Not nearly as high as Switzerland, which has a lower violent crime rate than Great Britain, where private ownership of firearms is rigidly controlled. This study's premise is flawed and its conclusions are untrustworthy or outright wrong.
So what?
All it may be saying is that where crime is a problem --- as manifested by the number of homicides --- people counteract the problem by protecting themselves and buying more guns.
End of story. Might I suggest that their next study determine the relationship between the total number of doctors vs. total numbers of deaths (Uh-oh, as one increases, so does the other -- not that I determined causation or anything).
That's OK. You appear able to provide data printed no later than 1993 which pertains to events in 1997:
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
Time travel makes up for lack of data.
I should certainly hope so! Here in Texas, we have a saying that, "There's a few sunsab!tches that need shootin'!"
I would be appalled to learn that all those folks are buying guns and then failing to use them effectively for their primary purpose: self/home defense. IOW, this study obviously considers it a "bad thing" when an honest citizen blows away some scumbag perp who is threatening said citizen or his family with deadly violence.
Some "homicides" are, indeed, justified, and are, imo, worthwhile acts.
"Risk factor", my @$$! How about "enabler".
If these people conclude pigs can fly, call PETA.
except race. hmmm. i 'wonder' how the study would have turned out.
TABLE 1 —Crude Incidence Rate Ratios of Regional Homicide in the United States by Region-Level Proxies of Firearm Prevalence, 1988–1997
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TABLE 2 —Crude and Multivariate Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratios of State-Level Homicide by State-Level Measures of Firearm Prevalence, 1988–1997
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TABLE 3 —Homicide Deaths in States With the Highest vs the Lowest Average Gun Ownership Prevalence Index, 1988–1997
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
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.
Huh?! They are essentially saying that because their data is garbage, their conclusions are strengthened!
Notably absent: race.
This is an absolute bald-faced lie. Of the six high-gun ownership states cited, four had very high homicide rates and two very LOW homicide rates. That disproves their entire thesis on the spot - some other factor is at play here (and a very un-PC) factor at that.
65 years
65 years
65 years