I suppose if this is supposed to be a gun blog, I might as well talk about firearms. So here goes with what I hope to be the first of a series looking at statistics.
MikeB302000 actually posted some evidence to support his claim of "more guns, more everything".
His contention, and many gun banners like him, is that the more firearms there are the more deaths, accidents, crime, and I think they even claim firearm ownership causes more sunspots and graffiti, but I'm not sure.
So I decided to look at the rates of firearm ownership, poverty level, homicide by firearm rates and firearm related death rates.
All you scientific types out there, please feel free to correct me and help me understand this better.
(bear with me - this is the first time I've tried to post something like this
I created this spread sheet to compare firearm ownership with Homicide Rates, Firearm related deaths for all reasons (suicide, homicide, legal) and a single other factor...the percentage of people living in poverty by state.
Using the M/S Excel functions, I ran the correlation rates for those factor. I make no claim to be an expert (hardly any statistical knowledge) but basic understanding says that if two random factors have an impact on each other, there should be a higher degree of correlation.
|
|
| | State | Homicide Age - Adjusted Rate | All Intentions Age - Adjusted Rate | Firearm Ownership % | % people living in poverty | | Alabama | 7.28 | 16.07 | 51.70 | 15.50 | | Alaska | 3.24 | 17.20 | 57.80 | 9.20 | | Arizona | 6.43 | 15.68 | 31.10 | 13.80 | | Arkansas | 5.60 | 15.65 | 55.30 | 17.60 | | California | 5.22 | 9.48 | 21.30 | 13.20 | | Colorado | 2.58 | 11.41 | 34.70 | 9.80 | | Connecticut | 2.04 | 5.35 | 16.70 | 8.80 | | Delaware | 3.96 | 8.88 | 25.50 | 8.50 | | District of Columbia | 21.58 | 23.27 | 3.80 | 16.80 | | Florida | 3.85 | 10.01 | 24.50 | 12.30 | | Georgia | 4.80 | 11.83 | 40.30 | 12.00 | | Hawaii | 0.43 | 2.17 | 8.70 | 9.70 | | Idaho | 2.03 | 13.88 | 55.30 | 10.50 | | Illinois | 4.40 | 7.93 | 20.20 | 12.50 | | Indiana | 4.22 | 11.13 | 39.10 | 10.20 | | Iowa | 0.93 | 6.70 | 42.80 | 9.70 | | Kansas | 2.30 | 9.22 | 42.10 | 10.70 | | Kentucky | 3.78 | 12.96 | 47.70 | 15.40 | | Louisiana | 9.98 | 18.66 | 44.10 | 17.00 | | Maine | 0.57 | 7.68 | 40.50 | 12.20 | | Maryland | 7.85 | 11.90 | 21.30 | 8.60 | | Massachusetts | 1.71 | 3.41 | 12.60 | 9.80 | | Michigan | 5.05 | 10.63 | 38.40 | 12.10 | | Minnesota | 1.73 | 6.93 | 41.70 | 7.00 | | Mississippi | 6.31 | 16.05 | 55.30 | 17.70 | | Missouri | 5.17 | 12.90 | 41.70 | 10.90 | | Montana | 2.10 | 16.93 | 57.70 | 14.30 | | Nebraska | 1.70 | 7.70 | 38.60 | 9.90 | | Nevada | 5.13 | 16.32 | 33.80 | 10.20 | | New Hampshire | 0.63 | 6.54 | 30.00 | 5.70 | | New Jersey | 3.56 | 5.14 | 12.30 | 8.20 | | New Mexico | 4.29 | 13.92 | 34.80 | 17.50 | | New York | 2.70 | 5.18 | 18.00 | 14.40 | | North Carolina | 5.23 | 12.78 | 41.30 | 14.80 | | North Dakota | 0.45 | 8.97 | 50.70 | 10.30 | | Ohio | 3.74 | 9.60 | 32.40 | 10.80 | | Oklahoma | 4.15 | 13.18 | 42.90 | 12.60 | | Oregon | 1.92 | 10.64 | 39.80 | 11.70 | | Pennsylvania | 4.61 | 10.82 | 34.70 | 10.40 | | Rhode Island | 1.84 | 3.60 | 12.80 | 11.30 | | South Carolina | 5.66 | 13.81 | 42.30 | 14.00 | | South Dakota | 0.91 | 10.11 | 56.60 | 12.50 | | Tennessee | 6.26 | 16.03 | 43.90 | 14.90 | | Texas | 4.39 | 11.07 | 35.90 | 16.40 | | Utah | 1.31 | 9.66 | 43.90 | 9.60 | | Vermont | 1.28 | 6.72 | 42.00 | 8.80 | | Virginia | 4.70 | 11.51 | 35.10 | 9.80 | | Washington | 2.37 | 8.76 | 33.10 | 11.70 | | West Virginia | 3.37 | 13.80 | 55.40 | 16.10 | | Wisconsin | 2.95 | 8.45 | 44.40 | 10.20 | | Wyoming | 2.10 | 13.53 | 59.70 | 9.60 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mike points out: The States designated "high gun" are eleven with total population of 28.5 million, as follows: Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, South Dakota, Arkansas, West Virginia, Alabama, Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota and Kentucky. (designated in green above)
and The States designated "low gun" are five with a total population of 26.2 million, as follows: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Connecticut. Designated in red above. So what are the correlations:
The correlation factor for All Intentions and Firearm Ownership is 0.4438.
The correlation factor for Homicides and Firearm Ownership is -0.2295.
It seems there is a higher correlation for suicide and firearm ownership then there is for Homicides and firearm ownership. This has been discussed many times; people who are serious about suicide will often chose a firearm because they know it will work. Those that are reaching out or unsure will choose less effective measures.
Now for the interesting part.
The correlation factor for All Intentions and the % of Poverty is 0.5952
The correlation factor for Homicides and % Poverty is 0.5088.
Hmm, maybe it is not firearm ownership that is the biggest factor but something else? Poverty perhaps?
I, and most of gun bloggers, realize that correlation is not causation but doesn't it point us in a direction that might actually lead to changes?
If we focus on the causes of poverty, might not that lead to a reduction in the reasons for some crimes...including firearm crimes?
|
|
|
|
|
10 comments:
Interesting suppositions! Also, interesting comparison between VA (Shall issue), DC (no issue), and MD (may issue) and the homicide rates...
Hmm, interesting stat for NH - only 30% ownership rate? Considering everyone I work with and all my neighbors have at least one gun, I would think that number is higher. However, since we have no registration for anything but concealed carry, maybe that number is a guess.
PS - welcome to the blogging world (got here from Jay's place)
+1 bogie
That's the weakest link in your study, Bob. (BTW Good Job) How do you know ownership rates?
Here in Mass there's something like 300,000 permit holders. Meanwhile I've met several people who owned guns, and even had the OLD permit that HAD no expiration date. When the new permit came around and the old permit was voided (ex post facto?) they just kept their guns, and said to hell with the system.
And that's in one of the MOST restrictive state! In Free State America there are loads of guns that are war bring-backs, family heirlooms, and just guns that happened to have never seen an FFL in all the hands they've been passed through.
So I'd say if anything, your "Gun Ownership Rate" is low.
Good reading here, Bob!
Shoot, I'll have to check my notes on where I pulled the gun ownership figures. Thought I linked it.
I thought the rates might be low but used the data anyways, I think it makes the contrast stand out even more.
As we have always said, Firearm availability isn't the determining factor. There are many other social, cultural, economic and racial issues that have stronger correlation then availability. This is not something the gun banners want to show though.
Thanks everyone for stopping by from Jay's place everyone.
Great post, Bob. That "correlation not being causation" idea, isn't that something like opinion or interpretation? Isn't that just where people from different ends of the political spectrum can look at the same data and come away with a different message?
I say it's gun availability; you say it's poverty. It seems to me, the stats support pretty well what I said, but rather than accept that, you found another plausible explanation. It seems like you first decided you wouldn't accept what I had to say and then through monumental effort found a way not to.
It reminds me of what you said the other day to me. You said something like a challenge, "bring on the stats and I'll tear them apart." Aren't you the one who so often has accused me of being close-minded and biased? Isn't there a word for someone who accuses someone else of something and then does that exact same thing himself? What was that word?
MikeB,
There was a famous study a while back that showed the length of skirts rose and fell with the rise and fall of the stock market.
The skirt length showed correlation with the stock market but do you think that the changes in length caused the changes in the stock market? or even the other way around?
Correlation is not causation. The gun availability shows that. just because there are more guns available does not mean that is the reason there are more firearm deaths. The correlation shows less of a link for availability then it does for poverty.
now, poverty also does not cause more firearm related deaths by itself. The factors that cause poverty, the factors that affect people's lives when they are poor; those are the factors that MIGHT cause people to commit more firearm related crime, to commit suicide more often.
Does that make sense?
Isn't that just where people from different ends of the political spectrum can look at the same data and come away with a different message?No it isn't. Once the cause is determined, that is where politics gets involved. I liken it to a medical condition with many treatment options. Once the underlying problem is identified, then politics say which treatment option is best. They all might solve the problem but which is more acceptable.
You said something like a challenge, "bring on the stats and I'll tear them apart." Aren't you the one who so often has accused me of being close-minded and biased?MikeB, you'll also remember that I've said repeatedly if you can convince me I'll give up all my firearms. I will.
Tearing apart the statistics doesn't mean that I will automatically reject them. It means that I will examine then, find if they are biased, if they are valid, if they support the conclusion you reached, what methodology was used.
Tearing apart the statistics is doing exactly what I did with your firearm availability. I looked at the correlation and found less correlation then with poverty.
Do you have a spreadsheet program? Do the same thing I did. Put the numbers in a program and run the correlation, tear apart my stats and see if they are valid.
Here is a challenge. Use the same idea but add other factors into the mix. It is what I will be doing.
Isn't there a word for someone who accuses someone else of something and then does that exact same thing himself?Sorry MikeB, but it doesn't apply. I said I would tear apart the stats, not reject them out of hand, not dismiss them as untrustworthy without looking at them. Now, who do we know that has done that??
Note that MikeB only chooses to refute your work out-of-hand, rather than give any reason.
If I could find a bookie that would take the bet I'd retire tommrow with the money I'd earn from MikeB not taking up your guantlet and actually PROVING his claims are somthing more than just wild accusations.
MikeB is WRONG. That's a pretty black-and-white statement, but it's true.
Worse yet, Mike KNOWS he's WRONG and he continues on.
MikeB302000:
When someone says Correlation is Not Causation, they are repeating something long said by scientists who deal with statistics.
Bob S. has it pretty good, but for more information, you could look here. (Also see this.)
Most people claim that they learned it in statistics class, though even that is debatable.
MikeB,
Another example of reading comprehension failure.
I say it's gun availability; you say it's poverty. It seems to me,I didn't say it was poverty.I said that poverty correlated better then firearm availability.
The causes of crime and suicide are complex social, economic and cultural issues that can not be easily address.
That is what I find so frustrating about people like you, you want to take a short cut. You want an easy answer and there is not an easy answer.
And he vanishes again into the Ether.
He'll still spout the same nonsense about "Gun Availability" in his blog, but he has no desire to defend or justify his claims that we need to give up our rights and property.
Charming, ne?
Post a Comment