This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
There's No Correlation Between Gun Ownership, Mass Shootings, & Murder Rates
Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,
While I was fact checking my previous article, I checked some correlation coefficients of my own so I didn't have to rely on Volokh's numbers as my only source.
I approached the data a little differently than Volokh did and instead of using a subjective ranking by an organization like the Brady organization, I just looked at the rate of gun ownership in the state. After all, the argument is often that more guns and more gun owners leads to more violence.
So, I looked at the correlation between the gun ownership rate (a percentage on the x axis) and the murder rate (n per 100,000 on the y axis) in each state. The visual result is this:

As you can see, there is no correlation. In fact, if you run the numbers, the correlations coefficient is 0.1, which suggests a negligible correlation, or none at all. The murder data is 2012 data from the Justice Department. The gun ownership rate data is from a 2015 report called "Gun ownership and social gun culture."
Just for good measure, I also went in and looked for a correlation between mass shootings and gun ownership rates. Here, I took the total number of mass shooting victims in all states so far in 2015. This is updated constantly by Mass Shooting Tracker, and includes the most recent Oregon mass shooting. Mass shootings here include a shooting involving 4 or more people, and do not necessarily mean school shooting. They can mean someone went nuts and shot his wife, her lover, and two bystanders at a birthday party when the shooter personally knew all the victims. There are not just cases of random public shootings. If we only included those, the total numbers would be microscopically small. Even with all mass shooting data together, it's obvious that your odds of being involved in one in any given year are vanishingly small, and less than 1 per 100,000 in 48 states. I've included all victims, not just fatalities here. If I used only fatalities, the mass shooting numbers would be much smaller:

There's even less of a correlation here: -0.006.
Now, I've noticed that when someone points out the lack of a correlation here, gun-control advocates are quick to jump in and say "but you didn't control for this" and "you didn't control for that." That's true. But what I do show here is that the situation is much more complicated than one would think from absurd claims like "states with fewer guns have fewer murders" and so on. Apparently, claims that new gun laws are commonsensical can't be true if the relationship between gun laws and murder rates require us to adjust for half a dozen different variables. In fact, by looking at the data, I could imagine any number of other factors that might be more likely a determinant of the murder rate than gun ownership.
- 36789 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


The only correlation between gun ownership and mass shootings is:
big pharma (X) + crazy people (Y) + polititians (Z) and your result is XYZ mass media bullshit
I sleep comfortably with my P90 .45 ACP Ruger tucked neatly in it's holster under my pillow.
Don't screw with me...
There's No Correlation Between Gun Ownership, Mass Shootings, & Murder Rates
Good fukin' luck with trying to convince a Liberal of that fact!
To Ryan McMaken:
Ryan - the coefficient of correlation is low or negative as per your article. Not arguing with it. However it is impossible to draw any conclusions from these scatterplots (for gun control or against) because both these scatterplots must have very small r-squared cofficient (coefficient of determination). It means that the data is scatttered all over the place and not lined up around the straight line. You need to publish r-squared - which is basically a statistical quality of the linear regression. In the case of this article - the cofficient of correlation is meaningless as r-squared must be <0.1 ( statistical garbage) estimated from the view of it.
It looks like you need a refresher course in basic statistics.
I am with author on the basic conclusion that arguments of the gun control advocates do not stand the scientific scrutiny but Ryan is doing huge disfavor to all gun owners by making thesis based on the scatterplots that have garbage quality (statistically speaking). Ryan - next time if you create a thesis based on scientific criteria, please do your homework in statistics.
There's No Correlation Between Gun Ownership, Mass Shootings, & Murder Rates ...
However, there is definitely a correlation between mass slaughterers, like Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Ataturk, and others and vicitm populations that regret not having guns to defend themselves.
Sure - I am 100% with you on it.
The government has drones now. As jim jeffries says you are bringing guns to a drone fight? You like your guns and thats fair enough but you are making it too easy for the sociopaths etc
The obvious factor is race. No matter how high the gun ownership, lily-white states have low murder rates.
Niggers bee bloodthirsty.
Obama will not finish his second term! Current Events Linked to Ancient Biblical Prophecy!
http://motivationdose.com/is-america-babylon/
Will you stop shilling that bullshit already! O'bomb-a will finish his term, and there will be another 'contest' between MSM selected candidates. Like always.
exactly. thats what i said on his last article. he wont say it, but i will. strict or lax gun laws arent relevent. what matters is how high is the % of black people in the area. that is all.
> The obvious factor is race. No matter how high the gun ownership, lily-white states have low murder rates.
Sounds like a typical Jewish mantra -- to religious Jews any goy is a nigger, be it a "sand nigger" from the Middle East or a "white nigger" like Irish or Russian folks -- Leo Trotsky's infamous quotes were, "we'll turn Russians into white niggers" and "Russia must be thrown into the flames of the world revolution": http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/signscorpion/signscorpio...).
It's not the race, it's the education, due to invention of the cotton harvester, the black slaves were driven out from the fields into city cores, and ever since they have been struggling, there is a good book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Work-Decline-Post-Market/dp/0874778247
And it's the Jews (who are, allegedly being from the Middle East themselves are technically _pale semits_ at the best, how can one be _white_ when he is from the Middle East, think about this for a minute?) who actually created this problem, and now blame it on the whites: http://incogman.net/2010/09/the-shocking-jewish-role-in-slavery/
BTW, US (read, ZOG) government conveniently uses black people the same way it uses Turkish immigrants in Germany as well as other "refugees" -- just to keep the local sheeple middle class obedient.
Every shooting in the United States was a staged event executed by the CIA or Mossad operatives.
Vincent you forgot to add that the Jew Jesus was really just a zionist trick. You forgot that all the sientific and medical acheivments of the Jews to save your sorry ass were just to prepare you to serve us. But I'm sorry I can't use your services because I'm afraid of the psychiatric bills.
Christianity, as well as Islam, is just one of the three Abrahamic religions, and as Islam, it's a religion for slaves. Judaism, on the other hand, is a religion for the slaveowners.
The argument that only Jews are inventors just doesn't hold, and even Zion's flagship project, Einstein, was a moron (in medical terms), however, most Ph.D. theses were not backtested and are a complete BS.
I guess, goym still have to be thankful for the Hell on Earth around them, created by Jews, i.e. the fucked up exploitation system, slavery for black people, debt slavery for the middle class, housing bubbles, GMOs, big pharma machine, and other great attributes of systemic parasitism, _created by ZOG_.
PS
"Medical science has made such tremendous progress that there is hardly a healthy human left." --Aldous Huxley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital-acquired_infection
[...]
United StatesThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated roughly 1.7 million hospital-associated infections, from all types of bacteria combined, cause or contribute to 99,000 deaths each year.[21] Other estimates indicate 10%, or 2 million, patients a year become infected, with the annual cost ranging from $4.5 billion to $11 billion. In the USA, the most frequent type of infection hospitalwide is urinary tract infection (36%), followed by surgical site infection (20%), and bloodstream infection and pneumonia (both 11%).[1][needs update]
[...]
Drones are still operated by people, and people have weaknesses. Families. Homes. Reputations. Vices.
Owning guns, by itself, is a non-violent form of applying pressure on people who control drones. Those operators would never kill their own countrymen while they still believe that blowback could occur.
At the end of the day, people just want to swing by Wal-mart unmolested, go home to their computers, and play on the Internet while eating Cheesy Poofs, until they go to sleep. Provoking a response from the sheeple would completely obliterate that life-style.
> The government has drones now. As jim jeffries says you are bringing guns to a drone fight? You like your guns and thats fair enough but you are making it too easy for the sociopaths etc
Exactly. All those "go ahead, make my day" cowboys from the 1st CivDiv with gave up their gold like good bitches during the ZOG's gold grab (confiscation following FDR's "Gold Reserve Act").
PS
Guns are only good enough to shoot a runaway slave -- or to bring your girlfriend to a shooting range to start an emotional swing and do her later that day.
What's the point of shooting static targets which don't shoot back? There is no benefit of inhailing led dust either, and in a real situation fine motor skills are lost in a split second anyway.
And the alternative you offer is what exactly?
Why not just role over and piss yourself you lapdog...
DaddyO
Why so angry, bro?
I am no less frustrated with the system around us, but how can a handgun help a civilian in a Boston-style military operation?
Not Angry at all...
The reason Bostonians rolled over was because of a century of statist programming.
Their response should have been a Bundy Ranch style show of solidarity.
Go try to go door to door in Dothan, AL or Tazewell TN and see how far you get with the police state thugery.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans have been desensitized to being good little law abiding sheep and have lost sight of their heritage, namely patriotic Liberty tree pruning and watering.
Do you think George Mason would have allowed Boston SWAT in to his living room?
I have said numerous times here on ZH that all activism should be local, I put my money where my mouth was and help found FLCA here in Florida.
We mounted a fierce campaign for the Second Amendment Preservation Act and Stop Common Core and continue to do so to this day.
Get involved locally, get out from behind the keyboard and go stand in your statehouse and make yourself be heard.
I have personally met with my reps and senators and held them to account. The current Florida House speaker is a friend who has betrayed the 2nd Amendment by stonewalling our legislation.
You post above just wreaked of defeatism and I get tired of hearing it here on the hedge.
It was nothing personal and my comment was to spur indignation and force the discussion.
DaddyO
Can’t agree more, true local activism is the key, not leftist ZOG-led decoys…
My point was, it's the brain that's the most powerful weapon, not guns (there is no end to an escalation, “brining a knife to a gunfight” will keep building up… and the .gov has already _bombed_ communities, and they can cease water, gas and power supply anyway) -- and most civilians don't know how to use guns anyway.
There's a high correlation between shooters taking prescribed SSRI's and mass shootings.
+1000
Nearly 100%...
DaddyO
His conclusion is sound. He is saying that there is no real linear relationship between gun ownership rates and homicide, which is what a correlation near 0 means. I would suggest that you do your homework instead. And you can calculate R^2 based on what he wrote:
R^2 = -0.006^2 = 3.6 * 10^-5
There is no real correlation because the r-squared is near zero and not because coefficient of correlation is zero.
Both of you are ignorants and need a refresher course in statistics. How can you calculate cofficient of correlation and use it for thesis with r2=0. It's beyond me. Shows the state of education in this country. Freaking morons - both of you.
Because the correlation IS R. Jesus, you're lecturing him on correlations and you don't know shit yourself. Correlation is a measure of how good of a linear relationship there is between two variables. That is it, plain and simple. He's saying that there is no linear relationship between the two variables which is what a fucking correlation near zero means.
Listen moron: the r-squared coefficient is not r*r where r is the coefficient of correlation. This shows how ignorant you are. Please learn about the coefficient of determination or r-squared as it is popularly called in the scientific literature.
I rest my case. I have trouble arguing that 2+2=4 to total moron like you. You just made total fool of yourself by calculating
r-squared coefficient = r*r.
End of discussion.
Come again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination
I think Final Collapse was talking about climate change.
He certainly argues like a believer...
So to sum it up you say there is no correlation between gun ownership, climate and change?
Whoa dude, three variables.
Let me see what Siri has to say about that.
(she says use a word cloud thingy)
Siri?? What is that?
Oh, I see. "a word cloud thingy". That explains it. She must be the speechwriter for Mr. Yellen.
Agreed. Almost all of the firearm mishaps (very few I might add) I encountered serving as a fire chief were IN FACT related to SSRI use in conjunction with alcohol (mostly suicide) and one instance police shooting a woman unnecessarily who threatened people by brandishing a shotgun who were illegally camping out on her property and refused to leave. She was drunk and they called the police.
Firearms-Related Injury Statistics
http://www.nssf.org/pdf/research/iir_injurystatistics2013.pdf
Perhaps this chart will help you with respect to correlation vs causation.
FC may be correct,
Chi Squared is not R squared. Go to the wikipedia chi-squared test page and see the heading "Example chi-squared test for categorical data".
But ... FC, be nice instead of being mean. Try to teach people not insult them.
The Chi square statistic is not something that jumps out a people or is even taught in a basic stats class.
'be nice'?
it is not everyday you see a pissing contest between statisticians on ZH. I say let 'em fight til they get tired...
Actually, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that there is no correlation between gun ownership as defined by state boundaries and murders within those state boundaries. I seriously doubt that state boundaries are a contributing factor, an opinion that is supported by this study.
I think that some sensible restrictions on gun sales are appropriate. In my view, legitimate reasons to own guns include hunting, sport shooting, and self defense. I don't see how, for example, assault weapons fit these categories. I also think open-carry is problematic. If an armed gang walks into the local Chilis where I'm trying to enjoy my lunch, how am I to know whether they're mass murders or just assholes? Or am I supposed to bring my AR-15 with me wherever I go just so I'll have a fighting chance when the inevitable firefight breaks out. There was a reason the cowboys weren't allowed to bring their guns into town at the end of the cattle drive. As the saying goes, those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.
Having said that, I don't think gun control is the answer. At least not the full answer. Clearly, there is something very wrong in a society that has mass shootings on the level we have here. Many other countries also have widespread gun ownership without this incidence of mass shootings. Why is that?
But this is a discussion that our society does not want to have. And why is that?
<dons flame suit>
Jesus H. Christ! Look around and THINK! Put down that tasty piece of steak and plug yourself from the matrix! The second amendment to the constitution does not protect our right to hunt, to enjoy shooting sports, and to merely protect ourselves from robbery, but rather to ensure that we citizens do not become enslaved to a tyrannical government.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson
Fred, take a deep breath...
I'll start by pointing out that there's nothing in my post that implied that "self defense" was limited in any way to protection from robbery. I do in fact believe that civic gun ownership helps keep a proper level of respect by the government for its citizenry.
I will also mention that there was nothing in my post that was derogitory to anyone whose views differ from mine, in contrast to the insulting and belittling tone of your response. But it is what it is, so let us continue.
Here's the second amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
First, note that the amendment begins with reference to a "well regulated militia". Today, we have a standing army, so there's a caveat that could, in theory, moot the entire amendment. I don't know exactly what the authors of this amendment intended by including that phrase, but they did include it, so I will just take note of the implied connection between keeping and bearing arms and participating in a well-regulated militia. One thing I'm pretty sure they didn't mean is using them in rebellion against the government, which is expressly covered in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.
Second, note that we do not now, nor have we ever, taken this amendment carte blanche. Criminally insane people and convicted felons are not permitted to own or carry firearms, nor can you carry an AR-15 into the Capitol Building. Do such prohibitions violate the second amendment? Only if you don't think commonsense restrictions are in order.
Third, I agree that the intent of all of the bill of rights was to guard against government oppression. So, following this line of reasoning to it's logical extreme, does this mean that private citizens should be allowed to own Predator drones? Atomic bombs? Chemical, or biological weapons? C4 explosives? Since the US government possesses them, the extreme view implies that citizens should be able to acquire them as well to maintain balance of power. Does this make sense? I don't think so. Once again, there's a common sense criterion that I think needs to be applied. Otherwise, we find ourselves allowing mentally unstable people to carry nerve gas into the local mall.
So what it really comes down to is: where are the sensible places to draw the line? I was rather hoping that this would be the nature of the discussion to follow. Perhaps I should have known better, but I live here too, and I'm too old not to voice my opinion. Here it is: I think societies have a right and duty to protect themselves both from government overreach and from nutcases being able to do them serious harm. Clearly, pursuing these two objectives is a balancing act.
I was further interested in discussing what it is about our society that seems to promote gun violence. Citizens in many other countries own guns, but don't seem to have anything like the level of gun violence that we have here. So once again, why is that? THAT is the real discussion we should be having, but seemingly want to avoid at all costs.
OK, sorry, didn't down vote you. You just kind of sounded like a nauseating Den Mother or PTA leader.
Compulsory education and the nanny state and the fact that we don't have a homogeneous society could be contributing factors as to the gun violence. We force children to sit in classrooms all day and listen to uninspired people who are simply waiting for their pensions to kick in. We have allowed a couple of uncivilized generations to breed who are not engaged and who have no hope of contributing to society. They have no stake in an orderly society. We worship our children and believe that they are infallible. We mainstream kids and put them on drugs and pretend that they will fit in. We don't believe in God, good/evil and we don't see any consequences to our actions. We just need to look in the mirror. There is no conspiracy keeping us from having a discussion. The discussion has been going on for 50 plus years.
Oh, and a standing army is unconstitutional isn't it? But that makes a militia moot? You got that part backwards.
Re: "Oh, and a standing army is unconstitutional isn't it?"
No, it's not unconstitutional. The constitution only says that appropriations for an army cannot exceed two years. Thus Congress has the authority to decide on the need for a standing army every two years, and could conceivably disband it by denying it the funds needed to operate.
Re: "But that makes a militia moot? You got that part backwards."
No, I didn't. A standing army obviates the need for a militia. I admit to not knowing exactly what the authors of the Bill of Rights meant by the militia clause of the 2nd amendment, except that there must have been some connection in their minds. Or perhaps it was just a politically motivated sweetener to make a divisive issue more palatable. If their intent was that the citizens' right to bear arms was needed so that a militia could be raised and equipped promptly, then a standing army would moot that need, and thus by extension the need for a right to bear arms. I don't personally subscribe to this view for the reasons I've already set out, but that argument can nevertheless be made.
Regarding the pitiful state of the US education system today, nor argument there. A lot of the problems in our classrooms are society's problems that kids (and teachers) bring to school with them. As the saying goes, everything's connected.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
we have a standing army, which is what the founders of this country feared. i know that you don't actually think congress gets together every two years to discuss this issue. Eisenhower warned us nearly 55 years ago about the MIC.
If your weapon is not locked ,loaded,in your hand & you are not fully conscience & aware of your surrondings you're a sitting duck.
There are so many that don't understand:"If someone wants another dead,they're dead & they won't see it coming."
What's the saying? You won't hear the bullet.
Oh! Wait! Everyone is ten feet tall & bullet proof because they own a gun.
"Don't screw with me..." is a joke.
There is only one rule & it trumps all political,social.cultural & religious value systems.
Be careful who you piss off & be aware of those,others piss off.
"You're my huckleberry."
That's gotta be a lumpy pillow. I take my Beretta 92 out of its holster first.
If you want to see a positive correlation (done it myself, more than R^2 > 0.7) compare the murder rate per state, vs. a certain demographic per state.
Information available on wikipedia.
elevate them or kill them all, I think I know what a racists like you would choose
you are not better than other people, keeping them under your jackboot, then pointing fingers, pathetic
Did you also happen to compare the murder rate to poverty rate?
The chknsht divisive progressive liberal democraps never let facts or real world outcomes interfere with their ramming their bullsht policies down working tax paying US citizens throats. Fukem. Fukem all. Miedros.
I'm very impressed by the number of epithets and condescending, derogatory references in a post that said absolutely nothing.
Oh, wait. It very effectively communicated the degree of blind hatred that consumes the author.
Vote out ALL democrats. State, local and national.
Give them the spanking they deserve.
Make the 2A the third rail of politics. Molan Labe!
Both parties are controlled.....wouldn't matter...molon fucking labe....excuse my french...
You've got to love the manner in which TPTB have convinced complete morons such as The Carbonator that the Red Team supports the 2nd Amendment and individual rights in deed, as opposed to words. Two words that reflect the deeds of the Red Team (and Blue): Patriot Act.
Anyone who supports freedom should be advocating ditching both parties. But instead it is "throw out the _____ Team!" And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of why we find ourselves in this mess.
The Red Team is pro-2A in the same way they are pro-life: use the anger of their supporters to get votes while doing nothing substantial. In fact, the Red Team may prefer a loss like this because it will really rile up the public to give them an all-red Congress and Presidency in 2016.
One silver lining: note that the most radical action here is to do something that will take decades to have a meaningful effect. Compare to the 90s and the AWB. Meanwhile, the two states I've lived in have expanded gun rights: Iowa changed to a shall-issue state a few years back (it used to be an anti-gun sheriff could deny you a CHL), and Texas is going open carry in a few months. There are many more opportunities to turn the tide, and IMO the next step is for more states to nullify federal gun laws like we're seeing them nullify marijuana laws.
Guns are about the only issue that the red team actually has to worry about, because those votes cannot be bought. I've been told that every single R who voted for the assault weapon ban in the '90s was voted out. I haven't verified that, but I'd believe it. It's one of the few things that will get us off of our asses. Look at what happened in Colorado with getting members of the state legislator recalled, and they were fighting big money while not being backed by it.
But that's the thing, Rs who voted for an *overt ban* got voted out. How many will get voted out if they sit around and do nothing when the POTUS makes an executive order?
However, I do agree that Americans, generally speaking, get how important and far-reaching the gun ownership issue is. At least at the state level (to my limited knowledge) there is some real progress being made. I am still holding out for greater state nullification of gun laws. Chaos works both ways; imagine during a major crash a state like Texas decides "You know, we need to cut back on our spending and we're just not going to bother with enforcing the ATF's rules anymore."
I should be more descriptive there: Rs are whores, just like Ds, but if they go after guns, they get kicked off of their street corner, no matter how rich or powerful their pimps are when they fuck with guns. It's one of the few issues like that.
And how many people will ignore an executive order that actually does anything? How many ignored the register your "assault" weapon law in CT? Obama is a little bitch. He talks a big talk, then either takes advantage of something already backing him, or puts out some fluff. We are a nation divided, and that cocksucker in the WH is going to find that whatever agenda he and his sponsors want is going to have some hiccups. Some big ones.
I'll have to concede here and give you a +1 . I've seen the R team do what I mentioned with other issues, but I think you are right about this one. I'm expecting Obama to try *something* on his way out since he has nothing to lose, but I agree that he has lost pretty much everyone's respect and may only be pretending to "do something" for his team.
Fuck, I hate it when I agree with you.
Ease up on The Carbonator. Everyone has to learn to see the truth. That takes time...
Eh, I don't always agree with LTER, but I think he's legit.
Agreed. He's no troll. He believes what he states, no doubt.
I'll give him props for that.
Yeah, he takes a beating on here sometimes and keeps on coming back. I respect that.
Amen.
you are correct, of course. fuck the both of them. Not only when it comes to red/blue, but when it comes to all of congress. How the fuck is it possible for something to have as low of an approval rating as congress and still have 85-90% of incumbents win EVERY TIME? The same way you have morons talking about "vote out all the democrats" like the guy above, the majority of the "politically engaged" hate congress as an institution, but still have it in their heads that "congress is full of bums, vote them all out, but MY guy is ok, he is doing good work".
As you and I have stated many time, the red/blue teams are different wings of the same bird. They generally agree on everything of substance, which is why the bigger issues are never discussed. Let the plebes argue about rather or not two men can get married and they will never even think about the fed or a whole host of issues. political theater. THat said, republican politicans know that 2A has become the third rail of politics. You cross the line with that, you can kiss your job goodbye. So, while they aren't going to support the 2A because they are principled, they can be relied upon to be the whores that they are, and they want to keep their job.
The duopoly is a really smelly problem, everywhere where it rules.
But while I am here, my 2 cents. I have observed that whenever I read about background of all manner of perpetrators, fatherless boys seem overrepresented. Try to address the single mother culture, it fails too often. Women need to be more chosey with whom they have children and the parents need to stay the distance even when there are rocky patches in between.
Excellent point. How many of the mothers are on government assistance? Assuming these are even legit and not staged shootings for propoganda purposes.
Simple solution.
You're Mommy's problem until you're 21.
They'd stop spitting out kids like watermelon seeds if it was coming out of Mommy's check. Mommy might see to that.
Obama bills the democrats as the party of science. With global warming they keep telling us to trust the science. With that in mind, I think we should let him know that the science doesn't show any correlation between gun ownership and mass shootings. He must not have got that memo.
Speaking of global warming...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/fig_tab/461472a_F1.html#...
The two environmental disasters which are an order of magnitude worse than official AWG, just happen to have a strong correlation to industrial farming, which just happens to have a strong relationship with ag subsidies, and both just happen to be centred in the "first state in the nation."
I won't hold my breath on the scientists coming out against this obvious calamity, even though, from my experience in academia, none of them deny it, they all know it, but to go public about this is to end one's academic career.
"Science" just means attempting to engineer economic unicorns into existence.
But the science does show that. What are you babbling about?
Think and examine or emote.
What does LA and MS have more than most states besides guns (along with a few other top ones)? Furthermore, what do the low ranking states not have?
Shit, one day I'll figure it out.
Dindu Nuffins?
http://www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2015/10/09/hpd-officer-wounds-suspe...
Race is not mentioned but the photo tells it all ... all fo' be Barry's sons.
They could have just as easily been fathered by the Wookie.
EDIT:
Misread a comment.
if race is completely left out, you know it was a dindu nuffin. mentioning that it was a black person that commited a crime is raycist, apparently.
Is there a correlation between arrogant Nobel Peace Prize winners with weapons and hospital attacks?
There's no correlation, but 'Gun Control' isn't about protecting people, it's about making them defenseless and then completely subjugating them.
You sound like some NRA psycho. I couldn't care less if your wife or daughter is being raped, you're being mugged, carjacked, etc. You just man up and take it. Guns don't belong in the hands of common citizens and if that means you or your loved ones have to be raped, robbed, or murdered then so be it. The government has to always have the upper hand to keep the citizens from getting too uppity.
Cunt TROLL. LOL.
lol. joking right?
It's just some libtard douchebag lighting a paper bag full of dogshit, ringing the doorbell, and then running...
Put that on a sign in your yard , coward.
'NRA psycho'. Good one. This is what you'd call those farmers who stood for freedom @ Lexington and Concord.
Hahaha you are stupid
Soon a bullet will cost you a hundred a round. Think i am kiddin.
Ironically enough, Chris Rock suggested that as a solution in one of his routines over a decade ago.
BTW, Sonny Crocket banging away with his Bren-Ten was waaayyy ahead of his time. 10mm is an amazing all-purpose round...
Make your own.
been reloading for years.........even that is getting expensive. Now if I could only make .22 LR.
Index fingers kill MOAR people then guns do. Sarchasm
Obama has killed more people than all the serial killers and school shooters added together.
Fuck him.
George Bush & his ilk could not stop terrorist on 9/11 & it happened right in our front yard.
What is his wounded & death count for innocents on 9/11?
When is it appropriate to use "white trash"?
BTW,I don't vote for Democrats or Rep/Con/Teas.
My IQ is one point higher than these voters.
It's all irrelevant. It's time to step up to the plate and be like the rest of the advanced nations and to outlaw gun ownership. Guns don't belong in the hands of the common citizens under any circumstances. It's well past time that they be confiscated and those who hold on to them be given harsh prison terms. The constitution is an outdated piece of crap in this global community and has no standing in court.
I hope those down-voting you missed the sarcasm dripping from your post. Oh, and I hope it was sarcasm.
The MDB wannabe.
Weak sauce, dude.
That schtick has been played.
Not funny, non American, or America hating shill for tptb.
Either way, give it a rest
MDB is at least believable. This clown has the finesse of a wrecking ball..
You will not find a majority for that so that remains wishful thinking - unrealistic.
Where America is different is that people with a mental condition get guns easily. So you have to separate the mentally unstable from guns as much as possible.
Whether you have mental institutions again so they are out of harms way or you take the guns out of society would theoretically not matter. Just create that distance between mental conditions and guns. You might have more chances with establishing mental institutions again, especially if private enterprise is allowed to profit from them. But at the end of the day, this world is so overpopulated that there's no livelihood for billions, pavement dwellers everywhere, so culling may serve a purpose. (cynicism also serves a purpose)
I vote we cull the Europeans.
They're committing suicide anyway so we could clean up that Muzzie problem at the same time.
Your polarization is richly appreciated. Thank you so much!
Mao said it best. “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” An armed man has a choice. An unarmed man has his choices made for him. Understand this: Any serious effort to disarm the American public will spark a second American revolution and civil war. Such an effort would require the gun abolitionists to go door to door. The metric is pretty simple; one third of the population will resist this confiscation and roughly 3 percent of the gun owning public will kill the man or woman who comes to confiscate their fire arms.
Guns have a tremendous shelf life. I shoot a trap door Springfield that is 120 years old and it is reasonably accurate. It can take down a man sized target at 100 yards repeatedly. The cartridge is black powder, made of sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter pushing a lead bullet made out of wheel weights. If you know anything about the 45/70, it will kill anything that walks, crawls and flies on this planet. The army hit targets at two miles with it back at the turn of the last century
If you think you can dry up ammunition and have an effect, realize that thousands of us make our own ammunition. For those of that don’t , billions of rounds have already been purchased and stockpiled. Properly kept ammunition has a shelf life of half a century.
You cannot confiscate the fire arms in the United States no more than you can confiscate drugs or stop prostitution. What you can do is get you and your minions killed and reduce this country to a smoldering ember.
Diet soda causes obesity...
Flies cause garbage....
Prosperity causes hunger
Ha ha ha ... more drivel from Mises.
Look at japan, england, canada , australia ... fewer guns less crime, less murder, fewer gun deaths. Easy to show.
Now the US is a pretty fucked up society so maybe everyone does need a gun in that dog eat dog society. If you treat a whole section of people like shit, don't give very many a good eductaion, dope them up with propganda and keep them stupid ... then yes, you probably do need guns.
But create a more just society and eventually you will see the need for guns disappear ... like in the rest of the civilized developed world.
Ha ha ha... more proof that liberalism is just a mental disease.
That's a wrap.
I think it is possible that America has more problems with guns than other countries primarily because it is a nation of "malcontents", so to speak, the metaphysically homeless who chafe and are unwelcome even when their ideas are sound and progress could be made. Other countries, where the genetically unsettled have fled already to places like the U.S., Canada, and Australia, are left with the compliant remnants of their original human stock, ready to acquiesce to the demands of quite terrible masters, only rebelling under the most egregious conditions. America's "gun problem" could be our gravest problem on one edge and our most vital asset on another. Some people are prepared to say "NO" much louder than others, but it is the vehement naysayers who create human history.
Look at Switzerland. They have friggin' machine guns! They're all going to die!
Oh, wait...
Nope, the US has a culture problem that won't go away if we ban guns.
A certain demograph in the US has a culture problem.
BUT there is correlation that IT'S NOT SAFE to be a School Student in America. Our teachers and students in high schools and colleges can be shot dead, any day of the year. And all they are trying to do .. is to learn!
That's a pretty SICK commentary about our Society.
society has become an entity on 24hr news with a US worldview that relates serial killers as destroying education
with guns
.
serial killers have been glorified for expanding science as grave diggers in the past, teachers pets even murdering for the glory and chase of modern medicine
.
reality is our science and medicine with our without murder is imperfect, and news is not a fact
.
its just politics
You want a correlation? Compare the firearm homicide rate to the number of blacks as a percentage of the population of a state.
Then check for whites.
There's your fucking correlation.
I have been wanting to throw everything, like demographics, gun ownership rates, percent of the population with CCW, etc... and run a cononical correlation between that and the various violent crime rates to see what really is most important. My expectation is minority status excluding asians and poverty would be the big ones.
Of course there is, there is a corrolaton between increasing poverty and increase in crime.
With or without guns, crime will still increase as poverty increases. Governments are only interested in stopping crime before it's committed, not the cause for creating the crime.
When people can no longer afford to eat, pay rent, afford heating there will be anarchy.
So far as "Governments are only interested in stopping crime before it's committed" you have to add the rider "if the 'crime' is directed against the government". Without that rider they couldn't care less.
I think of it like an Onion
At the core are Banks and Religion.
The next ring is the Government protecting their Religion and the Banks.
The next ring are Laws that protect everybody on the Inide.
The next ring is the Police which protects the Laws and Government.
The next ring is the Military which protects them all.
Your on the outside, the Government will do anything to protect their religion and the Banks.
Sex and money--love and work.
I'd be willing to bet that its not that simple. You cannot point to race or poverty and have THE answer. You may have a lot of it with one or the other, but I guarantee that you do not have all of it. And to complicate matters, race and poverty are going to have some, *ahem* interesting relationships.
There are zero high black population states with a low murder rate, irrespective of gun ownership.
There are zero low black population states with high murder rates.
A sample size of 50 is small, but suggests a relationship.
I'm not saying that there is not a relationship, just that it is complicated enough to boggle the shit out of people. That's my best guess anyway. We all like simple solutions, but I don't think that there is one here. Say it's blacks, and you'll probably be able to figure out which neighborhoods to not go into at night. Say its poverty, and you'll probably be able to figure out which neighborhoods to go into at night. Yet, not all poor people are black, and not all blacks are poor. All I am saying is that this is not simple.
It only boggles you.
I'm afraid the facts show that it is that simple and denying it while trying desperately to find other factors is simply a waste of time.
I will take liberty and responsibility over the garbage ideas we export to our enemy's
.
like neocon democracy and nation building
Good points. When numbers speak, they speak with eloquence.
....cartainly a whole lot of n00b trolls popping up on ZH lately.... did they escape from REDDIT or Littlegreenfootballs or some other swamp?
Ever since ZH became "quasi-mainstream," it has received increasing numbers of people who normally gravitate towards HuffPo or Foxnews.
It is a damn shame that the echo chamber of total lunatics and conspiracy theorists and Rus propagandists (lots of group overlap there)was broken eh?
Gun laws would work much better if only criminals would obey the law.
This is a ridiculous manipulation of statistics. First, there are no mandatory gun registrations, so this is based on a very small poll that, as ZH and other source often point out, are mostly useless. Second, a state border is not like a country border--it's easy for someone to use a gun from New York in a New Jersey murder. Look at gun deaths by country. The US has 10.6 firearm deaths per 100,000 population. Japan: 0.06; Canada 2.22; Australia 0.86; Germany 1.24; India 0.48; Norway 1.78; Singapore 0.16; Portugal 1.77, etc. The only countries with higher rates than the US are Mexico (just slightly at 11.17); Jamaica 39.74 (!); Honduras 64.8; Guatemala 36.38; El Salvador 46.85 and Columbia 28.14. So there you have it, we should not heavily regulate guns because obviously they have no impact on the number of deaths by firearm. If you believe that, you should own a gun because you're so stupid you will need it to kill yourself before a first grader takes your job because he has a higher IQ.
Then you go live there. See that solution, so simple. Fuck you taking my rights, if you don't like it go some where safer in your opinion. But other than that go fuck yourself.
yep, you had definitely better take my advice and kill yourself...let's get that avg IQ in your state above 75. Ma, get the gun, ernie be talking numbers agin!
Or I could come hold you at gun point and take your shit.
I approve of this statement. Some lessons need to be learned (and taught) the hard way.
This is a ridiculous manipulation of statistics.
given this opening line about statistics it's rather revealing that, in his list, itsallalie left out a couple of First World countries that have much higher firearm deaths per 100,000 rate than USA: namely, Brazil (double America's rate with 19 deaths/ 100,000) and South Africa (at 21.5 deaths/100,00). Wonder why? Simple oversight? Or could it be that with rather large populations of the black African race these two countries share the same causal factor that plagues America: a large underclass of disaffected, angry, poor "outsiders" who are quick to violence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death...
It's simplistic to say it's about the number of guns in a community...it's about what's in the HEADS of the members of that community. As someone elsewhere on ZH said recently: Americans have owned semi and full automatic weaponsin large numbers since the 1930s and it's only been since the 1990s that the scourge of mass spree shootings has occurred. Why? Why? Why?
A dumb criminal uses a weapon, kills someone or holds up the local liquor store or gas station, gets maybe a few hundred dollars, gets caught, and goes to jail for a long stretch. Or maybe he deals dope, gets caught selling a few small bags, and goes to jail for a long stretch.
A smart criminal learns about Wall Street, sets up a pump and dump scheme, defrauds people of a several hundred million dollars, may get caught and have to pay back a few million, and retires to the Hamptons to enjoy his life, helicopter, and 85-foot yacht. Or gets promoted to head a Wall Street enterprise, and gets to influence American politics by making large contributions to PACs of his choice.
They are both criminals, the difference in results is the product of differing smarts, strategies, connections and a choice of crime venues.
Cars are heavily regulated, require extensive education and a license for use, must display their registration publicly, and aren't concealable, yet they are used in all sorts of crimes all the time.
Gun regulations proposed as 'solutions' to behavioral and societal dysfunction is fucking stupid.
A hundred years of subsidizing bad behavior causes all sorts of adverse symptoms. Addressing the symptoms with platitudes expressed by sociopathic lawyers, and implemented with a bureaucracy run by asshole government douchebags isn't going to fix shit.
The 'number of guns' is pretty stupid, too. Guns cost at least their weight in silver. A high number of guns doesn't mean they are oozing from cracks between buildings or bubbling up out of sewers. It means citizens in the US have lots more money to spend and they've spent it buying guns. Probably because many people think guns are pretty cool and they like to own them. They also protect their guns as one would protect their silver or cash. So sheer numbers of guns have little to do with availability.
I'm sure the number of guns per capita in a place like Guatemala or El Salvador is WAY lower than the US, even though the murder rate with guns is much higher. So this doesn't illustrate a fucking thing other than people in Guatemala or El Salvador are less likely to control themselves (even though there are fewer guns per capita, a shooter only needs one).
Which gets back to my original point--societal dysfunction is where the murder problem originates, not state documentation or limitation of tools of the trade. As violent third-world social standards proliferate, so to the adverse affects of these standards.
All this drama surrounding the subject is nothing more than a red herring diverting attention from government's century of social engineering failures that have caused a proliferation of third-world social standards. More government social engineering will only exacerbate problems in society (even if it did reduce gun murders, it's going to do so with vast increases in the police state and oppression).
.
Marvin Harris, one of the world's most noted anthropologists, wrote a book in 1980. This title was previously available as America Now: The Anthropology of a Changing Culture. New York: Simon & Schuster. The new title is Why Nothing Works: The Anthropology of Daily Life 1981.
In the chapter titled: Why There's Terror on the Streets, he demonstrates that American White men have violent crime rates LOWER than English in England and the Japanese in Japan. So why does America have such a high level of violent crime? Dr Harris puts it quite plainly: Blacks and Hispanics. That's the story. He also pointed out that the average gun owner is a middle-aged, middle class White guy.
THEY want American Whites DISARMED so that THEY can do to Whites what they did to the Czar and his family and TWENTY MILLION White Russians according to Khrushchev. These are BOLSHEVIKS in power in the USSA.
I think it behooves each and every single one of us, AND OUR FAMILIES, to join the NRA.
http://www.nrahq.org/
Because the Bolsheviks are prepared to do their WORST and believe me, that is TOO TERRIBLE to contemplate.
Americans never give up your guns By Stanislav Mishin
and all these mass shootings are being done by...drum roll please a) hispanics; b) blacks; c) lily white people. Come on Cleetus, you can do it...it's for a gold star!
I know! All those mass shootings in Chicago, the endless murders in Detroit...
I blame the Norwegians, personally.
This is the dumbest use of statistics I have ever seen.
There is 100% correlation between mass shotings and gun ownership. You cannot shoot people without a gun.
If people want to own guns, so be it, but stop the hypocrisy that it makes society safer, because it does not. The US is the most violent of the 'civilized' societies, but I am the first to agree it is not because of gun ownership alone.
We accept that a lot of people die in car accidents for the sake of owning cars. We have to accept that mass shotings are a recurring consequence of a few wrong people owning guns.
Also, stop pretending to be moral and religious when owning a gun. In the 10 Commendments, it does not say 'You shalt not kill ... except in self-defence'.
I have no problems if someone wants to own a gun, just stop trying to find lame justifications. I still do not understand why I would risk going to jail if I let my kids sip some wine but not if I let them touch a gun.
We are all dumber for having read this bullshit.
No, you are dumber because you know you cannot repont pointedly to the arguments, only offend.
This is the dumbest use of statistics I have ever seen.
There is 100% correlation between mass shotings and gun ownership. You cannot shoot people without a gun.
There is also 100% corelation between mass shootings and breathing. You cannot shoot people if you are not breathing.
Incidentally, I know of no mass shooting crimes committed by someone who lives down a coal mine. So the answer to the problem is simple...
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Ergo, instead of banning guns, ban people. A city emptied of people will have no crime problem.
There, solved it for you.
Which leads me to the conclusion that China built all their empty cities to lower their crime statistics.
I have some more charts for this guy:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQQcmaGUYAAxwti.png:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQUxEbEWcAAVdKp.png:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQVUydbWcAApop4.png:large
*All statistics made up by gun control advocacy groups.
Pretty lame. Try harder.
Wikipedia Commons gives a "List of countries by firearm-related death rate.jpg"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death... The numbers of gun homicides per 100,000 residents are, in order of magnitude: Honduras 64.80 Venezuela 50.90 El Salvador 46.85 Jamaica 39.74 Swaziland 37.16 Guatemala 36.38 Colombia 28.14 South Africa 21.51 Brazil 19.03 Panama 17.60 Uruguay 14.01 Mexico 11.17 United States 10.64 Argentina 10.05 Montenegro 8.55 Paraguay 8.15 Nicaragua 7.29 Costa Rica 6.28 Serbia 3.90 Chile 3.73 Peru 3.73 Finland 3.64 Croatia 3.54 Phillipines 3.24 France 3.01 Barbados 3.00 Austria 2.95 Switzerland 2.91 Estonia 2.54 Slovenia 2.49 Belgium 2.42 Bulgaria 2.35 Canada 2.22 Luxembourg 2.02 etc.Democrats can't go after root causes of most of the misery in the world because they are a primary root cause. So, they appeal to victims of their stupidity and lust for power and hope the victims won't realize how they became victims - real or imagined. Given that the most loyal leftist voting blocs are blacks, women, kids, avowed socialists/Marxists/communists and a wide range of criminals, they may be onto something.