The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Tak on June 07, 2009, 11:58:26 PM
-
I'm doing a project for school on the effect (or lack thereof) of gun control laws on violent crime. My problem is that I can't seem to find reliable data on either gun ownership by state, gun sales or information of that sort.
Does anyone have some good suggestions on where I could find raw data on either number of persons who own guns by state or the sale of guns by state. It would also be immensely helpful if that raw data was collected yearly from 1960 until today.
-
G'Day Tak,
Welcome to DownRange
are you after just USA Stats or other countries where there have been extreme gun control laws in place
-
Try www.gunfacts.info
-
Thank you for the welcome.
I'm really just interested in looking at the United States. And within the U.S. I might limit myself to just looking at a few states, depending on the data available.
-
you should look at what happened in Australia after Port Arthur in 96 :o :o :o
-
The downloadable book at www.gunfacts.info seems like it would be very helpful under other circumstances, but it does not have the kind of raw data I need. I need something with numbers of gun sales or number of people who own guns. That way I can show the correlation between violent crime rates and the number of people who own guns. It might be that the number of people owning guns does not predict the amount of violent crime at all.
-
The downloadable book at www.gunfacts.info seems like it would be very helpful under other circumstances, but it does not have the kind of raw data I need. I need something with numbers of gun sales or number of people who own guns. That way I can show the correlation between violent crime rates and the number of people who own guns. It might be that the number of people owning guns does not predict the amount of violent crime at all.
We have a winner! Violent crime would be more affected by the number of those inclined to commit violence.
-
The downloadable book at www.gunfacts.info seems like it would be very helpful under other circumstances, but it does not have the kind of raw data I need. I need something with numbers of gun sales or number of people who own guns. That way I can show the correlation between violent crime rates and the number of people who own guns. It might be that the number of people owning guns does not predict the amount of violent crime at all.
After researching I couldn't find any per state information on gun sales, indeed I imagine that any information you find would be very misleading. They would most likely only count the number of submitted ATF checks, not overall sales, including those between private peoples. I don't think that there may be correlation between gun sales and crime rates. Remember that most people own several guns, and a sale of a gun probably goes to expand someone's collection, so an extra sale may not mean a new gun owner. Also, I don't know of any state that has taken to ask how many citizens own guns. Most pro-gun arguments have been that if people are permitted to protect themselves in public and in the home through the establishment of pro-self defense laws then crime will decline. The state of Texas, I recall, list the number of conceal carry incidents. I found a site with some interesting numbers, you may try checking their sources for more in depth details. Alot of what they've chosen to list show that not only to pro-self defense laws lead to declines in crime, but that anti-defense and gun laws are ineffective or detrimental to the safety of citizens. I'm afraid you won't be able to find any actual numbers relating to gun ownership, but the laws are where crime is stopped. Pro-gun and self defense laws lead to less crime, and the opposite is true for anti-gun laws. Focus on your laws and you should have plenty of ammo, good luck.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
-
Texas Bryan is right, the stats are slippery in regards to resale, multiple purchases by one individual etc. As an example, I've sold off seven guns from my grandfather's estate and bought three over the last two months or so. How is that reported and logged? I am a political scientist (smothering laughter over the science part), so if you PM me a copy of your abstract, I can help you look toward data that you can use. I'm not a quantoid, so you're on your own for statistical models, but I will help you operationalize your data to the best of my ability. Remember in writing any paper it has to have four parts and answer two questions. The questions are:
1 Why should I believe you? What is your evidence?
2 Saying that I believe you, so what? What does this prove? What is the significance? Or, why did I just waste an hour of my life reading this?
The Four parts are:
Thesis
Evidence
Warrant
Conclusion
This can be summed up as as follows. I believe X. (thesis). I believe it for the following reasons (evidence). The evidence supports my conclusion and disproves other theories beause .......(warrant). In summary I have proved X (conclusion).
FQ13
PS Welcome aboard
-
the only thing the stats community agrees on when it comes to gun stats is...
guns play no roll in crime stats.
so unless you have a idiot for a professor, I'd strongly recomend changing subjects.
-
One of the key issues is that the states that might have the best records - like CA, MA, IL - are also the ones with the most restrictive anti-gun ownership laws.
IL for example has their infamous FOID card - you are not even allowed to handle ammunition, let alone a firearm, without one. Every commercial sale has to go through the State Patrol. So a query to them might shake some data loose. Even if it does, the restrictiveness of the laws, such as in Cook County, will skew your results. And it's been too many years since I had to do a school paper to remember how to address such skewing.
Have you looked at John Lott's books ""More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns"?
Another issue is that records such as the ones you are seeking are quite properly not kept except in states such as the above. Just like records as to where I go to church are not kept (hopefully), nor my letters to the editor.
Good luck, and welcome to the site.
-
tak,
Welcome to the forum.
When I am looking at issues involving violence I have found it easier to look at the weapon as a tool and not the actual cause. Looking at something specific, like a gun, knife or club, clouds the issue, and that narrow focus creates flawed data. However, if you look at a broad picture of violent crime you will find data including demographics, geography and weapons used. You can then work your way backwards through availability and controls on said weapons.
Good luck on the paper!
-
the only thing the stats community agrees on when it comes to gun stats is...
guns play no roll in crime stats.
so unless you have a idiot for a professor, I'd strongly recomend changing subjects.
I disagree TAB, You and I have argued this, but aside from that, A proof that gun numbers play no role in crime stats STILL discredits the anti's theory that passing MORE useless laws on people who aren't criminals will have an effect on crime.
The only thing that will have an effect on crime rates is the meaningful punishment of violent offenders.
-
my point was, if you use cite bad numbers, it makes your paper look bad.
When it comes to writing papers its best to stay as far away from "hotly" debated subjects as you can.
oddly enough, they have found that even increasing punishment( IE time in jail/fines) plays no roll in crime stats.
now granted if they were to increase capitol crimes, and right after the trial took them out back and put a 22 in thier head, we might see some change. Time in jail does not deter crimals.( you and me maybe... then again, I've always said,lots of people are only alive as its illegal to kill them.)
-
Time in jail does not deter crimals.
Maybe not, but it spaces them out further and reduces the ratio of crimes per BG
Remember when they had that spate of Cop killings in Philly ? The one who jumped in the river had ALREADY served a prison term for shooting a young girl, he got 9 years, for murder. What about those 2 women from the SLA Emily Harris and the other one, they were convicted of Kidnapping Patty Hearst, robbing banks and killing at least 1 cop, they did not serve 10 combined, both are out of jail NOW. That's BS.
-
one would think that, but as it turns out, that really plays no roll.
its like the tent city in AZ, one would think that would make it so you never wanted to come back, yet they have the same resitavism rate as the national average.
improvements in economic conditions is the only thing proven to lower crime.
now back to gun stats. if you want to write a paper on them,
I would highly recomend you write about how inaccurate they are.
-
one would think that, but as it turns out, that really plays no roll.
its like the tent city in AZ, one would think that would make it so you never wanted to come back, yet they have the same resitavism rate as the national average.
improvements in economic conditions is the only thing proven to lower crime.
now back to gun stats. if you want to write a paper on them,
I would highly recomend you write about how inaccurate they are.
Off gun stats - this is something that is driving me nuts. OK, we're all a little dyslexic at times, fat-finger the keyboard, and I have personally asked people to stop me from posting at night when I'm tired (or in the morning, or. . . nevermind) but this is driving me nuts.
A Roll is something you freakin' eat!
A Role is a part you play.
So, according to Tab (and he's wrong) guns play no role in dropping crime.
Sorry, my (now ex-) boss had this same problem, and was more than a little pissed at me for correcting him. As clips are Haz's white whale, this one is mine, all mine.
Back to the show already in progress . . . .
-
How about "recidivism" and "recommend".....drive's me crazy as well.....especially from someone with an advanced degree!
I try my best but it's more from the speed at which I type that I make mistakes. I will correct them when I see them though...
-
How about "recidivism" and "recommend".....drive's me crazy as well.....especially from someone with an advanced degree!
I try my best but it's more from the speed at which I type that I make mistakes. I will correct them when I see them though...
Way off topic, but, I'm from Texas, I ain't got to answer for my spelling. 'I'm about to misspell your face if you don't run along now.' It's all good, but I'd recomend you watch your tone before your hospital resitavism rate doubles. ;D
-
Off gun stats - this is something that is driving me nuts. OK, we're all a little dyslexic at times, fat-finger the keyboard, and I have personally asked people to stop me from posting at night when I'm tired (or in the morning, or. . . nevermind) but this is driving me nuts.
A Roll is something you freakin' eat!
A Role is a part you play.
So, according to Tab (and he's wrong) guns play no role in dropping crime.
Sorry, my (now ex-) boss had this same problem, and was more than a little pissed at me for correcting him. As clips are Haz's white whale, this one is mine, all mine.
Back to the show already in progress . . . .
Ok, I will roll (not role) the dice and answer this. TAB is neither wrong, nor right. This means he is (probably?) right. If that sounds confusing, it was meant to be. The thing is, when you perform a single, or even multiple variable, regression analysis comparing crimes per hundred K to factors X, Y and Z its all pretty much noise, EXCEPT for unemployment. This isn't a head scratcher. People by and large comit crimes for money. If they have a job, they won't take on the risk of stealing your TV and taking it to a fence. If they don't have that job and don't have good morals, well......No crook ever thinks he is going to get caught. That's why they commit crimes in the first place. What TAB's point DOES show, conclusively, is that more guns does NOT equal more crimes. The biggest (and best) anti-CCW argument was that we would get a hoarde of Bronson wannabe's and Elmer Fudds. The fact that crime rates weren't changed by CCW permits showed two things. They didn't prove CCW reduced crime. They DID prove that it didn't increase it. No rash of vigilantes, no epidmic of accidents. At worst it preserved the status quo. This is key. In a free society, we shouldn't have to ask the government for permission to do something with the burden of proof on us. They should have to tell us why we can't, with the burden of proof on them. The one thing the stats say is that we win that argument.
FQ13
-
How about "recidivism" and "recommend".....drive's me crazy as well.....especially from someone with an advanced degree!
I try my best but it's more from the speed at which I type that I make mistakes. I will correct them when I see them though...
Is that really a word. ???
;D
-
Is that really a word. ???
;D
recidivism;
the tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior ; especially : relapse into criminal behavior
-
recidivism;
the tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior ; especially : relapse into criminal behavior
Recidivism a good word for us corner dwellers. Me, I prefer obdurate; hardened in the ways of evil. Did anyone replace the cheeze whiz? ;D
FQ13
-
Crime, Deterrence, And Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapons published January 1997
The Journal of Legal Studies
The University of Chicago
Chicago, IL 60637-2954
phone: (773) 702-7600
Lotts original study of every county in the US crime statistics as related to gun crime and the ability of citizens to protect themselves from crime with a gun.
-
Crime, Deterrence, And Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapons published January 1997
The Journal of Legal Studies
The University of Chicago
Chicago, IL 60637-2954
phone: (773) 702-7600
Lotts original study of every county in the US crime statistics as related to gun crime and the ability of citizens to protect themselves from crime with a gun.
This is a great study. I'm kind of in awe at the statistics used to do the analysis. There is no way I can do anything 1% as amazing as this, but, in truth, I just want to pass my class. It's great that you all want to debate the effects of guns on crime, but I do not. In my paper, I am ALLOWED to conclude that one variable is not a significant predictor of another. I'm not even looking for the "best" variable that predicts violent crime rates, homicide rates, or homicide by gun rates. In my paper, I'm free to look at whatever variables I please.
The reason I was trying to use gun sales as a proxy for gun control laws is that if one believes that gun control laws to ANYTHING, it would be that they reduced the number of guns sold. The laws are put in place to keep guns (sometimes specific types) from reaching the hands of people (also sometimes specific types). If gun sales have not significantly decreased after a law is put in place, then the law isn't doing what it is "supposed" to be doing. I thought this data, or at least some form of it, would be available online, but I haven't been able to find any.
The next variable I wanted to use was percent of the population that had at least one gun in or around the household. Gun control proponents seem to think that the more people have guns, the more times guns will be used to commit crime. I wanted to see if that were true, to I would have put gun ownership as a predictor variable for violent crime, or homicide, or specifically gun crime rate. Then I get to find how good of a predictor it is. So far, all I have found for percent ownership has been one survey in 2001 that I'm not really impressed with. If anyone could help me with information on where I can find better data, it would be most appreciated.
-
This is a great study. I'm kind of in awe at the statistics used to do the analysis. There is no way I can do anything 1% as amazing as this, but, in truth, I just want to pass my class. It's great that you all want to debate the effects of guns on crime, but I do not. In my paper, I am ALLOWED to conclude that one variable is not a significant predictor of another. I'm not even looking for the "best" variable that predicts violent crime rates, homicide rates, or homicide by gun rates. In my paper, I'm free to look at whatever variables I please.
The reason I was trying to use gun sales as a proxy for gun control laws is that if one believes that gun control laws to ANYTHING, it would be that they reduced the number of guns sold. The laws are put in place to keep guns (sometimes specific types) from reaching the hands of people (also sometimes specific types). If gun sales have not significantly decreased after a law is put in place, then the law isn't doing what it is "supposed" to be doing. I thought this data, or at least some form of it, would be available online, but I haven't been able to find any.
The next variable I wanted to use was percent of the population that had at least one gun in or around the household. Gun control proponents seem to think that the more people have guns, the more times guns will be used to commit crime. I wanted to see if that were true, to I would have put gun ownership as a predictor variable for violent crime, or homicide, or specifically gun crime rate. Then I get to find how good of a predictor it is. So far, all I have found for percent ownership has been one survey in 2001 that I'm not really impressed with. If anyone could help me with information on where I can find better data, it would be most appreciated.
Give us your abstract, and we would be able to offer better advice. Because the narrower the question, the more precise the answer is likely to be. Good advice from a prof on composing a paper, and good advice on life in general.
FQ13
-
there are no numbers on how many americans own guns.( legally)
Infact the only thing the ATF can tell you about a given year is:
1 how many guns were made
2 how many background checks were done.( remember you can buy 10k long guns off 1 background check, but you must do a back ground check for every hand gun.)
They can not tell you how many were sold( new guns)
even the NRA does not realease how many members they have.
so your not going to find those numbers.
oh yeah... some gun owners wil not tell you if they own guns...some its " None of your biz" the others are keeping the tin foil companys afloat.
-
This is off subject, but, when they are done doing the back round check, what do the do with that info? Also, if we don't have gun registration, why do they need make, model, and serial number?
-
This is off subject, but, when they are done doing the back round check, what do the do with that info? Also, if we don't have gun registration, why do they need make, model, and serial number?
Salty,
There is probably a database of the information somewhere that the Feds control. It is just not legal for them to publish the information. Here in MA, all firearms regardless of age are registered. I just sent in the paperwork for two long guns I was keeping in CT, I had seven days to send in the paperwork to the Records Bureau after I brought them up here.
"For more than five years, cities suing the gun industry and anti-gun organizations have sought access to confidential law enforcement data on firearms traces. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) compiles these records when it traces firearms in response to requests from law enforcement agencies.
Every year since 2003, the U.S. Congress has passed increasingly strong language to keep this information confidential. The legislationa series of "riders" to the appropriations bill that funds BATFEis widely known as the "Tiahrt Amendment," after its sponsor, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.)."
-
Another impediment to your research is that many states do not regulate "Private sales" between individuals, therefore they create no paper trail or NICS call.
-
Another impediment to your research is that many states do not regulate "Private sales" between individuals, therefore they create no paper trail or NICS call.
along that same idea, in many states, if you have a CCW, you don't need to do the NCIS check.( granted you knwo they already have atleast one fire amr)
-
Give us your abstract, and we would be able to offer better advice. Because the narrower the question, the more precise the answer is likely to be. Good advice from a prof on composing a paper, and good advice on life in general.
FQ13
Thank you for your willingness to help, but I don't have an abstract if I haven't done the statistical analysis. Besides, I don't want advice. I need information.
there are no numbers on how many americans own guns.( legally)
In fact the only thing the ATF can tell you about a given year is:
1 how many guns were made
2 how many background checks were done.( remember you can buy 10k long guns off 1 background check, but you must do a back ground check for every hand gun.)
They can not tell you how many were sold( new guns)
even the NRA does not release how many members they have.
so your not going to find those numbers.
Yeah, I figured that the numbers wouldn't tell me exactly how many people out there have guns in possession. I think I just need to check for trends.
-
TAK
I think the point that I and most folks here are trying to make, is that REAL (as in reliable and complete) data is scarce on the ground. Yes there are numbers you can use BUT if these don't reflect reality, all the statistical brilliance in the world won't help. You're basically just shrugging your shoulders with math. Just because you can do a great regression analysis and show that the answer is 47, doesn't make it so. What I was trying to say obliquely, and now will say explicitly, is that maybe a less quantatative approach might be warranted. Be driven by the question not the method. What is your thesis? Tell me that and I can point out the data you need to test it.
FQ13