Brady Score – Meaningful Metric, or Misleading BS?
This article by Jonn and the comments to same got me to thinking about the subject of gun control again. It also reminded me of something I originally wrote a couple of years ago for a site that no longer exists and which wasn’t published before the site folded. And I also never got around to sending it elsewhere for publication. So here goes.
Fair warning: this article is a bit longish, and there’s some math involved. (smile)
Introduction
Fairly recently (late 2009/early 2010) the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (hereafter referred to the “Brady Campaign”) published its evaluation of US state firearms laws. It defined in this evaluation a measure it called the “Brady State Scorecard.” This Brady State Scorecard yields a single numerical value for the state’s firearms laws – the state’s “Brady Score”. The higher a state’s Brady Score, the more restrictive that state’s firearms laws.
The Brady Campaign’s thesis is that laws restricting gun and ammunition purchase and ownership promote public safety, presumably by reducing gun-related crime. They’ve been working to promote more restrictive firearms laws for literally decades.
However, with the introduction of the Brady Score the Brady Campaign has allowed a test of their thesis. This article will do exactly that.
Specifically, this article will provide a statistical test indicating whether there is reasonable evidence for a direct cause and effect relationship between restrictive gun laws and a state’s overall murder rate, a state’s firearm murder rate, and that state’s percentage of murders committed using firearms – or, in plain terms, whether gun control works to reduce gun violence. If there is indeed a strong a cause and effect relationship between restrictive firearms laws (as measured by the Brady Score) and lowered gun violence, that should be both apparent and obvious on examination of the data.
The Brady Campaign – Background
The history and mission the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is illustrative. Here is the Brady Campaign’s history:
The Brady Campaign and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has a long and rich history of working to save lives.
Mark Borinsky, who had been robbed and nearly killed at gunpoint, founded the organization in 1974 as the National Council to Control Handguns. Pete Shields became Chairman in 1978 following the murder of his twenty-three-year-old son, Nick, in 1974.
The organization was renamed Handgun Control, Inc (HCI) in 1980. In 1983, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) was founded as an education outreach organization dedicated to reducing gun violence. In 1989, CPHV establishes the Legal Action Project to take the fight against gun violence to the courts.
In 2001, HCI was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and CPHV was renamed Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in honor of Jim and Sarah Brady for their commitment and courage to make America safer.
Need to see more? Here is the Brady Campaign’s mission – again, in their own words:
We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
The Brady Campaign works to pass and enforce sensible federal and state gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence. Through our Million Mom March and Brady Chapters, we work locally to educate, remember victims, and pass sensible gun laws, believing that children have the right to grow up in environments free from the threat of gun violence.
The Brady Center works to reform the gun industry by enacting and enforcing sensible regulations to reduce gun violence, including regulations governing the gun industry. In addition, we represent victims of gun violence in the courts. We educate the public about gun violence through litigation, grassroots mobilization, and outreach to affected communities.
Given the above, one would reasonably expect the Brady Campaign to be in favor of restrictive gun laws. That is indeed the case. Indeed, from the above the Brady Campaign’s philosophy can be simply and succinctly summarized: “Guns baaaaad . . . . gun control gooooooood!”
The Brady State Scorecard
The Brady State Scorecard is the Brady Campaign’s metric to quantitatively “rate” state laws relating to firearm and ammunition purchase and ownership. To do so, the Brady Campaign has defined five major categories, each having multiple elements. Each of these categories has reasonably innocuous-sounding names: “Curb Firearm Trafficking”, “Strengthen Brady Background Checks”, “Child Safety”, “Ban Military-Style Assault Weapons”, and “Guns in Public Places and Local Control”. State laws and policies relating to each major category are rated and given a numerical score; the results are summed. The output is a single number – a state’s “Brady Score” – and ranges from a minimum possible of 0 to a maximum possible of 100. A complete description of how a state’s Brady Score is calculated, along with 2009 Brady Scores, for all states may be found on the Brady Campaign’s website here.
However, as with many such things, the “devil is in the details”. For example: “Curb Firearm Trafficking” sounds innocuous enough. However, this major category includes the subcategory “Crime Gun Identification”. “Crime Gun Identification” has two elements: “Ballistic Fingerprinting” and “Require microstamping on semi-auto handguns”. To achieve a perfect score, this means all guns would need to be fired, their ballistic signatures recorded and kept on file, and all semi-automatic handguns would require microstamping.
Similarly, under “Strengthen Brady Background Checks”, the subcategory “Permit to Purchase”includes “Fingerprinting required”. This means a perfect Brady Score requires a firearm purchaser’s fingerprints to be on file with the state. This major category also includes the subcategory “Ammunition Regulations” – and yes, that means exactly what you might think. For a perfect Brady Score, ammunition purchase would require a permit (or a point-of-sale Brady Check), and keeping records (presumably by-name) of all ammunition purchases would be mandatory.
Privacy advocates will simply love those provisions!
Finally, even the major category of “Child Safety” includes some absurd provisions. It includes the subcategory “Childproof Handguns”, with the single element “Only authorized users are able to operate new handguns”. Theoretically possible, perhaps – and maybe that will be a routine feature when Captain James T. Kirk actually commands the starship USS Enterprise some year in the 23d century. But for now, that’s pretty much a pipe dream. Requiring that by law would make most if not all current handgun designs unlawful.
Moreover, the category “Child Safety” also includes the subcategory “Juvenile Handgun Purchases”. The Brady State Scorecard defines this simply as “Must be 21”. I guess in the Brady Campaign’s view a 19 or 20 year old military combat veteran isn’t trustworthy enough to own a firearm.
In short: the Brady State Scorecard is biased as hell in favor of legal restrictions on firearms and ammunition ownership. Given the Brady Campaign’s background, that’s exactly what one would have expected.
However, regardless of it’s obviously biased origin, the Brady Score could still be a useful metric. If the Brady Campaign is correct, increasing restrictions on lawful gun ownership (and therefore legal gun availability) should lower firearm-related crime. Therefore, a higher Brady Score should be associated with a lower rate of gun-related crime. And if this effect is direct and unambiguous, a linear model (the simplest mathematical model for a cause and effect relationship) should be fairly descriptive of that effect – that is, it should show significant correlation.
Linear Models and Correlation
A model may be defined as “a simplified representation of a system or phenomenon, as in the sciences or economics, with any hypotheses required to describe the system or explain the phenomenon, often mathematically.” If such a model is to be used to predict future behavior, a mathematical basis is necessary.
The simplest mathematical models are based on linear (direct) relationships. That is, they can be expressed as a simple linear equation of the form “y = mx + b” that we all remember (and love!) from high-school algebra. Nonlinear models, while generally better at describing reality accurately, are often extremely difficult to discern, develop, or test. Moreover, for many real-world purposes, linear models suffice – particularly when there is a strong cause and effect relationship between the variable causing the observed behavior (the independent variable) and the variable showing the effect (the dependent variable).
Indeed, modern science and engineering is full of useful linear models that are simplifications of more complex nonlinear ones. Examples include Newton’s famous relationship between force, mass, and acceleration (F = MA); the well-known relationship between average speed, distance, and time (D = RT); the energy required to lift an object vertically (W = FH); and Ohm’s law for DC circuits (V = IR). Each of these neglects effects predicted by more accurate nonlinear models, but which are negligible under most conditions. In each case, a linear model is more than sufficient in daily life.
Further, linear models have been extensively studied. The problem of deriving a linear model from a set of real-world data – and of testing how well such a derived model actually describes that data – has also been extensively studied. The process of deriving such a linear model is called linear regression; the measure that describes how “well” such a model describes observed real-world data is called the correlation coefficient.
Describing the details of linear regression and the calculation of the correlation coefficient is well beyond the scope of this article. However, the calculations – while tedious – are also fairly straightforward, and are now standard functions in many spreadsheet and/or other software packages.
In plain English, the correlation coefficient describes – in virtually all cases – how well a linear equation can be used to represent observed data. The correlation coefficient ranges from -1.0 to +1.0. A value of -1.0 means all observed data lies exactly on a line with negative slope; a value of +1.0 means all observed data lies exactly along a line with positive slope. (The correlation of data lying exactly on a horizontal line is mathematically undefined.) As an example: data set with a correlation coefficient having absolute value of approximately |0.8| or more means the observed data is scattered reasonably near – but not directly on – a line.
Real life data will rarely if ever exhibit perfect correlation (e.g., +/-1.0) to a derived linear model. But if that model is a reasonably accurate representation of reality – e.g., if the cause and effect connection is real and substantial – it may well be fairly close to unity.
A correlation of zero, in contrast, usually indicates that the observed data cannot be accurately modeled by a linear equation. This figure shows examples of correlation coefficients for various data sets plotted in what is called a scatter plot – e.g., on a Cartesian X-Y axis.
A couple of cautions regarding interpreting correlation. Though suggestive, a high absolute value for correlation (e.g., one with an absolute value close to one) does not conclusively prove cause and effect – though it can be a fairly strong indicator. There could always be another underlying process unrelated to the independent variable (or on which the assumed independent variable is actually dependent) that is instead causing the observed behavior. Similarly, lack of correlation does not prove a lack of relationship – though it does indicate that a linear model doesn’t work well to represent any relationship which may exist. This is apparent from looking at the example scatter plots in the lower row here, all of which have a correlation coefficient of zero. Even a cursory look shows each scatter plot with a correlation coefficient of zero has discernible structure – but none of these structures are linear in the variables of interest and the correlation coefficient for each is zero.
Finally, one might wonder how to test linear correlation for significance. There are various methods to test for the significance of the correlation coefficient for a model determined via linear regression. A simple test, used in the Six Sigma methodology for statistical process control, is to multiply the correlation coefficient by the square root of the number of (x,y) pairs used to calculate the correlation coefficient. If this value is greater than 3, the correlation can be regarded as significant.
Now, regarding the Brady Score: a possible test now suggests itself. The Brady Campaign’s longstanding thesis is that restrictive gun control laws (which result in high state Brady Scores) result in lower gun crime. Therefore, if restrictive gun laws indeed lower gun crime, a significant negative correlation between Brady Score and measures of gun crime should be observed. All that remains is to select those measures, collect the appropriate data, do the math, and analyze the results.
Collecting the Data
Thankfully, suitable data is readily available. The 2009 Brady Score for each state is available in consolidated form at the Brady Campaign’s website. As the Brady Campaign’s basic thesis is that more restrictive gun laws lead to less gun crime, the Brady Score will be the independent variable for correlation studies.
Moreover: the UK Guardian newspaper fairly recently (October 2009) collected and made public data – obtained from US government sources – for the year 2008 regarding murders in all US states other than Florida. (The District of Columbia was also excluded.) Significantly, this data includes more than the overall murder rate per 100,000 residents. It also includes the firearm murder fraction – e.g., the percentage of murders committed in each state using a firearm. From this, it’s simple arithmetic to determine each state’s firearm murder rate per 100,000 residents.
From these data sources, we can obtain three sets of 49 x-y pairs, perform linear regression, and test the results for significance. If we use Brady Score as the independent variable, doing this will give an indication as to whether or not a linear, direct cause and effect relationship exists between Brady Score and three different measures of the relative frequency of gun violence.
Use of 2008 crime data is appropriate for this comparison. While 2009 and later data is available, the fact is that the Brady State Scorecard was published in October 2009 – so the data used regarding state laws to calculate the Brady State Scorecard was very likely 2008 or early-2009 data. (If the Brady Campaign indicated the cutoff date for their Brady State Scorecard’s data, I didn’t find it.)
We thus now have three good metrics against which to perform linear regression vis-à-vis the Brady Score and test the resulting correlation coefficient for significance. Total murder rate is the first. If the Brady Campaign is correct, a rising Brady Score should be expected to reduce the overall murder rate by reducing firearm murders. For the same reason, firearm murder rate (naturally) is the second. Finally, the firearm murder fraction is the third; a higher Brady Score should be expected to lower the proportion of murders committed using firearms by making them less available. Using rate data vice raw numbers of murders accounts for varying state populations.
All three of these metrics should show declines vis-à-vis rising Brady Score – if the Brady Campaign’s thesis that more restrictive firearms law leads to less gun violence is correct. And if the cause and effect relationship is direct and significant, a linear model should describe that fairly accurately – with a correlation coefficient that is significant. Conversely, if there isn’t a cause and effect relationship, a linear model won’t work – and the correlation coefficient computed will be insignificant.
Here’s the raw data, along with scatter plots of same. Florida and DC are omitted as firearm murder fraction and overall murder rate were not included in the UK Guardian’s data for those jurisdictions. The file is a MicroSoft Excel spreadsheet (2003 format), so you’ll need something that can read and display that file format to view the data and scatter plots.
Methodology
The methodology used in performing these tests was simple. A linear model was assumed representing cause-and-effect relationships between restrictive gun laws (as measured by a state’s Brady Score) and that state’s overall Murder Rate, Firearm Murder Rate, and Firearm Murder Fraction. The Brady Score was used as a numerical measure of the restrictiveness of a state’s firearms laws and was assumed to be the independent variable in each case. Linear regression was then performed to determine the correlation coefficient. If the Brady Campaign’s thesis is correct, the expected result is a high negative correlation in each case (e.g., a higher Brady Score would be associated with a lower rate of firearm murders, overall murders, and a lower fraction of firearm murders). Data was obtained from the sources indicated above. Each linear regression model’s coefficient correlation was calculated, and whether these correlation coefficients were significant was determined. The overall results were then analyzed and conclusions determined.
These specific steps were as followed:
1. Obtained Brady Score for all 50 US states.
2. Obtained Murder Rate and Firearm Murder Fraction for all US states except Florida and the District of Columbia.
3. Entered above data into an Excel spreadsheet.
4. Verified the data entered into Excel against data sources listed above.
5. Used built in MicroSoft Excel arithmetic functions to calculate state Firearm Murder Rate from Murder Rate and Firearm Murder Fraction.
6. Used the built in Excel function “CORREL” to calculate the correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Murder Rate.
7. Used the built in Excel function “CORREL” to calculate the correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Firearm Murder Rate.
8. Used the built in Excel function “CORREL” to calculate the correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Firearm Murder Fraction.
9. Analyzed resulting correlation coefficients for significance.
10. Examined results and determined conclusions.
Results
The Brady Campaign will not like the results presented below.
1. The correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Murder Rate was near zero and positive: +0.042418.
2. The correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Firearm Murder Rate was also near zero and positive: +0.045577.
3. The correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Firearm Murder Fraction was less than .15 and positive: +0.141732.
4. All correlation coefficients are positive. If a higher Brady Score was linked to a lower level of gun violence, a negative correlation would be expected in all three cases.
5. None of the calculated correlations are significant. In each case, the correlation coefficient multiplied by 7 (the square root of the 49 pairs used to calculate each correlation) was less than 1.0. A value greater than 3 for this test is required for a correlation to be deemed significant. This indicates lack of evidence of any direct cause and effect relationship between Brady Score and Murder Rate, Firearm Murder Rate, or Firearm Murder Fraction.
6. Scatter plots of the data reveal no obvious nonlinear structure, thus implying no easily-discerned nonlinear relationship between Brady Score and Murder Rate, Firearm Murder Rate, or Firearm Murder Fraction. If anything, the scatterplots look more like 3 random noise bursts contained in a superimposed decaying sinusoidal envelope centered around a positive constant and with the envelope decaying with increasing Brady Score.
Conclusions
1. There is no significant correlation between a state’s Brady Score and that state’s Murder Rate, Firearm Murder Rate, or Firearm Murder Fraction.
2.There is no linear relationship between restrictive gun laws (Brady Score) and a state’s rate of gun murders; between a state’s Brady Score and it’s overall murder rate; or between a state’s Brady Score and the fraction of murders committed using guns. This strongly implies that there is no direct cause and effect relationship between restrictive gun laws and either the overall murder rate, the firearm murder rate, or the fraction of murders committed by firearms. If there was such a direct cause and effect relationship, we would have expected to have observed a strong negative correlation (e.g., a correlation coefficient between -0.80 or so and -1.0) in each case above. Instead, a small positive correlation relatively close to zero (e.g., between 0.0 and 0.15) was observed in each case.
3. As a quantification of how restrictive a given state’s firearms laws are, the Brady Score appears meaningful. States with high Brady Scores indeed have highly restrictive firearms laws.
4. However, as an indicator of how laws restricting firearms affect public safety the Brady Score can be described by its initials – BS. As measured by Brady Score, restrictive firearms laws appear essentially unrelated to a state’s rate of firearms crime. Something else is the cause of the variation.
In short: restrictive gun laws don’t seem to be conclusively linked to reduced rates of gun violence. In fact, there appears to be little if any linkage at all.
Updated (22 June 2012) – A downloadable version of this article is now available here. Download and use it yourself as you see fit. However, please ask any acquaintances to download it themselves vice sending it to them – and ask them to also click a few ads here at TAH before they leave. If nothing else, that will help Jonn cover the hosting fees for TAH.
The Brady Campaign was born in the spirit of vengeance.
Any metric beyond satiation of its thirst for revenge is absolutely meaningless – a means of misdirecting folks from the heart and soul of the Bradyists: revenge.
The nobility of the notion of a no-firearms-permitted state is undermined by the fact that Brady and his wife would rather pull the trigger and execute John Hinckley, but he lives, and will outlive them.
Hondo, sorry I almost had a squirrell moment, but I love when people do exactily what you did. Take numbers put them down and compare them. You cannot argue with numbers and data, but people will. Part of the problem also is people will allow emotion to come in and just say well I FEEL this…
What ever.
here’s the thing. Friends of mine in Chicago are posting Facebook that you should be downtown after dark….or even on the street. Groups of muggers roam the streets. we need to get crime rates.
I also know for fact here in Michigan (as I said in the previous article) there are large areas of the country side with no police protection. Hell…right down from my house no more then a mile a pizza joint was held up at gun point and the employees locked in the freezer. They weren’t let out until the next morning.
Detroit is getting damn close to no longer be able to pay its civil servants. Where are all the criminals going? They are following the population and most of us are 30-40 miles north of the city. Yeah…its getting safer out there. Fuck that.
Meth labs are every where now. Then we hear about this Spice/bath salt bullshit and they want to legalize marijuana.
How is this getting safer?
damn. that first sentence should have been.
“here’s the thing. Friends of mine in Chicago are posting on Facebook that you should NOT be downtown after dark….or even on the street. Groups of muggers roam the streets. we need to get crime rates.”
S&L my wife went to college at Detroit Mercy and it made me think of Taji without Hescos. Her mom rented an apt in Grosse Point and we drove around there to check out the town then we crossed the invisible border…
I think that the lower on the list you are the better place it is to live!
The guys at TheTruthAboutGuns.com might like this. It’s my (mostly) right-wing (all) gun nut blog of choice lately.
Any metric that the Brady bunch would come up with was never intended to be actual science (that is to be able to stand up to any kind of peer review), only a talking point for the grabbers to say “Look!!! Science!!!”
The hoplophobes have an uphill climb given Heller and McDonald. Let future courts try to tie themselves in knots attempting to reverse those rulings after millions of Americans have exercised their right to armed self-defense. Over the last 25 years or so concealed carry has gone from being accepted in only a small number of states to being rejected by only a small number of states.
Whatever the politicians (or our nine robed masters) may say, the people continue to assert their rights in this regard. That counts for a lot more than what the chatterers or the political class might think.
Sooooo, think you could publish this so I can get it on my Nook? 🙂
If you look at almost all gun laws that have been written since at least 1968, they were written by Anti Gun people. Being that they are anti gun, they have zero understanding of firearms and how they work, who legeally owns them, who legally uses them etc. They are AFRAID of all weapons– by afraid I mean, they are wet their pants terrified of them. They don’t even want to look at guns. So, they write laws that no only don’t prevent gun violence, but actually make it worse.
The criminals are just smart enough to know that if they want to commit crimes and not get shot by a citizen defending themselves, they go to where the gun laws are restritive (also read “retarded”). The criminals know that most citizens in Calif for example, are not armed in public. They are totally confused in the cases where they’ve tried to rob off duty cops and the few citizens who have CCW permits.
In the 37 states where they’ve pass the “Shall Issue” CCW laws, the violent crime has gone down…in places like CA and IL, it has gone up.
Hondo, some follow on data analysis that might add to the the discussion:
1) Gun Control/CCW law effects on other violent crimes. This comes to mind because when I was looking up crime data regarding FL, after the Martin-Zimmermann case, I noted that violent rape in FL dropped significantly after the “Stand Your Ground” law was implemented.
2) How have those effected crime rates following changes in gun control laws. This comes to mind because I remember the media constantly telling us how violent the streets and cities were in the 1980’s (when it was still Handgun Control Inc. battling for more restrictive laws, effectively). It would seem that the necessary data would now be available to show how crime rates have been effected by shall-issue laws vs. the opposite, though most of the most restrictive laws have been on the books for longer periods and pro-gun laws instituted in the last couple decades.
Most importantly: Good work on putting these numbers together. It should be the basis for a LOT of good articles.
ROS: haven’t personally used a Nook or Kindle. Do they do straight PDF? If so, I can probably produce a PDF version and post a link here for download.
Good info, Post and Comments.
Proud supporter of GOA GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA
(Larry Pratt’s fine outfit) .
They actually do use PDF format, Hondo. It’s pretty much the only file type the two e-readers have in common.
ROS: OK. Will see what I can do to put a downloadable version up for download, probably early next week.
Outstanding! Thank you. 😀
Article updated to include downloadable PDF version. Enjoy.
No need for in-depth studies. Look at England’s per-capita violent crime rate, which in 2009 was DOUBLE the US, even though they tried to tweak the numbers by classifying some murders as a lower-level crime. An elderly man was attacked in his home recently. He drove the attackers off with an old shotgun. He was sent to prison for 20 years, which, considering his age, is a life sentence. The attackers who BROKE INTO HIS HOUSE were not charge.
Look at Mexico, where private ownership of firearms is illegal, but citizens huddle in fear and there are daily gun battles.
Look at Miami, where concealed carry was illegal and the city had the highest murder rate in the U.S. Compare that to now, since concealed carry is now permitted.
[…] and with a google search of “gun law vs crime scatter plot” I found (1st result) a wonderful article on gun control vs murder rates. It is a state by state analysis that plots the state’s Brady Score (higher = more gun […]
I added violent crime rate. Lack of coorelation continues.
My article on it:
http://www.landonswan.com/personal/gun-control-vs-murdercrime-rates-a-statistical-look/
The raw file, with added violent crime section from FBI: http://www.landonswan.com/images/Brady_Score_Data.xls
I see a lot of — these are what the results said, but where are the raw numbers with which you come to your conclusions? I see nothing to back it up. Your premise is that you can’t trust just words, you have to trust the data.So where’s the data?
jettybean: follow the links in the article – in particular, the first two links under the section “Collecting the Data”. The first link in that section gives Brady Score by state; the second link gives the murder statistics. I just checked them, and both links still work. Those provided the raw data I used in writing the article.
The crime statistics data was pulled from US government sources at the DoJ. So if you have questions about that data – ask the DoJ and/or the paper who compiled the table in their article from those sources.
Next time, you might want to try following the links in articles posted here before asking for clarification. They are almost always to sources used and answer most questions. Doing so also keeps you from looking like a fool.
Finally, a data-driven scientific analysis of the problem.
http://nutjobexpress.blogspot.com/2013/01/gun-laws-and-gun-murders-for-gun-nuts.html
Take a look at the third chart on this page. Violent crime compared with Brady score. DC is put on the chart and compared with the 50 states which obcures everything. DC is only a CITY and when compared with other cities throughout the US, it doesn’t tower over charts like godzilla (it is ranked the 49th most dangerous city in the country by neighborhoodscout.com).
Anyways, ignore dc and look at everything else on the chart, all 50 states. Its extremely clear that right side of chart has tons of states with high violent crime rates, at almost twice the average rate.
In other words, states with low gun control ratings, mainly Southern states and as well as nevada, arizona, and alaska, have through the roof violent crime ratings.
Actually I became interested in this issue recently and decided to investigate for myself by looking at the FBI charts for murder rate and violent crime rate. I read down state by state to who see leaders were, I did this for every year’s chart from 1999 to 2011.
I found that every year several states were in a league of their own, with huge murder rates or violent crime rates the the rest of country never comes close to. Which states?
Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Nevada, Florida, Alaska, Missouri, Mississippi, Arizona Alabama, Missouri, Georgia
You don’t need a ton of obscure statistics to see that conservative gun states are far and away leading the country in murder and violent crime.
Just google Bureau of Justice Statistics- Uniform Crime Reporting to see the direct, unbiased FBI numbers.
Its easy to read and there’s no statisitics designed to arrive at a specific point.
Uh, scooter–how you figure? I live in one of those states. Gun MURDERS are relatively low. Gun ACCIDENTS (i.e., hunting, etc.,) are higher than liberal states simply by the very nature they’re used and out more.
Ever heard of anyone going to California to go hunting? Me either. OTOH, I’ve had a SHITLOAD of people come to Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, Maine, etc., to go hunting.
See a correlation?
And FWIW, reviving a dead thread after eight months? And setting up a link for “gun nuts”? Yeah, no bias there.
funny thing about statistics… Washington DC with atthe time some of the toughest gun laws in the country had 12 gun deaths per 100,000 people… they also had 242.6 robberies with guns involved per 100,000 people (The population of DC was around 637,000) That gave DC the highest gun murder rate per 100,000 population in the country.
Oh, and for our friend you can find that information on the FBI’s site as well.
Highest GUN MURDER rates (2011)
Louisiana- 7.7 per 100K people
Missouri- 5.4
Maryland- 5.1
South Carolina- 4.5
Delaware- 4.2
Michigan- 4.2
Florida- 3.9
Georiga- 3.8
Arizona- 3.6
Pennsylvania- 3.6
The Brady Scores of these 10 states (score out of 100):
2
4
45
10
15
25
5
8
0
26
Average Score: 14 out of 100
That was easy, no need for a long fallacious article.
Some CITIES with higher violent crime rates than the CITY of Washington, DC:
East St. Louis, IL. West Memphis, AR. Saint Louis, MO. Spartanburg, SC.
Monroe, LA. Bessemer, AL. Riviera Beach, FL. Myrtle Beach, SC. Memphis, TN.
Homestead, FL. Little Rock, AR. Birmingham, AL. Atlanta, GA. Baltimore, MD.
Pine Bluff, AR. Daytona Beach, FL. Alexandria, LA. Texarkana, TX. Fort Myers, FL.
What’s this about DC being the highest? I could have made a different list for gun murder specifically but there isn’t as much data on that online (Flint, MI is the highest city for gun murder, not DC, lol) DC is a city, if you compare it to entire states each with huge rural and suburban areas, OF COURSE its gonna look like “the highest”. Goes to show what kind of trickery is behind these ‘NRA facts’ that so many people actually believe…
Or the left wing meme of, “Guns are bad, m’kay?”
Sorry, your numbers are a bit off. And at the risk of having the race card whipped out on me, look at the demographic of a lot of those high-murder rate areas/cities.
Notice anything about them, Jesse?
Oh, and how many murders are committed with LEGALLY-OWNED WEAPONS?
Funny how you never seem to be able to admit that almost none is the correct answer.
I like how we get a random anti-gun sockpuppet from one of the astroturf outfits, who can’t do any more to dispute the total fisking of the Brady Scorecard except…cite the Brady Scorecard. Classic.
@ 28 Alexandria, LA – That’s a shocker. ATF and DEA made a couple stops through there a decade ago. But Alexandria is dwindling in population. Surprised even listed on anyones list. Besemmer which also near NO, I find it hard to be compared with other cities actually listed. Alexandria isn’t even a city it seems.
Another idiot blaming the tool instead of the thug behind the trigger.
People who commit murder usually fall into one of, most of, or all of these categories
little or no education
no moral upbringing
no family structure (notably a male figure)
no job skills, or employment history
substance abuser
criminal history
This profile crosses all ages, races, genders and financial status.
On another note many VICTIMS fit the above profile, or are associated closely with people that do.
The people that are strongly associated with owning firearms and 2nd amendment rights rarely fit into those categories, and are not the one committing murders.
Every one of the states you mentioned have higher murder rates because they have large urban areas that are full of thugs.
Typical Liberal loony bullshit. Taking an Ar-15 out of the hands of a farmer in Wyoming isn’t going to stop a gang banger from shooting another thug in the back of the head with an unregistered “illegal” Taurus 9mm in St Loius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Get your numbers straight and don’t cherry pick Jesse.
First off DC wasn’t even given a Brady rating, probably because it’s failure at gun control makes the Brady rating look like the horseshit it is.
DC has a gun Murder rate of 16.5 per 100K, about 5-7 times higher than most states.
Lets look at the “Best” States for Gun control, rated by the Brady scale from 0-100, 100 being the best as far as having higher restrictions’
STATE BRADY RATING GUN MURDER RATE PER 100K PEOPLE
California 80 3.4
New Jersey 72 2.8
Massachusets 65 1.8
New York 62 2.7
Connecticut 58 2.7
Michigan 25 4.2
Now lets look at the ten “worst” States as far as the Brady ratings go, and see what their murder rate is:( note, this list was put out by the Brady bunch, I don’t even think they look at their own stats.
State Brady rating Gun murders per 100k
Utah 0 0.8
Alaska 0 2.7
Arizona 0 3.6
Oklahoma 2 3.0
North Dakota 4 0.6
Montana 2 1.2
Louisiana 2 7.7
Kentucky 2 2.7
Idaho 2 0.8
Wisconsin 8 1.7
Wow!!! the so called worst state (Utah) has a lower gun murder rate then ALL those anti gun lib states.As a matter of fact 8 of the 10 “worst states” have less gun violence than the most restrictive one, California!!
Overall those 6 safest states have a 2.9 murder rate by gun compared to a 2.5 rate for the 10 “worst” states
Jesse- take those statistics, print them out, and pound them directly up your ass. Maybe you will be able to read them a little better if they are closer to your face.
The uninformed comments of our “friend” Jesse above merely demonstrate that he is either (a) ignorant and uninformed, (b) not very intelligent, (c) mendacious, or (d) some combination of the first three. Whether intentional or not, Jesse’s comments above show multiple unethical techniques that are common among those who have no factual basis for their side of an argument. The first is changing the subject; the second, selective application of data (“cherry picking”). Both techniques are misleading and are often used when the actual data does not support one’s argument. A third technique – the MSU method (“making sh!t up”) – may also be in use. I’ll address the above in reverse order, MSU method first. Frankly, Jesse cites some obscure “gun control rating” on an internet site that is not well-known. The method of determining this rating does not appear to be explained in detail. Such obscure sites and unexplained, uncited methods are, by and large, inherently suspect and difficult or impossible to verify. In contrast, the Brady Score and murder statistics I cite in the article above are both explained in detail and are verifiable, coming from sources that are available to the public and which explain their methodology. Second, as Just an Old Dog notes above Jesse cherry picks his data. In any real-world data set, there are likely to be a few “outliers” that buck the general trend in both directions. Jesse doesn’t seem to realize that. He also fails to use or explain contrary data. This is shown by Jesse ignoring completely that his professed set of ten states with the highest Brady Score (see comment 27) also includes three states that are also among the 10 with highest firearms murder rates. Frankly, this is evidence of either ignorance (of what even elementary statistical analysis of his own data indicates) or of the intent to mislead. Finally, Jesse initially appears to have tried to change the subject, initially wanting to discuss “firearms deaths” vice the stated context of “firearms murders”. Changing the subject by introducing unrelated concepts and evidence is a technique often used by… Read more »
Gee, that Brady list of bad stuff needs to be updated. 2011 statistics hardly apply to 2012 or 2013.
And I findi it disappointing that Chicago, a city-state in the strictest sense of the word, is not included anywhere in Jesse’s list of ‘bad places’, becuase despite the Chicago chief of police’s claims to the contrary, gun violence is increasing expornentially ACCORDING TO CPD AND DAILY NEWS REPORTS OF GANG-RELATED GUN VIOLENCE.
The FBI has previously stated that the source of guns used in gun violence, including murders, is the drug cartels, particularly the Sinaloa cartel which is becoming embedded in almost every major city in the USA. Talk to the FBI about it. They’ve already put that into public venues. The Sinaloa drug cartel, run by Joaquin Guzman, is behind it all, and unless he is stopped, there is no end to.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-17/heroin-pushed-on-chicago-by-cartel-fueling-gang-murders.html
So, you see, the Brady chart has nothing to do with the reality of gangs, gang-related gun violence, and gang drive-by shootings in which people are chosen at random as targets.
It is an unrealistic attempt to deflect reality and avoid the REAL facts, that gun trafficking is up, that it is drugs and gang-related, and that it will get worse over time, and, last but not least, despite the efforts of the FBI, ALL OF THE GUNS USED IN CRIMES LIKE ROBBERIES, MURDER AND GANG SHOOTINGS ORIGINATE IN GUN TRAFFICKING, AND NOT IN IN LEGAL GUN PURCHASES.
I hope that was clear enough for even a wimpy sap like Jesse to understand.
One of these days, Jesse, you’ll get held up or carjacked at gunpoint by someone who got his gun from a GUN TRAFFICKER, not from a gun shop. Is that clear?
Geezo pete, I am SO tired of these stupid, scared little dweebs.
Lol this is exactly the basis behind every pro-gun statistic. You focus on places like Wyoming, Montana and Utah. States that are 99% RURAL. Of course there going to have good looking statistics and people also own guns at the HIGHEST RATES because they all have them for use on a ranch or for hunting. These rural states (combine 4 of them and they equal the population of one average state) do a great job of changing the correlation that can be calculated from an ‘each state is equal’ approach.
But if we just focus on where the PROBLEM is, what do we see? Each conservative gun state that has a moderately large city in it, all sporting off the charts rates of gun murder and violent crime, it doesn’t matter whether you chose to examine gun murder or violent crime, take your pick, lol. States full of ignorant uneducated people who think that’s guns deter crime despite the obvious truth from any honestly measured statistics of a large scope. The NUMBERS I shared above come directly from the FBI, all you people are desperately scrambling to call them “made up”, goes to show you don’t have many lines of argument on your side. They come from the exact same wikipedia link with FBI numbers that’s being waved at me.
Another thing- no one has ever proposed taking guns from farmers in wyoming or anywhere who have a serious legal use for them. With GUN CONTROL measures those same people will legally register to become gun owners. GUN CONTROL proposes to keep guns away from criminals and make it so they can’t be purchased in an unregistered way. The things the NRA opposes have nothing to do with public safety and only aim to maximize profits for the gun manufacturers and they have a neverendig supply of idiots coming from the same conservative states that have not only the highest murder and violent crime, also the LOWEST education ratings.
Actually, Jesse, the District of Columbia is NOT at city. It’s a unique political subdivision.
Facts, truth, and reality do not appear to be among your attributes, Jesse. Thanks for playing, though.
‘ GUN CONTROL proposes to keep guns away from criminals and make it so they can’t be purchased in an unregistered way.’
Well, that is possibly the stupidest statement I have seen in a VERY long time, by someone who chose not to read what I just wrote.
Jesse, people who are criminals and use guns to commit crimes get their guns through GUN TRAFFICKING, you moron.
They don’t walk into gun shops to buy them. They get them from illegal sources, you simpleton.
Just how stupid are you? You ignore what is right under your nose because it doesn’t fit YOUR meme?
Geez, you jackass, ALL of the gun-related violence in Chicago is directly related to gun trafficking. There is NOT ONE CRIMINAL IN CHICAGO WHO HAS A REGISTERED, LEGALLY OBTAINED GUN.
If you don’t get that part, you’re completely brain dead or in the worst kind of denial possible.
Jesse’s just here trolling for attention given that no one reads his tediously stupid lefty blog (which he linked to earlier and which I made the mistake of taking a look at).
Hey Jesse, Louie Gohmert says BOO!!!
The failure to distinguish bewteen homicide and murder is nearly unforgiveable in this day and age but it commonplace. Time and again, stats regarding homicides by firearm are tossed about, which means that a justified shooting that results in death is included in the stats just as an illicit one is. It is akin to what I personally know at least WAS the case (and still may be today) regarding alcohol and motor vehicle accidents. Alcohol as a factor was included in the police report IF alcohol was present, even if the involved people were stone-cold sober. When it comes to gun deaths, a homeowner who who shoots the burglar and kills him is included in the gun homicide stats and the shooting death of a homeowner by a burglar is too. Both are homicides by gun but one is a murder and the other not.
How many gang bangers purchase their weapons legally?
@42 – OWB – NONE.
I guess that explains why Chicago and DC are such safe places and why rural VA and IL are such dangerous ones. Thanks, Jesse.
I guess it also explains why Utah is such a terrible place for gun crime – since 39+% of the state’s population lives in the SLC metro area, which is in the top 50 in the USA. And why IL is so safe, since the Chicago metro area accounts for somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of IL’s population – and it’s been impossible to legally own a firearm there that wasn’t “grandfathered” and continuously owned since 1984. IL must be a very safe place, right? And Chicago the safest of the safe?
Yeah, right. Try again, willingly-blind troll.
Or, better yet, go away. You’re not interested in having a conversation on the matter.
Of course it’s an urban problem, nitwit. That’s where most criminals choose to work. Cities have more potential victims, and (generally) criminals have a lower chance of getting shot – due to a smaller fraction of the population that owns a firearm.
But did you ever stop to think that the lower rate of firearms ownership might actually be why cities’ crime rates are so damn high? And that rural areas might have lower crime rates precisely because criminals know they face a higher probability of getting shot by an armed potential victim, and thus target cities instead?
No you didn’t. Because that would threaten your thoroughly-discredited “mantra”: that fewer guns mean less gun death. In reality, that’s been proven false – worldwide. And that proof has been published by Harvard University.
Very obviously, Draconian control measures do not work. If they did, Chicago and DC would be among the safest places in the US to live vis-a-vis firearms crime, and states like California and New Jersey would have the lowest firearms crime rates.
Chicago and DC are substantially more dangerous places than most. And California and NJ don’t have the lowest firearms crime rates.
Sorry to burst yer bubble, sunshine. But what you’re advocating not only doesn’t work – it’s counterproductive.
‘I guess that explains why Chicago and DC are such safe places and why rural VA and IL are such dangerous ones.’
Actually, Hondo, you’re more likely to be run over by a farmer driving a tractor at a state fair tractor pull than you are likely to be hit by a CTA bus in Chicago. Sometimes, those tractors just decide to jump the fence and go off in their own direction. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=farm+tractors&FORM=VIRE8#view=detail&mid=A58DB1F1C0B97399A7A0A58DB1F1C0B97399A7A0
And then there’s the horse pulling competitions. Those can really get dangerous. Horses, being the independent thinkers that they are, do whatever they want to do.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=horse+pulling+competition+videos&FORM=VIRE2#view=detail&mid=2C8AC52136D2CD4EF6A32C8AC52136D2CD4EF6A3
And the possibility of getting run into the ditch on a country road by a farmer driving a tractor with a disc harrow and seed/fertlizer tanks hitched on behind is pretty high also.
Those tractors are SO out of control.
Lmao. Chicago ranks as only the county’s 79th highest city for violent crime. Down in places like Alabama and Lousiana cities don’t have even have to be major for the violent crime rate to be record breaking- as someone noted about Alexandria, LA and Bessemer, AL.
So they break the rule that urban centers are where crime is highest, gee, I wonder why.
Source- neighborhoodscout.com’s 100 most dangerous cities. Ranked by violent crime rate.
Facts beat reputation and just shouting ‘Chicago’ over and over.
I don’t know where you’re getting your asinine information, Jesse, but Chicago now outranks New York City, formerly THE number one city for crime in the US. Chicago is now THE number one city for violent crime.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chicago-struggles-combat-gun-violence-article-1.1271786
And that’s from THIS year, 2013.
You are SO FULL OF CRAP!
When you get up in the morning, do you look in the mirror and say to yourself “I’m gonna see how stupid I can look to other people today”?????
I only ask, because so far, your track record speaks for itself.
And quite using LOL. It means ‘laugh out loud’. And you aren’t funny. You’re just plain stupid.
Do a google image search of “trafficked crime guns” or “interstate export rate”. Look at the (only) charts and maps that come up. Do honestly you think that criminals don’t get their guns from conservative states through straw purchasers and traffickers, why because a gun store owner can turn away a ‘gangbanger’ wearing baggy pants? Again….. education levels….
OH, yeah – disclaimer. I lived IN Chicago, not the suburbs, for 30 years. I took the bus. I saw bus drivers shot because they wouldn’t hand over their pocket change, when the smart cards became the way to pay for bus fare.
I’ve been held up at gunpoint on my own back steps. My car was broken into three times and then stolen. My purse was stolen. I was followed home from work when I had to work late.
It’s worse now than it was when I lived there. YOu don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
I don’t give a flying fart in space about your maps and charts, you asshole.
I see this stuff on the news EVERY DAMNED DAY. That takes precedence over your fucking charts and maps, which are ALWAYS OUT OF DATE.
And if you had bothered to read what I wrote, I already said CRIMINALS GET THEIR GUNS THROUGH GUN TRAFFICKING, YOU FUCKING MORON!