Posted by JustinMurray on 01/22/09 3:03 PM   [Newer: Obama's Failed Math] [Older: America: The Abused Spouse]

This is a small study I did exactly one year ago today. I will post the original, brief summary as well as a few other observations in regards to gun control. I was reminded of this by the posting on the main page of the British marches against firearms control and their negative effects.

A difficult aspect of the gun control debate is proper comparison of similar regions and the effects of gun control and gun ownership on crime. Russia has low gun ownership rates but world leading homicide rates while Switzerland basically requires its citizens to be armed yet has low murder rates. However, when Japan is added to the mix, which has both a low murder rate and heavy gun control, we find that there is zero correlation between respective gun ownership levels and crime rates.

So, what I have done is researched the gun ownership levels, which reflect the severity of the state's ownership restrictions and compared them to the state's homicide rate. I am assuming there is a reasonable level of comparison within the United States for this to be valid. I have included the results as a chart:

Now, what I did was plugged this chart into the handy-dandy regression analysis program provided in Excel to run a Statistical approach. The formula spat out is the following:

Homicide Rate = 61.8873%-0.0355%(Gun Ownership Rates)

What this means is that if the mathematical comparison is good, Texas, which has a gun ownership level of 39.5% should have a homicide rate of 60.4851%. The actual homicide rate is 64.9727%, making Texas slightly more violent than the predicted value. Now for Washington DC, the predicted rate is 61.7523% whereas the actual rate is 80.0333%. A comparison going the other direction is New Hampshire, which has a gun ownership of 30%, which predicts 60.8218% homicide rate but the actual is 41.3900%.

The big deal is the t-value of -0.3585 and the p-value of 0.7214. This means that there is a 72.14% chance the prediction will be rejected and there is no reasonable comparison between the dependent and independent variables.

Basically, what this says is there is absolutely no correlation
between gun ownership rates or gun restrictions and homicides. Criminals still kill, guns or no.

So, since the level of gun control, where low ownership and high restriction Massachusetts and high ownership low restriction Alaska have the same murder rates, we can safely say that removal of firearms restrictions is a reasonable decision. When the number of weapons in circulation have no impact on crime and homicide rates, there simply is no reason spending billions of dollars regulating laws that clearly have no impact on criminal activities.

I then ran the same numbers with reading at a 4th grade level and that comparison only has a 34% chance of being rejected. Being able to read a newspaper has a stronger bearing on firearms violence than gun ownership does.

A few more numbers:

Homicide Rate vs International Education Score scores:

Rate = 231.46 - .317(International Score)

p-value = .001
t-stat = -3.39

The p-value shows that there is a strong correlation between International scores and homicide rates, but the t-score shows it isn't. The t-stat score has to be high and the p-value low for it to be a good comparison. Still, education based on international scores have a stronger argument against crime rates.

Homicide Rate vs Poverty

Rate = 34.1+176.42(Poverty Rate)

p-value = 1.71e-5
t-stat = 4.78

The p-value is incredible and the t-stat supports this, but it is somewhat weak. Still, poverty is intricately entwined with homicide. However, see the next one...

Homicide Rate vs Median Income

Rate = 80-.0004(median income)

p-value = .02
t-stat = -2.34

Decent p-value support but t-stat shows otherwise. Money isn't a key determinant in homicide rates, which means people are poor for the same reason they're more suceptable to criminal activity. This means simply giving away money to reduce poverty levels won't solve anything.

This next one is rather entertaining, Homicide Rates vs Percentage of Population Living in a Metropolitan Area:

Rate = 34.1 + 176.42(Percentage of Population Living in a Metropolitan Area)

p-value = .01
t-stat = 2.55

Again, not a strong t-stat, but there is a correlation between living in a city and homicide rates. While somewhat weak, it does show that close living conditions have an impact on whether firearm violence will occur or not.

Homicide vs Gross State Product

Rate = 57.44 + 1.11e-5(Gross State Product)

p-value = .01
t-stat = 2.57

A stronger economy results in a better homicide rate.

Northern Illinois University - A Case Study as to Why Firearms Controls Fail

NIU, latest notch in the violent crime spree committed by a disturbed person belt. With the actions, there have sprung the predicted and usual cries of more gun control. The problem? Illinois is already as strict as you can get. Handguns in many municipalities are outright illegal, rifles have to be registered with the state, full background checks are performed (including mental heath) and concealed carry licenses are outright denied to everyone. To top things off, NIU is a "gun-free" zone, like Virginia Tech was when it was victim to its own shooting spree.

What I have to ask those calling for more gun control is this - what more can you actually do? Your state already has the strictest penalties against firearm ownership, harshest laws in place to outright promote not owning a gun and heavy fines for those that break even the most meager of laws. You've disarmed those dangerous CHL owners other states allow. By the way, CHL owners are the safest people on the planet, with violence rates lower than that of those "enlightened" people in Britain that have outright banned all guns.

It is time to admit that the concept of gun control is an outright failure. Stricter controls wouldn't have stopped the shootings. The individual would have still obtained his weapons, he was an otherwise sane individual before the event. He was a graduate student, had good grades and was thought of highly and by all accounts a peaceful member of society.

Things like this will happen, they will always happen. Laws are intangible pieces of paper that are only as good as the will of the individual to follow them. The question you have to ask yourself is do you want to be a victim or do you want a fighting chance in the odd chance encounter with one of these individuals choses to not follow a written decree you pass down? These events are surprise attacks, someone will always get hurt and almost always die. These actions are also fast, no matter how quickly the authorities show up, the event will always be over before then.

Ignore the sensationalism made out around the NIU shootings. I know it is hard, especially for those intimately involved, but it is important to keep a rational head. These shootings were not stopped, the gun laws didn't work, adding more won't change the results. It is time to understand that the NIU shootings were more than likely made worse by those laws and reevaluate the future of firearms regulations with that in mind; and understand that these events are exceedingly rare and there is no cause to be fearful of it happening again, just be prepared to respond if it does. Don't go down like the NIU students, arm yourselves, protect yourselves, because the police will never be able to save you if an armed lunatic bursts through your classroom or workplace door, flaunting the laws that you erected to keep him out.