Murder By Firearm – Infographic

Hard to take seriously with the toy Beretta 92 and teacup grip:

(Click picture to enlarge)

Hopefully the data is legit at least.  It lists Wikipedia as one of the sources, which never impresses me.  I figured some of you guys would like to take a look, and possibly tear the people that put this out a new one. haha

The bar graph at the bottom seems pretty useless considering it’s only representing the change seen in 1 year.  At first glance it looks like shit got real in SD, IA, and ID… but then you look at the map and see they are among the safest places in the country to live.

Thoughts?

Hat tip: Bill

35 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Keith July 25, 2012 at 12:09 am

Something seems very off about this. I am suspicious that Detroit hasn’t spiked Michigan murder rate and I love how this shows a decline in firearm related murders. Proving that during the assault weapons ban you were less safe than now. I suspect this has something to do with more responsible LEGAL gun ownership after the elimination of inflated prices caused by gun, ammo, and mag restrictions (remember how expensive a Glock mag was in 2008)

Reply

dave w July 25, 2012 at 12:38 am

you can prove anything you want with figures.
Idaho had a 130% rise in murders under governor/ sherrif/ endo mike/ since starbucks opened on main st.
Never believe these things no matter who puts them out

Reply

Jon K July 25, 2012 at 01:05 am

Gotta hand it to my home state of CA…some of the strictest gun laws in the country…number one in gun related murders. How’s that gun control working out for you?

Reply

45CALifornia July 26, 2012 at 05:44 pm

i too am from CA, and you are still safer (per capita) than you would be in AZ. ANOTHER VICTORY FOR GREAT GUN CONTROL

we’ll chalk AZ’s higher per capita to murders caused by illegal fast and furious weapons.

Reply

Cliff July 25, 2012 at 01:25 am

i didnt happen to notice figures for TN and KY?

Reply

Ben July 25, 2012 at 02:08 am

These numbers look like they originated from the FBI database (via wiki), which specifically disallows IL data for being deliberately misleading and under reporting. The IL numbers might, might reflect just Chicago’s “official” count. And FL’s numbers are. like every other state, available in the FBI database. Also, MI and IN do not have the same populations, so how exactly are their numbers identical? I’m going to call BS on this.

Reply

Church July 25, 2012 at 06:44 am

“Also, MI and IN do not have the same populations, so how exactly are their numbers identical”
Awesome observation. Absolutely makes this useless.

Also, if the numbers are at least close I’m glad I carry in PA with more than 450…

Reply

M July 25, 2012 at 10:08 pm

These numbers from the FBI typically include suicides, so labeling them murders is an outright lie. The actual numbers for criminal use of guns is much much lower.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm
It hasn’t been updated since Bush left office (more of that Obama-brand government transparency…) but overall trends are down. Also interesting was this little snippet:

“According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from –
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%”

Reply

M July 25, 2012 at 10:40 pm

apparently they are using this data for the total number of murders:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

It States that “Of the 12,996 murder victims in 2010 for which supplemental data were received… (67.5 percent) involved the use of firearms”

Their math is a little off, 12996*(.675)=8772.3. They rounded up a bit.

Also, the phrase “for which supplemental data were received” makes me believe that this statistic is probably skewed quite a bit. Most of the crimes “for which supplemental data were received” I would imagine involve a gun trace through the FBI database, so this skews the data to make it appear that guns are a larger percentage.

This data makes it look like guns cause violence, when nothing could be further from the truth. Gun ownership per capita has *skyrocketed* over the last 10 years, especially the last 4.

Reply

Average Joe July 25, 2012 at 05:27 am

Interesting wording “8775 out of 12996 murders in the US in 2010 were CAUSED by firearms”. I don’t think the firearms caused the murders, they may have been the implement used but doubt if they were the “cause”.

Reply

m-cameron July 25, 2012 at 06:42 am

the thing is,thats not the numbers you should be looking at…….the numbers should be the total number of murders(with any weapon)……..quite frankly, it doesnt make a bit of difference how a person is killed.

obviously in areas where there are more guns prevalent, there are going to be more gun related murders…..but that doesnt reflect how safe that state actually is.

look at England, they have no guns, and therefore relatively few gun crimes(so by going by the pictures method of evaluation, gun control works)……but the overall violent crime has skyrocketed since civilian ownership of guns was more or less banned.

Reply

Bilbo July 25, 2012 at 07:21 am

Lies, damn lies, statistics. The three kinds of lies. First off its per capita, second it doesnt say anything about self defense killings. Most of the anti gun propaganda considers self defense shootings murder in their eyes. Ranking states without having all the data available is also an indicator of shoddy work. Charts like this and all political data is data wizardy, numbers are always manipulated tonshownwhat u want to show.

Reply

BrowningBottoms July 25, 2012 at 10:08 am

Sting ’em, Bilbo. Use the ring. Good post and nice use of Twain.. :)

Reply

paul kimble July 25, 2012 at 08:21 am

LOL @ DC

Reply

Peter in DC July 25, 2012 at 03:34 pm

WE’RE #1!!!
WE’RE #1!!!
WE’RE #1!!!

p.s. I live in MD, but my sidewalk is actually the District. You know, with such proximity, a gun owner sometimes forgets things and sometimes happens to walk to his car, which is parked in the District of Columbia, with weapons/ammo in the range bag. A clear violation of both DC law. Not that I’m saying that I do that…..but I would not be surprised if it happened…..:)

Reply

Night Observer July 25, 2012 at 08:27 am

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Wonder what makes DC different…………………….
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……………………………….

Reply

Peter in DC July 25, 2012 at 03:34 pm

Obama’s kid lives here.

Reply

jpcmt July 25, 2012 at 08:42 am

My guess is the overinflated/embellished gun “murders” also include justifiable shoots as well as cop shoots. But hey, doesn’t matter when you tremble at the thought of a baby killing ak47 glock with bottomless clip.

Woohoo Montana! It’s so low because I carry there!

Reply

xpo172 July 25, 2012 at 09:24 am

Looks like murder by firearm is trending down. Way down. THat’s the stat I take away from this eyesore.

Reply

cc19 July 25, 2012 at 10:47 am

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Reply

Bryce July 25, 2012 at 11:50 am

What I find amazing is out of 300,000,000 there is only 12,996 murders a year
Did you know there were 13486 dui related deaths in 2008
I don’t drink so I impose a ban on everyone ( you can’t drink and drive)
Oh what they allready did that? Way Back in the 70s you say?
Then why are people still being killed by drunk people with cars! Rhetorical

Reply

paul kimble July 25, 2012 at 11:51 am

Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer’s disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

Reply

AMB July 25, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Observation: the PNW states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho have comparatively low firearm homicide rates. This is despite the fact that all three states have pretty high rates of firearm ownership.

Hypothesis: Guns don’t kill people, living outside of the Pacific Northwest kills people.

Reply

Frank July 25, 2012 at 08:22 pm

AMB, want to be friends?

Reply

AMB July 25, 2012 at 09:52 pm

Sure thing, Frank! I just hope you live in the PNW. I don’t want to get too attached to someone who’s just gonna up and die on me because they live somewhere out in MurderLand.

Reply

Frank July 25, 2012 at 11:16 pm

Oregon FTW. :P

Reply

AMB July 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm

What a second. I just realized that they label those blue dots as firearms murders “per capita”. Which is not only mathematically incorrect based on their numbers for totals, but makes no sense based on the values given. E.g. for Washington:

93/6,830,000 = 0.0000136 murders per capita.

I ASSUME that they mean something like murders per 100,000 population, which would make their numbers about right. “Per capita” means “per person” (literally “per head”).

I imagine that this is just incompetence and not malice, but the graph definitely implies that the people of Texas commit, on average, three murders a piece.

Reply

ItsPossumTime July 25, 2012 at 02:22 pm

So, Michigan and Indiana have the exact same statistics?

Also, I’d like to see the Number of Firearm murders vs. the Number of Firearm OWNERS. How is it that NY and DC are so high on the list when it’s almost impossible to own guns there? Could there be something else going on?

Reply

Parrym July 25, 2012 at 02:47 pm

Hmm, let me see here….

Montana: Population 1 Million, 12 firearm murders, 1.2 murders per capita
Minnesota: Population 5 Million, 12 firearm murders, 1.2 murders per capita

Seems legit.

Reply

DashVT July 25, 2012 at 08:12 pm

Wow! Every person in DC is committing 16 murders a year!

Reply

Linoge July 25, 2012 at 09:07 pm

And this is why statistics are such a dangerous, powerful tool. So Idaho had a 130%+ increase in firearm-related murders, huh? Sounds atrocious, huh? Well, given that there were only 12 firearm-related murders in 2010, that means there were only 5 firearm-related murders in 2009.

But saying 5 versus 12 sounds a lot less impressive than ZOMG 130%!!!11!1!

On the other hand, New York only had a <5% increase in firearm-related fatalities. Nothing to worry about, right? Well, aside from the fact that they had 517 such murders in 2010.

Percentages are great and all, but one has to bear in mind the raw numbers as well. Even with that 130% increase, I would rather live in Idaho any day of the week.

Reply

BrowningBottoms July 26, 2012 at 12:45 am

And just think, people go to school for years and pay tens of thousands to claim expertise in this sh!t.

We need to start a school of common sense.

Reply

50CERTS July 25, 2012 at 11:17 pm

I live in Vermont which is the lowest per capitia murders by firearm. I think it shows what a crock gun control is. In VT we have virtually no gun control. Anyone (who can legally own a firearm) can carry a concealed weapon virtually anywhere. We don’t even do handgun registration. How come we don’t have a gun violence problem? why aren’t there gangs in the street? Really we have a drug prohibition problem. Legalize all drugs, let some junkies die, but take away the criminal’s life blood and they’ll have nothing to kill over. It’s too bad guns get blamed for bad laws.

Reply

MrMaigo July 26, 2012 at 09:17 am

Interesting that we fight guns and not heart disease. Heart disease being the #1 in the world.

Reply

Terry July 26, 2012 at 04:13 pm

I think the REAL take home from this POS Brady campaign rag is that California, the state with the strictest gun control overall, is number 1 in most firearms death. The experts agree gun control works. VSP! VSP! VSP!

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: