As I mentioned sometime back, I was going to root through the LCAV's website to uncover blatant misinformation, half-truths, bigotry, and general policy sleight-of-hand.I've done some digging and found a good one to look at.
The LCAV have themselves a report called Gun Laws Matter: A Comparison of State Firearms Laws and Statistics (PDF here) which
analyzes and compares firearms laws and statistics in all 50 statesInside the report, the LCAV writes:
our ranking reveals that many of the states with the strongest gun laws also have the lowest gun death rates. Conversely, many states with the weakest gun laws have the highest gun death rates.A quick look at the accompanying spreadsheet (PDF) showing the rankings appears to bear that out. At number 1 is California with a 2007 Gun Death Rate of 8.98. At the bottom is Arizona, with a 2007 Gun Death Rate of 14.97
If we take that at face value, the LCAV is totally on the mark.
But we're critical thinkers, aren't we.
We know a death rate is the number of deaths in a population scaled to the size of that population over a certain unit of time.
Per the spreadsheet, LCAV got its Gun Death Rates from WISQARS.
So I went to WISQARS and entered the following values:
- All Intents (for Question #1)
- Firearm (for Question #2)
- California
- 2007
- All Races
- All (Hispanic Origin)
- Both Sexes
Then back to the menu with "All Intents" and "Firearm" for Questions #1 and #2, then changed the Census Region/State field to "Arizona."WISQARS gave me this:
Okay, so the rates don't quite match the spreadsheet. California is off by 0.04, Arizona by 0.02.But close enough.
Now let's look at those rate calculations.
Notice something?
Take a look once more at the two tables above.
California, which ranked #1 for having the strongest gun laws according to the LCAV, had 3,268 firearm deaths.
Arizona, which ranked #50 for having the weakest gun laws according to the LCAV, had 951 firearm deaths.
Wait a minute.
Shouldn't Arizona have more deaths? I mean, it's got the weakest gun laws. Surely there ought to be more than 951 measly deaths!
Which means California should have the least number of deaths. Hell, it shouldn't have any. I mean, having the strongest gun laws and all that, right?
Shouldn't have any gun deaths, right?
Hmm.
Next, you'll note California has nearly 5.5 times the population of Arizona and almost more than 3 times the number of firearm deaths.
Why should this matter?
Math, that's why.
California's seemingly low Gun Death Rate is only offset by its large population.
Do the math and you'll see what I'm talking about.
A better comparison would be if we looked at states with roughly similar population figures. If, for example, California had a roughly similar population as Arizona but the same number of deaths, it's Gun Death Rate would skyrocket.
Wanna see?
Suppose California had the same number of gun deaths but had a population just like Arizona--6,362,241 (by 2007 figures).
Do the math and we see that:
3,268 (number of gun deaths) / 6,362,241 (same population as Arizona) x 100,000 = 51.3651.36!!!
Holy shit!
See what LCAV is trying to do here? It's pretty much what all GCCs try to do.
Scare you by playing with statistics.
Because they set themselves up as "experts" the average person is going to accept whatever LCAV (or VPC, CSGV, the Brady Bunch) says.
But when you start looking behind the curtain of their little magic show, you'll see it's really just smoke and mirrors.
Oh yeah--one final tidbit to consider...The number of deaths in California is 0.009% of the total population. For Arizona, it's 0.014%.
Look at it again. Then do the math.
Yeah, 3,200 deaths seems like a lot. But seen among the rest of the state's population?
This isn't meant to downplay those deaths. Not at all.
But I'm talking about considering context here.
The GCCs aren't, though.
They just want to scare you with numbers.
(photo: Nick Winchester/stock.xchng)
5 comments:
Ace, I disagree with calculation adjustments that you made for the population for the rates since it was already done per 100,000.
What is more important than raw rates, is what are the differences in DGUs, suicides, accidents, law enforcement, drug trafficking, and other mitigating factors that may be in play here. There are a lot of variables that may not have been accounted for. By the way, I saw it used ICD-10 numbers, which is a coding system for hospital use. This seems a little suspect to me as a data source for firearm mortality. I would stick with the FBI statistics.
Just looking at firearm mortality also does not paint the totality of the criminal situation. If fear of murder is large, differences in the rate of firearm mortality may not be very compelling (and may be the right response to an attack).
For example, the inability of a Californian to get a CCW permit reduces ability for self-defense. If I understand the stats that you showed, their death due to a knife is not counted, but they are still dead. If, instead, they were armed and shot the thug dead, the thug's death would actually count against them with this metric! The anti's can never seem to grasp that some of the "gun deaths" are righteous and good. There are real scum out there and if they are a threat to me or my family, and I kill them, the world will be a better place.
All I really know is that if I do need a firearm for self-defense, I will really NEED that firearm. The gun control crowd wants to deny me this fundamental right via a bit of data, but I fail to see that in the Second Amendment. Unless I missed that part after "...shall not be infringed..." that says "unless the firearm mortality rate is more than 10% and then it can be revoked."
Finally, overall those rates are not that outrageous as you noted. I would love to have them lower, but only by removing those that are related to criminal activity. I wonder what they are for other causes of death, such as MVAs, falls, fires, drowning, and so on.
With havin sο much content and artіcleѕ ԁo you еνег run into any iѕsues of
plаgorism oг copугight infringement?
My sіtе has a lot of exclusive cοntent I've either written myself or outsourced but it seems a lot of it is popping it up all over the web without my agreement. Do you know any methods to help stop content from being stolen? I'd defіnіtely appгеcіate it.
Ηave a looκ аt my page Zahnzusatzversicherung
I like the helpful information уοu ρrονiԁe for yоur
artiсles. I wіll bοokmаrk yоur weblog
anԁ taκe a look at аgain right herе frequentlу.
I am relatіνely cеrtаin I'll be informed plenty of new stuff right right here! Good luck for the next!
My site; Hämorrhoiden Behandlung
Gгеetingѕ, I thіnκ yοur ωeb ѕitе could bе having internet broωser сompatibility iѕѕuеs.
When I take а looκ at уour ѕite іn Safarі, it looks fіne
hоωeveг, іf opеning in ΙE, it has some ονerlaρpіng іssueѕ.
I јust wanteԁ to giѵe you
a quicκ hеaԁs uр! Besіԁeѕ thаt, wondеrful sitе!
My ωebpаge social network
Defіnitely imagine that that yοu saіd.
Υouг favourіte justifісation apρeareԁ to bе
on the net the easiеst factoг to beaг in mind οf.
I saу tο you, I certainlу get irked eѵen aѕ оther ρeoрle cоnsіdeг сoncегns that thеy plaіnly don't understand about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest as well as outlined out the whole thing without having side effect , people can take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks
Look at my blog cellulite
Post a Comment