Light Posting Ahead....

Gonna be busy for a bit so things will be quiet around here.

Back soon.

More Misleading With Statistics

Gun Control Cultists like to tell us that more guns means more gun deaths. A recent email from the Brady Bunch tells me:

with more guns in public, more people get killed.

So let's look at this lovely "handout" from the Brady Bunch which says

In one year, guns murdered 17 people in Finland, 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 60 in Spain, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States.

The United States has weak gun laws. The other countries have strong gun laws.

Since Finland takes top spot in their list, let's dig in further.

According to statistics, Finland ranks fourth in gun ownership rates yet has a lower number of gun murders than the U.S. There are roughly 2,400,000 civilian guns in Finland but between 2003 and 2009, they only logged between 18 and 30 gun deaths.

Surely having over 2 million guns is an easy recipe for massive gun deaths, right? Where are the bloodbaths? Why aren't the streets running red with the blood of innocents? 2 million guns in civilian hands! It'll turn them all into murdering monsters!

No, says the Brady Bunch. Finland just has strong gun laws.

True. According to Finland's Firearms Act of 1998 you first have to get a permit in order to purchase one (section 45), then you need to get a permit to possess it (section 53). And that's just for starters.

But in 2007 and 2008, Finland had two school shootings which resulted in 18 deaths.

Which then brings up the question:

Why didn't Finland's strong gun laws prevent that?

After all, the Firearms Act was in place at the time and, according to the Brady Bunch, Finland has strong gun laws that prevent gun deaths.

So why did those shootings take place?

Hmm.

Maybe because guns might not be the only problem?

Oh, but you'll never hear the GCCs mention anything like that.

Know why?

Because it doesn't fit into their worldview.

LCAV Wants To Scare You With Numbers

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 states

Inside 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)

Then for Question #3, these values:

• California
• 2007
• All Races
• All (Hispanic Origin)
• Both Sexes

WISQARS gave me this:
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 = 51.36

51.36!!!

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)