Essential Analysisof Publicly AvailableFirearmData

Relations Effectiveness Proposed Measures and of

Compiled by: Personally Individually and EdwardF. Crowell,Attomey Southwest 913 SummitAvenue Iowa 52404 CedarRapids, (319)895-8941 Phone: Fax:(319) 363-3908 gmail.com ed.crowell.law@

NOTE:
Thefirstsections thisarticlearewrittenin a stylesimilarto those of publication used formalacademic for and distribution. getseasier readwhere analysis It to the stans. Please to theAnalysis page if thefirst parts skip on 2
give you a headache. That is why I did it that way.

DISCLAIMER:
This documentis the product and propertyof Edward Crowell in his individual capacity.Conclusions or representations law specificto Iowa law may be subjectto the rules and requirements attorneyethics,to the of of extentthat they are suchthat would requireprofessional legal expertise make.Conclusionsor representations to of any other law are not madeas an attorney,but as a private individual with the recognitionthat Edward Crowell is not licensedto practicelaw in any other Stateor FederalCourt. The validityof any datais the responsibility the source. While attempts of havebeenmadeto usereliable information, compilerof this information the cannot, an individual,independently personally as and verify the accuracy their presented of information. of or Questions the accuracy validity of the datausedshouldbe takenup with the sourceof the data. The informationcontainedherein,data,results,discussion, conclusions or may be distributed.If attributedthe entire documentmust be distributed.Edward Crowell claims no responsibilityfor any applicationto which it is put after distribution.attributedor not. EdwardCrowell is not now and has never beena memberof the NRA, Iowa Carry, or any other pro-gun, hunting,or firearm advocacygroup or organization. is not, and hasnever been,associated He with any suchorganizations and is not, and hasneverbeen,employedby any organizationnamedaboveor any similar organization. This document was producedat his own expense his own time and for his own purposes. on

Table of Contents
Abstract
ll

1 ) Introduction 2) Analysis
a. Iowa Murder and Non-NegligentHomicide acrossall Fifty US States b. Comparisons i. Brady Rank and Murder Rates ii. Gun Ownership and Murder Rates and Coefficientof Determination iii. Linear Regression iv. Gun Ownership and Brady Rank v. Relationshipof Gun Ownershipand Murder Rates vi. AlternateGun OwnershipData and Murder Rates vii. Relationshipwith 2002,2003,and 201I Murder Rates viii. Relationof LoadedFirearm in the Home and Murder Rates ix. Relationof LoadedFirearmand Loaded.Unlocked Firearm in the Home x. Relationof Loaded,Unlocked Firearmsand Murder Rates xi. Relationof Murder Ratesto eachother xii. Relationof PopulationDensity and Murder Rate xiii. Relationof Gun Ownershipand Percentof Murders committedwith Firearms xiv. Relationof Gun Ownershipand FirearmMurder Rate from RelationshipData and Analysis 3 ) Conclusions

2 3 5 5 7

8 9 9 9 11

13 l3 15 t7

t7 l9 20 20 2I 26

4) Alternate Rationale if there are or were Relation between Gun Ownership

and Murder Rates

s) Footnotes,Data, and Citations

outsideof the Data. 6) Other Considerations

Abstract
Objectives:To examinethe relationsof murderratesacrossthe 50 US states. gun control laws, firearm ownership,storageof hrearm information,and populationdensityusing publicly availabledataand simple, individually reproducible and verifiable analysismethods.To then examinethe relationsfor what conclusions can be drawn from thoseresultsand what they mean to the debateon firearm regulation. Methods: I personallycollectedand analyzed datausedand cited below. Murder Ratesare the from the relevantyear's FBI Uniform Crime Report,availableonline. Brady Rank was usedas a measure "gun control" laws, as reportedby the Brady Campaignto PreventGun Violence, of also availableonline. Gun ownershipdatawas usedfrom two sources. Sincethe data from those if sources what was actually used,citation is to thosedirectly. Original sources, any, are is contained the cited sourcematerial. in measures from the datashow Results: Basic linear regression and coefficientof determination no reliablerelationbetweenBrady Rank, Murder Rate,Gun Ownership(as ao/oof households), havinga loadedfirearm in the home, a unlockedloadedfirarm in the home, populationdensity, percentof murdersby firearm, or calculatedfirearm murder rate. calculated Significantrelationwas found betweenBrady Rank and Gun Ownership,as well as betweenthe murderratesof 2002,2003,and 201l. is Conclusions:The murder rate acrossthe 50 US states not statisticallyreliably relatedto including gun regulation, firearms.This lack of relationshipexistsacrossmultiple measures The lack of correlationof gun control to murder ratesmeansthat ownership, and accessibility. changes gun laws cannotbe expected show any reliableeffect on murder rates.This is the in to It by of caseboth for the increase and decrease gun regulationsor accessibility. is not supported that more guns leadsto less this datathat more guns leadsto more crime, nor is it supported crime. Correlationdoesnot provide informationas to what doesinfluencecrime rate differences but amongthe 50 states, it doesexcludefirearmsregulationand ownershipas a significant but factor.However,gun regulationdoesshow relationto gun ownership.This supports, does not prove,that gun laws do affect the law abiding individual's decisionsaboutpossessing that changes firearm regulationswill have no predictable in firearms.It is thereforeexpected gun effect on murderratesbut shoulddecrease ownership.If the goal of gun control includes reducingmurder,it is not shownthat it will actuallywork and indicatesthat efforts would bestbe directedelsewhere(without indicating where that may be). An alternateexplanation of any which is at leastas plausibleas guns causing positiverelationof crime and frrearmsis presented crime, in the eventany relation is found elsewhere.

l1

1. Introduction In the debate about gun control (a term used generally to refer to a range ofcurrent or potential laws regarding firearms) there are a wide ftmge of different numbers talked about and discussed.In my participation in the discussion about gun conhol I encounteredmany citations to data and work done by a huge variety of individuals, organizations, groups, universities, and govemment agencies.The data largely seemedto conflict in conclusions,and frequently did not agree as to the bass numbers for certain measures(such as "gun deaths" versus "firearm homicides"). I also encountereda frustrating lack of citation of sourcesof data.While this appearedmost common in less formal, betweenindividuals, debates,forums, and online commentaries,I also encounteredpublications which failed to cite the sourceof their numbers in a way which allowed me to verifr the data. Media reports from mainstream news sourceswere especially difficult to verify. I was not even able to make sure the source data was even correctly copied for analysis,let alone repeatthe analysis,examine the data for validity of collection or reporting methods, or make any comparison to similar data from a different source. This was true for both "gun control advocates"and "gun rights" supporting sources. Since I have frequently seenboth sidesof the debateclaim that murder rates,homicide assertedas support for arguments, rates,deaths,"gun deaths", or assortedviolent crime measures it is important to use reliable information. Becausethis is a debateit is important that everyone, but especiallythe opponentsof any conclusions,be able to examine and veriff (or disprove) the data or analysisbehind the conclusion. In the searchfor a measurewhich was relevant, readily available for verification, and from a source neutral to the gun debate I decided upon the Murder Rate for each state, as reportedby the FederalBuraou of Investigation (FBI) in the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Theseare published each year and available online for many different years. I cite directly to where the data used was taken, but independent location of the data is straightforward. Neutral were difficult to find in a readily or sourcesof gun ownership measures gun law measures available format. Some sourceswhich were reported to have interesting data or findings were only available with subscription,membership,or payment which preventedgeneralaccessibility to the full report. For that reasonI selectedsourceswhich, if biased,were more likely to be by biasedin favor of gun control. Gun control laws are represented the Brady Rank as prepared and published by the Brady Campaignto Prevent Gun Violence. Gun ownership data is taken from Pediatrics,the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Having found readily available and individually verifiable data, a method for determining the relation between different categories of interest was needed. I specifically wanted a method which did not require extensive mathematics background to accomplish, was visually apparent without complex analysis,yet capableof mathematicalcalculation of reliability for comparison or to support additional statistical methods. For this reason the representative measuresare comparedto each other in pairs using direct plotting. Theseplots are readily reproducedby the

The software. majorityof individual,by handif needbe,but alsowith readilyavailable programs and containsomeform of chartcreation trendline calculation. spreadsheet and Calcboth containthesefunctions are MicrosoftExcel andOpenOffice Specifically, commonlyavailable.Plotting the trend line with the datashows,visually, how well the dataset (r conformsto a patternor trend.While the calculatedequationandcoefficient of determination for they arenot strictly necessary general R2 squared, or r^2) give a numericalmeasure, conclusions be made. to of verification and comparison the includeddataandresultsis encouraged Independent their resultsor to me group,or agency doing so is encouraged contact regarding andanyperson, presented here. of anydiscussion my own results distributionit is for of the Because remainder this articleis alsointended independent the presented a muchlessformalstyle.While doingmy bestto maintainaccuracy, intentwas in or that canbe of useto thoseof limited background familiarity with alsowriting something stylepresentation. academic from here. Thatis: this formal stuffis hardto read.It is easier 2. Analysis I Justsothereareno surprises, do not favor gun control.Quitethe opposite. my I believemy life hasvalue,asdo the lives of my family andespecially child. I havea of and right to defendmyselffrom assault a duty to protectmy child. In the absence policeor thereis nobodyelse bad to unless theyhappen be right therewhensomething happens, soldiers, for At who mustprovidefor thatprotection. the very least,I am responsible myselfandmy child until the policea:rive.And whenthey do arrive,policedo not havean affirmativeduty to protect Court,2005).Theyhaveotherprioritiesthat may US Rockv Gonzales, Supreme me (Castle of increase safety,but they arenot requiredto keepme safe.Protectionof self and defense my policeandmilitary havethe toolsthey are and my child is my job. Protection defense the reasons they arethe bestfor thejob. Thosetoolsare have.And theyhavethe toolstheyhavebecause job tools,the besttools. reasons wantthe same I guns.Sincewe're doingthe same for the same police want them. I want assault for magazines the exactsamereasons I want extended the rifles for the samereasons military want them. a today.TodayI'm goingto present rangeof dataI've But that'snot goingto happen to and to developed providesomeperspective somebasicinformation form a basisfor deciding aboutgun controlin Iowa.

Homicide a. Iowa Murder and Non-Negligent First,let's talk aboutwhereIowa is, right now. I think that'simportantbeforewe talk aboutwhereto go. Iowa ranksnumber6 in the US for lowestmurderrateat I .5 per 100,000 population in 201I. Aheadof us is Hawaii at 1.2,New Hampshire, RhodeIslandandVermontin a threeway per 100,0001. tie at 1.3,andMinnesota 1.4 at That's something be proudof. Whatthatmeans to is that in 2011therewere46 murders non-negligent and manslaughters. the wholeyear.For For thewholestate. In thetime from 1960to 2010.Iowa hasnot hadmorethan80 murders a veal. Let's in
seewhat that looks like. shall we?

Manslaughter Murderandnonnegligent
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1950

That spike at the right? 2008. Flood. Natural disasterswill do that. So that's our first bit of perspective:Iowa doesnot have a lot of murder (and nonnegligent homicide). For comparisonit is better to use rates.That way we don't get lost in the difference between a statewith ten million citizens and a statewith one million. The rate is calculatedas how many for every 100,000people in the state.So here's that in a chart:

rate manslaughter Murderandnonnegligent

I I
I
I I I t

i
i
I
I

I I I

'80's, the murderratetopped2.5 per At the worst,duringthe late '70's andearly (with #1 being Dakota ratefor #13 South that For 100,000. perspective, is the2011murder So, lowestmurderrateand50 highest). at our worstwe wereaboutasbadas SouthDakota today. 46 or with 1.5per 100,000 about how you sliceit, Iowais only dealing No matter homicide.The FBI datasays19of a murders year.And that's ALL mwder andnon-negligent 10 0 thosewerewith firearms3 handguns, rifles,2 shotguns, firearms(typeunknown),10 17 5 10 knivesor cuttinginstruments, otherweapons, hands/fists/feet/pushed/ect). right to That's something be proudof. I think it is fair to sayIowa is doing something with numberslike that. FIRSTPOINT: IOWA DOESNOT HAVE A GLINPROBLEM of We havethe sixth lowestmurderratein the nation(andthat'sonly because a three us between and#l lowestmurderrateHawaii is: .2 per The way tie for second). difference That'saboutor lessthanthe yearto yearvariationin murderrate.The only thing 100,000. us separating from #lis the randomvariationof yearto year.And only l9 involving gunsat all weapons"). by no (by the way, sincetherewerezerorifles, thatmeans murders "assault that up. Please don't mess haveamong we murders, already to Iowa doesnot needgun controlor changes reduce with other crime the lowestmurderratesin the nation.The datais therefor the comparison thanI'm already but statistics, murderis the big one,so let's not makethat morecomplicated goingto makeit.

b. Comparisonsacrossall fifty US States Overallthe nationis talking abouta gunproblem.I think I've shownIowa doesn'thave one. But let's go ahead assume and thereis a gun problemin the US. Further,let'ssimplifr the talk to what hasreally setthis all off: firearm murders.Specificallythe shootingat Newtown. Let me be clear,that massacre a lone madmanwas andwill remaina tragedy.The by emotional response shouldbe dramatic whenso manychildrenarekilled. However, that is a poor basisfor legislation. Legislation shouldbe based reasonable on means achieve to realistic goalsandbased the bestinformationavailable. on I put forth that gun control doesnot fit thosecriteria. And I'11demonstrate several that waysaswe go along. i. Brady Rank and Murder Rates First, in the debateaboutgun control therearea lot of numbersand statisticstalked about.Crime rates,murderrates,different states, different countries,different years.Therearea proposed, lot of regulations bans, magazine limits, background checks, tests, training.In an effort to get something that doesn'trequireadvanced mathematics understand, wantedto to I compare amountof gun control in eachUS statewith the murderrate in that state. the Crimedatafor eachstateis collected published the FBI andmurderratesfor each and by statein 20ll ne availabler. Measuring overallgun lawsof a statewould be difficult for one the person, The BradyCampaign Prevent but to Gun Violencerankseachstateon the basisof their gun controllaws.Thoserankings available gun are onlineaswella.By comparing state's a controlrank andtheir murderratewe shouldbe ableto seemoregun controlleading less to murder. CHART 15 12
<)

A 1 0 o
o =
E

o g g
t o
E

6
A

a
. o^ o t

j a t

a
o
f1,

t
t

(5

o
l<)

a
10 20

' i' i. i
40

30 Rank Brady

50

60

plotsthe BradyRankagainst MurderRate,thereis no the Lookingat the chart,r,vhich tied themselves5, l0 states at the trend.Thepointsareall overthe place.Looking at the numbers For the 39thby BradyRankhavemurderratesfrom 2.5 to 7.5 per 100,000. comparison, national average 4.71.The dataalsoshows is that California,ratedbestfor gun control,hasa murderrate of 4.8, morethandoubleof worstratedUtah's1.9.California'smurderrateis four timesthat of murder rate(Hawaii,1.2per 100,000). the lowest I In orderto haveeasier numbers compare usedthe murderratefrom the FBI Uniform to CrimeReportfor 2011to rank eachstateby murderratefrom 1, lowestmurderrate,to 50, murder rate6. highest CHART 26

60 50 40
.Y

t 3 0 p
o

(U

g 2 0
10

BradyRank

If gun control works, better gun control should mean less murder. In that case,the Brady Rank and the Murder Rank should be similar. This would be seenin the chart as the dots following some sort of line. Ideally, low Brady Rank (indicating "good" gun laws) would also have low Murder Rank (meaning low murder rate). If that were the case,we would seea line starting in the lower left and sloping upwards to the upper right of the chart. That just isn't what the data shows.Number one Brady stateCalifornia is 32ndfor murder rate. Dead last Brady state Utah is seventhbest in the nation for murder rate. The Brady Rank and Murder Rank just don't match up. If gun control works, it should savelives and reducecrime. If anyonecan reliably evaluatea state'sgun control, The Brady Campaign should be able to. If anyonecan provide useful murder rates,the FBI should be able to. Using what should be reliable numbers,a state's gun control doesn'tseemto have any relation to murder rate. If it doesn'treducemurder, should we be seriously considering gun control?

I don't know if gun control hasworked for other countriesor othertimes,but I think comparinggun control ranksandmurderratesshowsgun control doesn'twork now, here. ii. Gun Ownership and Murder Rates However, BradyRankcouldbe subjective. don't think so astheyusea fairly the I specificanddetailed to "scorecatd" gettheir rankingnumbers. Oneof the numbers seerelating I to gun control claimsthat with increasinggun ownershipyou get increasingmurder.So,we can plot that aswell.

GunOwnaro/o MurderRate ls
12
o o o o o
r

o a a
t a '

10

o og o E.

o E
f

2 0 0,000

a a

a a

a ia
af"

10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000

GunOrvnership %

No relationship. Really,that's scattered overthe place.States all with very closenumbers for gun ownershiphavewidely varying murderrates.For that to happen,gun ownershipmustnot be a measurable factorin murderrates. iii. Linear Regression and Coefficientof Determination Now, a sideforay into somestatistics.Whentwo thingstendto showup together they arerelatedandthis canbe calculated a correlation. as Reallyall thatmeans theytendto is happen together(whatevertogethermay be in the datayou're talking about).The more one they are.If they alwayshappen happens the sametime asthe other,the more correlated at togetherthat would showhigh correlation.For the chartsabove,if the two things we are interested arerelatedtherewould be somekind of line (andmaybenot a straightone) or a in of pattem.The betterthe datafits a line the morereliablethat is. A measure how accuratelya The mathto get it is a pain, but most line fits the datais the R2 (coefficientof determination). from -1 to 1. The closerthatvalueis to programs calculate for you. R2 ranges will it spreadsheet

1 or -1, the betteryour line is for predictingdata(thebetterit "fits"). A goodfit means that havingonething is a goodway to predictthe other.The closerto 0 it is, the lessyour data"fits" the trend.A bad fit means that having onething doesn'ttell you anythinguseful aboutthe other. If you havea goodfit a positiveR2means theytendto occurtogether a negative that and one means theytendto excludeeachother(you get oneandnot the other).
Shall we seewhat that can look like? Gun Ownership and Brady Rank

BradyScorevs Gunl\4easures
70.000 60 000 50.000
I

T
I lrrlrl
;-l

l r

s
o

40 000 30.000 20.000 I 10.000 I 0.000

=
c

f I
tr'
I T

lr T I
I

l r
T

I
+ (x) = 0.6t 15180795x 21.0887814916 R'z=0.5074959296

(,

10

20

30
BradyRank

40

50

60

The Brady Rank is the sameas before, and so is the Gun Owner Yo.Evenwithout the line in there we can seethis data is much less scattered.We can also seethe R2 is .507. This isn't I and isn't 0, it is somewherebetween.If we really wanted to make a model to predict new data we could evaluateexactly what that means.We don't need that much detail. For our pu{poses, it's enoughto say that Brady Rank and the percent of homes owning a gun are correlated,though not perfectly. This isn't terribly surprising. The Brady Rank is basedon gun control laws, gun control laws make getting guns harder, so fewer people own them. This is a good time to consider another statistical truism: Correlation is not causation. What this meansis that just becausetwo things are related that doesn't mean one causesthe other. Sometimesthey have the samecause,sometimesit really just is co-incidence(they happen people to to occur together). In this case,it would be unreasonable claim the Brady Rank causes to own or not own guns. However, the Brady Rank is basedon gun laws and gun laws would affect how many people get guns. Since they have a similar cause,they show relation to each other.

While correlation not causation, is causation musthavecorrelation. Basicallythat summarizes two thingsthat arerelatedneednot causeeachother(oneleadingto the other), as but if two thingsdo cause eachotherthenthey willbe related because theyare related.
v. Relationship of Gun Ownership and Murder Rates So, doesmurder rate increaseas gun ownership increases?

Rate GunOruner vsMurder %

12
o o o o

10
8

+ (x)= 0.0142916808x3.66M613016 ff = 0.0087552909

a a a a aa

g
o E o)
E

6
4

' a o a o

2
0 0.000

"

.t'

10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 % Gun Ownership

to that a line is a badfit. This datashowsno relationship the Nope.Very low R2,meaning is Basically,gun ownership a badpredictorfor murderrate(at leastthis setof murderratess. ownerdataandthe 2011murderrates). vi. A.lternateGun Ownership Data and Murder Rates as that claimeduscarry.com the datacamefrom a website To be fair the aboveownership So, of source its data.I couldn't find it thereandcouldn'ttrackit backto an originalsource. I is source welle.Pediatrics hardly"gun friendly" sotheir datashouldnot be as usedanother to gun control. Whenplotting their gun ownership%o Murder biasedin any way favoring less Ratefor 2011we getlo: vii. Relationshipwith 2002,2003'and 2011Murder Rates

pediafics 2@2onmership plots data

12 10 I 6 4 2 0 10 20 A
A A A A

+ 3.6803705151 (x) = 0.019aa73@tx = 0.0087186561 RP

4 e +
A A

A A
A . A A A .

A A

a
30

r
40

A
50 60 70

% anyhoushold firearm

murder

s:

pediafics 2W2o^,nership plob data

14 12 10 I 6 4 2 0 30 40 50 60 70
firearm % anyhoushold

t
)p

F
a delay,bettercheck2003. Hmm...maybe yeaf,'s

10

pediafics2002ownership plots data

14 12 10 8 6 { {
<fi

< 2003Murder nonnegligent and manslaughter rate

o 2
0

a
{ { {

{q

a {
10 20 30 40 50

60

70

houshold firearm % any

Not anybetter.I haven'tput in trendlinesbecause obviousthat this is too scattered it's to be useful. viii. Relation of Loaded Firearm in the Home and Murder Rates with a gun of any morethanjust a percent households of ThePediakics articleincluded would of with loadedguns.Gun controladvocates type.They alsolistedpercent households situationand someone could go off the handleand graba likely saythat's a pretty dangerous murder,right? loadedgunat anytime. That'sboundto increase rate: 2011murder

(LOCKED UN)rNHOTUE LOADED OR

60 50 40 30 20 10
gt)

+ (x) = 1.573638638x 13.137494ffi

.
O

a
.

tJ'
ao t o
o bradyrank for Linear Regression brady rank

.i.
. !to av

t ^ i " t ? r
^ ?.r. aat

10

15

20

25

in loaded firearm home 7o

2002

^ 2002Murder nonnegligent and rate manslaughter 4.468ll 899x + 2.7457 Kx) = 0.2429041 14 Linear Regression 2002 for K = O.'|IB704,O22S and 1 2 Murder nonnegligent manslaughter rate 10 I 6 4 2 0
10 A A1 A A 1 A
A

(LOCKED UN)lN l-lOf\,lE LOADED OR

!r

A IA

l ^ a Aaa i^
A A A A A

A A

15

20

25

% loadedfirearmin home

2003

> 2003Murder nonnegligent and rate manslaughter (x) = 0.25551ffi773x+ 2.75064,52709 14 \ K = 022 O2Ul ficr Linear Regression 2003 Murder nonnegligent and 12 nate manslaughter 10 I 6 4 2 0 5 1 0

(LOCKED UN)lN l-lOI\4E OR LOADED

->> ;>

>;
15 20
25
in % loadedfirearm home

t2

To be fair, it doesshowa positiveslopeindicatinga hendof highermurderratesin states with higherpercentage homes of containing loadedfirearm.However, bestR2of .25is still a the not a goodfit. That'sbeinggenerous; typically I'd saythat's not a statistically relevant relationship.Therearetoo manypoints that vary too much for loadedfirearmsin the hometo be a goodpredictorof murderrates. relation,again. No ix. Relationof LoadedFirearm and Loaded,UnlockedFirearm in the Home ThePediatrics datadoesgive somerelationships, instance, for across states, all homes with a loaded firearmcorrelates percentage homes to of with a loaded unlocked and firearmvery well. Justsowe canseewhat a trendwould look like if we hadone.

(LOCKED UN)tN HOIUE LOADED OR

14 12 10 8 6 4 2l 0 0 (x) = 0.61627 11x + 0.0185702232 161 ff = 0.9607340708
I

l r

rrf

1rr

r r=tt

I
r Loaded unlocked and Household Firearm, Linear Regression Loaded for andunlocked Household Firearm.

rF10 15 in % loaded firearm home

20

Which makes sense.If you have a lot of homes with loaded guns, a number of them are going to not be locked up. What is interesting is that the relation is remarkably stableacross different statesand overall ownership, meaning people will either keep them locked or not without influence from much anything else. Like gun control laws. x. Relation of Loaded, Unlocked Firearms in the Home and Murder Rates Since we have numbers for the percentageof homes with loaded and unlocked guns and murder rates,surely having unsecured,loaded firearms relatesto higher murder!

l3

. 2O1'l rate murder per100k 1 2 '. Linear Regression for2Otl nate murder per100k 10 I
O

(x) = 0.30S27078x+ 2.7?2 41il5 FF=O. 55

6 4
-J

a a ao

a a ' a

_ /- o

fr

a oo a
6

2 0

..f '
2

a
8 10

12

14

loadedand unlocked%

| 2002Murderand nonneslioent (x manslaughter rate 14 Rl3 Linear Regression w2(ft2 and 12 Murder rnnnegligent rate manslaughter

55x + 2'9533843506

10 I 6 4 2 0
0 2

v
Y Y YV -

v v
f tw
Y W Y
6

v
'r i V y

Iv y v v
Y

tt
VV y

vv

t '
4

12

14

% and unlocked loaded

l4

^ 2003Murder nonnegligent and manslaughter rate + 2.9323799777 (x) = 0.37S0q19799x 14 Linear Regression 2003 RF 0.191 8803 for = Murder nonnegligent and 12 manslaughter rate 10 8
A A A A

6 4 2 0
A A A A A

A A

4 ^
A A AA
A

^ l
A A

lra
A

4r

A
l

l^

10

12

14

loadedand unlocked%

Wow, no relationagain.Someupwardslope,but the Rf valuesarelow, so it's not gunshas...nothing do with to to reliable.Beginning look like havinggunsandevenunsecwed murder. xi. Relationof 2011,2002,and2003Murder Ratesto eachother handy,I decided to and SinceI hadthe 2011,2002, 2003murderratesfor all the states thosewould show.Hereit is: takea look at whatcomparing 2002vs2003
14 )' 12 10
o

+ 0.4174307928 (x) = 0.9320534609x R'z= 0.9317767528

E
L

0)
!
F

I 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8
I

>|'

(o o o c\l

r 2003Murder nonnegligent and rate manslaughter ' Linear Regression 2003 ficr Murder nonnegligent and rate manslaughter

12

14

murder rate 2002

15

20ll vs 2003

12 10
8

(x) = 1.1255063227x+ 0.024120/,066 = R'z 0.8147415502 . 2003Murder nonnegligent and manslaughter rate Linear Regression 2003 for Murder nonnegligent and manslaughter nate

a.

4 2 0 4 6 8 10

12

rate 2011 murder per100,000

20ll vs2002

14 12 10 I 6 4 2 0 0 / 4 6 8 ./ /

- 0.2751985863 f(x)= 1.1719445o46x = 0.8246!9605 R2

.2002 Muderandnonnegligent rate manslaughter \ Linear tor Regression 2002 Muderandnonnegligent rate manslaughter

10

12

rate murder per100,000 2011

than .8' of 2002and2003mgrderratesarefair predictors 2011murderrates,R2greater What's both interestingand a bit obviousin hindsightis that the 2002murderratesarevery good that havehigh murdertend to have Places predictorsof the 2003rates.What canwe conclude? for later. Sarne low murderrate high murderandtendto havehigh murderratesevena decade

16

states. Whatmakes this especially interesting how muchhaschanged is since2002andhow different the states from eachother,but the murdertrendsarepretty stable. are Almost like expiration the AssaultWeapon of Ban,changes statelaws,increases in in concealed carq/,andotherchanges gun lawshasno relationat all to murderrate. in I am not claimingthat moregunsmeans lesscrime.I don't seethat in this data.I also don't seethat lessgunsmeans crime.WhatI seeis that murderratesshowno relationover less time or within 2011to BradyRank(asa measure gun control),gun ownership reported of (as by the usliberals.about.com the Pediatrics or data),havingloadedguns,or evenloaded and gunsin the home. unlocked xii. Relation of PopulationDensity of the 50 Statesand Murder Rate that murderwashigherin states with no largecitiesAND claimedby I sawit argued somethat states with largecitieshavemoremurder.So,whataboutmurderratesandpopulation densitv?

Population Density 2011Murder \6 Rate

12
o a o o o o o. o (U o o
E

+ (x) = {.016062425x 4.61 5591 8367 ff = 0.0131579775

10 8
I I T I T I I 10 I T l T

6
4 a 2 0 0 I

r -r
I t 20 30 T f

taa

j',l.
50 60

40

(square miles) Population density

that densityisn't the issue. 0.013?That'sprettyconclusive population xiii. Relation of Gun Ownership and Percentof Murders committedwith Firearms would decrease is Anotherpoint that getsmentioned that restrictingguns,obviously, and right?Well, that'sthe assumption oneI did not I firearmmurders. mean,that'sobvious, won't meana legalaccess that I argument restricting However, havealsoseen initially question. therewasa legitimatepoint to be madethat firearmhomicides thing to criminals.So,it seems

t7

may or may not be relatedto legalgun access. FBI alsoreportstotal murders a countof The (as how manyratherthana rate)anda breakdown weapon by usedin Table20 of the UCn3.fhe fraction of murderscommittedby firearm is calculated dividing the numberof firearms by murders reported the total numberof murders. percentage, belowjust to give a more by The used easilyreadscale, the fractionmultipliedby onehundred is percent. This againuses Table20 the 20ll datawithtwo notes:Alabama not have201| data, 2010wasusedinstead. did so Florida did not haveeitheryear and wasthrown out. I did not want to useolder numbersthat may not compare with other states.

t %omurder firearm by LinearRegression o/o for murderby firearm

+ f(x) : 0.0245357472x 59.5824982226 Rlz:0.0006443752
A

A A A

a
A A t

^ a a ^ t A ^

A 1

30

40

70

gun owrership % of households

Even being charitable,the slope is very small. Even with very good relation betweenthe two, gun ownership would have very little effect on the percentageof murders commifted with firearm (accordingto this data).Looking at the chart the full range is a difference of about 3Yoof of murders for the firll range of 0-70%o householdswith firearms. However, the R2 is very, very small. What little relation is shown is completely unreliable. Once again, even looking at what is assumedto be an obvious result, guns and murder do not relate.

18

xiv. Relation of Gun Ownership and CalculatedFirearm Murder Rate For the same previously, reasons directnumbers crimesarenot really comparable. of Rates, incidence 100,000 the per population, moreeasilyusedfor comparison. usingthe are So, % of murderscommittedby firearm aboveandthe murderrates,we cancalculatea Firearm Murder Rate.This is doneby multiplying the fraction of murderscommittedby firearm andthe MurderRate.So,if a statehasa MurderRateof 4 per 100,000 50% (.5) of their murders and are committed firearm,the FirearmMurderRatewould be 2 per 100,000 * .5). by (4

< murder rate* o/o frearm(firearmmurder by r:ate) Linear Regression murder " o/o f rearm(firearm for rate by murder rate) 10 + 2.4247806795 (x) = 0.002S225515x R2= 0.00393 82373

a <

d
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 gunownershipofhouseholds %

So,just to wrap it up, not eventhe rate of firearm specificmurdersrelatesto how many haveguns.More gunsdoesnot evenleadto moremurderspecificallycommittedwith homes relationship. And that onewassupposedly guns.Insignificant slopeandtotally unreliable logicallyobvious.

t9

from RelationshipData and Analysis 3. Conclusions with of Now, I do think that this repetitivecomparison differentmeasures murderrates Using to murderessentially disproven. for makes argument gun controlasa means reduce the simpledata murderrates,bradyranks,crime rates,andgun ownerrankswe canseethereis no thingsdo relate,but trendor pattern. cangive it a numberof how goodthe fit is. Some We to nothingaboutgunshererelates murder. SECONDPOINT: GI-]NSDO NOT RELATE TO MURDER with no relation gunswill not reduce murder.More precicesly, regulating Therefore, thereis no firearmmurderrates, evenspecifically gun and between ownership murderrates, in thengun controlcan not reliablyleadto a decrease murder. If causation. thereis no causation If thereis a reductionin murderafter gun regulationit cannotbe attributedto the regulations. 4. Alternate Rationaleif a Relation betweenGun Ownership and Murder Rateswere shown Onemorenail in that coffin, bearwith me. that gun and perfecl correlation between ownership murderrates, Evenif you could show that conclusively, murder.Evenif the datashowed, doesn'tmeangun controlwould reduce with low ownership and with high murderratesalsohadhigh gun ownership that states states to alwayshadlow murderrates,gun controlis still not, in anyway, guaranteed work. no Let's go througha thoughtexperiment, math remember? is Correlation not causation, needed: always,thereis high grrnownership. Suppose in high murderrateareas, that always,thereis low gun ownership, Suppose in low murderrateareas, that for are the with mwder ratesbetween extremes alsoin between that Suppose for all states gun ownership. beinggiven,is therea way to explainthemwheregun control Now, with thatcorrelation ineffective? would be completely are How aboutthis: what if peoplein high murderrateareas morelikely to own guns are Whatif peoplein low murderratestates less they because are in high murderrate states. they because arein a placewith low murderrates? likely to own gunsprecisely In that situationchanginggun laws do nothing for murderrates,murdersarenot caused by is gun by gunownership, ownership caused murders.

20

Justwhat if: gunsdon't causecrime and death,but crime anddeathcause peopleto own gunsto defend themselves with? Wouldn't that tum this wholething on its head? Peoplearenot entirely randomor idiots. Wherethereis danger,peoplewant to protect themselves. Gunsarethe toolsfor that. So if we applyOccam'sRazor,whatmakes moresense: 1. Gunscause crimeandmakepeoplemoreviolent anddeadly OR peoplegetthemselves gun 2. Wherethereis crime,violence, death, and a FINAL POINT: EVEN IF GUNSAND CRIME / DEATH / MURDER ARE RELATED. YOU CANNOT CONCLUDEGUNS CAUSECzuME If we cannot,evenwith a perfectcorrelationbetweengunsand crime, reliably conclude gunsbe an answer a crimeproblem? that gunscause crime,why would regulating to I thankyou for takingthetime to readthis andconsider numbers. hopethis helps the I you makea decision gun controll2. on

EdwardCrowell POBox 216 lA CedarRapids, 52406 Data,and Citations: 5. Footnotes, 5, on 1. FBI Uniform CrimeReportdatafor 2011murderrateswasdownloaded January 1/crime-in-the-u.s.2013, from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/201 2011/tables ltable-4 Statistics UCR DataOnline,http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/. 2. Uniform CrimeReporting prepared theNationalArchiveof Criminal by FBI, Uniform CrimeReports, Sources: Jan Justice Data. Dateof download: ll2013. l20lllcrime-in-the-u.s.3. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s ltable-2D 2011/tables report werecopiedfrom the BradyCampaign staterankings 4. BradyCampaign 5,2013,from January downloaded 1-Brady Campaisn 1/201 http://www.brad)'campaign.org/xshare/stateleg/scorecard/201 Rankings.pdf State-Scorecard 5. The datausedfor ChartI is below(shownin orderof bestto worstBradyRank)
State California Brady RankMurder Rate(per 100,000) 4.8 I

2l

New Jersey Massachus NewYork Connecticut Hawaii Maryland RhodeIsland Illinois Pennsylvania Michigan North Carolina Colorado

2
J

AI Ds

4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 ll 12 l5 l5 l5 l7

v
Ge T sse Iowa Maine Ohio New Hampshire

v
N Nevada sas sas Mississippi Mis NewM o SouthDakota WestV Wyoming Florida Wisconsin Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Montana NorthDakota

t7 1E l9 22 22 22 25 25 25 27 27 29 29 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 4l 4l 47 47 47 47 47

4.3 2.8 4 3.6 1.2 6.8 1.3 5.6 5 6.2 5.3 2.9 2.1 2.4 6.3 t.4 4.5 3.7 5.6 6.E 5.8 1.5 2 4.4 1.3 1.3 3.6 5.2 5.5 4.8 3.8 8 6.1 7.5

2.s
4.4 4.3 3.2 5.2 2.4 2.3 3.5 tt.2 2.E 3.5

22

Oklahoma Alaska Aizana Utah

47 50 50 50

5.5 4 6.2 1.9

The Brady Rankingsset states scoringthe sameastied at the surme rank, using the lowestnumberin the tied seriesasthe rank.

6. The datafor Chart2 is below,in orderof lowestto highest MurderRank(1 is lowest murderrate,50 is highest).
State Hawaii RhodeIsland New Hampshire Vermont Minnesota Iowa Utah Maine Oregon Idaho Washington Wisconsin SouthDakota Massachusetts Montana Colorado Wyoming Kentucky North Dakota Connecticut Nebraska Virginia Kansas New York Alaska New Jersey WestVirginia Ohio Texas Delaware California Indiana BradyRank 6 8 27 27 t7 25 50 25 l5 47 15 4l 39
J

47 l5 39 47 47 5 29 l9 39 4 50 2 39 25 39 l8 I 39

Murder Rank I 4 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 12 12 l3 l5 l5 t6 t7 l9 t9 2l 2l 22 23 25 25 27 27 29 29 30 32 32

23

Pennsylvania Nevada Florida North Carolina

Arkansas
Oklahoma Illinois Georgia Tennessee Missouri Michigan Arizona Alabama Maryland SouthCarolina New Mexico Mississippi Louisiana

10 29 4l t2 39 47 9 22 22 39 ll 50 t7 7 22 39 39 47

JJ

35 35 36 38 38 40 40 41 42 44 44 45 47 47 48 49 50

The Brady Rankingsset statesscoringthe sameastied at the samerank, usingthe lowestnumberin the tied seriesasthe rank. I havedonethe samefor Murder Rank. 7 . http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election20l2Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-OfEachStates-Population.htm 8 . Datafor the chartis below.
BRADYRANK GUNOWNER% MURDER 6 6.700 27 30.000 12.800 8 42.0N 27 l7 4r.700 42.900 25 43.900 50 40.500 25 15 39.800 47 55.300 33.100 l5 44.400 4l s6.600 39
J

TE

Hawaii New Hampshire Rhode Vermont Minnesota Iowa Utah Maine Oregon Idaho Washinglon Wisconsin SouthDakota Massachusetts Montana Colorado Wyoming

47 l5

39

t2-600 s7.700 34.700 59.700

1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.9 2 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.2

24

Kentucky North Dakota Connecticut Nebraska Virginia Kansas Alaska NewYork New Jersey West Ohio Texas Delaware Califomia Indiana Pennsylvania Florida Nevada North Carolina Arkansas Oklahoma Georgia Illinois Tennessee Missouri Aizona Michigan Alabama Maryland SouthCarolina NewMexico Mississippi Louisiana

41 47 ) 29 t9 39 50 4 2 39 25 39 l8
I

39 l0 4l 29 t2 39 47 22 9 22 39 50 1r t7
n
I

)', 39 39 47

47.700 50.700 16.700 38.600 35.100 42.100 s7.800 18.000 12,300 55.400 32.400 35.900 25.500 21.300 39.100 34.700 24.500 33.800 41.300 55.300 42.900 40.300 20.200 43.900 41.700 3l . 1 0 0 38.400 5l,700 2r.300 42.300 34.800 55.300 44.100

3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.8 4 4 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.8 4.8
f

5.2 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.8 6.8
t.)

8 Il.2

9. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content-nw/fullll1613le370l 10.I haveincludedthe actualdatafor the first charts.I do not for the rest.The datais easily Anyonewanting availableandputting the numbersin just addslengthwithout purpose. not my numbersor any sources cited can feel free to contactme at com law@,email. andI' ll providethem. ed. crowell.
Il.

ltable-2D 2011/tables

25

Outside of the Data 6. Other Considerations My 12. of I dispositive. In the interest beingthorough, don't actuallyfind the numbers is based the fact that my life hasvalue and I havethe right to defendmy life decision on from assault. Self-defense a right supported is evenby Ghandi.With theright to selfcomes right to the toolsto defend a defense myself.Thereis no reason denyme the to besttools for my family andmyself.Thebesttoolsfor stopping violent criminalsarethe policeandmilitary use,which is why they usethem.Therefore, deserve best I the ones myselfandmy family from assault, it a lone criminal,gffig, mob,riot, be toolsto defend in the future,real or potential. invadingafiny, or domestic tyranny,now or I usedto supportgun controlso it seemed Hewever, frequentlyseenumbers If way I couldconceive. guncontrol thosenumbers the simplest in worthwhileto dispute There thereshouldbe at leastsomeeffecton murderrates. worksat all like I seeclaimed, to effectdirectlyon firearmsmurders showup is none.Thereis not evena largeenough just affectedgun if in the overallmurderrate.I mentionthis because gun controleven of murders,given the largepercentage murderscommittedwith guns,it shouldbe in apparent the overall murderrate.Again, it is not. Evenmoretelling, when a firearm there still is no relation. specificmurderrateis used, If is the Finally,rightsexistagainst govemment. someone giving a talk, telling themto shutup andyell I of their freedom speech, canstandarotrnd exercising be overthem,blastan air horn,wavearounda flag andgenerally infringingon the I of exeroise their right asall getout. I cankick themright off my propertybecause don't of of like whattheyhaveto say.Noneof which triggersprotection freedom speech from actsof the I actor.I havea right to arms,protected because am not a govemment and for State. Thereis no right to safety, one.For two, the hazards fearsthey claim are the individuals ruling laws Between they'refrom individuals. not from the government, battery,wrongfuldeath, assault, negligence, of interaction thingslike harassment, are unless the actionneeded amendment that reckless endangerment, sortof thing.No second Statewantsto insert itself.

26