If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   In a development no one could have seen coming, study shows that murders in Missouri have jumped 63% since the state repealed background check requirements for handgun purchases in 2008, while no neighboring state saw a similar jump   (rawstory.com) divider line 214
    More: Obvious, Missouri, handguns, murders, licensing laws  
•       •       •

4592 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2014 at 1:48 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-17 11:08:37 AM
Did the state of Missouri repeal the *FEDERAL* requirement for a background check?
 
2014-02-17 11:18:34 AM
I often wonder how many people sit around and think "I'd really like to kill that guy...if only I could legally get a handgun..."
 
2014-02-17 11:18:47 AM
Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.
 
2014-02-17 11:21:17 AM

dittybopper: Did the state of Missouri repeal the *FEDERAL* requirement for a background check?



Does that apply to unlicensed sellers?
 
2014-02-17 11:27:18 AM

Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.


Blues_X: dittybopper: Did the state of Missouri repeal the *FEDERAL* requirement for a background check?


Does that apply to unlicensed sellers?


I thought the law Obama proposed would extent these regs to unlicensed sellers as well, no? That would imply there are no current fed laws on this.
 
2014-02-17 11:40:14 AM
private sales in most states do not require background checks...
 
2014-02-17 12:26:12 PM

Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.


I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48


Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don't seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was "need a permit")

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it's 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I'm not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I'd say "Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study".  But they didn't.  They dropped right back down to near the average, and it only took me a few minutes to figure out with publicly available data that there is something funny going on statistically.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-02-17 12:26:31 PM
Nearly all the gun owners I know (including myself) are in favor of background checks.  A couple are just batshiat crazy and think everyone should have a gun and just shoot anyone who commits a crime.
 
2014-02-17 12:29:37 PM

NFA: Nearly all the gun owners I know (including myself) are in favor of background checks.


I'm not in favor of universal background checks, and while opinions may vary somewhat, I am reasonably sure that I'm not batshiat crazy.
 
2014-02-17 12:30:50 PM

Blues_X: dittybopper: Did the state of Missouri repeal the *FEDERAL* requirement for a background check?


Does that apply to unlicensed sellers?


You mean "private individuals"?
 
2014-02-17 12:37:00 PM
I would be in favor of background checks if they actually kept criminals from getting guns...they of course don't...
 
2014-02-17 12:42:58 PM

dittybopper: Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):


Seems pretty open and shut.
 
2014-02-17 12:59:48 PM

DamnYankees: dittybopper: Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Seems pretty open and shut.


In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49   
       ----------  -----
       23,268,357 1,552    6.67 <------ 4 year prior average rate

2008    5,923,916    474    8.00  <-- First year bump.

2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48
       ----------  -----
       23,988,152  1,612    6.72 <------ 4 year post average rate.


That's an increase of 6.72-6.67 = 0.05 per 100,000 a year, so an extra 3 people per year at the 2012 population level.  Maybe.  That number is so small, I doubt it is statistically significant and it would be swallowed up by the normal "noise".
 
2014-02-17 01:05:19 PM

dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?


Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.
 
2014-02-17 01:10:51 PM

DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.


OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.
 
2014-02-17 01:13:41 PM

dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.


No.
 
2014-02-17 01:14:46 PM

DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.


Yes.
 
2014-02-17 01:15:03 PM

dittybopper: That's an increase of 6.72-6.67 = 0.05 per 100,000 a year, so an extra 3 people per year at the 2012 population level. Maybe. That number is so small, I doubt it is statistically significant and it would be swallowed up by the normal "noise".


That crazy devil... always hiding in the details.
 
2014-02-17 01:29:17 PM

dittybopper: Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.

I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48

Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don't seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was "need a permit")

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it's 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I'm not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I'd say "Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study".  But they didn't.  They dropped right back down to near t ...


There's something going on, and without any more information it's probably best to assume it's fishy, but a view of the study might prove it's on the up and up.
The researchers have probably modeled the rate of homicides assuming the law was not passed, and concluded it would have been about 50 or 60 lower a year. That's not necessarily a bad way to do things, it's the same thing you do to show something like a Cox 2 inhibitor is bad for your heart, for example. The same sort of technique- you don't do that with raw rates. So it can be convincing if it's done right, but it's always a safe bet that sociologists farked up the math.
 
2014-02-17 01:35:21 PM
I wonder how the jumps in 2005 and 2008 correlate with any pseudoephedrine control laws.

But anyway, the numbers don't even tell us that a gun was used in the murders.
 
2014-02-17 01:40:56 PM

violentsalvation: I wonder how the jumps in 2005 and 2008 correlate with any pseudoephedrine control laws.

But anyway, the numbers don't even tell us that a gun was used in the murders.


I *COULD* do that, if the CDC would get off their collective asses and update the WISQARS site so that individual states are covered for post 2007 data.   Currently, they only go up to 2010, and the data is either national, or by region (ie., southeast, northwest, etc.).

Data from 2007 and before can be done at the state level.
 
2014-02-17 01:48:05 PM

dittybopper: I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):


It's hard to say exactly what the authors of the study are claiming, because as far as I can tell the study is not yet published anywhere (and the author mentioned in TFA has nothing on his website).

I did go and find some "Crime In Missouri" reports after digging around the links you provided, which provides a better breakdown of types of offenses and the weapons used. I could only find reports going up to 2011, the data below is aggregated from Table 4.1.7 in each report.

Firearms used by murder offenders in Missouri, 2005-2011

Year    # Firearms    % Of Total Weapons

2005   307                 69.0
2006   260                 70.8
2007   259                 67.4
2008   345                 72.3
2009   287                 69.0
2010   321                 74.3
2011   325                 75.8

The average for the 2005-2007 span is 275.3, the average for 2009-2011 is 311, which corresponds to a 13 percent increase in the number of firearms used in offenses. It does appear that firearms are being used more frequently in murders, however as you pointed out, the number of total homicides does not appear to be that much different.

Sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2011CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2010CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2009CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2008CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2007CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2006CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2005CrimeInMO.pdf
 
2014-02-17 01:51:20 PM
Good. Conservatives should suffer the consequences of their idiotic policies.
 
2014-02-17 01:51:41 PM
That's only because there are still too many onerous requirements on law-abiding gun purchasers.  We need to remove every single regulation, and then you will see that crime will go down to nothing.
 
2014-02-17 01:52:23 PM
LOL
 
2014-02-17 01:52:35 PM
I thought East St. Louis was in Illinois?
 
2014-02-17 01:53:18 PM
It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.
 
2014-02-17 01:53:31 PM
I should also point out that the data from the links above reveal that throwing someone out a window was used as a murder weapon four times between 2005 and 2011.
 
2014-02-17 01:55:14 PM

Rapmaster2000: That's only because there are still too many onerous requirements on law-abiding gun purchasers.  We need to remove every single regulation, and then you will see that crime will go down to nothing.


Right.  Get government out of the way of business.  The market will regulate itself.  Guns that shoot children and relatives or discharge accidentally into your groin will be a thing of the past once technology catches up to the demand.

How can we NOT support this??
 
2014-02-17 01:55:31 PM

plmyfngr: I often wonder how many people sit around and think "I'd really like to kill that guy...if only I could legally get a handgun..."


I'm guessing it's in equal proportion to the number of people that have met my ex.
 
2014-02-17 01:55:51 PM
Hopefully not wading into a popcorn filled thread, but does anyone think that there may have been and economic factor in the 2008 jump? That was the year that the recession really started to hurt, and I seem to remember a study with a more significant correlation to the economy and crime than many other factors.

/ no need to respond if no one thinks the idea worth the time
 
2014-02-17 01:57:06 PM
I love the kneejerk disbelief expressed by the gun fetish crowd.  They just know, in their gut, that no regulations on guns could ever possibly reduce gun violence.  Evidence be damned.
 
2014-02-17 01:57:33 PM

plmyfngr: I often wonder how many people sit around and think "I'd really like to kill that guy...if only I could legally get a handgun..."


Since many shootings are crimes of passion, the thought process seems more likely to be, "Hey, I have a gun.  I could totally kill that guy."
 
2014-02-17 01:57:55 PM

Fubini: I should also point out that the data from the links above reveal that throwing someone out a window was used as a murder weapon four times between 2005 and 2011.


We need Defenestration Regulation!
 
2014-02-17 01:58:26 PM

dittybopper: Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.

I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48

Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don't seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was "need a permit")

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it's 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I'm not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I'd say "Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study".  But they didn't.  They dropped right back down to near t ...


Could be that the researchers neglected the lessons of Anscombe's quartet.
 
2014-02-17 01:59:32 PM

rumpelstiltskin: There's something going on, and without any more information it's probably best to assume it's fishy, but a view of the study might prove it's on the up and up.
The researchers have probably modeled the rate of homicides assuming the law was not passed, and concluded it would have been about 50 or 60 lower a year. That's not necessarily a bad way to do things, it's the same thing you do to show something like a Cox 2 inhibitor is bad for your heart, for example. The same sort of technique- you don't do that with raw rates. So it can be convincing if it's done right, but it's always a safe bet that sociologists farked up the math.


Well, see, here is another warning sign from the article:

In the study which will be published in an issue of the Journal of Urban Health, a team of researchers led by Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research Director Daniel Webster found that between 55 to 63 more people were murdered each year after Missouri repealed its permit-to-purchase (PTP) handgun law in 2007.

They aren't talking about rates, they are talking about numbers.

Also, I think I see what they did.

If you take the 3 years after repeal (2008, 2009, 2010) you get a rate of 7.33 per 100,000.  The 5 years prior to repeal (2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002) you get an overall rate of 6.38 per 100,000.

That's a difference of nearly 1 per 100,000, and in a population of 6 million, that would equate to roughly 60 people.

That's probably what they did, ignoring the fact that the 2008 data was a temporary spike.
 
2014-02-17 02:00:43 PM
This study includes all murders. For the study to be accurate we need to see the percentage of murders, by handguns bought after the law changed. If one  bought a handgun in 2005 and one did not kill anyone until 2012, one just skewed the numbers
 
2014-02-17 02:02:32 PM

dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.

Yes.


Potato
 
2014-02-17 02:02:48 PM

dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.

Yes.


Only on Tuesdays.
 
2014-02-17 02:03:27 PM
images2.dailykos.com

/obligatory
 
2014-02-17 02:04:00 PM

Fast Moon: plmyfngr: I often wonder how many people sit around and think "I'd really like to kill that guy...if only I could legally get a handgun..."

Since many shootings are crimes of passion, the thought process seems more likely to be, "Hey, I have a gun.  I could totally kill that guy."


Actually, relatively few shootings are "crimes of passion".  Most are because of criminal activity (drug trade, gang membership, etc.).
 
2014-02-17 02:04:36 PM
They repealed the requirements to get a background check done by your county of residence... which was the exact same background check that you would get from the Feds. You still have to get your federal background check.
 
2014-02-17 02:04:43 PM

mutterfark: Hopefully not wading into a popcorn filled thread, but does anyone think that there may have been and economic factor in the 2008 jump? That was the year that the recession really started to hurt, and I seem to remember a study with a more significant correlation to the economy and crime than many other factors.

/ no need to respond if no one thinks the idea worth the time


I think you might have a point.

 I was just wondering what might've happened in 2008 that caused the jump, since it wasn't repeated in later years (where the law was presumably still repealed).
 
2014-02-17 02:04:57 PM
So I guess not only outlaws have guns.
 
2014-02-17 02:05:17 PM
Hey now! Correlation does not imply causation!

Yes, I know, there is most likely a causal link; but, we'd also have to eliminate other factors. What else happened in 2008 that may have caused a rise in violent crime? Could it be a bunch of people losing their jobs had some effect?
 
2014-02-17 02:05:38 PM
Just the kind of bald faced BS we've come to expect from the good folks at RAWSTORY!
 
2014-02-17 02:05:59 PM

Rapmaster2000: That's only because there are still too many onerous requirements on law-abiding gun purchasers.  We need to remove every single regulation, and then you will see that crime will go down to nothing.


Wait for the 3D printer revolution.

Sure, there'll be laws, but if the guy who walks out and murders a guy doesn't give a shiat about gun laws now, wait until he can grab any gun he likes in whatever state of mind he's in.

And then at that point the whole "By the way, you have between 50 and 90 million gun owners who aren't evil.  Stupid and occasionally drunk, yes, evil no.  And many of them are quite willing and happy to shoot back when that pissed off guy with the gun shows up (for better or for worse).  And they'll save an average of 11 lives in the process." idea starts making way more sense.
 
2014-02-17 02:06:47 PM

Chummer45: I love the kneejerk disbelief expressed by the gun fetish crowd.  They just know, in their gut, that no regulations on guns could ever possibly reduce gun violence.  Evidence be damned.


I concur; I, too, am amused by the "kneejerk" response of actually researching the relevant statistics and pointing out the demonstrable fact that the increased rate of homicides in 2008 was an outlier not observed in any subsequent year, as though an actual analysis of data is somehow more valid than a cherry-picking of a single result in deriving meaningful conclusions.
 
2014-02-17 02:08:04 PM

dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.

Yes.


Look, this isn't an argument!
 
2014-02-17 02:08:17 PM

dittybopper: That's probably what they did, ignoring the fact that the 2008 data was a temporary spike.


Bloomberg has given Johns Hopkins over $1 billion dollars over the years, so you do have to consider the source.  Not calling JHU a mouthpiece for MAIG, but $1,000,000,000 is a lot of dosh.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report