Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997

Vol 92, No. 12 | American Journal of Public Health 1988-1993 | December 2002 | Matthew Miller, MD

[Hal.009]

"Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.

This study is flawed from the start. The key word in the article is the use of "areas" for the research and not individual "home ownership". The researchers would reach the exact same conclusion by substituing "the presence of alarm systems" in the areas or by the frequency people in areas call "911", in place of gun ownership. In other words, people in high crime areas are more likely to be victims of crime. Nothing new here except the blatent attempt to blame the weapon for the crimes instead of the individual.

Dear researcher, please consider the following fact: GUNS ARE NOT SENTIENT! Currently, there are no "Intellegent Guns" capable of acting on their own. A individual is require to operate the weapon. Therefore, areas where more individuals were operating the weapons resulted in more shootings.

The first response of any rational person in fear of their life is to obtain a weapon.

"It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition. Unfortunately, we were unable to resolve this issue, in part because cross-sectional patterns of gun ownership rates across the United States are so stable over time.19

In other words, When a individual is threatened, stalked, or burgularized, etc. they will seek a weapon for defense. Often they are forced to use the weapon. Duh!

If the researchers were truly interested in resolving the issue they need only to interview the residents of these areas and ask the question "Why do you own a firearm?"

I think the most common response would be "for protection".

[afraidfortherepublic]

Ka-boom!

[Atlas Sneezed]

"General Social Survey (GSS).18 The GSS, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (Chicago, Ill) in most years from 1972 to 1993 and biennially since 1994, is the gold standard for national surveys of gun ownership. In its current form, the GSS is conducted by personal interview with a national area probability sample of 3000 noninstitutionalized adults."

Here is a typical session for a subject with any common sense:

Q. "Do you own guns?"

A. "**** you!"

[xm177e2]

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.

My conclusion: Although their study cannot determine causation, they found that in areas where homicide rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people owned firearms, possibly to defend themselves.

[Badray]

Some stats that I did not see in this 'study':

1] The number of legal gun owners in the 'high gun states' vs the 'low gun states

2] The total number of guns in each area, and

3] The number of justifiable or self defense homicides vs the number of criminal homicides.

It seems to me that that info would be relevant. For instance, if the 'high' states own 25 or 50 times the number of guns as the 'low' states, then 4 times as many gun deaths doesn't make gun ownership as significant a factor. The number of justifiable homicides would also seem to make the case that gun ownership is a positive factor rather than negative.

[pilgrim]

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/12/1988  Abstract of article

 

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997

Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, Deborah Azrael, MS, PhD and David Hemenway, PhD

Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael, and David Hemenway are all from the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: mmiller@hsph.harvard.edu).

Objectives. In this study we explored the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across the United States, by age groups.

Methods. We used cross-sectional time-series data (1988–1997) to estimate the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide.

Results. In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime. ^{(Bold and underlined for emphasis...mine)}

 

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.

What does the "even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime."  mean?

[Maelstrom]

Conclusion misses point: How many were justified?

[Maelstrom]

Yes...legitimacy of ownership wasn't accounted for, and neither was suicide.

[Atlas Sneezed]

non–gun-related homicide rates were also elevated in regions where there were more guns

With this correlation, we are left to conclude either:

1. that the presence of guns makes people more likely to murder with knives or clubs, etc., or

2. that the presence of stabbings and clubbings makes people more likely to buy guns.

Given that #2 is the only logical choice, there is no reason to assume that this same causation applies to the purchase of guns in response to gun homicides, accounting for at least a large part of the correlation, undermining the strained thesis of the study.

[IronJack]

Then you're saying this study is flawed because it confuses cause and effect?

[Atlas Sneezed]

Given that household firearm ownership rates are likely to be only a crude measure of firearm availability, the robust association we report between measures of firearm prevalence and rates of homicide is striking.

Huh?! They are essentially saying that because their data is garbage, their conclusions are strengthened!

[HardStarboard]

The pertinent research, not done here of course because they were trying to prove a preconceived point, would be the number of crimes thwarted and lives saved because of gun ownership!

I have read that this happens approximately 2.3 million times per year; but have never seen any research which would set the record straight. My expectation is that gun ownership prevents more crime than gun use in commission of a crime. Any comments appreciated.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Our study included only a limited number of potential confounders—poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and violent crimes (aggravated assault, forcible rape, and robbery)—and then only in state-level analyses.

Notably absent: race.

[Cacique]

So does Canada

[TopQuark]

Your point is well taken. THanks.

[teeman8r]

statistics say that al gore came in second in the race for president, while gw bush came in next to last....

[teeman8r]

when hank williams' wife left him because she couldn't live with a man who shot at her, he said "fair enough, i don't want to live with a woman i gotta shoot at."

[challenger]

NON-STANDARD REPORTING METHODS COVER UP FLAWS IN HARVARD STUDY

Look at the explanatory note that accompanies Table 3:

[From the Table explanatory notes]
"Note. For ease of comparison, similar populations were obtained by comparing the 4 states with the lowest gun ownership rates ("low gun states") and the 6 states with the highest gun ownership rates ("high gun states"). The 6 states with the highest average gun ownership rates for 1988 to 1997 were Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia, and Arkansas. The 4 states with the lowest average gun ownership rates for 1988 to 1997 were Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Jersey."

What is misleading about that approach? It uses a non-standard and unnecessary reporting method so that they can conflate the data from somewhat disparate states that have very different homicide rates. The standard method (used in sociology, criminology, medicine and other fields) is the use of rates per 100,000 residents, in order to compensate for different population sizes in different jurisdictions. Using the "rate per 100,000" standard method would allow you to examine each state's homicide rate separately, with no need to aggregate. If you did this, you would find that "high gun ownership" Wyoming and West Virginia have pretty low homicide rates. That might cause people to ask why the authors' paradigm doesn't seem to work with all the states--and they don't want people to ask that sort of question. For example, it is somewhat embarassing for Harvard to explain why the U.S. homicide rate (5.6 per 100,000) is 255% of the homicide rate (2.2 per 100,000) in heavily armed West Virginia. Harvard finds it much more convenient if they can just hide the West Virginia stats within a larger grouping where it doesn't need to be explained. Heck, it won't even be noticed by the average incompetent media hack or politician or voter.

AN ADDITIONAL DECEPTIVE APPROACH:
Note that Table 3 uses homicides aggregated over a 10 year span, which has the effect of impressing the casual observers with totals 10x higher than the typical year. If deception were not their intent, they could have simply used a 10 year average, to approximate the yearly losses. This aggregation of many years to yield a single number is a common tactic used by the anti-self-defense fanatics in order to inflate the numbers so that they will look far more terrifying than the real numbers. A similar tactic was used in the Violence Policy Center's "study" ("A License To Kill") of disqualified Texas CCW/Self-Defense-Permit holders.

The aggregation and conflation tactics of the "researchers" also fails to note that the 4 lowest gun ownership states are Northeastern states with one laid-back island-state thrown in, while the 6 highest gun ownership states are all Southeastern states with the exception of Wyoming. Innumerable researchers have found that the Southeastern culture is one of macho and honor, where people are culturally disposed to violence of all types. It is the region that gave our language the phrase, "Some people just need killing". I say this not to harass or insult Southeasterners, but simply to make an observation of a fact that is relevant to this study. I also observed, in a different thread, that the homicide rate in America is generally highest in the southern tier of states, with less in the middle, and the lowest homicide rates in the northern tier. That low homicide rate even occurs in northern states that are heavily armed--like Wyoming, Washington, North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, Maine, Vermont, etc. You will note that this model provides a better fit of the data than the Harvard "study".

Also, as mentioned on the other thread, the entire study is almost useless because the use of proxies to determine the rate of firearms ownership is highly deficient. See my message 166 on the other thread for details. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/800686/posts?q=1&&page=151

[johnboy]

What does the "even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime." mean?

*sigh* it means: "even after ignoring the obvious ... "

or, perhaps, "especially after ignoring the obvious ... "

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Of course it is flawed and outright wrong. That is not the issue. Persuasion is the issue and truth be damned. Americans are "study' happy. This is one more bit of data in the "Boom" to disarm the people. It is a "Study" from a once prestigious university, WOW! Those who do not even belong to our society and who are moving into control need a disarmed populace in order to work their will on the future serfs. BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! day in day out.