Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

> (Tim Lambert)
>> (Dean Payne):
>> Comparing nongun homicide rates in adjoining states and provinces, I see
>> no consistent pattern (outside of the metropolitan areas), just as there
>> was no pattern with total homicide rates.
>
>Since there is a consistent difference in the handgun homicide rates,
>if the "substitution" theory is true, the Canadian nonhandgun homicide
>rate should be higher, but as you note, there is no consistent pattern.

I seem to have written in haste.  Let me try again.

Looking at Centerwall's tables, there are 11 apparent state-province
pairings (8 provinces, 11 states).  A close look at a map reveals 18
border segments to make comparisons across.

The various provinces have a handgun availability one-third to one-tenth
that of the adjoining states.  If handgun availability were a major
factor in homicide rates, I would expect a pattern in which most of the
state-province pairings showing a lower homicide rate in the province.

Comparing homicide rates, the provinces have a lower rate in 5 of 11
pairings (Centerwall's table) or 10 of 18 (my map), essentially an even
split.  Excluding the major metropolitan areas, the provinces have a
lower rate in 3 of 10, or 5 of 17 pairings (one pair tied).  None of
these is the lop-sided tilt in favor of Canada that I would expect if
handgun availability were a major factor.

Excluding Canada's firearm homicides, Canada has a lower rate in 13 of
18 pairings.  No surprise here.  But without the metro areas, Canada is
lower in only 8 of 18, a poor showing when US firearms homicides are
still included.

Comparing non-firearms homicides on both sides, Canada has a lower rate
in only 2 of 11 pairings, or 4 of 18, falling to 3 of 18 when the metro
areas are excluded.  If Canadians did not substitute other means for the
lack of handguns, I would expect this comparison to split about evenly.
Instead, it is quite lop-sided against the Canadians.

I don't have the statistical background to compute which, if any, of
these comparisons is actually significant.  But intuitively, all but one
is inconsistent with the pattern I would expect if handgun availability
were a major factor in homicide rates.

Centerwall's measure of household crowding seems to be very good
indicator of homicide rate.  The higher crowding rate coincides with the
higher homicide rate in 10 of 11 pairings (table), or 16 of 18 (my map).

>                                                          What is
>needed is a multivariate analysis to determine which of the factors
>(handguns, household crowding, assault rate etc) correlate with
>homicide rate.  Without this, I would not be willing to draw any
>conclusions from Centerwall's data.

That's fair.  Likewise, I would not be willing to draw conclusions from
Sloan's Seattle-Vancouver comparison until he performs the stratified
test suggested by Centerwall.

>> Re: US pattern of high urban/metropolitan homicide rate

>>>As I have noted above, it seems unlikely that handguns are the sole
>>>cause of this difference, but since handgun availabilty seems to be
>>>higher in urban areas...

>> What data indicates that US handgun availability is higher in urban areas 
>> than elsewhere?  I have seen none.  Zimring's charts of gun ownership by
>> population size (in "A Citizens Guide to Gun Control"?)  shows that
>> handgun ownership is roughly constant, at about 20%.

>Yes, you're right.  Handgun ownership in the urban areas is about 5%
>higher than rural areas, and the suburbs, but this difference is not
>great.  

For the benefit of other readers, Zimring lists:

  Percent of Households with Firearms, by City Size (United States, 1968)

               Rural       Town        Suburbs     Large Cities
  Handguns      19          22          16          21
  Rifles        42          29          25          21
  Shotguns      53          36          26          18
 
>What I should have said was that since handgun misuse is higher in
>urban areas, by excluding urban areas from the analysis, we exclude
>those areas where gun control might have the most benefit.

Funny you should mention that.  Five urban areas were separated in this
study, but two, Detroit and New York City, accounted for nearly all of
the severe US urban skew.  These two already "benefit" from gun control,
with restrictions in the later being roughly similar to those in Canada.

The rest of the US study area, most of which has much less restrictive
gun control, seems to have little or no room to benefit from increased
control.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns