Gun Rights: Part 3: Gun Regulation: Will Reasonable Gun Control Save Lives? [203*2]

12% DON'T WANT BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRIVATE OR GUN SHOW SALES ... THE 12% WON!
12% DON'T WANT BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRIVATE OR GUN SHOW SALES ... THE 12% WON! | Source

WHAT HAVE WE ESTABLISHED SO FAR?

  1. THAT THERE IS A VERY STRONG STATISTICAL CORRELATION between the Rate of Deaths from all Causes in a given geographic area and the Rate of Gun Ownership in that same locality.
  2. THAT THAT THERE IS NO STATISTICAL CORRELATION between the Rate of Violent Crime in a given geographic area and the Rate of Gun Ownership in that same locality.
  3. THAT THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL STATISTICAL CORRELATION between the Rate of Violent Crime and the Rate of Gun Ownership, when combined with other related factors. Further, the statistics seem to indicate that the relationship with gun ownership is negative, meaning more guns, less violent crime, but ONLY when certain other factors are present in the right quantities.

Since I have mentioned total deaths and gun control advocates seem to want to minimize this aspect of gun ownership, I might as well show you some statistics regarding that, they might surprise you.

Articles on Sensible Gun Regulations That the NRA Hates

  • As a result of the several mass shootings in Virginia and the killing of the WDBJ news crew, Virginia has stopped accepting recipracle concealed-carry permits from States with looser permit requirements than Virginia has. Basically it denies recognition of States who allow felons, mentally ill, and those charged with domestic violence or are under a restraining order to carry concealed. - http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/23/news/virginia-concealed-carry-gun-permits/index.html?iid=EL

CAUSE OF DEATH BY GUN - NATIONAL

CAUSE
AMOUNT (2007)
RATE PER 100,000
% OF TOTAL
SUICIDE
17,348
5.8
56%
HOMICIDE
12,129
4.0
39%
ACCIDENT
721
.2
2%
LEGAL INTERVENTION
315
.1
2%
OTHER
256
.1
1%
TOTAL
30,769
9.9
 
SOURCE: TABLE 2 NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS: DEATHS - PRELIMINARY DATA FOR 2007, Volume 58, Number 1

We see that homicides account for only 39% of deaths while suicides amount to 56%, over half of all gun deaths! These are, however, national statistics; of more interest would be similar statistics by state, over time. Why I feel this way is, I suspect, the reasons for death by gun differ substantially by state and that difference could have a real impact on what the statistics tell us. But that will have to wait for a later time, a later hub.

Right now, I need establish the link between the degree a state regulates gun ownership, or the lack thereof, and the rate of gun ownership in each state. So, let me give you the answer up front and if you have a mind, you can continue reading to determine how I arrived at this answer.

The bottom line is this;

There is a statistically significant correlation between the rate of legal gun ownership and a combination of:

  1. The strength of state regulation of guns
  2. The population density of a given state
  3. The political make-up (more Republican or more Democratic)

On the scales used, each point increase in the

  1. The strength of regulations decreases the rate of legal gun ownership by about 0.2 percentage points; the range of ratings goes from 1 to 87 with 87 being the strongest regulation.
  2. The population density decreases the rate of legal gun ownership by about 0.02 percentage points, where the range of densities run from 1 to 1200.
  3. Actually, 1/10th of a point increase in Democratic representation will decrease the rate of legal gun ownership by around 2 percentage points. The range here goes from 0.13 to 0.90


IF A = B, and B = C, then A must = C

A PIECE OF TRANSITIVE LOGIC THAT APPLIES IN ALL but the most esoteric situations; and I will be using it in a minute. As I just mentioned, in the last hub we basically establish A = B or Rate of Gun Ownership is proportional to Rate of Death from all causes. Now I need to establish B = C, which will be the Rate of Gun Ownership to the Strength of Gun Control Regulation.

One of the biggest debates raging across the country right now, because of such recent mass-murders as Columbine, Gabrielle Giffords, Aurora Theater, and Newtown, is what degree of state regulation produces the best results. Does more gun control lead to less deaths by gun from all causes? What is the distribution of the amount of regulation between the various states? How does that distribution impact results?

The statistics to show this relationship are fairly simple. What isn't necessarily simple is coming up with useful numbers is the Strength of State Gun Control Regulations. I was fortunate though and came across a study by "The Open Society Institute's Center on Crime, Community, and Culture's" report, Gun Control in the United States: A Comparative Study of State Firearm Laws. It established 30 different criteria with which to rate each state by and then ordered the states by the resulting totals.

The criteria were grouped into six categories:

  1. Registration of Firearms with 9 sub-criteria
  2. Safety Training with 1 sub-criteria
  3. Regulation of Firearms with 11 sub-criteria
  4. Safety and Storage with 2 sub-criteria
  5. Owner Licensing with 5 sub-criteria
  6. Litigation and Preemption with 2 sub-criteria

The results of their work is presented in column 'g' of Table 2 in Part 1. The negative values represent states whose laws detract from the minimum standards set by the federal government.

Negative numbers in arrays like this often present problems in analysis, so I got rid of them by adding 10 to each result when I actually used the data in my calculations. Another issue is that a set of numbers which relate to each other in an ordinal fashion (a larger number having a degree of significance greater than the number below it) is statistically useful in only certain respects, but not in others.

Where ordinal numbers are useful is in comparing "rankings" between two sets of ranks, in our case comparing the ranking of Degree of Gun Regulations with the ranking of % Gun Ownership. The statistical method we will use here is the Pearson's Rank Order Correlation. Where rankings are not useful is in calculating equations such as I did in Parts 1 and 2. The reason is, while a rank of 20 may by higher than a rank of 10, it isn't necessary "twice" as high; you can't assume the 2 to 1 relationship the rankings suggest. Regression analysis requires this kind of relationship exist before its output is valid.

Consequently, I must do other manipulation of the Comparative's Study's results to arrange them in such a way that 2 does mean it is twice has "important" as 1. Fortunately, I discovered a took when working in the Air Force, one they actually bought and used for decision making, which allows a user, or group of users, to convert "subjective" judgments into "objective" numeric relationships. I used this took here to "objectify" the Study's results before running my regression analyses.

ANALYSIS 1 - PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION

THE PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION compares pairs of related numbers in a special way that is statistically relevant. Consider the thee sets of numbers below.

SERIES 1
Ranking A
Ranking B
 
1
7
 
2
8
 
3
9
 
4
10
Pearson's Correlation = 1
 
 
SERIES 2
1
10
 
2
9
 
3
8
 
4
7
Pearson's Correlation = -1
 
 
SERIES 3
 
 
 
1
9
 
2
7
 
3
10
 
4
8
Pearson's Correlation = 0
 
 
PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION FOR THREE SETS OF PAIRS - TABLE 1
THE NRA SOLUTION TO SCHOOL SECURITY
THE NRA SOLUTION TO SCHOOL SECURITY | Source

So you see we have three results, 1, -1, and 0, one for each series. Series 1 is obviously positively correlated, and the 1.0 result says it is perfectly correlated. The second series is the same, except in a negative direction. The last series has a Pearson Correlation of zero, which of course means the two lists of numbers have no relation to each other, which, on inspection, you can easily tell is true.

Well. what I have done with our data is exactly the same thing. Rank A is the list of % Gun Ownership by state and the Rank B is the list of scores for state gun regulations. Based on the above information:

  1. If they were perfectly correlated, with a score of 1, that would mean the lowest ranking gun regulation score would coincide with the lowest percentage of gun ownership; the second lowest regulation with second lowest ownership; and so on. (There are a few more caveats, but I will skip those because they don't change the basic idea.)
  2. A minus one score means the lowest of one matches with the highest of the other, the second lowest with the second highest, etc.
  3. A zero score would mean the rank of A is completely independent of the rank of B.

The probabilities surrounding the Pearson Correlation suggest that for a level of significance of .05, the correlation needs to be greater than 0.28. In fact, when I run the numbers with Columns 'b' and 'g' of Table 2 in Part 1 I end up with a correlation of -0.75; a very significant result which strongly suggests a negative correlation between gun regulation and the % of Gun Ownership by state, meaning the more Gun Regulation there is, the lower the % Ownership of Guns in a given state. This, of course, is common sense.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS

DON'T WORRY, I AM NOT GOING to bore you or make your eyes hurt with more charts, you have already seen how that works in Parts 1 and 2. I will just give you the summary results of my latest findings. As I did before, I looked at several likely independent variables, tried them out in different arrangements that made common sense and settled on one which gave reasonable results. Can I find a better model? Probably, but that is not the point, I am just trying to show that relationships do exist in the first place.

Updated 8/3/14 with new information: The independent variables I ended up in my model to predict % Ownership of Guns in a state are 1) Political Make-up, 2) Strength of Regulation, and 3) Population Density per square mile.

  • The Political Make-up, in this case, is the % of Democrats that make up the each State's Legislature.
  • The Strength of the Regulation is the result of my application of the results from the Comparative Study (column h, Table 2, Part 1) to the Analytical Hierarchy Process which converts ordinal numbers into hierarchical numbers that can be used in regressions.
  • The Population Density is just the state's population density.

When I run all 50 States worth of data through the Excel regression program I get the following:

  • An Adjusted R2 of: 71% (a reasonable result)
  • A Significance F of 3.49 E-13 (which is less than the .05 threshold)
  • An Intercept (where the trend line crosses the Y-Axis) p-value of almost zero (great)
  • A Political Make-up p-value of .009 (good)
  • A Strength of Regulation p-value of .01 (OK)
  • A Population Density p-value of .0001 (great)

So, all of the statistics about our model say we have a reasonably good model for predicting the % of Gun Ownership in a state based on those three variables from a State. The actual formula is:

% Gun Ownership = 55.30177 - 20.4867 * Political Make-up - .18676 * Regulation Strength - .02083 * Population Density

The variables can take on the following values:

Political Make-up: .13333 - .9017 (Low is Democratic)

Regulation Strength: 1 - 87 (Lowest is less than Federal guidelines)

Population Density: 1.26 - 1205

So, what does all of this say? It says 1) the more Republican a state is, the higher the rate of gun ownership, 2) the less regulation on guns, the higher the rate of gun ownership, and 3) the lower the population density, the higher the rate of gun ownership.

This result says nothing about the relationship between gun regulation and the rate of deaths due to guns or the rate of violent crime. It is only showing there is a definite link between gun regulation and the rate of gun ownership.

Source

THE LOGIC OF IT ALL

IN AN EARLIER SECTION I offered that if A = B and B = C, then A = C; a standard transitive logical statement. But first, a word about the word 'transitive". Transitive, in a sense, means that whatever word is substituted for the "equal" sign has exactly the same relationship in each case. Words like "greater than", "implies", "is a subset of", are all transitive. On the other hand, words like "love", "is the son of", "killed" are all intransitive and the logical statement breaks down. In our case, we are using the word "implies".

For example, an "intransitive case" would be IF A "loves" B and B "loves" C, then it necessarily does not follow that A "loves" C; by observation A may or may not "love" C. In the "transitive case", however, it does necessarily follow that IF A "implies" B and B "implies" C, THEN A must "imply" C.

So, what we are concluding in Part 3 is

  • "an increase in the strength of gun regulation" (A) implies "a decrease in the rate of gun ownership" (B)
  • and from Part 1 we determined that, "an decrease in the rate of gun ownership" (B) implies "an decrease in total deaths by gun" (C),
  • we can properly assert that "an increase in the strength of gun regulation" (A) will result in "a decrease in total deaths by gun" (C).

This is exactly what we are still seeing after the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention and Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Acts, in 1994 with the subsequent long-term decline violent crime and deaths from guns. It must be noted, without comment, that the rate of decline decreased after 2001.

In Part 4, I will pick up this theme of A = B, B = C, A = C and develop it much further as it is central to my thesis that sensible, nationally-adopted, gun control laws will make a real, provable, positive difference in the lives of Americans and bring our death and violent crime rates which result from gun ownership down to be more in line with other developed countries.

A SIDE NOTE ON THE E-BAY AD BELOW

AS A GOOD MEYERS BRIGG INTP that I am, I had to think further about a T-shirt being offered for sale for awhile in the E-BAY ad space below. On it, in part, were the words,

"If Guns Kill People, Then Pencils Misspell Words ..."

This actually makes quite a lot sense on the face of it, until, that is, you dig a little deeper. A couple of things occurred to me for you to ponder:

  1. If guns had never been invented, there would be a lot more people alive today; but, if pencils (or similar writing instruments) had never been invented, you wouldn't be reading this or anything else, for that matter
  2. If a pencil falls off a table, since it was not in somebody's hand, a word did not get misspelled; if, however, a gun fell of a table, someone might still be killed even though nobody was holding it.

REFORMULATED QUESTION TO MAKE IT MORE NEUTRAL

DO YOU THINK MORE SENSIBLE GUN REGULATION WILL ...

  • INCREASE THE RATE OF GUN OWNERSHIP
  • HAS NO EFFECT ON THE RATE OF GUN OWNERSHIP
  • DECREASE THE RATE OF GUN OWNERSHIP
  • NOT SURE
See results without voting

I CHANGED THE FORMULATION of the question in the above poll to make it more neutral; the previous one sounded somewhat leading. I hope the four people who voted in the earlier poll (1 Yes, 2-No, and 1-Not Sure) will vote in this one again.

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY #1

DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF MORE CLOSELY ALLIGNED WITH

  • CONSERVATIVES
  • PROGRESSIVES
  • MODERATES
  • OTHERS
  • NONE OF THE ABOVE
See results without voting

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY #2

ARE YOU

  • MALE
  • FEMALE
See results without voting

AMAZON ON GUN REGULATION

More by this Author


Comments 20 comments

whonunuwho profile image

whonunuwho 3 years ago from United States

Interesting work and what you have shown makes more sense than some ravings and arguments that have been seen on television and other commentary lately. Thank you for sharing this well organized exposition and the statistics that seem to support it. whonu


Inventurist profile image

Inventurist 3 years ago from Georgia, USA

You sure put a lot of work into a long pile of crap. Sorry, none of your statistics can be backed up by anything but incredible ignorance. Sorry, not buying any of it. When you put this much work into something this long with this much junk provided by so many folks on the one side - it is a shame.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you @Whonu, I appreciate your comment. Also, thanks for your comment as well @Inventurist, however, I would need to see similar logic coming up with different results from you before I can take your hyperbole very seriously.

As to "this much work" it is more like "this much fun". I did this kind of analysis for a living with the Air Force for about 15 years; I kept at it that long because I enjoyed it.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Here's the bottom line, Dear Readers. Freedom is not subject to quantitative analysis.

If I gave you a guaranteed, gold plated study that showed that 40 percent of journalists are liars, and that 30 percent of TV preachers were frauds, would you back new laws taking away, or regulating YOUR freedom of speech and religion?

If I gave you stellar evidence that 80 percent of the people who refused to testify against themselves were actually guilty of a crime would you back new laws regulating or taking away YOUR right to not testify against yourself?

If I give you evidence from the Hand of God Himself that showed that 50 percent of all homes had illegal substances in them would you be willing to change the 4th Amendment to allow police to search any home at anytime they choose?

The fact that some bad people do bad things is not a reason to have society base their freedoms upon the actions of those bad people. The weakest amoung us, the social deviants, the morally corrupt... these are not the ones we look to for guidance when we decide how much control the government is going to have over our lives.

These numbers may be true... quite possibly they are not... but in the long run it simply makes no difference. Freedom is freedom. And when that social deviant is at the point of doing you or your family harm... the sure fact is that the author of this hub is not going to be there for you to throw his body between you and the thug. You are totally on your own at that point.

How you choose to defend yourself, and with what, is not subject to shaky numbers that only speak about those who are the very ones threatening you.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I appreciate your thoughts, @Jack, here are my replies:

1st sentence - It is has nothing to do with the hub.

2nd sentence - Freedom of speech IS regulated when lives are at stake.

2nd sentence - Religion is regulated when it comes to breeching the constitutional state-religion barrier

3rd and 4th sentence - no, and I suspect the rate is even higher, but again, we aren't talking about banning guns, which is equivalent to giving up 4th and 5th amendment rights

5th sentence - Bad people have very little to do with this, they account for only 39% of killings by gun. The real issue is how to decrease the total loss of human life resulting from gunfire.

6th sentence - Freedom isn't the issue, nobody of any merit is proposing for anybody to lose their freedom to own a gun. That is gun advocate hyperbole.

7th sentence - The numbers in Part 1 and Part 3 are not at all shaky, they are quite solid. The conclusions in Part 2 leave a lot to be desired, but I will be working more on them in Parts 4 and 5.


taburkett profile image

taburkett 3 years ago

the only valid statistic is the one applicable to the individual who defends himself and family against criminals with the use of a legal weapon.

restrictions placed upon legal weapon ownership always results in production of detrimental catalysts that encourage crime.

the major criminal activity involving guns is committed in gun free zones - Chicago, Washington D.C. & LA.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for your opinion @Taburkett, but your "statistic" is only an anecdote and a data point for a true study. In fact, the use of guns in the manner you describe which end in the death of the criminal, is much less than 1% of all homicides. I don't have statistics yet, if they exist, on the number of crimes thwarted because the victims were armed or how many armed victims died anyway or died because they were armed who might not have died otherwise.

Your second statement is simply not true.

I need comparative statistics to see if your assertions in your third statement are correct, can you provide them to back up your claim?

You fail to mention the larger increase in suicides when more legal guns increase the density of guns in a given area, what about that problem, does it bother you?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

.

Eso sez: 2nd sentence - Freedom of speech IS regulated when lives are at stake. 2nd sentence - Religion is regulated when it comes to breeching the constitutional state-religion barrier

Jack replies: Both freedom of speech and religion are subject to “strict scrutiny” when the courts review laws. This means that laws passed out of emotion that don’t do any good, laws that include prior restraint, laws that are based on bogus stats, and laws that merely make people “feel good” without doing a thing to solve a problem are all tossed out.

Each one of those pretty much describes virtually all efforts to “regulate” guns.

Eso sez: 3rd and 4th sentence - no, and I suspect the rate is even higher, but again, we aren't talking about banning guns, which is equivalent to giving up 4th and 5th amendment rights

Jack replies: 1) We simply don’t trust people who claim they are not talking about “banning guns” 2) There is more than overwhelming evidence that there are people who are quite into banning guns. This is just one of many examples I can give…

http://www.therightscoop.com/dem-congresswoman-adm...

if you don’t like that one then you can watch this one…

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item...

Sooner or later you’re going to have to admit the truth if you want any credibility.

And one doesn’t have to “give up” the right to not testify against oneself to make it a useless right. If it is only good for crimes committed between 3 and 4 pm on Tuesdays you still have the “right” eh.

Eso sez: 5th sentence - Bad people have very little to do with this, they account for only 39% of killings by gun. The real issue is how to decrease the total loss of human life resulting from gunfire.

Jack replies: Bad guys have everything to do with this. You are using their actions as a determining factor in how much freedom law abiding Americans get to have. As it stands now, putting further restrictions on law abiding citizens will not change in one single bit the “total loss of human life” from firearms.

Eso sez: 6th sentence - Freedom isn't the issue, nobody of any merit is proposing for anybody to lose their freedom to own a gun. That is gun advocate hyperbole.

Jack replies: We’ve already established here that Eso is either blowing smoke, or is ignorant of reality.

Eso sez: 7th sentence - The numbers in Part 1 and Part 3 are not at all shaky, they are quite solid. The conclusions in Part 2 leave a lot to be desired, but I will be working more on them in Parts 4 and 5.

Jack replies: Yeah… those “numbers” of which you speak. The saying that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics” didn’t come from out of nowhere. .


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Eso sez: your "statistic" is only an anecdote and a data point for a true study.

Jack replies: Yeah… but my “anecdote” happened to be the saving of myself from a very bad situation that had tragedy written all over it. My wife and kids were very thankful that I had my gun with me that day, and you can imagine just how lack of impressed they are with your “data.” As noted previously, you were not there to toss your body between the thugs and me.

Eso sez: In fact, the use of guns in the manner you describe which end in the death of the criminal, is much less than 1% of all homicides.

Jack replies: Notice the switch here, folk. In order for it to “count” with Eso the thug has to die. The fact that almost all situations end with the thug not dying, or even shot, is meaningless to him. If Susie uses the gun to scare away a home invader in her bedroom without firing a shot then Eso disregards it.

Eso sez: I don't have statistics yet, if they exist, on the number of crimes thwarted because the victims were armed or how many armed victims died anyway or died because they were armed who might not have died otherwise.

Jack replies: Those numbers about the number of crimes thwarted are easily available, and range up to 2 million a year, depending upon who’s study you want to accept.

Eso sez: Your second statement is simply not true.

Jack replies: Let’s try a little thought experiment here for a moment to see what is “true” and what is “not true.”

You are a thug. You have the weapon of your choice, be it a knife, club, gun, or just your brute strength. You have a choice of going into a room with five people in it, all of them guaranteed unarmed, or a room with five people, with at least two of them armed with handguns. You don’t know in advance which two those are.

Tab predicts you’ll pick room #1. Eso says that is simple not true. You, Dear Readers, make the choice.

Eso sez: I need comparative statistics to see if your assertions in your third statement are correct, can you provide them to back up your claim?

Jack replies: This,my friends, is known as “ducking the question.”

Eso sez: You fail to mention the larger increase in suicides when more legal guns increase the density of guns in a given area, what about that problem, does it bother you?

Jack replies: There are many studies that show that guns have no effect on the total number of suicides. Japan man many other major countries with much more stringent gun laws have many more times the number of suicides than we do.

The fact is that the overall rate of suicide (firearm and non-firearm) among children age 15 and

under was virtually unchanged in states that passed and maintained “safe storage” laws

for four or more years. -- Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime Safe Storage Gun Laws, John Lott, Yale Law School, 2000

This little tidbit and much more documtneted facts about guns can be found at

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-...

And as a final word about suicides…

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBVie...


Mike 3 years ago

@Eso

You obviously spent a lot of time on this and I read your Hub closely, but I see a few problems with your analysis. First, is including suicides. I really don't see suicide as a gun control issue. Even if a few suicides could be prevented by more firearm restriction, which I feel they can't, I don't believe that warrants more firearm restriction. Second, you're concentrating your geographic data at the state-level. Analysis of that information doesn't explain the high murder rates in cities like Chicago, Memphis, Detroit, Birmingham, or Flint. Your analysis definitely doesn't explain the high murder rates in certain areas of those cities.

The biggest factor missing from your analysis is the face that 80+% of the people murdered by firearms and those commiting the murders already have criminal records. That seems to put a major hole in your theories about how population density, strict firearm regulation, and the rate of gun ownership influence murder rates.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Jack, again, thanks for your thoughts and I am extremely happy you were able to protect yourself and your family by carrying concealed. Where I am going with these hubs would in no way change that, nor would I want to. I will let others, however, continue the debate regarding your points if they chose, my hubs themselves are my answers.

Mike, interesting you say that for your assertion is the opening topic of Part 4. In that hub, I will be making some rough, yet statistically valid estimates of how many deaths of each type will change with a given changed is the strength of gun laws. Further Parts will refine this idea.

Just keep in mind that suicide by gun, as well as total sucides, is directly proportional to the availiablity of access to guns; statistics support this as does commen sense.


Mike 3 years ago

Alright professor, I'll wait and read part 4 to see how you address the criminal aspect. It's funny to see you're from Keystone Heights. I went to high school in Orange Park and have been out to your area.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Mike, I am a recent transplant here in oreder to join my wife; most of my time was spent near DC and all over California.

Jack, I saved off your last two references. Know the first one from gun facts doesn't work as it stands; I had to go to the site and use the "printer" version to get the PDF file to open. The claim in the other one about suicides being constant with our without guns is counterintuitive to me, so out come the pencil and paper again. I will include my findings in Part 4.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to find a data set that breaks suicide data down by state and method? I couldn't, so I have to estimate my own using information from the CDC Death Vital Statistics table. I did find several studies which showed that suicides increase as access to guns increase.

They all suffer, however, from one critique, which has been brought up in the comments, and that is the influence of guns in the suicides themselves. It is one thing that as the rate of households which possess guns increase, so do suicides; it is another to make the direct correlation that the increase in suicides is due to more people shooting themselves, even though it is highly suggestive that it is.

With the data I will produce, I can account for that problem to a large degree ... I hope.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

"It is one thing that as the rate of households which possess guns increase, so do suicides;"

Japan


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

When you start trying to assess something like suicides across national borders you have to start factoring in cultural differences. I would assume you would agree the Eastern culture is significantly different from Western culture.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Thank you for making my point. It's not the firearms. It is the culture and other significant factors. Suicide happens regardless of the tool used.


Carl 3 years ago

@Jack

Am I the only one that doesn't think suicide should be a factor in the argument of gun control even if firearms could somehow be linked? It seems that most of the anti-gun people continually argue about their own safety when discussing all the killing machines in distribution, so the only reason for suicide statistics to be included is to help their numbers. Even if I wanted to include suicide rates in the gun control argument, which I really don't, how many of them have been committed with so called "assault weapons" and the stuff that scares liberals that they are currently trying to ban?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Carl... read the link that I provided upstream to the keepandbeararms article about suicide.

My paternal grandfather and my sister's husband both committed suicide with a gun they owned. I have a very personal stake in the issue. Both are as dead as if they hung themselves with a rope, which is what a friend did back in college. Neither the gun nor the rope is to blame.


Carl 3 years ago

@ Jack

I agree.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working