Quote from aknottedyarn
Thanks for sharing that site. One stat that is not there is where guns are located in the US. My intuition says more guns per population are in many of the states that are not high in assaults but that is a guess. I am not sure how one could be accuarate about the number of guns. Without registration or some other way of counting self reporting will not be accurate nor will gun sales. So, even though it sounds good I am not sure the article accually means and proves what it would like to say.
I have shared many times that I am not against guns. I am against assaults and believe we need to look at all the issues involved. Why are certain areas of the country "safer". Is it only population or density of population? Are there social factors involved that we need to explore such as multi-generational gun ownership and teaching of gun safety?
Hard for me to take the article at face value for several reasons. First, as pointed out in the article, correlation is not causation. I contend that America is a more violent culture (as compaired to other civilized countries) and would be reguadless of the availabliety of guns. Second the article uses data from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. This is not some unbiased research group. The name will be familiare with many firearms owners. The are very biased and have their own agenda.
There are some factual inaccuracies as well. One glaring one is they have Wisconsin covered with hash marks to indicate: "It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements" when in face Wisconsin has none of those.
Finaly the WP is hardly an unbiased and inpartial reporter on the subject. They have a long history of anti gun, pro gun control slant.