Gun Violence per capita, ban vs no ban question

[brighamr]

I am wondering if their has been any studies\statistics gathered for US gun related violence. Specifically, gun related violence per capita, per state. I think it would be very interesting to graph the last 20 years of data, then compare the states that have a ban vs the states that don't have a ban (and the rise or fall of gun violence in all states). Has this been done? Does anyone know of a national or state gun violence database I can play with?

It would have to be per capita, or else everyone will say the results are due to state population differences...

thanks

 

[Robert Hairless]

Is this the kind of thing you want? It's from the Department of Justice's Bureau of Statistics, but it focuses on non fatal crimes and is based on interviews with survivors:

That DOJ site also has the stats broken down by state and even in spreadsheet form that you can download. It also has links to other statistics that might better lend themselves to what you want. Take a look and see what you think. If all else fails you could do a Google search on "violent crimes by state" and other terms that might get you what you want.

 

[dogma512]

Keep in mind that this is a very complicated question and there are several variables that can affect crime rate. I've read that both the increasing average age of our population (most crime is committed by 18-35 males) and, believe it or not, the removal of lead as a gas additive (lead exposure makes people more aggressive among other things) as likely factors in a decreasing crime rate.

 

[Cosmoline]

It's tough to draw many concrete conclusions one way or the other. I may part company with some on our side by saying this, but I don't think there's much of a link between gun ownership (or lack thereof) and the typical murder. They'll find a way to kill each other, and the reasons have a lot more to do with societal and economic pressures than with the particular tool used. Murder rates are high in Anchorage because there are too many people who get drunk and fight, and too many gangs. They'll use whatever is at hand to kill, from guns to knives to frozen fish.

I think gun ownership can have an impact on other violent crime where the criminal takes the time to make a choice about his target, and there's less heat of the moment or vengeance involved. Muggings, for example, are extremely rare here compared with back east or in Europe. If criminals do mug, they target drunks and natives who are least likely to be packing. Or for robbery, for example. If home owners are more likely to be armed the robbers make a point of targeting houses they know to be unoccupied during the day, for example. We've had a spate of these over the years.

Personally, I've been afraid for my life a few times in the bad parts of town dealing with nutcases, but I've never been afraid for my wallet.

 

[outerlimit]

Keep in mind that this is a very complicated question and there are several variables that can affect crime rate. I've read that both the increasing average age of our population (most crime is committed by 18-35 males) and, believe it or not, the removal of lead as a gas additive (lead exposure makes people more aggressive among other things) as likely factors in a decreasing crime rate.

Call me the crazy captain obvious of this discussion, but I think climate and ethnic makeup of a population (homogenization) has more to do with violence per capita than gasoline additives.

 

[Tyris]

Call me the crazy captain obvious of this discussion, but I think climate and ethnic makeup of a population (homogenization) has more to do with violence per capita than gasoline additives.

Can you back that up with some specifics?

I can think of a few homogeneous societies (say, scandinavian europe, and south west africa) that are pretty much polar extremes. Finland and Norway are relatively peaceful, while Nigeria and Zaire are not.

Or perhaps you meant heterogeneous societies are violent?

-T

 

[RobTzu]

Call me the crazy captain obvious of this discussion, but I think climate and ethnic makeup of a population (homogenization) has more to do with violence per capita than gasoline additives.

Your cape is about to be confiscated. Lead interfees with your nervous system, reducing the ability to control violent impulses.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223145108.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073.html
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/07/lead-poisoning-and-great-1960s-freakout.html

 

[Cosmoline]

Nigeria and Zaire

These aren't even remotely homogenous. They're split into dozens of ethnic groups, many of which are openly hostile to each other. The Scandinavians ironed out most of their tribal differences ages ago, which is why you don't hear much about the Geats or Gotlanders anymore. Only the Sami remain apart from the mainstream culture. If you'll remember back when the northlands were split into tribal groups, that was also when the friendly peaceful squareheads we know today were going around in longboats and chopping people up with axes.

 

[Autolycus]

Outerlimit: Please post specifics on how Crime Rates are extremely high when "homogenization" takes place? Is homogenization a real term? And do you have any sociological, anthropoligical, biological, or any sort of sciece to prove this claim?

 

[brighamr]

wow

talk about thread hi-jack lol j/k

Thanks for the link. I have the spreadsheet data, but it is missing data from several states for different years (can't site is as conclusive data).

I agree there are several other factors which influence crime rate. My goal here is to see how effective ban states (CA, MI, NY, etc) have lowered their gun related crimes compared to other states that don't have any sort of ban.

It is my suspicion that gun related crimes have increased, or not changed at all during the time of the bans compared to before the bans. (Contrary to what most gun grabbers claim, that the bans actually lowered gun-related crimes).

Anyway, i'm still looking for a database to slice apart. I might do the federal one just for kicks, but I'd love to have conclusive data that could be submitted and verified... don't ask me why...

 

[Librarian]

Try FBI UCR data.

For example, 2005 data by state by weapon used for murder robbery, aggravated assault are on line.

You'll have to get the same info for each year on line separately; unfortunately, the file availability is different for almost every year.

See if you can get the Brady 'grades' for each state for each year - that's somebody's evaluation of 'good' gun laws, and you can see whether the results match the ratings. They're not real good about making past years available on line.

 

[outerlimit]

Outerlimit: Please post specifics on how Crime Rates are extremely high when "homogenization" takes place?

I said the exact opposite of this. One needs to look no further than what was posted above. For me to list some examples, look how the crime rate has exploded in England with the increase in foreign born citizens. Look at cities that have many different ethnic groups and compare those to areas where the population has the same or similiar ethnic background.

I mentioned climate as a factor as well, do you all agree with this?

 

[Jeff White]

Look at cities that have many different ethnic groups and compare those to areas where the population has the same or similiar ethnic background.

Crimes like murder seldom cross ethnic or racial lines in the US. Outside of turf wars where gangs of different ethnic groups fight for control of territory, there isn't a lot of violence that crosses racial lines.

Jeff

 

[glummer]

Please bear in mind, that you're playing the anti's game when you do this sort of 'research'.
The fact that you accept 'gun violence' as a legitimate category, without any reason given for separating it from other vilolence, means you are buying into the enemy's propaganda.
If people start arguing about "Jew violence", the Jews will be in deep trouble.

 

[brighamr]

to glummer

"playing the anti's game when you do this sort of 'research'."

While I appreciate the fact that you don't want to do anything related to helping the antis, I specifically said "gun-related violence". And, if a conclusive study were done that could prove all the states with bans increased in gun-related violence throughout the time the ban was in effect, I think it would significantly hurt the antis.... that's the reason I want to do it. They have a ton of painted up, inconclusive statistics, but nowhere has a full study been done that is publicly accessible. Even the FBI doesn't post complete data. The reason is obvious:

The ban in britain backfired. The bans here in the us have backfired. I would like to prove it and post it on every anti blog on the web... I would also like to send it to my congressmen when the Democrats try to pass the next national ban, which has already been submitted.

As for "you are buying into the enemy's propaganda." If you read my statements and can use common comprehensive skills, I believe it is clear that I am trying to segregate gun-related violence to prove a point... that gun bans don't do anything except in some cases increase the status quo.

I really wish people would read before posting. :banghead: Don't mean to be rude, but I hate it when I try to do things to help 2A, and someone comes along saying my work is helping the antis...

 

[Titan6]

Crimes like murder seldom cross ethnic or racial lines in the US. Outside of turf wars where gangs of different ethnic groups fight for control of territory, there isn't a lot of violence that crosses racial lines.

Now that is not entirely true. There was a thread posted here recently that discussed that while 90% of blacks are murdered by blacks more than 40% of whites are murdered by non-whites. Don't know how flawed the data was but considering the number of murders that go unsolved in this country every year it was likely off by a bit.

One thing I have noticed is that high literacy rates seem to make for a lower crime rate. Finland has the highest literacy rate in the world, near 100%.

 

[Jeff White]

Now that is not entirely true. There was a thread posted here recently that discussed that while 90% of blacks are murdered by blacks more than 40% of whites are murdered by non-whites. Don't know how flawed the data was but considering the number of murders that go unsolved in this country every year it was likely off by a bit.

I don't know where they got their data, but according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2006:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

Data from single victim/single offender incidents showed that 93.2 percent of black victims were murdered by black offenders, and 82.9 percent of white victims were murdered by white offenders. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 5.)

Some other interesting data from the 2006 UCR:

In incidents of murder where the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 21.6 percent of victims were slain by family members, 23.1 percent were murdered by strangers, and 55.3 percent were killed by someone with whom they were acquainted (neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 9.)

You are still most likely to be murdered by someone you know.

Concerning the circumstances surrounding murders, 26.1 percent of the victims were slain during arguments (including romantic triangles), and 16.3 percent were killed in conjunction with a felony (i.e., the victim was slain while being raped, robbed, etc.) Circumstances were unknown for 34.8 percent of reported homicides. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 11.)

Law enforcement reported 617 justifiable homicides in 2006. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 376 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 241 individuals.

It doesn't look like there were a whole lot of civilian uses of deadly force in 2001, at least not many where the assailant actually died.

Jeff

 

[Shureshot]

Quote:
Outerlimit: Please post specifics on how Crime Rates are extremely high when "homogenization" takes place?

I said the exact opposite of this. One needs to look no further than what was posted above. For me to list some examples, look how the crime rate has exploded in England with the increase in foreign born citizens. Look at cities that have many different ethnic groups and compare those to areas where the population has the same or similiar ethnic background.

I mentioned climate as a factor as well, do you all agree with this?
__________________
outerlimit

Englands crime rate went up when they banned private ownership of firearms, just like Australia. Ask anyone who lives there. Canada is about to experience the same thing. People never learn!

 

[Shureshot]

to glummer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"playing the anti's game when you do this sort of 'research'."

While I appreciate the fact that you don't want to do anything related to helping the antis, I specifically said "gun-related violence". And, if a conclusive study were done that could prove all the states with bans increased in gun-related violence throughout the time the ban was in effect, I think it would significantly hurt the antis.... that's the reason I want to do it. They have a ton of painted up, inconclusive statistics, but nowhere has a full study been done that is publicly accessible. Even the FBI doesn't post complete data. The reason is obvious:

The ban in britain backfired. The bans here in the us have backfired. I would like to prove it and post it on every anti blog on the web... I would also like to send it to my congressmen when the Democrats try to pass the next national ban, which has already been submitted.

As for "you are buying into the enemy's propaganda." If you read my statements and can use common comprehensive skills, I believe it is clear that I am trying to segregate gun-related violence to prove a point... that gun bans don't do anything except in some cases increase the status quo.

I really wish people would read before posting. Don't mean to be rude, but I hate it when I try to do things to help 2A, and someone comes along saying my work is helping the antis...

The FBI has already done a study on it.
The introduction and opening chapters in this important 15 year study (ignored by the media) is at:
http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/CGL%20NEW...3FBIReport.PDF

The weapons chapter is at:
http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/CGL%20NEW...FBI_Report.PDF

 

[brighamr]

I'm very interested

but the links returns a 404 not found error! Please update the link or e-mail me the .pdf if possible!

 

[Librarian]

Try this one

http://www.calgunlaws.com/topic-50.html

The existence of the report was first discovered by self defense civil rights activists in January 2007 when it was mentioned in a law enforcement newsletter. According to the December 28, 2006 issue of Force Science News, the FBI research focused on 40 incidents involving assaults or deadly attacks on police officers, in which all but one of the guns involved had been obtained illegally, and none were obtained from gun shows.

The Force Science News is published by the Force Science Research Center, a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University in Mankato. The newsletter quotes Ed Davis, an FBI Criminal Investigative Instructor, who told the International Association of Chiefs of Police that none of these criminals who attacked police officers was "hindered by any law - federal, sate or local - that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws." The newsletter also stated, "In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows."

The report is a 'smoking gun' in terms of revelations about the sources of crime guns and the failure of gun control. Apparently anti-gun owner politicians and police chiefs do not want the public to know the truth as they campaign against the so-called "gun show loophole". Now it's time for the IACP leadership, police officials, and political leaders to acknowledge that gun laws don't stop criminals, that they only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, and that gun shows are not the 'arms bazaars for criminals' as they have been portrayed.

The FBI's website says that "Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers" is available from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program Office, FBI Complex, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306-0150 or by calling 888-827-6427

 

[glummer]

brighamr

The ban in britain backfired. The bans here in the us have backfired. I would like to prove it and post it on every anti blog on the web...

I guess my point is not as clear as I thought it was:
The bans you refer to did NOT backfire; from the anti’s point of view, they are spectacular successes.
Antis are bigots; their goal is persecution of that which they hate. Those laws are intended to harass gun-owners; to reduce our numbers; and to stigmatize us as being in need of special ‘supervision’. And they do just that.
Posting about such “failures” on anti sites is like telling Hitler that the concentration camps were not an efficient way to fight a war. It may be true, but it’s beside the point.
While it may be necessary, tactically, to refute claims made by the antis, I think it is a strategic mistake not to recognize, and emphasize, that their statistics are a propaganda ploy, and not a rational “position” that can be weakened by rational argument.
Straightforwardly presenting such arguments as if it was obviously reasonable to do so, without pointing out the bigotry underlying the phony statistics, implicitly accepts the anti position that there IS a “gun violence” problem, which needs to be “solved.” And that makes the dispute seem more legitimate in the eyes of on-lookers.
If the Holocaust is seen as merely a “disagreement” between Nazis and Jews, the Nazis have won.
And those of us who support the RKBA must not allow the fight to be framed as a rational disagreement about crime control – it is no such thing.

 

[Soybomb]

Crimes like murder seldom cross ethnic or racial lines in the US. Outside of turf wars where gangs of different ethnic groups fight for control of territory, there isn't a lot of violence that crosses racial lines.

I think that can be be a misleading statistic to look at, you're more likely to be murdered by people you know, and you probably know a lot of people of your own race, they are your family at the least. When we look at homicide rates outside people we know though things change at least a little. I would assume that most of us here, accurately or not, are more concerned about being killed by a stranger unless we have some shady friends and family.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
For homicides committed by --
* a friend or acquaintance of the victim, less than one-tenth (8%) were interracial
* a stranger to the victim, one-quarter were interracial

Of course you have to keep in mind the perspective to:
Data from single victim/single offender incidents showed that 93.2 percent of black victims were murdered by black offenders, and 82.9 percent of white victims were murdered by white offenders.
*and *
In incidents of murder where the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 21.6 percent of victims were slain by family members, 23.1 percent were murdered by strangers, and 55.3 percent were killed by someone with whom they were acquainted (neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.).

Anyway to the thread starter, don't bother. A correlation won't prove that gun bans or concealed carry rates impact crime. There are more factors, simpler ones at that, that do that. Its a socioeconomic thing, not a gun thing. You don't need to prove anything other than legal gun owners are well behaved people, and the people that are already criminals (and by extension don't care what law you pass making their behavior more illegal) are the ones you need to worry about.

It doesn't look like there were a whole lot of civilian uses of deadly force in 2001, at least not many where the assailant actually died.

Yup, and its probably worth everyone noting that its not unusual either. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html Rifles are up a little, I always wished the ucr broke the rifles down by style of rifle, or at least caliber. I think the only place caliber is listed is in the leoka report.

 

[Baba Louie]

brighamr,
I wish you well in your research in your effort to defeat the anti-rights movement.

The ban in britain backfired. The bans here in the us have backfired.

I agree with glummer being correct in his statement. To an anti-rights activist, the failure of one set of laws only means "Pass More Laws Outlawing More Things". Knives? BTDT ongoing now I believe.

You can quote FACTS, you can quote FIGURES, you can quote HISTORICAL references, you can quote REALITY... all, my friend, to little or no avail to an avowed anti. You might, in fact probably will, make inroads to those rare and wonderful individuals with open minds, but to a TRUE unadulturated anti (I believe the quote goes like this) "Your lips are moving but all I can hear is blah blah blah blah blah"

 

[Librarian]

And, just to set expectations for you, once you have your data:

More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions. Basically, those who will not to see, will not see.