Talk:Gun death and violence in the United States by state/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The information and data contained in the Wikipedia article titled, "Gun violence in the United States by State" is intentionally 100% incorrect. There is an anti-gun political agenda behind these "facts". Guns don't harm people, people harm people. Granted a gun might be the tool that is used by the person to cause the harm, but people also use knives, hammers, saws, logs, boards, cars, bottles, rope, wire, bombs (hello suicide bombers), and a million other tools to cause the harm that the person intends to cause.

Never in the history of the United States has a gun, knowingly and of its own volition, ever harmed a single solitary human being. People use a gun to commit violence against other people. What motivates a person to attack, harm and kill other people by using a gun runs the gammet from drugs, jealousy, greed, alchohol, religious furvor, sex, no sex, changing a TV channel at an inopportune time. etc. etc.

For Wikepedia to allow itself to be used to further a political agenda is shameful. Please either remove this silly article at once or change the title to more honestly reflect the data being presented. I suggest: Violence caused by people using a gun in the United States by state.

Be Honest: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Txharleyman 03:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) txharleyman

---

Everyone knows that guns don't willfully kill people. This is just data on how much violence there is state by state and how much of it is done with a gun. It is valuable information.

Comments and suggestions by JHAasen: Yes, this is valuable information. It would be much more valuable if it was updated with yearly data for a few decades up to the latest year for which data is available. Also adding columns for accidental gun deaths, and gun deaths by suicide (vs suicides by other means) and unsuccessful gun suicide attempts would be enlightening. And additionally add data for intentional and accidental non-fatal gunshot wounds since they are closely related and are so serious.

The facts seem to be that currently there are approximately 15,000 gun suicides and 15,000 gun deaths that are either homicides or gun accidents per year in the USA. At that rate, over a 75-year lifetime, that is about 1.1 million gun suicides and 1.1 million gun deaths by homicide or accident. The pro-gun people generally seem to want no further gun control. That would seem to imply that they think that the 2.2 million number of gunshot deaths per lifetime is not a problem. Most of the more than 50% of Americans that choose not to own or bear firearms disagree and think the scale of this loss of life is obscene and that some effective means to reduce this loss of life must be found. Having well researched data on this subject on Wikipedia (which would be updated each year) would be invaluable to the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhaasen (talk • contribs) 06:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The data presented here (2015) is old. The CDC website has 2019 data, on gun violence rate and gun violence incidents, that is Firearm Mortality by State, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.234.29 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems to undermine the gun-banner's agenda

Actually, if you compare the listing with the Brady Campaign’s ratings of the states, you find that these state data show no correlation with the grades that the states get from Brady. The worst 5 states have ratings varying from A- to F, and the best 5 states have ratings varying from A- to F. And, surely, a list that puts NH as the best cannot be too far wrong.

“Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.” - Gen. John Stark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StormDruid (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Some clarification on a couple of points please....

Anyone know why Arkansas initially appears lower in the list than it should, but then jumps to the proper spot when one switches the order from descending to ascending and back?

Does whomever posted this data know what year they are for? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StormDruid (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Order?

What order are these in exactly? in terms of per capita, its all over the charts. Paladin Hammer (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

To the makers of this table: does percent gun mean "Percentage of people who own guns" or "percentage of deaths by guns"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.127.148.114 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Data in this table conflicts with data elsewhere on Wikipedia

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States where it states that less than 1/2 of the homicides in 2000 involved handguns. This chart seems to indicate something different. I don't mind differences, but you need a better reasoning as to why there IS such a difference...

Error in RI Density Calculation

This figure is off by an order of magnitude. Rhode Island page shows 1,006/sqm, not 100.6! I fix. Speck22 (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire article is a garbled mess. When state and local police departments report their murder rates to the FBI they do not provide a breakdown of such factors as type of weapon used (if any), race or sex of victim or perpetrator, etc. unless they do the Expanded Offense Data reports. The percentage of departments that provide this expanded data, and the percentage of the state's population served by such departments, varies by state from barely half to 100%. This information is available at the FBI UCR site. The FBI can only provide figures for types of weapons used in homicides for the jurisdictions that submit Expanded Offense Data. This may include the whole state, be typical of the whole state, or radically different from the state as a whole. For just one example, the table for this article shows that in 2010 Mississippi had a murder rate of 5.6 per 100,000. In actuality this, and the rate of homicide by firearm, was just the rate for jurisdictions that submitted the expanded report. For the entire state the murder rate was 7/100,000 and the rate per 100,000 for murder by firearm is not known.107.133.158.129 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The data that was carried over from the FBI should include notation to reflect the nature of the expanded reports. Additionally, the murder rate calculated here uses Census data and not FBI data. Although that factor should barely effect the murder rates. Kjacomet (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Date Please

This data needs to clarify what year or date range this data is based on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.77.140 (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this table is taken directly from the FBI Murder by State,by type of Weapon 2010 possible download by excel and pasted into Wikipedia. I'm going to link it to the FBI page.Ccr29872 (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Where's the Florida data from?

The data seems to be from 2004. However, the source (BJS) hasn't had this data for Florida in that database since 1996. Where is the Florida data from? And shouldn't DC be in there (of course, that data's not in the BJS database either)? Rjhenn (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. Also, the data from Illinois is incomplete as not all departments report that data. I propose inclusion of footnotes for incomplete or missing data instead of providing incorrect information or data that isn't sourced. Kjacomet (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Gun Violence, or Homicide?

Oh, yeah. Just noticed that the title says "Gun Violence", but all the data is about homicide. Rjhenn (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename "Homicide rate in the US by state"

I agree with the above poster - there is good information in this page, with gun murders being just one facet. Validseven (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

commas needed in population

Commas are needed in the population numbes as in 9,999,999, etc Hmains (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

explanation for African American % needed

explanation for African American % needed. Is this the % of state population? The % of homicides committed by African Americans? The % of victims of homicides who are African American? Or what? Hmains (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The explanation is clear - racist implication through vandalism. Let's not be fooled. I'll do my best to repair, please follow after to clean up. 68.5.176.101 (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The only real correlation with gun violence in states is the percentage of non-whites and Hispanics. 98.69.195.61 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated to 2010 and removed race stats

Drew data from Florida's crime statistics combined with the FBI Uniform Crime Reports to update it to 2010. There was also a column with a stat showing the non-hispanic white population pct of that state, which I don't really think is relevant. More relevant would be the racial make-up of the murders, but to show the racial mix of the population is to be painting a picture of some sort of correlation between race and gun crimes. There may be such a correlation, but this table is about corresponding gun violence to the various states. --Philosophistry (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Murder in United States by State (2010) : % Gun

I can't make sense of the figures in the "% Gun" column. For Alamabama (for example), seems to me that if there are 199 total murders, of which 135 are gun murders, that would be 67.9% gun, not 51.7% as shown in the table. I would have changed this in the article, but I have similar problems with every entry I looked at. Perhaps I just misunderstand -- and if I do, clarification might be needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

NO, you are probably correct. This article is a biased, outdated mess and needs a house-cleaning or AfD. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 14:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Murders per 100k rather than total murders

At the moment you can't make any comparisons from the data. Sure, California has one of the highest murder rates but it also has one of the largest populations. Murders per 100k would be more useful 182.239.199.106 (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep... it's an unhelpful mess. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Brady Campaign column, why?

Why is the Brady Campaign score relevant to this list? The rest of the list cites government agency collected and compiled statistics and then there's a column with "grades" by an organization with not only a point of view, but a clearly stated agenda is included. How is this neutral? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you changed the date on your comment, but that column has been removed now. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Graphs for visualisation

What would be very useful here would be scatter graphs of various columns in the table against each other. Population density versus murder rate and gun ownership versus murder rate, for instance. This would make it much easier to see at a glance what kind if correlations there.

One way to do this would be for some kind soul to create the graphics, but a better way would be for some kind developer to write a script that can create Html5 graphs on the fly given a table of data. That could then be used on any page that has tables of potentially correlated data.

92.25.15.35 (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Gun murders vs gun violence

This article needs to be renamed Gun murders in the United States by state. Murder is not the same as homicide. Homicides are not the same as deaths. A death is not the same as a wounding. Woundings are not the same as injuries. An injury is not the same as an incident. Incidents are not the same as accidents. I could go on. The point is that in an encyclopaedia, you need to define your terms. You can't just use language willy nilly to suit your agenda or your point of view. 138.130.246.13 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to be precise when choosing words. I propose keeping the article title the same, but adjusting the content to more accurately reflect the title. For the record, according to Google violence is:

behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something..

Aberdeen01 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The FBI lists additional tables for some other violent crimes according to weapon and state. I would include that data, but apparently you can't just go around expanding the scope of an article to be within the context of the title. Kjacomet (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The page Violence in the United States cites suicide, homicide, accidental shooting, and undetermined intent as sources of gun violence. This definition is used by the CDC and NIH as well. Title should be changed, as FBI data won't be consistent with CDC. A new table/page could be created for state-by-state firearm deaths - 2013 data for all firearm violence can be found here on the CDC website (including homicide).

Adding column for gun suicide

I propose that a new column is added for 'Gun Suicide. Suicide a form of violence against one-self. Though it is not included in the common-usage meaning of murder, hence I'm suggesting a separate column rather than include it in the murder column.
Aberdeen01 (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. I can not find any data corresponding to suicide on the state-by-state level to even propose including. The CDC offers data regarding firearm injury fatality by state, but I believe that includes accidental discharge. Kjacomet (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Gun ownership numbers older and cited incorrectly

The citation for the gun ownership numbers leads to an article by a site espousing liberal political beliefs, which calls into question is objectivity already. However, it states that the numbers are from 2007, but the list perfectly coincides with a list published by the Washington Post in an article here, which states the surveyed data was taken in 2001.

So, unless there were two different surveys taken that provided exactly the same results six years apart, I suggest the cited article is incorrect. As such, I suggest we either keep the numbers and switch the cite to the above linked Post article and restate the year to 2001; or, preferably, we find a more recent study done on the subject and just get rid of these numbers. (Morethan3words | talk) 01:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

These numbers are from the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey. Not the article cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.171.157 (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is data available online for the 2001 and 2002 data (2004 is mentioned but I can not find the data). There is a study done in 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-ownership-by-state-2015-7) that I propose including. The ownership rates seem slightly reduced across the board, but the trends are still reflective of previous surveys. I think it would be also worth mentioning the details regarding methodology of the surveys used to attain this data Kjacomet (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Attempted change of table

The attempted change made the table needlessly vague and uninformative. The original status of this table was far superior as it clearly shows murders and firearms related murders. I think the recent massive edit was politically motivated in response to the recent shootings imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.8.218 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I should respond here or ? Anyway, these were my thoughts: First, I couldn't find an origin for the survey of Gun Ownership - the cite sources USACarry.com, which doesn't provide such an information. Second, Gun Ownership data from survey doesn't account for the District of Columbia, which isn't a state (a minor point would be to revise the title or revise the table to include only states). I found a 2013 journal that did a survey and found similar data. Since that is more recent and actually peer-reviewed - it seemed more appropriate to list 2013 data. Third, data regarding gun murders from the state of Florida is not included in Table 20 from the FBI (this should be excluded or listed as un-sourced). Fourth, listing 2007 data next to 2010 data seems disingenuous. I paired 2007 FBI data with the 2007 survey results. Then, I cited the 2013 information as well, which presents with a better sourced survey of gun ownership. Lastly, I cited homicide data instead of weapon death data. I did this because there is actually data from Florida in the FBI's tables and while not all homicides are conducted with firearms (about 2/3, which is pretty consistent across the last decade) it is certainly important to note that gun-advocacy groups cite protection as a legitimate concern. For that reason I thought it appropriate to cite both homicide and violent crimes since presumably gun ownership should be appropriately associated with.

As a final thought, I think it would be appropriate to cite only 2013 the data and include information of gun-related deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjacomet (talk • contribs) 18:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that unless you have both accurate population data and "gun violence" data (whatever that is) for the same year, the compilation data are useless. The data of the 2010 census is now readily available, comparing it with 2013 crime data gives a scewed result and is worthless and perhaps harmful to Wikipedia. 2010 Crime data MUST be used for the table, and this article, to have any meaning and relevance, unless you have access to meaningful 2013 population numbers.

Also, you really shouldn't just make your explanatory statement and then immediately revert the article without others' input. That is considered edit warring and is not tolerated here. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Vermont has guns. Don't play politics with Bernie Sanders now... [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fibrioloogti (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

1) "The problem is that unless you have both accurate population data and "gun violence" data (whatever that is) for the same year, the compilation data are useless." By your own measure the data is worthless then. You are comparing 2007 Gun Ownership data with 2010 population data. That is entirely disingenuous. Not only that, but it is un-sourced. Actually, though, the data you use is from 2001 (http://www.schs.state.nc.us/SCHS/brfss/2001/us/firearm3.html). So you are deciding to compare data that is from 2001 to 2010 without providing a source - that is entirely "harmful to Wikipedia".

2) "The data of the 2010 census is now readily available, comparing it with 2013 crime data gives a scewed result and is worthless and perhaps harmful to Wikipedia." skewed* And I wasn't suggesting comparing it with different years. I was suggesting using the same years. 2013 population data is provided from the Census and it is meaningful. Just because they estimated it using births, mortality, and migration data in conjunction with the survey respondents from the previous census doesn't make it any more unreliable.

3) "Vermont has guns. Don't play politics with Bernie Sanders now... [2]" First, I have no interest in politics. I'm interested in providing accurate, meaningful data that is timely. Citing 2010 edited murder data with un-sourced 2007 data that is actually from 2001 is entirely without scientific merit. Moreover, I am aware Vermont has guns. I'm not trying to say they don't. At 28.8% they are still the highest in the region (http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-ownership-by-state-2015-7), which fits with historic trends (In fact, the trends are down across the board which might reflect the fact that the survey was conducted online versus over the phone (the BRFSS method). Although if you are comparing gun ownership rates to other data it shouldn't matter so long as the trends remain consistent, which they are). However, you can't simply source early 2000's data as the end of knowledge (The 2002 Journal you sourced using BRFSS survey results: http://miamidade.floridahealth.gov/programs-and-services/wellness-programs/injury-and-violence-prevention/_documents/GSW%20Storage%20Practices%20in%2050%20States,%202002.pdf). Gun ownership data varies across the years (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/gun-ownership-us-data ). You ought to adopt the most recent state-by-state survey data regardless of what happens to conclusions you may have made. Otherwise, you are intentionally manipulating/skewing data and reducing the scientific vigor/merit of Wikipedia. If you would prefer to use the 2001 or 2002 (or even 2004, which I've seen references to but can't find) data since the BRFSS surveys have far more correspondents than the 2013 survey I cited then you should use 2001 or 2002 census and FBI data accordingly.

4) "Also, you really shouldn't just make your explanatory statement and then immediately revert the article without others' input." I didn't revert it. I read through the talk board and made changes accordingly. I updated the survey data, which someone pointed out was outdated. I used the most recent peer-reviewed survey data as that objectively represents the most responsible choice. I included the corresponding Census and FBI data in accordance with that year. I additionally expanded the table to include other forms of gun-specific violence, which was also mentioned in the forum. Compare that to my initial change where I simply included 2013 data next to the bogus data currently listed and replaced gun murder with homicide, and it is easily apparent that it was not a revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjacomet (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, I'll let you know that I don't have the slightest clue of the veracity of the data contained in this article, before or after your changes. It's not my article, it belongs to Wikipedia. (Personally, I think the article should be deleted as finding usable data for it – including pertinent, consistent, and consistently neutral gun violence statistics – is very problematic, and updating such would –has been– too time-consuming for any editors.) What I am addressing is the fact of you making changes to this kind of hot-button article without consensus. You boldly added your information, it was reverted. That's the wiki-way. Then it is time to discuss the changes you want to make here, on this talk page, with other editors and form a consensus of what to add or not. It is not time to add-back more data and widen the scope of the article by adding additional columns and/or information. All without discussion. Your data and requested widening of the article scope may indeed have merit. That needs to be discussed here, however, before inclusion after a revert has been made. (PS: please sign your comments here using the four tildes ("~~~~"). Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"...without consensus" From a previous talk, ". . . or preferably, we find a more recent study done on the subject and just get rid of these numbers" I updated the data to a credible 2013 survey. The new data is reflective of state-by-state trends demonstrated by BRFSS in 2001, 2002, and 2004. It also is in line with national trends that show an arguably small decline in gun ownership from the early 2000s. Again, from previous discussion, "I agree that it is important to be precise when choosing words. I propose keeping the article title the same, but adjusting the content to more accurately reflect the title." I expanded the scope to include all pertinent gun-related crime listed by the FBI. The idea that the second revision was done without consensus is flat wrong. The updates were made in accordance with the comments from the community. The reversion was made apart from it. I would agree that this table should be removed if the data is not updated to be synchronous.Kjacomet (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

New Changes

I intend to submit a change with the following changes based on previous comments:

1) Update data to include FBI related footnotes. Since the murder totals are only a summation of totals for departments that submit expanded reports it is not accurate to list the totals without them. Additionally, some states are either not represented (i.e. Florida) or are dramatically under-reported (i.e. Illinois).

2) Inclusion of other firearm-related crimes for which there is data (i.e. robbery). There are other crimes as listed by the FBI that also provide weapon related statistics. Previous discussion reveals desire to match the scope of the title, which would include all forms of gun violence. There still should remain a discussion on whether suicide should be included - it is not listed as a violent crime by the FBI.

3) Update citation of gun ownership. Current data provided cites a 2007 source that cites a source that no longer presents such data. The actual source is the 2001 BRFSS data, which provided telephone survey data for 2001 (http://www.schs.state.nc.us/SCHS/brfss/2001/us/firearm3.html), 2002 (http://qz.com/437015/mapped-the-us-states-with-the-most-gun-owners-and-most-gun-deaths/), and 2004 (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/08/22/aje.kwt197.full.pdf+html). There is also a more recent online survey from Injury Prevention that cites ownership rates for 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-ownership-by-state-2015-7). I would suggest using the most recent data available. This represents the most unbiased, objective perspective to take on handling statistics used for analysis. Previous objections were raised to keep the 2001 data because "Vermont has guns." referring to the drop from ~42% in 2001 to ~29% in 2013. Other differences include D.C, which was listed as 3.8% in 2001 and 25.9% in 2013. A discussion of methodology might be warranted here. Regardless of how you feel about what numbers best fit your own view of the world, the most recent, reliable data needs to be selected. That being said, I plan on updating the data to the newest survey results after a week or so unless someone objects since it was previously mentioned that we should use the most recent data.

4) Update violence data. Providing gun ownership rates at 2001 and citing it next to crime data from 2010 is misleading - the data needs to be from the same time. Since I'm updating the gun ownership to 2013, I'll also update to use FBI data from 2013. The other option would be to cite crime data from 2001. The census population estimates from the data of the census to the next census is estimated using births, deaths, and migration data - there is little reason to doubt the reliability of such data any more than the original census estimate.

The following changes will result in data that is at least reasonably comparable. Please state any concerns or objects now for consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjacomet (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, previous comments have suggested that the murder-by-firearm data is incomplete as it is obtained from non-mandatory, expanded crime reports. I plan to include the overall murders reported by each state through mandatory reporting. This will enable viewers of the data to determine which state's provide more reliable reporting (a cursory analysis reveals that only 24 states report complete or nearly complete data). Kjacomet (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gun Ownership % vs. Guns Per Capita

Most sources I've seen report on the number of guns per capita rather than the percentage of persons who claim to own guns. The ownership percentage is interesting information, but is not usually a useful metric.

E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

24.107.185.147 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is Guns Per Capita useful? And why are you discounting the far more useful Gun Ownership %? 73.181.167.112 (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

DC has more gun ownership than Iowa or NH? 45% of Hawaiians own guns?

DC and Hawaii have by far the most restrictive gun laws in the country. There's absolutely no way it has more gun ownership than Iowa or NH. NH has one of the laxest laws in the country.

The BFRSS has it at 3.8% and 8.7% respectively. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

There's no way these numbers are accurate. What was the methodology of the 2013 study? 2607:FB90:543:C773:0:4E:5FF7:8C01 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The link you're citing is from 2001, so it's quite out of date. For example, gun ownership in Hawaii rose by nearly 300% from 2000 to 2015. See:

http://www.civilbeat.org/2015/04/are-there-more-guns-than-people-in-hawaii/

http://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/2015/03/Firearm-Registrations-in-Hawaii-2014.pdf

So, yes, the numbers are likely reasonably accurate. -- HiEv 09:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This is just false. Your own article is about the NUMBER OF GUNS owned per 100 people in Hawaii. It is NOT about the household gun ownership percentage in Hawaii. I quote from your own article: "Hawaii’s gun ownership rates are still much lower than national averages, even with the increase of firearms ownership in the last decade."

The percentage of Hawaiians owning guns is less than the national average. There's no way it is higher that states like NH or Iowa. 72.211.160.224 (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone should add the income inequality stats here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient

So the gun crimes aren't really about guns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.169.45 (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Gun Data Incorrectly Sourced and Prevents Usage of Most Recent Murder Statistics

The title of the article simply relates to murder. I believe the inclusion of gun statistics dilutes the point and purpose.

Reliable statistics on gun ownership and gun murder are either old or unreliable by most standards.

• The statistics for the gun ownership are currently based on a study nearly 10 years old (2007).
• In that time gun ownership has increased dramatically. There is no reason to believe these numbers are timely or accurate.
• Murder statistics by weapon, as collected by the FBI in the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), are not accurate in the most recent (2015) report. This is due to several states not providing supplemental homicide data.
• Due to lack of supplemental data provided by Alabama (starting in the 2011 report) the rate of gun murders cannot be confirmed or reported accurately. In that time period (2010 to 2015) the murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate, regardless of weapon, has increased 27%.
• The numbers assigned to Florida are not cited correctly. The overall murder rate number is from a different table in the UCR (2010, Table 4), which does not describe strictly murder rate but murder and non-negligent homicide rate. The number for the gun murders is also not in the table cited. I do no know where it is derived from.

The only justification I can understand for continuing to use the 2010 UCR data is to allow for the inclusion of gun murders in the table. I believe this does a disservice to the article, shackling it to old data in an attempt to draw correlation. The differences in murder rates from 2010 to 2015 is quite dramatic in many cases. These numbers are derived from Murder and non-negligent homicide rate numbers from Table 4 of the UCR in 2010 and 2015.

• Alaska +88%
• Arizona -30%
• Hawaii -28%
• Idaho +46%
• Iowa +77%
• Massachusetts -41%
• New York -31%
• North Dakota +87%
• Wyoming +93%

I believe the page should be updated with the most recent numbers. I propose:

• The gun ownership column be eliminated.
• The table be updated to use the most recent data from the 2015 UCR.
• The number and rate of gun murders be excluded, or failing that, be updated to the 2015 numbers with the data from Alabama, Illinois, and Florida redacted or heavily marked as to their origin.
• The overall murder statistics be changed from "Total Murders (for which supplemental homicide data was received)", as provided by Table 20 of the UCR to "Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" as provided in Table 4 of the UCR. This would remove the issue of lack of supplemental data being provided by the states. It would also bring nonnegligent manslaughter into the statistical fold.

My suggestions related to the gun statistics are not due to an ideological ax grinding, I believe it is a very important issue to discuss, but I feel its inclusion in this article creates more noise than helpful context. Ben.eric1743 (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have made the previously proposed changes. Of not is that the murder rate statistics don't match exactly with those cited by the FBI. This is due to my using the most recent estimate of 2015 population. Due to small population revisions this caused the murder rate in North Carolina, South Carolina, and District of Columbia to tick up 0.1. Ben.eric1743 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I've updated all of the previously removed data using sources from 2013 and 2015, and marked the problematic areas of the data. I believe that this should alleviate all of Ben.eric1743's concerns about the article. I've also restored the article to it's previous name (changing it from "Murder in the United States by state" back to "Gun violence in the United States by state"). -- HiEv 09:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)