statistics around guns and gun violence


PDA






txblackout
January 26, 2015, 11:03 AM
When discussing guns and gun violence here are some straightforward numbers:

High positive or negative number indicates strong correlation or anti correlation

Results:
Correlation of guns per/capita to all murders by state -.339 No correlation
Correlation of guns per/capita to gun murders by state -.328 No correlation
Correlation of murders to % african american population by state +.788 positive correlation
Correation of gun murders to % african american population by state +.811 positive correlation

Methodology:

Data on gun murders is from wikipedia (from the census bureau)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#cite_note-fbi2010-1

Data on african american populations is from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population

Data on african american populations from district of columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Washington,_D.C.

Used the correl function in excel to compare columns of state data


Key flaws/assumptions/caveats:

This is just a quick and dirty back of the envelope analysis.

The data is not necessarily controlled for exact years. So the gun violence data does not necessarily match the exact year of the demographic data. The assumption is that the demographics dont change substantially within a few years.

Correlation is not the same as causation.

I just used the most convenient excel function. There are probably better statistical methods to use.

Im assuming guns per capita is legal guns per capita.

Crimes committed with guns would be another way to look at this. Murders are at the extreme end of this. My assumption is that murder rates are somewhat correlated with violent crime rates committed with guns. This might not be true. Even if it is not true, it doesn't matter for this analysis about guns and relationship to murder. Another analysis of guns related to violent crimes would be worth doing.

Discussion

Murders and gun murders are somewhat correlated with having a high african american population and not correlated at all with guns per capita.

I was surprised that gun murders did not have more of a correlation with per capita (legal) gun ownership.

One reasonable, underlying assumption by gun control advocates might be that murders are highly correlated with illegal gun ownership and that legal gun ownership is correlated with illegal gun ownership. They in essence have created a logic chain that looks like [more legal guns -> more illegal guns -> more murders].

Like many logic chains, it seems reasonable. However, because there is no correlation between per capita legal gun ownership and murders, there is either no correlation between legal and illegal gun ownership OR there is no correlation between illegal gun ownership and murders. One of the links in the logic chain does not hold.


why is the african american component not discussed, ever?

I have heard people suggest this on various news programs and they are typically shot down vehemently. But not with data.

It is political/media suicide to discuss this or to push the issue. The sad thing is, the answer to murders is probably to find a fix to violence in the african american community. Neither liberals nor conservatives want to talk about the problem which means it cant be solved.

Liberals believe that by removing the tools for murder that they can reduce the murder rate. That way they dont have to address the uncomfortable problems in the inner city african american community. This doesnt make them bad or evil people, just in denial.

Liberals usually try to lump suicide in as "gun deaths" or "gun violence". In any discussion of data, this is the first thing to look for.

Ultimately I think murders are the cleanest way to look at this.

If you enjoyed reading about "statistics around guns and gun violence" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MachIVshooter
January 26, 2015, 02:03 PM
While it is statistically well known that black on black violence is far above the national average, it has no bearing on RKBA, and is certainly not in the scope of of discussion here.

docsleepy
January 26, 2015, 03:32 PM
Surely you're being sarcastic. This is an area for the general discussion of firearms, and who uses them, in what manner is certainly a discussion of firearms.

MachIVshooter
January 26, 2015, 03:51 PM
Even if there were tangential relevance between the problems facing the black community and RKBA for an entire nation, anyone who's been here very long knows exactly where this thread will go. These ones always disintegrate into racial and political flame wars. Whether or not the subject needs to be discussed is irrelevant; we can do nothing constructive with this toxic material here.

4banger
January 26, 2015, 04:06 PM
The thing is, this is part of the political theater that damaged the RKBA, and continues to. Feel-good legislation and the like don't have any link to actual data. Data isn't exciting to the general masses, but a story is.

silicosys4
January 26, 2015, 04:09 PM
Even if there were tangential relevance between the problems facing the black community and RKBA for an entire nation, anyone who's been here very long knows exactly where this thread will go. These ones always disintegrate into racial and political flame wars. Whether or not the subject needs to be discussed is irrelevant; we can do nothing constructive with this toxic material here.

its time to stop shrinking away from this topic, as it continues to impact all of us in a huge way. There is no reason an adult discussion can't take place, and this topic is well worth debating.
Whether the mods want to deal with keeping it civil is another matter.

Arizona_Mike
January 26, 2015, 04:24 PM
I assume you are quoting R-square numbers? Do you have p-values as well?

Mike

roadchoad
January 26, 2015, 04:34 PM
Have you run the same test using socioeconomic status rather than race?

taliv
January 26, 2015, 04:51 PM
why is the african american component not discussed, ever?

I have heard people suggest this on various news programs and they are typically shot down vehemently. But not with data.

It is political/media suicide to discuss this or to push the issue. The sad thing is, the answer to murders is probably to find a fix to violence in the african american community. Neither liberals nor conservatives want to talk about the problem which means it cant be solved.

Liberals believe that by removing the tools for murder that they can reduce the murder rate. That way they dont have to address the uncomfortable problems in the inner city african american community. This doesnt make them bad or evil people, just in denial.

first, of course, correlation != causation. so there's not necessarily a legitimate reason to discuss it, unless you can find some causation.

second, while some stereotypes might be valid statistically, they may do tremendous damage to the individuals who are otherwise innocent. in this case, consider the millions of african americans who have committed no gun crimes. think about what effect discussing (implying they are part of the problem) this may have on them and you will see why many rightly avoid it.

third, are you sure the data correlates with race? perhaps it is actually culture and not race? perhaps it actually correlates with income or education levels or something else?

i'll grant you there are some social problems that affect that community that are far out of bounds for THR discussions. Solving them is somewhere between difficult and impossible and in lieu of that, politicians look for an easier solution, likely knowing it will have zero effect. nevertheless, that discussion isn't appropriate here and if this thread veers that direction, it will be closed quickly

docsleepy
January 26, 2015, 05:01 PM
I think most people would agree that what you are researching is culture, not race. It is unlikely that melanin content affects gun crime. However, it would be obvious that culture could. Skin pigmentation may be a proxy for culture, and and improved thesis could be developed by identifying exact portions of culture that affect the outcome and looking for heterogeneity in the population understudy for that facet

docsleepy
January 26, 2015, 05:04 PM
And example would be, can you tease out single-parent families' impact on gun crime. Or any other behavioral trait such as school performance, present nonrelated parental figures in the house, previous arrests or convictions of parental figures.

Obviously, these are issues of life and death importance, which should obviously be addressed by our culture and our nation. Ostrich behavior is not appropriate here

hso
January 26, 2015, 06:29 PM
You've missed the fact that the correlation is really socioeconomic. Poor Americans that are concentrated in urban poor centers are the greatest at risk group for violence. In some states it is poor whites. In others it is poor hispanics. In others blacks. The correlation is "poor", not "black".

MachIVshooter
January 26, 2015, 06:34 PM
its time to stop shrinking away from this topic, as it continues to impact all of us in a huge way. There is no reason an adult discussion can't take place, and this topic is well worth debating.

Even if this radioactive subject didn't dissolve into nastiness and bring out the lowest common denominators in our group, which it always does, the entire postulate is argumentum ad ignorantium. Lots of speculation, some very tenuous corrollaries and a completely unscientific dissection of data samples pulled at random. Even the OP states:

The data is not necessarily controlled for exact years. So the gun violence data does not necessarily match the exact year of the demographic data. The assumption is that the demographics dont change substantially within a few years.

I mean, for goodness sake, we're looking at user editable "data" from Wikipedia. Wiki is a great place to start learning about a subject, but if one really wants to understand it, to study the subject matter knowing that it is truly accurate, we look elsewhere. Census, CDC, UCR, etc. for this kind of data.

The fact that there is a violence problem in the black community above and beyond what it is among other races or the nation as a whole doesn't matter when it comes to RKBA. I cannot see how it is possible to conflate the issues, let alone use them as a basis for RKBA arguments one way or the other. We do not need a racial breakdown to demonstrate that there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and gun violence rates. And we do not need firearm ownership statistics to demonstrate that certain demographics are more violent than others.

It is well established that gun control does not reduce gun crime, and also that absent a firearm, homicides and assaults are simply committed with other weapons. Best you might come up with from dissecting this matter (and doing so using a whole lot more data from reliable sources) is that certain races tend to kill each other more or less often with certain types of weapons. I do not see how that is anything other than relatively useless statistical data.

Furthermore, you're not going to win the hearts and minds of black folks by pointing out to them that their race tends to kill each other with much greater frequency than Caucasians, Asians, etc.

So, I'll say again, I don't see what can possibly be gained in arguing points for RKBA by discussing and dissecting crime in the black community.

MachIVshooter
January 26, 2015, 06:44 PM
Also, as long as some of you want to discuss the race vs gun violence issue and how it relates to future RKBA, I feel I should point out that the pedestal from which the antis crow loudest are the "mass shootings". Not only do these rare but heart-wrenching atrocities have nothing to do with violence in the black community, but they are generally committed by young white males.

d2wing
January 26, 2015, 06:48 PM
Well if the stats are coming from the CDC or other current Government sources they would be very suspicious. Data criteria is routinely stretched and manipulated as well as double counted to skew results.

denton
January 26, 2015, 07:04 PM
first, of course, correlation != causation. so there's not necessarily a legitimate reason to discuss it, unless you can find some causation.

I agree with the first part, but not the second.

If stricter gun laws would reduce homicide or violent crime in general, you would expect to find a correlation between crime and gun ownership. If no correlation exists, and if you have constructed a sufficiently powerful test, then it is fair to say that gun ownership/legal restrictions do not influence crime rates much/any. If these things have little to no influence, then we might as well look to the prime interest rate or the air pressure in our tires as means to control crime.

If you run the stats (as I did) on state homicide rates vs. their Brady Grade, you find about as much correlation as you would by running random data. The problem with this is that the Brady Grades omit Washington DC and Puerto Rico, both of which have extremely strict laws and extremely high violent crime rates. Throw in the US Virgin Islands and those two/three points would surely show a negative correlation for the US data set, i.e., stricter gun laws correlate with higher crime.

One other thing we need to get straight: Contrary to the picture the popular press paints, the US is not a particularly violent place. Get over the inferiority complex already. We could do better, but we could do a lot worse, too. If you rank the countries of the world by homicide rate, we're pretty much in the middle. Japan and many European countries have rates that are 5X better than ours. On the other hand, Russia, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Greenland, Jamaica, and many other countries have rates roughly 5X worse than ours, and a few have rates 10X worse than ours. (Russia used to be 5X worse than us, and is now officially only 2X worse than us. It's widely believed that they fudge the numbers.) And Japan, with practically no firearms has a suicide rate 2X ours. I think it's from the depression that follows not having firearms.

MachIVshooter
January 26, 2015, 07:24 PM
If stricter gun laws would reduce homicide or violent crime in general, you would expect to find a correlation between crime and gun ownership. If no correlation exists, and if you have constructed a sufficiently powerful test, then it is fair to say that gun ownership/legal restrictions do not influence crime rates much/any. If these things have little to no influence, then we might as well look to the prime interest rate or the air pressure in our tires as means to control crime.

If you run the stats (as I did) on state homicide rates vs. their Brady Grade, you find about as much correlation as you would by running random data. The problem with this is that the Brady Grades omit Washington DC and Puerto Rico, both of which have extremely strict laws and extremely high violent crime rates. Throw in the US Virgin Islands and those two/three points would surely show a negative correlation for the US data set, i.e., stricter gun laws correlate with higher crime.

But we already know the answers to these particular debate points, and can already demonstrate them with statistics that have been broken down accordingly by people who do that sort of thing for a living.

-We know that civilian gun ownership rates and gun violence rates do no strongly correlate anywhere in the world.

-We know that violent crime trends independently of weapons availability, legal or otherwise.

-We know that affluent communities have less overall crime than impoverished ones.

-We know that homogenous populations have less violence than diverse ones.

Etc, etc.

This information already exists in useful forms, and is valuable when arguing for RKBA. But I am still waiting for someone to explain the purpose of this thread to me.

So you demonstrate statistically that homicide rates are strongly correlated with race and not at all with lawful gun ownership. So what? What are you going to do with this information? Are you going to go to some single black mother in Chicago or Queens and tell her "look, statistically your son has a 13% chance of being dead before his 25th birthday, and it's an 84% chance that it will be a firearm homicide with a 94% probability that the gun was stolen or smuggled. So, since this has nothing to do with the weapons I want to procure legally in the future, will you please vote pro- RKBA?"

Or will you go to the bleeding heart liberal suburban white mom and make sure she understands that her kid is 23.47 times less likely to die by gun violence than the chicago/queens boy, and so the very low odds are proof positive that she should support your 2nd amendment rights?

Seriously, what do you think we're going to do with this data?

denton
January 26, 2015, 07:38 PM
But we already know the answers to these particular debate point

Yes we do. And that was my point. I was responding to the statement that correlation does not equal causation, which is true. But it is also true that if we construct a sufficiently powerful test and find no correlation, then it is fair to say that there is no important causation and that stricter gun laws are an exercise in futility. And that is what we have found.

Well, then I rambled off onto my pet peeve of the press painting the US as a very violent place.

MedWheeler
January 26, 2015, 08:52 PM
Even if there were tangential relevance between the problems facing the black community and RKBA for an entire nation, anyone who's been here very long knows exactly where this thread will go. These ones always disintegrate into racial and political flame wars. Whether or not the subject needs to be discussed is irrelevant; we can do nothing constructive with this toxic material here.

And this is why neither political party takes it up as an issue that actually needs addressing.

Tony k
January 26, 2015, 09:39 PM
It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between being poor and being the target of violent crime. My suspicion is that there is a positive correlation. In other words, I think poor people are more likely to be on the receiving end of violence than people who are not poor.

This is where an inclusive pro RKBA argument can be made. For example you could say, "by making it hard for law-abiding poor people to exercise their 2A rights, you are making them more vulnerable to violent crime."

MachIVshooter
January 26, 2015, 09:46 PM
And this is why neither political party takes it up as an issue that actually needs addressing.

Just because it's taboo doesn't make it relevant to our mission. We have a very narrow focus here, and this is much more of a Facebook topic.

If someone, anyone can articulate a good reason that THR should delve into the black community violence issue for the sake of RKBA preservation, I'm all ears. But I don't think anybody can.

I'm not denying that it's a relevant issue in this country, and I'm not saying it isn't worthy of discussion. I would like nothing more than for the problems to be solved and this nation to move past racial divides. But while the causes of the strife in impoverished communities (a disproportionate number of them black communities) are easily identified, the solutions seem to elude even the brightest minds.

Regardless, I just can't make the connection between this nuclear topic and the second amendment. If it could be made, the antis would have used it against us by now. But it would be a very shaky platform, likely to blow up in their face. I don't see how it is any different for us.

MachIVshooter
January 26, 2015, 09:53 PM
It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between being poor and being the target of violent crime. My suspicion is that there is a positive correlation. In other words, I think poor people are more likely to be on the receiving end of violence than people who are not poor.

There is, and it is well documented.

This is where an inclusive pro RKBA argument can be made. For example you could say, "by making it hard for law-abiding poor people to exercise their 2A rights, you are making them more vulnerable to violent crime.

Been done here, ad nauseum. It is the principle reason we oppose bans on cheap guns or legislating training mandates, which cost money, thus effectively creating a poll tax on 2A.

txblackout
January 27, 2015, 01:17 AM
You've missed the fact that the correlation is really socioeconomic. Poor Americans that are concentrated in urban poor centers are the greatest at risk group for violence. In some states it is poor whites. In others it is poor hispanics. In others blacks. The correlation is "poor", not "black".

The correlation for poverty rate is .58 for murders and .56 for gun murders.

The data for poverty rates is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

txblackout
January 27, 2015, 01:26 AM
Just because it's taboo doesn't make it relevant to our mission. We have a very narrow focus here, and this is much more of a Facebook topic.

If someone, anyone can articulate a good reason that THR should delve into the black community violence issue for the sake of RKBA preservation, I'm all ears. But I don't think anybody can.

I'm not denying that it's a relevant issue in this country, and I'm not saying it isn't worthy of discussion. I would like nothing more than for the problems to be solved and this nation to move past racial divides. But while the causes of the strife in impoverished communities (a disproportionate number of them black communities) are easily identified, the solutions seem to elude even the brightest minds.

Regardless, I just can't make the connection between this nuclear topic and the second amendment. If it could be made, the antis would have used it against us by now. But it would be a very shaky platform, likely to blow up in their face. I don't see how it is any different for us.

As I stated, I see many pro 2a attribute nefarious motives to anti gunners. I dont believe that anti gunners simply want to destroy your 2a rights for the fun of it or simply to be in control. I do believe that they believe they are fixing a problem - that of gun violence. Many libs on daily kos support a RKBA section. They are trying to figure out how to solve the gun violence problem without banning guns.

I think that they also dont want to talk about the elephant in the room but believe that banning guns will enable them to avoid talking about the elephant in the room.


I participate at dailykos and many genuinely believe that pro 2a people are racists, want guns to protect themselves against african americans and support the 2a except for african americans.

Some here have suggested that poverty is the issue and I would love to see data showing why it actually is the case.

As far as the use of wikipedia, Im just crunching the raw numbers posted. The citations go to the CDC and census bureau, if it is really an issue Id be happy to corroborate the #s. But I doubt that they are far off.

As far as snarky comments about p values etc, I posted the method I used as well as the data. Feel free to run your preferred statistical method.

The purpose of this post was to generate a discussion around how to actually reduce gun violence which also happens to be what the anti gunners want too. Their method is to ban them, what is your strategy?

Librarian
January 27, 2015, 05:39 AM
The purpose of this post was to generate a discussion around how to actually reduce gun violence which also happens to be what the anti gunners want too.

Is it?

I don't think that's a significant motivation for the anti-gun folks.

I'll refer you to the Cultural Cognition Project (http://www.culturalcognition.net/papers-topical/), at Yale, in particular their publication More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=286205) - from the abstract What motivates individuals to support or oppose the legal regulation of guns? What sorts of evidence or arguments are likely to promote a resolution of the gun control debate? Using the survey methods associated with the cultural theory of risk, we demonstrate that individuals' positions on gun control derive from their cultural world views: individuals of an egalitarian or solidaristic orientation tend to support gun control, those of a hierarchical or individualist orientation to oppose it. Indeed, cultural orientations so defined are stronger predictors of individuals' positions than is any other fact about them, including whether they are male or female, white or black, Southerners or Easterners, urbanites or country dwellers, conservatives or liberals. The role of culture in determining attitudes towards guns suggests that econometric analyses of the effect of gun control on violent crime are unlikely to have much impact.

MachIVshooter
January 27, 2015, 10:30 AM
I dont believe that anti gunners simply want to destroy your 2a rights for the fun of it or simply to be in control. I do believe that they believe they are fixing a problem - that of gun violence. Many libs on daily kos support a RKBA section. They are trying to figure out how to solve the gun violence problem without banning guns.

You need to understand the difference between the anti-gun crowd and the non-gun crowd. The latter are the bulk of Americans who do not have any interest in shooting, do not wish to own a gun themselves, hurt inside when they read of tragedy, but do not personally desire to take away guns. This group is the prize, they are the ones we need to sway with sound arguments rooted in logic.

The true anti-gun crowd often cite violence reduction as a reason or goal, but it is not their actual motivation. They hate guns, they hate gun owners, and they absolutely want to take them away from everyone. These people will lie & cheat, skew statistics, dance on the graves of recently deceased children-whatever it takes. For the real anti-gunner, the ends will always justify the means, and their only goal is total disarmament of lawful gun owners. Don't they give a rat's patoot about the dead, least of all the young urban black men who are most likely to fall victim to violence.

Ever notice how the daily death toll in the decrepit cities goes almost completely ignored by the antis, but the instant any "mass shooting" happens, a heart wrenching event but a statistical anomaly, they are all over it like flies on poo? That's because 20 kindergarteners slaughtered by a white lunatic who stole a family member's legal gun serves their interest far more than the thousands of young black men offing each other with illegal weapons annually.

I think that they also dont want to talk about the elephant in the room but believe that banning guns will enable them to avoid talking about the elephant in the room.

They know full well it won't fix the problem. Once in a while they'll make that claim when addressing their voter base, but the liberals have 90% of the black vote locked down, and they know they won't sway the other 10%. Their target is white suburbia.

I participate at dailykos and many genuinely believe that pro 2a people are racists, want guns to protect themselves against african americans and support the 2a except for african americans.

I'm not familiar with dailykos, but I can tell you that compiling this data will not convince them otherwise. If anything, your OP came across as bigoted.

Best thing to do is not throw racial statistics down, but to counter their beliefs with genuine, articulate arguments. Take my position, for example: Do I want guns in the hands of inner city black (or other race) youth gang members? Of course not. No one in their right mind thinks a 16 year old thug carrying a stolen handgun has a thing to do with RKBA. Do I have any problem with a black man (not kid, not thug, man) legitimately owning a gun for any lawful purpose, including self defense? Of course I don't. Quite the opposite, in fact, and while I've never known an underage gang member, I do personally know several responsible adult black males who are gun owners, and I enjoy talking weapons and shooting on the range with them just as much as anyone else.

Among the black community, moreso than white or others, firearms are used criminally with far greater frequency. As well, the percentage of black sportsmen and target shooters is far, far lower than white. This colors their perspective on gun ownership and use differently; they see the gun as something that is used almost exclusively in the killing their young black men by other young black men. It is not an easy perception to change, and you're certainly not going to do it with statistics-especially if you're white. Truthfully, the more enlightened black men who try are, more often then not, ostracized, labeled uncle toms and race traitors.

I don't have the answer, but I can tell you that this approach isn't it.


Some here have suggested that poverty is the issue and I would love to see data showing why it actually is the case.

Look over the same data sets you have been, but instead of breaking it down by race, break it down by age, income level and location. You will find that people of any race who live in impoverished communities face much greater rates of crime and violence than those who do not. A 17 year old kid in Detroit, regardless of his race, has a much higher probability of being involved in fights, committing crime, being arrested, and even being killed than another 17 year old boy who lives in a middle class suburban neighborhood.

Sure, terrible crimes happen in affluent communities, too, and there are plenty of "bad apple" kids in suburbia. But when a child grows up in a house with two parents who provide him with everything he could ever need and then some, push him to excel, when he goes to a school where a teacher actually notices his absence, he has a much lower risk than the child who has had to endure living in run-down, government subsidized housing with a couple of older half-brothers and a mother on welfare, dad nowhere to be found, school a secondary concern to finding a way to keep clothes on his back and food in his mouth. Some of these kids turn to criminal activities because the pay is far better than a minimum wage job across town, others turn to the gangs because they really don't have a family of their own. The reasons are many, the results are inevitable.

As far as the use of wikipedia, Im just crunching the raw numbers posted. The citations go to the CDC and census bureau, if it is really an issue Id be happy to corroborate the #s. But I doubt that they are far off.

Just remember that nobody is going to take you seriuosly if you cite Wikipedia as a source.


The purpose of this post was to generate a discussion around how to actually reduce gun violence which also happens to be what the anti gunners want too. Their method is to ban them, what is your strategy?

Back to the beginning here. Never, ever forget that it is the bleeding heart non-gunner who wants to see violence reduced. The anti-gunner couldn't care less. Even if the violence were to increase in the wake of a ban (which other nations have shown that is exactly what happens), they would still sit back with a poo-eating grin on their face, satisfied with themselves for having accomplished their goal..........which was never about saving lives.

denton
January 27, 2015, 12:36 PM
Their method is to ban them, what is your strategy?

Presumes at least a couple of dubious propositions: there is a solution, someone ought to come up with it, and then quite likely ought to impose the solution on everyone else.

The evidence is that more strict gun laws do not reduce the homicide rate. Therefore, all states could adjust their gun laws to be similar to those of Wyoming or Utah, we could repeal the Lautenburg Amendment, institute nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, and the homicide situation would be no worse than it is now. All other factors equal, more liberty is better.

Guns are not the problem. But it is a lot easier to attach the sins of society on an inanimate object such as a firearm or a 30 round magazine than it is to admit that government social engineering has fostered violent, irresponsible, uneducated pockets in our society and to go to work on those failed policies.

ACP
January 27, 2015, 12:52 PM
And of the 18 states with gun murders per 100,000 above 3.0, most all of them are south of the Mason-Dixon line, in "red" states.

So....

MachIVshooter
January 27, 2015, 01:59 PM
And of the 18 states with gun murders per 100,000 above 3.0, most all of them are south of the Mason-Dixon line, in "red" states.

So....

Which, incidentally, have lower overall income and higher percentages of the population living in poverty.

Alaska is really the only anomalous state when it comes to the violence/demographic/socioeconomic correlation. But then, Alaska is vastly different from the lower 48 in many, many ways-practically a whole different nation.

ACP
January 27, 2015, 02:11 PM
I'm being snarky. I agree with you, hso and taliv.

You can take those murders per 100,000 and cross-reference for any number of variables -- teen pregnancy rates, high school dropout rates, childhood immunizations, income, housing cost, highest educational attainment, Obama voters, Romney voters, Republican or Democrat controlled state legislatures, shall-issue states, may-issue states, etc.

TimSr
January 27, 2015, 02:42 PM
I think most people would agree that what you are researching is culture, not race. It is unlikely that melanin content affects gun crime. However, it would be obvious that culture could. Skin pigmentation may be a proxy for culture, and and improved thesis could be developed by identifying exact portions of culture that affect the outcome and looking for heterogeneity in the population understudy for that facet.


Studies in education support this. I can't remember what TV show I was watching, but they were comparing academic achievement in the US, and whether race or culture had an influence, as some races were known for doing better, while others seemed to lag behind in school. The gist of the study suggested that children whose parents are recent immigrants from countries with cultures that value education highly tended to do much better in school, and were driven by their parents and the desire by students have teh prestige of doing well within their communities. The children of immigrants with cultures more focused on agriculture seemed to not do as well because the culture valued manual labor and agriculture much more than education in math and science. The interesting part of the study was that children of African immigrants scored among the highest with Asians and eastern Europeans while, while blacks raised in integrated middle class families showed no statistical distinction between them and average middle class white kids. Blacks raised in segregated neighborhoods did the poorest of all groups. Criminal activity is a behavior and not genetic or racial. It's pretty hard to separate behavior from the values of a culture.

txblackout
January 28, 2015, 12:20 PM
And of the 18 states with gun murders per 100,000 above 3.0, most all of them are south of the Mason-Dixon line, in "red" states.

So....

The interesting thing is that murders or gun murders do not correlate as well with poverty as they do with the racial makeup (I agree it is probably culture).

I think people parroting the it is poverty line are doing just that. I would definitely be interested to see alternate ways of looking at poverty. My simple analysis just took poverty rates by state and correlated them to murders and gun murders. The correlation was at .51 which is to say not correlated. The correlation to percent by race is .81.

I suspect that there are no academics which would touch this third rail and they default to looking at poverty.

Sol
January 28, 2015, 02:15 PM
Ok, so what's the solution?

Using "culture" as an arguement is a fools endeavor. History has proven that "whites" are far more violent than most others. Sounds pretty liberal, but in the grand scheme of things, when it comes to death, nobody does it like whites.

If that data was disected and broken down by individual cases instead of a lump of numbers, the info would contain a clearer picture. I don't condone murder but I would bet that MOST of the victims of black on black homicides aren't necissarily Pillars of the community.
For example, I have a pretty low chance of a home invasion. If I decided to sell dope my odds may skyrocket exponentially. Or sleep with another mans wife so on and so forth.

There is no reasonable solution for this. The only solution would be extreme and would hurt everyone.

In a country of over 300 million people, from all over the world representing almost every race, culture and religion a few murders a year is expected.

fiddleharp
January 28, 2015, 03:10 PM
First of all, mega-kudos to the mods for letting this conversation take place at all. A thorough airing of this subject is long overdue here at THR.
By the way, does anyone have any statistics on where the highest (non-hispanic) white-on-white gun crime numbers happen in the United States?

Librarian
January 28, 2015, 03:30 PM
One can play with WISQARS (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html) (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_inj.html if you want to skip the intro, but you need to check the 'I agree' box to get into the query tool) data to get victim breakdowns by state , and then FBI victim/offender relationship data (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls). (That page has the National aggregates.)

In the 2013 aggregate, for white victims, about 5/6 are white offenders; for black victims, it's quite close to 100% black offenders.

taliv
January 28, 2015, 03:49 PM
Using "culture" as an arguement is a fools endeavor. History has proven that "whites" are far more violent than most others. Sounds pretty liberal, but in the grand scheme of things, when it comes to death, nobody does it like whites.

i have no idea what you're talking about.

Sol
January 28, 2015, 04:29 PM
i have no idea what you're talking about.

Assuming the OP is talking about disproportionate statistics amongst American blacks which he is, and stating that there may be cultural difference as the cause is non-sensical.

Just because one is black or white doesn't negate the fact they live in the same country, speak the same language and go to the same schools. My culture is closer to an American black than a native Somolians.

TimSr
January 28, 2015, 04:53 PM
First of all, mega-kudos to the mods for letting this conversation take place at all.

I 2nd that!

It is tough to address culture by anyone who does not originate from the culture. In order to "fix" a culture it must be lead from leadership from within. When you are born into, and grow up in any community, you tend to be a continuation of it. If you are told, from the time your are born, that every hardship, failure or injustice you suffer is the result of another group of people, you tend to hate those people, whether you know them or not. If everybody around you believes that certain behaviors are "cool", and give you standing in your community, and that the negative consequences of those behaviors are somebody else's fault, you tend to escalate those behaviors. If you are raised being told that another group of people has stolen everything from your parents and grandparents, you tend to think those people owe you something. If you are ridiculed and belittled for getting educated, being responsible and law abiding, and working in honored professions deemed to be "the enemy", you are not inclined to hang around the same neighborhood and improve it when you shed that culture in favor of a more productive life. However your are raised as a child, and with whatever values you see from those around you, you tend to see are "normal" when you become an adult.

It was so sad to see Bill Cosby fall, when he was one of the few who put the blame and repsonsibility on the culture and what need to be done to "fix" it, while those who peddle hate and blame towards other races become WhiteHouse advisors.

short barrel
January 28, 2015, 04:56 PM
Statistics and intelligent opinions are great for dissecting issues, but in the end, nothing changes. Such as statistics showing more crimes of violence occur among the poor can't be taken as a flat truth. Just to touch the surface of a statistic begs further digging. Like why are the poor, poor. If they are a distinct race or culture or group, what is it that makes them poor. Does that statistic show that the poor are more evil and therefor make up a large percentage of offenders? Or are we only speaking of victims who are poor and find themselves among the poor offenders, which again brings us back to the evil factor. Does poverty change a man's heart? Can he be less compassionate toward his neighbor because he's poor?

Personally, I believe poverty is self induced, and that crime is motivated by the degradation of the heart. I further believe that (generally speaking) the ONLY producer of violent crime within any group is vileness. I don't believe a man born into poverty and violence is any more likely to commit violent offences than anyone else. It is the individual that creates violence. The offender is self justified in his actions. He's placed his wisdom and justification above the law and morality. A group, culture or race that are statistically and consistently the worst offenders, are simply collective individuals of a similar vileness. Of course the politicians and liberals and the ignorant will always give the collective criminals the poverty excuse, or the "no-chance in society" excuse, which does not stand the test of reason and certainly won't mean a thing when the guilty face the ultimate judgment.

MachIVshooter
January 28, 2015, 05:58 PM
I think people parroting the it is poverty line are doing just that.

Call it whatever you like, but higher crime rates among impoverished demographics/locations are a fact. Income (or lack thereof) certainly isn't the only factor, but it is a significant one. A kid with parents who can afford to buy him new sneakers, clothing, Iphone, a car, etc. is a whole lot less likely to steal or sling dope than the one who's single mother has him and his 3 siblings by 3 different men living in government subsidized housing in a crime ridden neighborhood, feeding the family on food stamps, and either holding down a minimum wage job or living on welfare.

I'm not making excuses for criminal behavior, just pointing out that it is easy to see why one demographic is a lot more susceptible to the allure of crime than the other.

Using "culture" as an arguement is a fools endeavor. History has proven that "whites" are far more violent than most others. Sounds pretty liberal, but in the grand scheme of things, when it comes to death, nobody does it like whites

Except that the focus here is not on genocidal dictators or monarchs. We're talking about the citizenry, the average Joes. Yes, white Adolf Hitler murdered more people in a decade than all of the homicides, motor vehicle accidents and casualties of war the USA has suffered in more than a century. And that's just one despotic, homicidal regime (not all of them are Caucasion, BTW). But government sponsored genocide/democide are not part of crime statistics as they pertain to a population.

Personally, I believe poverty is self induced, and that crime is motivated by the degradation of the heart. I further believe that (generally speaking) the ONLY producer of violent crime within any group is vileness. I don't believe a man born into poverty and violence is any more likely to commit violent offences than anyone else.

I'm a firm believer that we all have the freedom to make our choices and the responsibility to live with them, but that statement is just plain ignorant. Yes, in this nation, there are opportunities for pretty much everyone. But some will have to work much, much harder before those opportunities become available to them. Do you not see a difference between the wealthy kid who can pretty much screw around all through school because his parents will pay the way for a state university and a kid from the ghetto who will have to absolutely bust his ass to earn a scholarship just to have a chance at attending that university?

The nature vs. nurture debate is outside the scope of THR, but to suggest that the environment a person grows up in will not influence them is beyond ludicrous.

taliv
January 29, 2015, 05:23 PM
if someone wants to start a very specific on topic thread to continue, feel free

If you enjoyed reading about "statistics around guns and gun violence" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!