We’ve been watching as gun control activist bazillionaire Michael Bloomberg has been setting up a new project called “The Trace.” The claim is that this new website will provide “balance” to the gun control discussion, and is being portrayed as an independent news source without any biases. That would be all well and good if it were actually true. The very first article they published proves that their claims about accuracy and fair reporting are about as hard and fast as a bowl of Jell-O . . .
A Gallup poll taken last October found that around 63 percent of Americans believe that having a gun in the house makes their home safer. It’s a perception in keeping with a constant refrain from the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights proponents, who have steadfastly pushed the idea that a society with more guns leads to less crime, and that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
But those arguments, however persuasive on the surface, do not withstand empirical scrutiny. Instead, the most reliable academic analysis consistently shows that gun ownership is more often a catalyst than a deterrent to crime.
Here we go again. The biggest problem for gun control activists these days is the fact that most people disagree with the basic premise of their activism and believe that guns make people safer. Step one for enacting more gun control is to reverse that trend and force people to believe that guns are dangerous and evil talismans of doom. What better way to prove that than a long debunked line of thinking!
According to the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis, states with higher levels of gun ownership would expect to see lower crime rates in those categories. By contrast, the study found that states with the lowest rates of firearm ownership (Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, California, Florida, Illinois, and Maryland) had significantly lower rates of firearm-related assault and robbery, firearm homicide, and overall homicide.
States with the highest gun-ownership levels (Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Arizona, West Virginia, North Dakota, Idaho, Mississippi, and Alabama), meanwhile, had 6.8 times the rate of firearm assaults, 2.8 times the rate of firearm homicides, and twice the rate of overall homicides than states with the lowest gun-ownership levels.
In the category of robbery with a firearm, the relationship between gun ownership rates was less clear: The study did find that robbery rates rose with gun-ownership rates, but in some states the increases were not statistically significant.
The Trace then goes on to dismiss the basic tenant of statistics that correlation doesn’t equal causation, and demands that the reader take the results at face value. Even if we accept the results of the study (which I don’t), there’s more worrying things to examine about the analysis. The problem is that this one slice of a study doesn’t tell the whole story.
The reason that firearms are more likely to be used inn a crime in places with higher gun ownership is exactly that: there are more guns, so guns are more likely to be used. Saying that places with guns have more gun related crime is the same as saying states like Florida which have more alligators are more dangerous because more people are attacked by alligators there than states with strict alligator control laws. It doesn’t tell you anything about the overall crime rate, only the relative rate of crimes involving a specific item.
You might be more likely to be killed with a gun where there are more guns available, but that doesn’t say anything about how likely you are to be killed in general. New York’s strict alligator control laws aren’t the reason why there are so few alligator attacks there.
Hold on a second, did you catch that last bit? Are they trying to claim that gun filled states like Wyoming and Montana have a murder rate twice as high as gun free paradises like Maryland? Bullshit.
Maryland: 6.4 per 100,000
Wyoming: 2.9 per 100,000
Montana: 2.2 per 100,000
So even in their most basic analysis, the study they cite is demonstrably wrong.
When you focus on one specific thing, you lose sight of the big picture. You may be more likely to be killed by a gun in places that have more guns, but that doesn’t mean you are more likely to be killed in general. The Trace wants the reader to ignore the idea that correlation doesn’t equal causation for one reason: that’s the only way they can get away with pulling the wool over the reader’s eyes and getting them to believe that guns cause crime. Even in their closing paragraph they tried to make that exact claim.
“Our findings refute the argument that gun ownership deters strangers from committing homicide,” Dr. Siegel explained. “Instead, these findings suggest that gun ownership actually increases the risk of violent death.”
No. You proved no such thing. You looked at firearm related murders to the exclusion of all other kinds. Therefore it is scientifically impossible for you to make that claim, doctor. You examined the homicide rate of one specific weapon, which excludes all others and eliminates the ability for you to make that judgement. And even if the murder rate were higher, you didn’t prove that the availability of firearms was the reason for that increase. If guns caused crime, then the murder rate in Texas should be higher than the murder rate in Illinois. But it isn’t — Texas has less crime, despite the “lax gun laws.”
Please, can someone start a lending library program for these people? Start with high school statistics textbooks, and then move into civics. They might learn something.
Are we surprised?
When Lord Farquaad set up this little escapade, he stated that his reporters would know basic firearms operation, but of course, none of the we firearms owners or regular shooters. This is merely well financed propaganda for the long game. Throw as much $**t at the low information people as possible and hope to confuse snd fool enough to turn the tide.
Best monicker for Bloomberg ever.
I’m shocked. A wealthy politician with a agenda would lie ? Huh.
I hear risk of shark attack increases among those who swim in oceans.
I heard it was more likely to be attacked by a shark within the home.
Certainly those people who own a shark are more likely to have that shark used against them and than to use it successfully in self-defense. I think that’s a fair statement. Does anyone have the stats for shark attack in cases of domestic violence?
QOTD: does your self-defense shark have a light, or frickin laser beams?
Also read that people who eat food are more at risk of obesity than those that don’t eat.
People who eat are also at higher risk of food poisoning than people who don’t eat. Boom, truth bomb!
“. . . risk of shark attack increases among those who swim in oceans.”
Actually, sharks are a good example. The typical swimmer knows NOTHING about sharks. And so, they ignorantly swim at beaches in shallow water with low visibility. Perfect for making it difficult for a shark to distinguish what might be lunch from something not on its menu.
Divers know a thing or two about sharks. In deep water with reasonable visibility, divers swim TOWARD the sharks to observe them. There is video on the internet of 2 female divers attending to a shark in distress. The shark was trapped in some fishing gear it couldn’t get out of; it swam to the divers doing a shark feeding. The one diver held the shark in position while the other cut the tackle off the shark.
Ignorance isn’t bliss; it’s dangerous. Knowledge is what we should be encouraging our fellow citizens to seek. That’s not going to come from victims of attacks or their family members.
“Start with high school statistics textbooks”
Gone with the common core.
“Less gun related violence”
They never seem to acknowledge that in those locations, violent crime is significantly higher than in states with more legal guns/ more lax firearm restrictions.
They don’t care about ALL violence, just gun violence.
Don’t leave out that, after adjustment for local definition, violent crime is higher in the UK than in the US.
And it seems to have started rising with the passage of their sweeping gun control laws. Outlawing self defense nearly full stop hasn’t helped either.
You can’t violate a rapists rights by injuring them and preventing them from violating the rights of their victim.
They don’t need statistics textbooks. They are expert statisticians. They know exactly what the numbers say, and they are manipulating them to provide a compelling message to low information voters.
I would never suggest that they are lying. They just avoid the truth as much as they can.
More bullshit from fascist terroristic “pro-gun” article.
Statistic-wise, A gun in the home is more likely to be used to murder/suicide/injure yourself or a loved than protect you from ficticious threats.
How is common sense legislarion an “infringement” on your outdated right to murder, opress and terrorize the civilized community.
How come europe, australia, japan dont have these problems.
More bs as usual to sheep of the fascist NRA,TTAG and the vile gun-manufactures who continue to profit off the death and suffering of the civilized world.
Wake-up gun-thumpers your not really “free” or safe if your allowed to own an instrument of evil.
Actually, defensive gun uses outnumber reported criminal acts. Just the ones where the defender is fairly certain they would have been murdered outnumber gun murders by a wide enough margin that if only 10% of them actually prevented their own deaths, then there are more people alive every year because of guns than dead.
Also the most common outcome of a defensive gun use is that everyone lives, even the criminal who was stopped. The sight of the gun most often makes then stop, thus alleviating the need to shoot them to stop them.
I ask that you let go of your anger and honestly and objectively consider the possibility that guns are beneficial to society, consider the evidence for both sides, consider what arguments are designed to appeal to emotions and which are based in fact.
If you cannot consider that you are wrong and that guns benefit society, then you cannot verify your beliefs and be sure of them. If one cannot consider that he is wrong, then he has reduced himself to an ideologue.
Surely you are rational enough that you can consider the possibility as a thought experiment, no?
Please, don’t ever leave. You’re the best satirical gun-control commenter ever.
Poe’s Law and all that…
More spam from MDA.
Actually, he’s proof positive that some children really do need Ritalin.
Please explain how people intrinsically opposed to government intervention and supportive of the tools to oppose oppression could possible be fascist. The rest of your laughably idiotic nonsense isn’t worth considering until that is cleared.
I’ll wait.
Why don’t you have good cry about it.
Sad thing is that 3-4 years ago I was spouting the same drivel as this misguided child. You know, my mind was made up by watching the Daily Show and reading Facebook infographics not by actually researching the issue and forming a belief structure based on facts.
When I became intellectually honest and started getting FACTS from places like the FBI, CDC, BJS and looking at social trends (like 1M+ guns sold monthly), I started seeing the bigger picture.
Violent crime, “gun crime”, murder, rape, robbery have ALL been falling since a 1994 peak. The violent crime and homicide rate have halved since then. They are currently approaching the lowest rates on record since the founding of the FBI (who tracks and publishes these stats). This is occurring as millions of guns enter circulation and 12 million conceal carry permits are issued.
When I saw these FACTS I changed my opinion completely and vowed never-again to let someone else do the thinking for me.
You can thank the MEDIA for inflaming public opinion. Instead of reporting “America: Safer Than Ever” ma(which is the truth) they are turning every minor incident (esp between differing races) into major national news stories. They are trying to divide people further apart than ever before in this country, and honesty I don’t know why.
Tell me if any of these sound something that should be NATIONAL news:
Neighborhood watchman defends self while being assaulted.
Police officer shoots thief that assaulted the officer.
Man shoots neighbor over dog dispute.
Man not arrested for reportedly loading/brandishing shotgun in Walmart. (no evidence of a crime)
These tiny incidents used to make the third page in the local section of the newspaper. Now we have major news networks and thousands of bloggers spreading them all over social media like it’s some sort of indication of a epidemic of violence.
Breaking News: America is safer than ever before. American has more guns than ever before. There is no correlation (possibly an inverse correlation). Crime is far more complex than the single-topic issue that MDA/Bloomberry/Obama would have you believe.
You give me hope. This is why I respond the way I do to the trolls. Maybe they can be coaxed into at least questioning what they think they know, and if not, another who reads their post in agreement may see a calm response and consider the other side.
Ah, Japan. The enlightened culture of mass-suicide, juryless trials, rabid xenophobia, of ‘living Buddhas’, of estimated tens of thousands of concealed familial fatalities so that pensions may continue to flow to the offspring (or are we supposed to expect all those mummies they keep finding in multi-person apartment dwellings aren’t real?), and most and above all else, of doing what you are told by your superiors. Yeah. Let’s be Japan.
Oh, and let’s not even forget that Japan is also obscenely polite. So polite, that for over 400 years before the Meiji Restoration of 1868, the ruling feudal warlords and their samurai could (and very often did) freely behead any commoner that dared to be the slightest bit rude. Soooo polite, in fact, that they would enslave all of Southeast Asia if given half a chance, which any survivor of their brutality of the time will readily attest to. The only reason why they’re selling cars and robots to us now is because they didn’t manage to do the same to us in World War 2.
A gun in the home is more likely to be used to murder/suicide/injure yourself or a loved than protect you from ficticious threats.
—————————
People in the United States who really want to commit suicide, generally use a firearm. Which is why you included suicide in your sentence, because that’s about the only way that a non felon is going to be killed by a firearm in the US.
People in Japan who really want to commit suicide, generally use a knife. In fact, the suicide rate in Japan is higher than the suicide and homicide rate in the United States COMBINED.
Yet, you don’t hear people talking about the epidemic of knife violence in Japan.
“You are not really free if you are allowed to…”
And War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is… yeah well yanno.
Statistic-wise, A gun in the home is more likely to be used to murder/suicide/injure yourself or a loved than protect you from ficticious threats.
Start the sentence with “if you are a criminal.”
But you are not a criminal, owning a firearm REDUCES risk of murder, self caused death and violent crime victimize of yourself and your household members by about 22% less than the mean of US mean.
30 studies across the USA find on average 90% of US shooting victims are gang members, prior felons or persons with five or more arrests. When you control for that, the remaining gun owning homes are was SAFER than same demographic unnamed homes.
Your claim, and bloombegr’s outlet’s claim uses the same specious methodology we used to use on undergrads in Stats 101. Namely: “statistically speaking” seeking medical care increases your chance of dying by about 40X over not getting medical care. The thing is a small ion of those seeking medical care have fatal conditions but are the massive majority of the deaths. If don’t control for them shows seeing a doctor, or calling 911 will kill you! Just as you have to control out people with fatal conditions, you need to control out prior criminals.
Fact is owning a gun makes you SAFER
How come europe, australia, japan dont have these problems.
YOU are using suicide plus murder rates. Japan has a 38% suicide plus murder than the US. Six European countries do as well.
Australia saw a 34% drop since its draconian gun control was enacted….the US saw a 60% drop during that period!
And statistics are even more convoluted, and less useful, when comparing one state to another, without controlling for the urban-vs-rural distinction. A very gun-friendly state with high gun ownership could have one or two very large urban areas that contribute virtually none of the gun ownership, yet virtually all of the violent crime.
Also, the distinction between legal and illegal gun possession must be factored, as well. All that violent crime is being committed by people who can’t legally possess firearms.
Oh man, the neutral stance on gun ownership and unbias findings have totally convinced me that I want more gun-control. Thanks, Bloomy.
Bias doesn’t seem like the correct term here. Self diluting, bold ace lie, wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and bit them. Even these don’t cover it for their first post. A+B= guns jump up and shoot people all on their own in their world. I’m just floored by the lies.
Is there a way to track what % of their traffic is linked from this page? I’ll wager most of it comes from TTAG. The freaks are still out on a party/sex binge from the SCOTUS trifecta. Poor timing by bloomy.
Lol, yeah.
Never trust a person in robes to interpret anything as it is. Judges, Popes, etc. In fact, the only man in a robe I trust is Hugh Hefner.
EDIT: I mean, didn’t yesterday one of the Supreme Court justices come out and say that “words no longer have a specific meaning anymore” because of the ruling on Obamacare? I think the next case the Supremes take on gun control could be the last ruling on the second amendment ever because to “keep and bare arms” might actually mean something else.
Wait, they included FL as a state with a low rate of gun ownership? Aren’t they always bitching about the laws there? Isn’t it the “Gunshine State”?
“the most reliable academic analysis consistently shows that gun ownership is more often a catalyst than a deterrent to crime.”
OOOPS! They accidentally made an empirical claim! Using the Left’s own low number of gun owners in the US (22%) there are 66 million gun owners. If true, there should be close to 33 million criminals as a result of all that gun ownership. But there are about 2.6 million people in prison and another 6 million on parole in the US – you could safely say that over an order of magnitude more gun owners than criminals (and that’s ALL criminals, not just gun criminals).
They included Florida in the group of lower overall gun ownership, but Florida has the most active concealed carry permits (1.38 million) and is second only to Pennsylvania when give as a percentage. So the moral of the story is less guns, but more concealed carry gives us significantly lower rates of firearm-related assault and robbery, firearm homicide, and overall homicide. Thanks for clearing that up.
Florida is only “low gun ownership rate” if you’re only comparing population (almost 20 million) to Licensed Carriers. In addition to the 1.38MM “W” licenses, there’s another 200,000 licenses given for security guards, private investigators, etc, even judges have their own class of license for courthouse carry.
In addition, FL has car carry which doesn’t require a license, and a lot of people are fine with that, given the heat, and the fact that there’s no open carry allowed, save fishing, camping and hunting.
There’s about 9 million registered voters in Florida, so that’s a good baseline to use to draw from for people who are legally allowed to own a gun, since Florida bars felons from voting.
The link below is from the FDLE, showing violent crime from 1994-2014. Scroll down below the graphic and you can click on each year for a more detailed breakdown. Miami Dade is the only county that breaks the triple digit score for murders (212).
The total number of MURDERS for 2014–981, Florida’s population–19,507,369.
https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/FSAC/Menu/Crime-Trends/Violent-Crime.aspx
How does one rebutt I have a gun for lawful self defense, for the sole purpose of stopping a criminal threat to take my life. No analysis or debate required nor needed.
“Please, can someone start a lending library program for these people? Start with high school statistics textbooks, and then move into civics. They might learn something.”
You can’t teach people something they don’t want to learn.
“You can’t teach people something they don’t want to learn.”
Quote of the century right here
100% of people who drink water eventually die! Ban water!
I recommend all the readers focus on just gun rights issues and the 2A. All americans deserve the second and all other ammendments. People of the gun should accept all americans regardless of political party affiliation, sexual prefence, race, sex, religion or lack there of….
All bubbas should resist the temptation to get off topic and make biggoted remarks about gun control proponents.
The first ammendment gives us all the right to speak our minds, but that isnt always in your best interest, just ask clayton williams…
daniel, STFU.
Now, I know that you wish to respond, but in the interests of all gun owners everywhere, you should resist the temptation.
I don’t think anyone here is making bigoted remarks, although I did see one short joke.
Also, the first amendment doesn’t give us anything. Rights are an inalienable part of being human. The first amendment places absolute restrictions on government behavior. Learn how the Constitution works.
I just conducted a survey and can conclusively prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that small, rich b@stards are 6.8 times more likely lie to your face.
I don’t know how anybody with more than two brain cells to rub together could believe that anything produced and funded by Hizzoner Bloomberg would be “unbiased”. I mean, surely even the few members of the disengaged hoi polloi that would be interested enough to read the articles would be familiar with the founder of Everytown. BTW, small nitpick: philosophies, doctrines, protocols, etc have “tenets”, not “tenants”.
Lol ralph. Dont change, stay classy
OMG!! Neighborhoods with with more pools experience more drownings too. Ban der pools!!
People with kitchen knives receive more cuts. Ban der kitchen knives!!
Cities with more cars experience more auto accidents. Ban der cars!!
Do journalists not have statistics as part of the curriculum anymore?
Bloomturd, please choke on a chicken bone, or something. Asshat
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
Mark Twain….
“Bloomberg’s The Trace Publishes First Article Using Dumbest Logic Ever”
> > > > And already has more readers here than it would have ever garnered on its own.
Create a project that is supposed to be an unbiased view of gun laws. Create a website for that project. Then for the very first article produce something that is totally biased and uses lies and propaganda to try to influence those too dumb or lazy to check the facts. Does Bloomie really think he is fooling anyone ? This guy seems like the next Adolf Hitler only with a LOT more money. Scary.
Hitler spent the modern equivalent of a trillion dollars on rockets. Bloomie does NOT have that kinda’ dough. And we have 80million gun owners to oppose the midget…
“The Trace” is attempting to qualify the “common sense gun control” phrase. A Bloomberg organization will never tell the facts on the 2A. As always, pro-gun must forget facts and manipulate with marketing, same as anti groups do. General public respond well to BS, case and point, Bloomberg.
The scary part is that this is what leftist fascists actually do consider balanced and intelligent. In their sick minds, there are only two options: agree, or perish. If you don’t agree, they must “educate” you for your own good, or else you must perish. Propaganda is truth to these monstrous freaks.
I reject the premise of the study outright. The premise is that if the number of lives taken by firearms exceeds the number of lives saved by firearms, the social utility of firearms is exhausted and the right to own firearms should no longer exist.
Imagine applying that same logic to the right to a jury trial, the right not to incriminate oneself, or a right to reasonable bail. It’s not how constitutional rights work. Constitutional rights exist to protect the weak from the overwhelming strength of the powerful when the weak are at their most vulnerable.
Countering these studies with other studies is a worthy effort to the extent that we can show that firearms have utility that exceeds their cost, but don’t forget to address the underlying issue.
The people proposing to ban firearms want to remove the most effective means of self defense from people who are too weak to counter an assault by those with greater physical strength. The core reason behind the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to prevent a monopoly on force. Whether that force is wielded by the state or a gang of thugs is not important. The important thing is that we preserve the right of people to defend themselves when they are at their most vulnerable. That’s what firearms do. That’s why we can never stop fighting to preserve the right to keep and bear them.
I would guess comments related to this are disabled so if you wanted to refute the article….not going to happen.
I held my nose and went to the site. There is NO comment section.
Going entirely by the various tables used in the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Reports, I have derived a per-capita homicide rate — specifically those committed with firearms — for all states (except Florida) and the the District of Columbia, for 2013:
Alaska: 12 total for 1.63 per 100K
Arizona: 184 total for 2.78 per 100K
Arkansas: 110 total for 3.72 per 100K
California: 1,224 total for 3.19 per 100K
Colorado: 88 total for 1.67 per 100K
Connecticut: 60 total for 1.67 per 100K
Delaware: 33 total for 3.56 per 100K
D.C.: 81 total for 12.53 per 100K
Georgia: 411 total for 4.11 per 100K
Hawaii: 6 total for 0.43 per 100K
Idaho: 15 total for 0.93 per 100K
Illinois: 364 total for 2.83 per 100K
Indiana: 238 total for 3.62 per 100K
Iowa: 18 total for 0.58 per 100K
Kansas: 78 total for 2.7 per 100K
Kentucky: 111 total for 2.53 per 100K
Louisiana: 356 total for 7.70 per 100K
Maine: 12 total for 0.9 per 100K
Maryland: 268 total for 4.52 per 100K
Massachusetts: 78 total for 1.17 per 100K
Michigan: 440 total for 4.44 per 100K
Minnesota: 60 total for 1.11 per 100K
Mississippi: 110 total for 3.68 per 100K
Missouri: 273 total for 4.52 per 100K
Montana: 9 total for 0.89 per 100K
Nebraska: 39 total for 2.09 per 100K
Nevada: 87 total for 3.12 per 100K
New Hampshire: 5 total for 0.38 100K
New Jersey: 291 total for 3.27 per 100K
New Mexico: 59 total for 2.83 per 100K
New York: 362 total for 1.84 per 100K
North Carolina: 315 total for 3.2 per 100K
North Dakota: 4 total for 0.55 per 100K
Ohio: 309 total for 2.67 per 100K
Oklahoma: 127 total for 3.3 per 100K
Oregon: 43 total for 1.09 per 100K
Pennsylvania: 440 total for 3.44 100K
Rhode Island: 18 total for 1.71 per 100K
South Carolina: 224 total for 4.69 per 100K
South Dakota: 3 total for 0.36 per 100K
Tennessee: 223 total for 3.43 per 100K
Texas: 760 total for 2.87 per 100K
Utah: 31 total for 1.07 per 100K
Vermont: 5 total for 0.8 per 100K
Virginia: 225 total for 2.72 per 100K
Washington: 86 total for 1.23 per 100K
West Virginia: 30 total for 1.62 per 100K
Wisconsin: 103 total for 1.80 per 100K
Wyoming: 9 total for 1.54 per 100K
In my analysis, I used Tables 5 (Crime in the United States, by States, 2013) and 20 (Murder by State, Types of Weapons, 2013).
And if you do what peer reviewed social scientist do and compare same-region close income/age/education demographic average states — like Maryland vs. Virginia — those with less guns and more gun control all have more murder and violent crime per capita
An old man once told me, “If you have to work this hard to prove you’re right….you’re probably wrong.”
More vital and unbiased information from the Ministry of Truth.
“By contrast, the study found that states with the lowest rates of firearm ownership (Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, California, Florida, Illinois, and Maryland) had significantly lower rates of firearm-related assault and robbery, firearm homicide, and overall homicide.
“States with the highest gun-ownership levels (Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Arizona, West Virginia, North Dakota, Idaho, Mississippi, and Alabama), meanwhile, had 6.8 times the rate of firearm assaults, 2.8 times the rate of firearm homicides, and twice the rate of overall homicides than states with the lowest gun-ownership levels.”
How, exactly, do they determine this? I checked the stats for homicide rates by state from the source you provided above [1] and a CDC source [2, under Table 19 in regards to death by Assault (homicide)]. With the numbers from the Death Penalty Info source, I added the murder rates and averaged them. While the low gun ownership states did have a lower average murder rate (low: 3.81, high: 3.92), it was only a difference of 2.81%. Using the CDC statistics, I used the same methodology and found that, again the low gun ownership states have a lower average murder rate (low: 4.25, high: 4.67). That’s a difference of about 8.994%. If I remember correctly, neither of those would be considered “statistically significant.” At the very least, it goes against the claim that “States with the highest gun-ownership levels… had… twice the rate of overall homicides than states with the lowest gun-ownership levels.”
On another note, I’m curious if they actually spoke to Dr. Michael Siegel, because in the 2014 study that they cited about the relationship between firearm ownership and firearm homicide he simply said “Our findings CHALLENGE the argument that gun ownership deters violent crime, in particular, homicides” [Emphasis mine] [3] There’s a difference between “refute” and “challenge.”
Finally, here’s a different Michael Siegel (this guy is an astronomer) on a recent Mother Jones article that made similar arguments (most notably the section under Myth #7):
“The third study mainly restates the earlier point on the correlation of gun violence to gun ownership; see correlation-causation. But MJ misquotes a study again. That statistic comes from a raw comparison of the five highest-gun ownership states to the five lowest. This is an incredibly dubious way of analyzing data, especially when you consider the states:
High-gun states: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama
Low-gun states: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware
“I would submit that there are larger differences between those states than rates of gun ownership. I also don’t think it’s valid to measure things by comparing the most extreme elements. I would much rather trust my analysis of all 50 states.”
And from what he wrote under Myth #3:
“The other problem this point runs into — and you’re going to see this again and again — is that correlation is not causation. Maybe guns do cause violence. But you could equally argue that being in a violent area makes you more likely to buy a gun for self defense.
“What would make sense here is a longitudinal study, one that looks at how violent crime rates rise or fall when gun laws are liberalized. Mother Jones ignores this because the last twenty years have seen gun laws liberalized while crime rates have plunged. That doesn’t show that liberalized gun laws prevent crime, of course. John Lott claims they do; others are more mixed. The fall in crime in multi-variate and it’s difficult to tease out the effect of one policy (least of all 50).” [4]
It’s also no secret to us that most murder victims are killed by “non-strangers.” [5]
[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25121817
[4] http://michaelsiegel.net/?p=5790
[5] http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
Bloomberg’s group understands why these statistics are garbage. What they’re counting on is that their readers won’t. And given all the brown-nosed journalists who have this article all the press it got, they’re right on the money.
I noticed there’s no comments section that I could find.
Of course not. They can’t let anyone challenge them. God forbid that they ever submit anything for a little “peer review.”
Btw, how many armed bodyguards does MB have working for him and his empire?
Comments are closed.