependent variable , and “Brady Gun-Law-Strictness Rating” used as the independent variable (x).

Results of linear-regression analysis are intended to describe in mathematical terms the degree to which “x” predicts “y”. Gun-control advocates should expect to see a high degree of correlation between strict gun-control laws and significantly lower rates of gun murders. In this particular case, much-stricter California should have a far lower gun-murder rate than States with far less-strict gun-control States. Utah with a gun-strictness rating of “0” should have a much higher rate of gun-caused deaths than California. As the viewer will note, the opposite is true in the actual data.

Looking at just the two, above-noted examples, however, doesn’t make a statistically-significant argument. To arrive at a significant conclusion, a statistical analysis of all of the data is necessary.

Utilizing the premise of the gun-control community, that stricter gun control reduces the rate of gun murders, the analysis should result in a very high degree of correlation. Correlation in linear regression is typically expressed as “r” or “r2”, with a number less than 1.0 but close to 1.0 indicating a high degree of correlation.

Our analysis resulted in an “r” of .01 and an r2 of .0001, meaning there’s virtually NO correlation between the strictness of gun-control laws and the rate of gun-caused murders.

Advocates on either side of the gun-control debate can find isolated examples that would appear to support their argument. When viewing the data statistically as a “whole”, and using the same general methodology that supports anti-smoking campaigns etc., however, there is NO statistical evidence to support the premise that stricter laws result in lower rates of gun murders!

I assume that this analysis is done ONLY with USA statistics?

Because there is NO DOUBT that there is a STRONG correlation if you compare the USA with other countries like Switzerland!

 

[TheJPRD]

^ The link I posted above for the Brady site was to the Home page only. The page on which the data for gun-control laws are listed is http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/ The data by State on this site-page are used as the indendent veriable (x). EDIT: I can't link to the data page. On the link here you must then click on the "State" arrow, then click on the download State data button. Geeeeesh, they didn't make this easy, though it seemed easy when I first found it.

The data for gun-murder rate per-100,000 population shown on the other site is at (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state) as noted in my first post, and were used as the dependent variable in the analysis.

Since I'm having trouble posting the entire database I used, I'll provide several examples here to further explain the methodology.

California has the highest gun-control rating listed on the Brady site, that being a rating of 81. This number was listed as an independent variable (x) in the analysis. Data from the Guardian site listed California's gun-murder rate as 3.25 gun murders per-100,000 population. This number was used as California's corresponding dependent variable . New Jersey had the second highest rating for gun-control at 72 on the Brady site, with a gun-murder rate of 3.07 per-100,000 taken from the Guardian site. Utah was rated on the Brady site as 0 for the strictness of its gun-control laws, with a corresponding gun-murder rate from the Guardian site of .97 per-100,000 population. The balance of the States were handled in the same manner.

Gun-Control data was available for all 50 States on the Brady site. However, gun-murder rates were not available for Florida nor Alabama on the Guardian site. The analysis did not include those two States because of those missing "y" variables, thus 48 States constituted the database. If you click the link to each site, you'll find the data for each variable as noted "x" and "y".

 

[TheJPRD]

I assume that this analysis is done ONLY with USA statistics?

Because there is NO DOUBT that there is a STRONG correlation if you compare the USA with other countries like Switzerland!

Yes, the analysis I performed was solely for the United States, and the data points were by "State". I was under the impression that guns were readily available in Switzerland, as each male citizen of Switzerland between 18-60 used to be required by law to own a weapon? I was also under the impression that the gun-murder rate in Switzlerland was pretty low. I'm not up-to-date on Swiss gun-control laws nor the gun-murder rate there, so things may have changed since I had knowledge??? My outdated knowledge of the Swiss condition would lead me to believe that Switzerland would have an inverse relationhip between gun-control and gun murders. I'll see if I can find any data for Switzerland.

 

[TheJPRD]

Because there is NO DOUBT that there is a STRONG correlation if you compare the USA with other countries like Switzerland!

I did some checking on the gun-ownership statistics in Switzerland. The information I found supports my recollections about the rate of gun ownership and availability and the low rate of violent crime.

I found a Time article that addresses gun ownership in Switzerland. The article is at
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/ Based on this article, it appears that Switzerland ranks 4th in the world for high rate of gun ownership, with the USA ranking first.

I looked for data on violent crime in Switzerland, but apparently violent crime is so rare there that statistics aren't even kept. I found one link that states specifically that at
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/switzerland-gun-crime-rate-is-so-low-that-statistics-are-not-even-kept/

An analysis of Switzerland alone is not possible, for multiple data points are needed. Swiss data would be only one "x" with a corresponding "y", in other words, just one data point. Nevertheless, looking soley at the availability of guns in Switzerland and the low rate of violent crime, the logical conclusion is that the higher the gun-ownership rate, the lower the rate of violent crime. That conclusion in my opinion is not necessarily correct.

The above-linked articles argue that it's the responsible "culture" in Switzerland when it comes to gun-use training and personal responsibility that's at the root of the low rate of violent crime. I can't support that assertion statistically, but it makes sense. In any case, one can easily assume that it's not the availability of firearms that result in violent crimes, it's the culture of the people and their degree of personal responsibility that dictate the rate of violent crime. One can also conclude from looking at Switzerland, that stricter gun laws do not, in and of themselves, reduce violent crimes.

 

[dogtowner]

I did some checking on the gun-ownership statistics in Switzerland. The information I found supports my recollections about the rate of gun ownership and availability and the low rate of violent crime.

I found a Time article that addresses gun ownership in Switzerland. The article is at
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/ Based on this article, it appears that Switzerland ranks 4th in the world for high rate of gun ownership, with the USA ranking first.

I looked for data on violent crime in Switzerland, but apparently violent crime is so rare there that statistics aren't even kept. I found one link that states specifically that at
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/switzerland-gun-crime-rate-is-so-low-that-statistics-are-not-even-kept/

An analysis of Switzerland alone is not possible, for multiple data points are needed. Swiss data would be only one "x" with a corresponding "y", in other words, just one data point. Nevertheless, looking soley at the availability of guns in Switzerland and the low rate of violent crime, the logical conclusion is that the higher the gun-ownership rate, the lower the rate of violent crime. That conclusion in my opinion is not necessarily correct.

The above-linked articles argue that it's the responsible "culture" in Switzerland when it comes to gun-use training and personal responsibility that's at the root of the low rate of violent crime. I can't support that assertion statistically, but it makes sense. In any case, one can easily assume that it's not the availability of firearms that result in violent crimes, it's the culture of the people and their degree of personal responsibility that dictate the rate of violent crime. One can also conclude from looking at Switzerland, that stricter gun laws do not, in and of themselves, reduce violent crimes.

things seem to be changing in Switzerland crime-wise.

I suspect that if there are commercial opportunities to sell illegal stuff then gun crime could swell. Of course if the entire population is armed and able, maybe not.

Lets not forget that Switzerland is as similar to the US as Saudi Arabia is to Somalia. Apples to refrigerators in terms of economy, demographics, culture etc etc wtc.

 

[Hobo1]

Lets not forget that Switzerland is as similar to the US as Saudi Arabia is to Somalia. Apples to refrigerators in terms of economy, demographics, culture etc etc wtc.

That's an important point. Many cultural or sociological factors should be considered. Since the time when the Constitution was written, guns have been part of our culture - used for protection, hunting, and even to fight a Civil War. In other countries knives are extremely common. In rural parts of Southeast Asia, men routinely walk around carrying a curved knives used to cut wood and harvest rice (and protection/murder).

These are just as lethal as a gun. If you accomplish the impossible task of taking guns away from Americans, they will find alternative weapons.

Another cultural factor to consider is the historic expansion of the US has always depended on guns. From Indian Wars to the Wild West, guns are a part of our history. The ethnic diversity of our population often sets up conflicting situations, especially in places like the slums and ghettos. This is very different from most European countries.

And now we are seeing mass murders by young kids - which is a whole new element. Presumably this is caused by mental illness, not anger or defense. If you are going to stop events like what happened in Connecticut, we must understand the motive for the murders.. Was he just a lunatic or is he the result of some social activity that twisted his brain?

 

[TheJPRD]

things seem to be changing in Switzerland crime-wise.

I suspect that if there are commercial opportunities to sell illegal stuff then gun crime could swell. Of course if the entire population is armed and able, maybe not.

Lets not forget that Switzerland is as similar to the US as Saudi Arabia is to Somalia. Apples to refrigerators in terms of economy, demographics, culture etc etc wtc.

I believe we're in agreement that the cause of gun violence is not the prevalence of guns? Gun violence, or any kind of violence for that matter, results from social and cultural considerations. The prevalence of firearms isn't the problem, so getting rid of guns won't solve the problem. The problem needing to be addressed is a "cultural" one.

 

[Openmind]

Yes, the analysis I performed was solely for the United States, and the data points were by "State". I was under the impression that guns were readily available in Switzerland, as each male citizen of Switzerland between 18-60 used to be required by law to own a weapon? I was also under the impression that the gun-murder rate in Switzlerland was pretty low. I'm not up-to-date on Swiss gun-control laws nor the gun-murder rate there, so things may have changed since I had knowledge??? My outdated knowledge of the Swiss condition would lead me to believe that Switzerland would have an inverse relationhip between gun-control and gun murders. I'll see if I can find any data for Switzerland.

Here is the current link I posted yesterday about guns politics in Switzerland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

 

[Openmind]

things seem to be changing in Switzerland crime-wise.

I suspect that if there are commercial opportunities to sell illegal stuff then gun crime could swell. Of course if the entire population is armed and able, maybe not.

Lets not forget that Switzerland is as similar to the US as Saudi Arabia is to Somalia. Apples to refrigerators in terms of economy, demographics, culture etc etc wtc.

What makes you think, except for the size and the violence of course, that Swiss culture is so different from the US?

Looking at similarities as well as differences might give us an idea of what they are doing right and what we are doing wrong.

 

[dogtowner]

What makes you think, except for the size and the violence of course, that Swiss culture is so different from the US?

Looking at similarities as well as differences might give us an idea of what they are doing right and what we are doing wrong.

very different economies and theirs requires a better educated labor force. both combine for low unemployment high productivity and that spells a very different culture.

put simply they dont tolerate the lazy.

and they are careful with immigration because their ecomomy permits it.

 

[Openmind]

very different economies and theirs requires a better educated labor force. both combine for low unemployment high productivity and that spells a very different culture.

put simply they dont tolerate the lazy.

and they are careful with immigration because their ecomomy permits it.

However, if they faced the same problems we have here (poor education standards, very poor safety nets, poor and aging infrastructure) they wouldn't have the economy and the ability to attract capital as they have!

And, in terms of immigration, you might be surprise that Switzerland stands #20 in the world, while the US stands #34 (based on migration, which is the total number of IMMIGRANTS, minus the total number of EMIGRANTS for each country). . .which means that Switzerland, per capita, has MORE immigration than the US.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_percap-immigration-net-migration-per-capita