The graph data that I provided is not valid. It is skewed with Hispanic and African American firearm fatality rates. The chart that I graphed is not up to snuff.

I apologize.

Now, I have been looking (After my Seahawks lost a heartbreaker of a game!) at some good data and found this.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_tot_num_of_vic-crime-homicide-total-number-victims

It would require the number of homicides to be divided by the number of 100K population each state has. That would give comparable data. It is too late for me to do that. Perhaps tomorrow...

Yes, Thank you for the graph.

Yeah, what a game--that Russell Wilson is special...

The data is way too scattered to create such a conclusion and the "death rate" includes suicides, not really part of the problem. And the graph (while quite nice), something isn't making sense. Take a look ...Kentucky has high ownership and fairly low murder rates, the data should pull the line down, but the way it is graphed, it pulls the line up making zero sense. ...Something aint right!

GMTom wrote:The data is way too scattered to create such a conclusion and the "death rate" includes suicides, not really part of the problem. And the graph (while quite nice), something isn't making sense. Take a look ...Kentucky has high ownership and fairly low murder rates, the data should pull the line down, but the way it is graphed, it pulls the line up making zero sense. ...Something aint
right!

Well, perhaps you should point out to Microsoft that you are better than Excel is at spotting trends.

As a qualified mathematician, I can explain why the KY outlier pulls the line 'up'. It's because while KY has a very high gun registration rate, it also has an above average firearms death rate. So, removing it does reduce the slope of the line somewhat (it may look the other way around, but check where it crosses the 20,000 line).

Hey, guesswork doesn't always get the same results as actual data analysis? Who knew?

Edit: Also, I don't agree with you that suicide is 'not really part of the problem'. I've explained why in previous posts, but frankly I don't believe you've read them, so here goes again:

A lot of suicide attempts fail, using other methods. It's easy to assume that suicidal people will succeed eventually, but actually a lot of the time people don't. And with a lot of methods, due to the preparation, the time it takes, etc, there's often opportunity to stop oneself. Many are also painful (more so than people sometimes think), and that does change people's minds a bit, too.

Gunshot to the head is a very successful way to kill oneself, and very quick. Thus, little time in preparation to reconsider, little time during to feel the effects and change course, all for help etc, and less chance of having the opportunity afterwards to decide it was a bad idea after all.

The fact that a lot of people kill themselves with guns is a serious issue, and not to be brushed aside as if it's irrelevant.

nope, doesn't look right at all. It is only very slightly above average while the registration is well above average, the overall number should push the line down and not up. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Tom, if as part of your argument you make a basic error (that KY's firearms death rate is low or 'very slightly above average', when in fact it's 30% above the US average and 15th out of 50 States), then forgive me if I suspect that you are just talking toot.

It may not 'look right', but if you want to see a graph with a much more scattered pattern, look at my next post - Firearms registration against homicide...

Ok, so Bbauska mentioned murder rates, and posted a link to stats on Homicides in each state. For some reason Florida was missing, but I found the Murder number for the same year (2005) here: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

On the same statemaster site, I found http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_po ... population which gives population by state as of 1 July 2005 (handily in the same year as the homicide rates), so was able to get a good set of data for Homicides per 100,000 people in each state.

Here's all 50, firearms registration against Homicide rate:



Again, Kentucky with it's very high registration rate is a massive outlier, so excluding it...



As you can see, the trendline is sloping downwards. However, the data is far more scattered than the other graph, and the trend is more shallow. It's less likely to be a significant correlation, but let's for the sake of argument take it to be negative.

What the two trend lines suggest is that:

There is an argument that increasing the number of guns slightly reduces the risk of homicide;

But there is a stronger argument that increasing the number of guns increases the risk of death from firearms.

If you, like Tom, reject the correlation between guns and firearms deaths, then logically you also have to reject the link between guns and fewer murders.

And if you do, then arguing that 'Americans need guns to be safer from criminals' is completely at odds with your own observations.

If someone can dig, I believe you would find an even stronger correlation between gun violence and the ownership of hand guns...
The point being that hand guns are seldom used for hunting, and really have only one purpose.
Rifles and shotguns are legitimate tools in rural areas and for hunting .
In the sixties, the focus on gun control in the US was actually on hand guns...
Assault weapons are a modern complication.

So you are saying that people should not be allowed to have anything other than hunting rifles and shotguns?

That would be my choice. yeah.
Because in societies where those restrictions exist the kind of gun violence and especially mass shootings seen so often in the US is quite rare.

Do you see that as violating the Constitution as it is written?

Well, if we really wanted to get at reducing gun violence we would have to do something about handguns--that is the weapon used in most gun deaths. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo= ... #itp=open2
But the Supreme Court has already ruled that you can't ban handguns so the only thing we can really do is try and limit the damage one gunman can do. You know, in the 1930s when the mob was armed with sub machine guns, the federal government banned automatic weapons. Clearly, that restriction had to based on the theory that it was too dangerous for people to be walking around with automatic firearms. I think similar justifications can be made with assault weapons and large ammo clips.

bbauska

Do you see that as violating the Constitution as it is written?

Appears so. However if the will is there, the Constitution could be changed.At some point the slaughter may become unbearable... Polls indicate public opinion is changing on this issue rapidly.
Or perhaps clever laws limiting hand guns could be written that didn't contravene the Constitution... For instance limiting handguns to those with finger print locks.

So, if it is violating the Constitution, and you think it can be changed, are you willing to agree that these weapons are legal until the Amendment process is brought to fruition?