The above map uses 2007 data from the CDC. Data on gun deaths since then may have changed since many states have since loosened their gun laws, notably states that have passed or strengthened stand your ground laws.
Please note that the 2007 data shows gun deaths are highest in the Deep South, Wyoming, Montana and Nevada. Gun deaths are lowest in Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Gun control laws are among the most strict in New York State. Richard Florida of the Atlantic noted last year, after the Gabby Giffords’ shooting spree, various factors that distinguished the rate of gun deaths among the states:
… Having a high percentage of working class jobs is closely associated with firearm deaths (.55).
And, not surprisingly, firearm-related deaths are positively correlated with the rates of high school students that carry weapons on school property (.54).
… Firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain (.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-.66). […]
Firearm deaths were far less likely to occur in states with higher levels of college graduates (-.64) and more creative class jobs (-.52).
Gun deaths were also less likely in states with higher levels of economic development (with a correlation of -.32 to economic output) and higher levels of happiness and well-being (-.41).
And for all the terrifying talk about violence-prone immigrants, states with more immigrants have lower levels of gun-related deaths (the correlation between the two being -.34). […]
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).
Make of these findings what you will.
Were other factors controlled for? Like, say, states enacting gun control laws also tend to be less unequal?
The US already has ridiculous amounts of guns and also has vast stretches of country that have maybe one cop per square mile; there simply won’t be a way to actually get rid of US guns. At best, you could hope that no new guns would be made.
Regulating the things is somewhat more likely to work, but even there I’m not at all sure that it would make a difference.
Ultimately, what is the real problem is the “sociopathy” of US culture: toxic, neverending competition with everyone; individualism; vast inequalities; and cowboy western style shoot first ask later mentality.
But one of the ways culture changes is how laws treat certain behaviors. Most people would agree that there would be more murder if we legalized murder, for instance. There will always be murder and there will always be gun nuts, but that doesn’t mean the perception-changing power of the law doesn’t exist. It all depends on how reasonable an argument you can make for the law, and therefore its credibility.
Among other things, that map looks remarkably similar to a Red/Blue map.
And out of curiosity, Steven: your text assumes that implementation of Stand Your Ground laws would correlate with an increased in accidental gun deaths. That doesn’t necessarily follow (though common sense suggests it well might) – has anyone run the numbers on that question? Is there a large enough sample size yet to draw any conclusions?
I meant to imply it would relate to an increase in “justifiable homicides” which I believe it has.
.
Poverty level by state Chart 2000 and Stats 2010 (Census U.S. Gov.)
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I would be very curious to see a similar study by county, with the same variables as at the state level but also some particular county-level variables, such as police presence per 1000 or presence of active community policing programs, to identify just two.
Firearm deaths with stricter gun control legislation specifically go to issues of unauthorized use or theft (gun locks and safes), impulse shootings (gun locks and safes), lethality (rapid-fire, high-capacity arms–what most people mean by “assault weapons”. It also likely creates an expectation (reflects current values) in the culture of the state.
A high percentage or working class jobs means a comparatively high percentage of job-related financial stress and more latchkey children. The first drives impulse shootings; the second is another source of unauthorized use of weapons.
The McCain/Obama variable is skewed by the presence of more southern tier states in the McCain column and more northern and western states in the Obama column. There is a regional culture variable hiding in this data. As well as rural-suburban-urban-small town variables. IMO, this correlation is useless without those other variables being teased out. Plus, McCain strength likely correlates with high NRA memberships per 1000 population.
Any venue that is the likely venue for impulse shootings – bars, high schools – will likely have higher rates associated with carrying. Would be interesting to see a county level study in a state that permits carrying to churches to see if the issue is the nature of the venue or the authorization (folks do carry illegally) to carry.
Given the fact that one has to show ID in most states when one purchases a weapon, the immigrant data is not surprising. It should probably be adjusted by the number of immigrants in possession of firearms (if that data is available).
Another missing variable is the ratio of illegal/stolen/legal firearms seized by police as part of gun death investigations.
The other interesting fact to notice is that even the high-incidence state have only 15-20 gun deaths per 100,000.
Yes, you can clearly see the impact of urban gun violence on the rates for Pennsylvania (Philly, Pittsburgh) and Michigan (Detroit). Why have New York City and Boston seen their gun violence go down while Philly’s has remained high?
We need to look at cities vs. cities and rural vs. rural.
That makes a PhD candidate in medical science going on a rampage all the more shocking.
You’re missing the time variable. Even if gun violence can be correlated to gun ownership levels or to lack of laws restricting gun ownership, it doesn’t change the fact the gun violence overall, like all forms of violence and crime are at record or near-record LOWS.
This is the case in low-gun, high restriction NY as it is in high-gun ownership, low restriction MS.
And although gun violence is still tragically higher among blacks, even that statistic is dropping along with the rest.
Even gun-caused deaths appear to be dropping since reaching a decade-high peak in 2006. So, I hate to point it out, but when you add the time variable showing crime dropping in high-gun states as much as in low-gun states, you don’t really have a clear case regarding gun ownership laws and public safety yet.
Why?
Even as gun violence rates drop everywhere, the still remain higher in states with weak gun laws.
Because the rate of decline might be faster in those states even if they are still higher at present. We need more data over time to make or refute that point.