Honestly? I’m tired of writing these posts. Because reality does not change.
No matter the “gun control” extremists’ beliefs, inanimate objects cannot control a human being’s behavior.
To believe otherwise is pure fetishism.
But people continue to believe otherwise, so here we are.
As always, check out the original version of this post for the series’ explanation. And, as always, “more guns = more deaths” is not my hypothesis, nor does this series of posts mean to prove that “more guns = fewer deaths”.
Instead, this series of posts exclusively exists to disprove the notion that more firearms automatically means more fatalities, as the aforementioned “gun control” extremists incessantly, erroneously declare.
My sources include:
– the CDC WISQARS Fatal Injrury Report
– the BATFE Firearms Commerce in the United States Annual Statistical Update 2018
– the Small Arms Survey of 2003
– Radical Gun Nuttery
– my data spreadsheet
And, once again, as every time previous, the hypothesis of “more guns = more deaths” falls flat on its face.
Now, it’s absolutely worth noting that the firearm-related fatalities are almost as high as their peak back in the early ’90s… but the US population has grown massively since then, meaning the rate of firearm-related fatalities is actually down since then.
Relatedly – pun intended – the correlation between the raw number of firearms in the United States and the raw number of firearm-related fatalities in the United States is -0.03268.
That is to say, there is precisely no correlation.
Which means there cannot be causation.
And that is a complicated way of saying, “the number of firearms in America is not driving the number of firearm-related deaths in America.”
Which brings us to rates, and any sociologist knows that rates are much more valuable than raw numbers.
Well, the correlation between the rate of firearm ownership – that is to say, the number of firearms in America divided by the American population – and the rate of firearm-related fatalities is -0.34575.
In other words, there is a noticeable, negative correlation.
Which, again, means there cannot be causation.
Look, I get it.
It is literally an article of faith among some people that “guns are bad”.
But the data simply does not back that prejudice up. And, frankly, it is kind of disappointing that modern people are still bitterly clinging to the notion that inanimate lumps of metal can affect conscious, cognizant humans’ minds.
But here we are.
4 thoughts on “graphics matter, 2019 edition”
Even as fatigued as you are of the repetitive nature of this proof, it’s invaluable and I look forward to your pieces on this subject.
You don’t have to look at how many people think guns dictate human behavior to see the same phenomenon. People think inanimate objects control them all the time. Look at how many people think that a cookie or a piece of cake made them eat it.