Study: States with Lax Gun Laws have highest gun death rates

[villager]

Nevada near top of gun death list


CARSON CITY, Nev.—Nevada ranks fifth among the states in gun-related deaths per capita, according to the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C.

The group said the states at the top of the list have per capita gun death rates far exceeding the national rate of 10.3 per 100,000 population. Louisiana's rate was 19.6, followed by 17 in Alabama, 16.4 in Alaska and Mississippi, and 16.3 in Nevada. Hawaii has the fewest gun deaths per capita, 2.6 percent.

The Violence Policy Center says each of the states with a high death rate has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates. The report defined states with "weak" gun laws as those that add little or nothing to federal restrictions and have permissive laws allowing civilians to carry concealed handguns.

The nonprofit compiled its list by analyzing 2006 data, the latest available, from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_12309233

[unpossibles]

1. This is not very surprising nt

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Good thing you didn't post this on the guns forum or you'd be getting blasted. Of course, it makes

sense to me.

[Dr.Phool]

3. Ready....Aim.....

:popcorn:

[The_Commonist]

4. Cause... meet Effect!

Seems pretty obvious to me.

[Mopar151]

5. Interesting.

You could make a correlation with Gay Marrige, too. And I'm not so sure about the gun law thing, cuz as far as numbers go, there are a LOT of guns floating around VT, NH, & ME.

[biermeister]

6. consider the source & add salt n/t.

[villager]

7. Yeah... the CDC!

It's based on their statistics....

so I guess this remains a low-sodium post!

[quiller4]

34. Actually while it is avaible from the CDC it is not based on CDC data.

[The Hope Mobile]

8. Who'da thunk?

Crazy how that works just like countries! I can't fathom how people don't get this.

[biermeister]

10. statistics will typically show whatever the author desires

Let me ask this-
VT basically has the least restrictive state gun laws but yet ranks 34th on their chart. How are they weighing their results? How is it that 33 other states have more gun deaths? Shouldn't VT be closer to the top of the list?

My point is that the same grain of salt that is used when people look at the NRA's stats should be used here. It takes a little digging to really see what the data really means.

actually this reply is to comment #7- happy fingers, sorry

[The Hope Mobile]

25. I guess it depends on how you define least restrictive

Vermont is also one of the most liberal states in the country if not THE most liberal. Most of the states listed were southern GOP run states with poor education systems, poor employment, more racism, etc., on average. THAT is a BAD combination but one that will go together often.

Statistics can be manipulated but its a no-brainer that more guns in the hands of less-educated, more-hateful people will generally = more gun deaths.

Just saw that your response was to #7. Oh well, two responses for the price of one. :fistbump:

[X_Digger]

9. Tautology on its face..

Fewer guns = fewer gun death, just like fewer red cars = fewer red car death.

Let's see stats on overall violence.

[SecularNATION]

11. And?

I'm skeptical of anything put out by the Violence Policy Center. But even if this is true, so what? Could it be, there are other factors which contribute more to the rate of overall violence, including gun violence, than what the VPC focuses on? Does the data from the CDC say that ALL states with high gun ownership and so called weak gun laws have high rates of gun related deaths? I don't think so.

Support for gun control is the lowest it's been in decades. It's support among Democrats has declined, as well. The remaining clueless anti-gun Democrats can't get it through their thick skulls, it's a losing issue which has done damage to the Democratic Party. And, will again if they keep up their foolishness.

[depakid]

12. "even if this is true, so what?"

t means gun proliferation is a BAD DEAL -and the cowardly types that support it "for self defense" or other irrational reasons are responsible for thousands of unnecessary tragedies.

[biermeister]

13. as a gun owner I take exception to being called a "cowardly type"

I suggest if you don't like the 2nd Amendment that you work to repeal it. Notice that I am not portraying you or people who have a different opinion than me as a negative stereotype. We are all entitled to our opinions.

For the record, I am a responsible, legal gun owner. I keep my guns in a locked safe away from children, I follow all the state & federal laws even if I think some of them are complete BS & I go to the range and shoot every couple of weeks. Some people bowl every couple of weeks, I shoot.

Finally, statistically there are many things much more dangerous than guns. Ignorance is a lot more dangerous.

[depakid]

15. Bottom line is that people who support gun proliferation tend to live in fear

which does indeed make thenm cowardly types.

And speaking of statistics, people who keep guns in their household are many times more likely to be involoved in a violent rime or a tragedy- or have members of their household involved in tragedies- than those who don't. So purchasing one out of fear or the "need to proitect yourself or your family," in most instances endangers them further!

[biermeister]

18. that's a pretty broad brush you're using

yes, guns are dangerous. Lots of things are dangerous. You should be responsible & safe when handling guns and they should be stored accordingly.

I suspect that if you compared the number of cars in the US to the number of car related deaths and the number of guns in the US to the number of gun related deaths for a given period you might find statistically that cars are more dangerous than guns. If that were the case, would anyone advocate banning cars? Of course not!

[depakid]

20. I said "tend to"

There are of course people who aren't like that- you may be one of them. But fear plays a large role for the majority (and one coan see that on other issues, too). Torture, for example. Or unduly harsh sentencing laws.

Might be interesting to see how support for those two policies correlated with gun ownership (excluding those owned for military or police purposes). My bet is that you'd see a pretty strong correlation coefficient.

[SecularNATION]

21. Fear?

As has been asked of you prohibitionists, is it living in fear to install a burglar alarm and sign a contract for 24hr monitoring?. Is it living in fear to purchase fire insurance for your house, or health insurance for you and your loved ones? Some people look upon firearms as a form of insurance. Some don't even do that, they just like to shoot recreationally. I have firearms for both reasons. Also, I'm a history buff. I possess a Second World War vintage M1 Garand rifle, and I enjoy owning that piece of real history. It's cool to shoot, too. That makes me a coward? No, it doesn't.

[X_Digger]

27. BS on the 'more likely to be involved..'

Ahh, think your stat is quoted from the kellerman study in NEJOM -

Kellermann, Arthur, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, Vol. 329 No. 15, pp. 1084-91.

Here's the part you didn't see..

http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

"A subsequent study, again by Kellermann, of fatal and non-fatal gunshot woundings, showed that only 14.2% of the shootings involving a gun whose origins were known, involved a gun kept in the home where the shooting occurred. (Kellermann, et. al. 1998. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." Journal of Trauma 45:263-267) ("The authors reported that among those 438 assaultive gunshot woundings, 49 involved a gun 'kept in the home where the shooting occurred,' 295 involved a gun brought to the scene from elsewhere, and another 94 involved a gun whose origins were not noted by the police .") (Kleck, Gary. "Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of Being Murdered?" Homicide Studies 5 <2001>.) "

[hay rick]

28. More likely to be involved

"Risk factor " is not the same as cause. The fact that a shooting that takes place in a gun owner's house does not involve a gun owned by a resident does not mean that gun ownership is not a risk factor in that instance. More important causes of a particular incident might include such things as drug dealing, drug use, alcohol use, criminal activity, etc. Doesn't matter. The risk factor remains and should be taken into account. This particular risk factor can be eliminated (keep no guns in the house), mitigated (keep guns locked up) or simply accepted as a choice made and lived with.

Risk factors are statistical creatures. It's true that some people will probably be safer with a gun in the house than without one. Most gun owners think they are that exception. It's also true that the vast majority of gun owners will not experience a firearm accident in their lifetime. Doesn't change the overall picture IMHO.

[X_Digger]

29. You can't mitigate a predisposition..

If a person lives in a high crime neighborhood and is already predisposed to being the victim of gun violence, having a gun or not as a risk factor hasn't been studied. That's the crux of some of the criticism of the Kellermann study.

And it's a huge leap to then say 'getting a gun makes you 3 times more likely to be the victim of homicide'. The Kellermann study spectacularly fails to support that conclusion (doesn't cumulatively analyze those other causes like drug dealing, alcohol use, criminal activity, etc.) The variance between controls even in the smae neighborhoods was significant enough to question the result.

[quiller4]

35. Too broad a brush. I don't live in fear. I'm just a strong

Bill of Rights supported like my instructor the late Justice William O Douglas.

The stats about people with guns in household being more likely to be involved in violent crime have been repeatedly repudiated by FBI and their crime stats.

[SecularNATION]

14. Responsible? Hardly.

I am no more responsible for people being killed by guns, than I am for those killed by drunk drivers. And, it's not irrational to want to have a weapon to protect oneself, or even to have one for recreational purposes. Not at all. The irrational individuals are emotional anti-gun prohibitionists who think banning guns will bring us closer to a magical utopia.

[depakid]

16. You most certainly ARE responsible

for the consequences of policies you advocate.

But like most- you will never admit it- even to yourself.

Yet another resason why I tend to see the issue in terms of cowardice.

[SecularNATION]

17. You are wrong.

Unless you believe those who support alcohol staying legal are responsible for the misuse of alcohol, including the deaths of people killed by drunk drivers, you cannot claim citizens who support the right to keep and bear arms are responsible for deaths from the misuse of guns. Somehow, I doubt you believe that. Your sanctimonious moralizing doesn't fly.

[depakid]

19. No- you just won't take responsibility for the consequernces of your behavior

Every senseless death or injury that comes about due to the lack of responsible regulation is on yours and other proliferation advocates hands.

Unfortunately, in a Me, me, me society- some folks are just too cowardly to own up to it.

Same sort of deal is true of those who oppose responsible health care reform.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. Behold the mindset that gave us warrentless wiretapping!

Punish the law abiding for the actions of the criminal

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Then using your own logic, *you* are responsible for child porn, the Conficker virus, and phishing

Because you freely use your computer without thinking about the negative consequences
of *others* misuse of their computers...

[depakid]

30. Nope- I don't actively support laws and policies that enourage those harms

Logically, that's quite a different matter (though one of the common themes with gun prolifertion advocates is rationalization for the harms that they cause).

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Your attempt at a guilt trip fails because the OP is bullshit, frankly

Since the level of violence and gun deaths overall are quite low (and the gun laws quite lax) in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Montana, the argument in the OP is false.

The Violence Policy Center says each of the states with a high death rate has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates.

False. Look at New York, Illinois, and California. Very restrictive gun laws and low ownership rates compared
to the states cited above. If the VPC and you were correct, the opposite would be true. The states mentioned
at the top of this post would look like Hatfields v. McCoys (with snow tires).

The report defined states with "weak" gun laws as those that add little or nothing to federal restrictions and have permissive laws allowing civilians to carry concealed handguns.

Vermont requires no permit whatsoever for adults over 21 to carry concealed handguns. If you followed the
logic of the OP, Burlington, Vermont should make Rochester, New York look like Sunnybrook Farm

[quickesst]

26. "and the cowardly types that support it "for self defense"

I own a gun for self-defense in my home. You call me a coward. That's an opinion. I have a opinion also which I would like to express to those who write inane shit. They're idiots. Thanks.
quickesst

[depakid]

31. You make your home more dangerous

and the people in it more likely to be involved in a tragedy due to fear that someone's "going to get you."

Not sure what other word one would use for behavior like that that stems from innacure risk analysis born of fear.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Looks like the VPC are indulging in 'heavenly deception' again

If this is accurate, then why are the gun death rates for the northern New England states so low?

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have the laxest gun laws outside Montana and Alaska, yet they
score low on gun crime (as pointed out upthread).

[comtec]

32. As also posted upstream, it has to do with education

Generally liberal gun owners are far more responsible about when and how to use and store firearms.
That includes a lot of 'conservatives' that don't realize they're really liberal - because they use common sense.

The problem as noted upstream, is education in the NE is high, education in the other states isn't.

The more educated someone is, the less likely they are to store their weapons in such a way that a child will be hurt, nor are they likely to use that weapon to resolve an argument.

liberals tend to argue points with their mouth, not at the end of a barrel.

Are there idiots on both sides? of course.

But the people who live in under-educated states, also have a L O T of hate talk on the radio and TV 24/7 with little or no chance to hear the other side. they live their life in fear of "dem bronies" or "dem darkies" or "dem peoplez from outside our country of texass".