nra, gun-related deaths, suicide rates, domestic violence, second amendment, connecticut, own guns, health care, sandy hook, mass shooters, mass killings, washington post, bear arms, columbine, legal gun, mass murders, obama, own firearms, police officers, american journal of public health, gun sales, gun rights, public policy, handgun, high school, homicide rates, trump, assault weapons, mental illness, hispanic, pew research center, texas, mother jones, gun shows
Courtesy shminhe.com.

TTAG reader RN writes:

Gun control is a huge American political issue right now (especially right after the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida). Democrats are all about infringing on Second Amendment rights because of school shootings, gun-related homicides, firearm deaths, and crime rates.  They claim that Republicans and NRA members are mainly responsible for “gun violence” and are the reason why “common sense gun reform” laws need to be enacted to restrict firearm ownership. Like everyone else on TTAG, I had my doubts about their gun deaths claims and decided to crunch some numbers to see which political party’s members commit more firearms murders in the United States.

I began by finding the most recent number of firearms murders (strictly murders, this doesn’t include suicides or justifiable homicides). The .gov source I used: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WISQARS website. I chose the most recent year they had available (2014). According to the CDC, there were 10,945 murders involving firearms in 2014.

Next, I needed to find an accurate source for murder rates by race. This violent crime stat needs to be broken down by race because each race will have different murder rates and voting rates, which is important for getting an final product based on political affiliation. The source I used was the US Department of Justice’s homicide report published in 2011. The information contained in this report was averaged from 1980 to 2008. Here are the murder rates that can be found on the third page of the report:

52.5% were black perpetrators

45.3% were white perpetrators

2.2% were perpetrators of other races

Lastly, I needed to find the political affiliation for these races. The source I used was Cornell University. I chose to use information from the last presidential election (2012).  Here are the voting rates for the Democrats broken down by race:

93% of blacks voted Democrat

39% of whites voted Democrat

67% of everyone else (average of all races other than black/white) voted Democrat

With numbers in hand, I began my calculations. First up was calculating the number of firearms murders by race. There are a few assumptions in this calculation. For on thing, it assumes that the murder rate from the 1980 to 2008 time period is somewhat correct for 2014 (the year I’m using for firearm murders). It also assumes that there is a 1:1 victim to perpetrator ratio (we all know that this isn’t always true, i.e. mass murders by one perpetrator, but this is the easiest way to compute this information).  Here are my calculations for 2014 firearm murders by race:

5,746.12 firearms murders by blacks (10,945 x .525)

4,958.09 firearm murders by whites (10,945 x .453)

240.79 firearm murders by others (10,945 x .022)

After this was complete, I needed to bring in another variable: political affiliation.

This calculation would give me the total number of firearms murders for Democrats (this political party is a continuation from the calculations above) in 2014 broken down by race. Again, there are a few assumptions here:

  • the 2012 political party affiliation is correct for 2014 (the year I’m using for firearm murders)
  • there is a 1:1 political party affiliation to each perpetrator ratio (we also know this isn’t completely correct because it assumes that every perpetrator belongs to one of these 2 political parties).  We have to make this assumption because there is no other data to go off of for this portion of the analysis and I believe that any error caused by it would only be +/- a few percentage points (hardly enough to have any substantial influence over the outcome).

Here are my calculations for 2014 firearm murders by race and Democrat affiliation (using this party again to remain consistent):

5,343.89 firearm murders by black Democrats (5,746.12 x .93)

1,933.66 firearm murders by white Democrats (4,958.09 x .39)

161.33 firearm murders by other Democrats (240.79 x .67)

Time to add these up to find the total number of firearm murders that were perpetrated by Democrats in 2014:

7,438.88 total firearm murders by Democrats (5,343.89 + 1,933.66 + 161.33)

Lastly, I found the percentage of firearm murders that were perpetrated by Democrats in 2014:

67.97% gun murders by democrats (7,438.88/10,945)

According to my calculations, about 68% of all gun homicides in 2014 were committed by Democrats. Only 32% of all firearm homicides in 2014 were committed by Republicans. This means that Democrats committed twice the number of firearm related murders than Republicans (68/32 = 2.125). This leads to three very important conclusions regarding gun policy:

  • Republicans aren’t to blame for the number of firearm murders, as the Democrats try to claim
  • If Democrats stopped shooting people, we could reduce our firearm related murders by almost 70%
  • Guns aren’t the problem, Democrats are.

Related posts

5 Reasons Why Universal Background Checks Are a Terrible Idea

Currently, any private seller can get a background check on any private transaction. The law already prohibits sales to people who are banned from owning guns. Gun Owners of America opposes any legislative policy move to add additional requirements, incentives or processes to increase background checks on private sales.

Violent Crime is Down While Gun Ownership is Up. Again. Still.

The FBI has released its crime data for 2018 and the news is good. Violent crime dropped 3.3 percent in 2018 compared to 2017.

California Gun Ownership More Than Doubles Over the Past Decade

“Experts” confounded by an increase in gun ownership in California. It’s almost as if telling people they can’t have an item designed for self-defense makes them want it more.

Jones: Democrats Are Taking Advantage of the Average American’s Unfamiliarity With Current Gun Laws to Sell More Control

“I was stopped by the FBI at a New York City airport because they thought my passport was in Baghdad last year,” Johnny (“Joey”) Jones said. “My point is the government can’t use their own systems correctly… if you apply for a ‘Class-3’ firearm it could take three months or 12 months, under the same name, so the point is we can’t use the systems we have today correctly, why would the American people hand law enforcement the opportunity to screw it up even more.”

Since California Won’t Put Those Convicted of Gun Crimes Away Long Enough, The Federal Government Is Doing it For Them

California is more than happy to pile on more and more gun control laws that almost exclusively affect law-abiding citizens. But when it comes to keeping criminals convicted of gun crimes off the street, they’re not  particularly interested.

130 COMMENTS

  1. TIL I learned that 52.5% of murders are committed by 14.3% (really 7.15%, and really much smaller than that) of the population.

    • It would be 47.25% of murders are committed by 7.15% of the population since 90% of the perpetrators are male.

      • Weird, I would have thought it was much higher than 90% but the FBI says 90.3, so I was way off. OTOH you also have to multiply the 7.15 by the 66.2% between the age of 15-65, so ~4.7%

        All this is meant to be tongue in cheek anyway, before the RocketScientist jumps on my numbers. The reality is that all murders are committed by a minuscule portion of the population that is almost always already well know to the justice system.

        • There probably aren’t that many murders committed by people in the 40-65 age bracket either.

          Most crimes are committed by young men aged 15-30.

        • That would fall into the 20/80 rule: 20% of a given population cause 80% of the problems. In a recent NPR interview with gun policy researcher Robert Spitzer, he found that the majority of gun violence perps were domestic violence abusers.

          There is a problem with your stats: 1/3 of the population don’t vote.

    • Ft.Hood shooter Nidal Hasan – Democrat, and muslim
      Adam Lanza – Liberal, hated Christians
      Columbine High School freaks – too young to vote but came from very liberal families
      Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho – liberal freak
      Virginia Tech decapitater – liberal
      Colorado Theater shooter James Holmes – liberal
      Live on air Roanoke VA TV station shooter Vester Lee Flanagan – liberal
      Navy shipyard shooter Aaron Alexis – liberal
      Arizona Gabby Giffords shooter Jared Loughner – Liberal, hated Bush
      The DC snipers back in 2003 – Liberals
      Chattanooga TN Marine Recruiting center shooter – Muslim democrat
      Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) – Leftist

      Want more examples of the violent left?…

      Lee Harvy Oswald (JFK) – Marxist (hard core lefty)
      John Hinkley (Reagan) – Democrat
      John Wilkes Booth (Lincoln) – Democrat
      Lynette ‘squeaky’ Fromme (Gerd Ford attempt) – Liberal
      Sir Han Sir Han (RFK) – Liberal
      Bill Ayers – US domestic terrorist – Liberal
      Bernadine Dohrn – US domestic terrorist – Liberal
      Black panther party – leftist based organization
      Occupy Wall Street – over 8,000 arrests, 3 murders, 2 arson, 10 plus reported rapes – a hardcore leftist movement
      KKK- was spawn from democrats
      Eradication of Jews 1940’s (holocaust) – Hitler a member of the National Socialist Workers Party aka a hardcore leftist.
      Planned parenthood – a leftist organization, created for the sole purpose to eradicate blacks, (do some research on Margaret Sanger)
      Slavery – Democrats were proponents.

      Yes, I know we’ve had a few on the right that were really bad, but damn, hard to ignore the left’s history above.

      • Booth wasn’t a Democrat. He was a Know-nothing. I’d point out that most of the rest of your list is bullshit too, but it’s been done over and over.

        • Regardless he was anti Republican and pro slavery, as we’re Democrats.. about as close to left that you can get

  2. This post is great if you want to circlejerk over how bad democrats are, which is fine. But this methodology is SOOOOO terrible with so many holes, suppositions, and logical fallacies, its essentially useless for anything else. We (correctly) rail against the anti-gun folks when they use such bullshit analyses to “prove” their points. We should be equally intolerant of our own when they do the same. Especially since with most of the arguments to be made in the gun debate, we ACTUALLY have facts on our side. There’s no reason to go torturing numbers to draw untenable conclusions to fit our narrative, and it makes us look shitty when we do.

    Just my two cents though. What the hell do i know.

    • The analysis is too flawed for pro-gun people to use, and not flawed enough for anti-gun people to use.

    • RocketScientist,

      Go ahead and tell us why RN’s numbers are wildly inaccurate. Better yet, compute your own number and share it with us.

      Care to bet that your number will show that Democrats commit an even higher percentage of murders?

      • On thing is certain. The highest violent crime and murders come from larger cities. The “rates” of homicides are higher in larger cities than the rural regions and the state as a whole. Also – most often democratic votes come from the cities more than those dwelling in the countryside.

        • I have number to support that claim. I did some analysis using US census and FBI UCR data to conclude for the state of Michigan that 76% of our Murders are comitted in 10 cities that that account for 12% of the state’s population and less than 1% of the state’s landmass. Murder rate for those 10 cities combined is 31.4 per 100k vs the rest of the state at 1.38 per 100k. Violent crime is 48% for the same cities/population/landmass.

      • Right, we’re not arguing about how bad liberal progressive communist leftist (D)emocrats are. Everybody knows what a scourge they are, and that they’re too deleterious to even rate the title of “worthless”.

        All of what we are forced to argue against here on TTAG is the product of the evil of liberal progressive communist leftist
        (D)emocrats .

        We’re not sorry if it hits too close to home for some of you, we’d love to be able to come up with a cure or a fix for it, but, like what we argue over here, IT’S YOUR PROBLEM.

      • Common sense says its garbage. Were all of the criminals interviewed as to which political party they recently voted? Hell, what are the odds any of them even voted in any election? If you are shooting people in the face over a street corner, you aren’t likely voting in any election.

        The dude picked three unrelated surveys and drew an overlapping diagram on them and said “Viola! All blacks are democrats and those black democrats use firearms to commit most of the homicides! Then they demand gun control! What hypocrites!!” Then patted himself on the back for how clever he is.

        That isn’t how you fucking draw conclusions from studies and this is the reason why liberals think conservatives are drooling idiots.

        • You are not much of a rocket scientist if you cannot understand the simple math.
          These numbers, if anything, are understating the percentage of democrat miscreants..
          A person who doesn’t vote can still be considered a democrat.

        • Well, while you may not be able to perfectly conclude that the majority of gun violence is committed by “democrats”, I think we can agree that they are committed by Obama supporters.

        • I completely agreed. Simple numbers isn’t enough. There’s a reason the average Joe with a calculator and spare time isn’t called a statistician.

        • Yes, this study does have flaws. Yes, there is a margin of error. This was just a quick and easy, down and dirty research effort to prove a point. The point is that Democrats commit more violent crimes. I have not done any research but would guess that Republicans outnumber Dems in white collar, non-violent crimes. If you look at a parking lot and notice that MOST of the cars are a specific brand, you don’t have to know exact numbers to realize that cars of that particular brand outnumber all of the others. We also don’t have to ask political affiliation of each individual when well documented stats show us “majorities” in said fields. Another poster mentioned that a certain % don’t vote. They don’t have to vote to show support for a given side or party. People can complain about this article if they like, but “flawless” research of this subject will show the same results – the numbers will vary but ultimately the facts will be the same. We could paint every U.S. citizen purple and conduct the same study. The results will still give us Democrats. You’re welcome to bring other factors into the equation that might give reasons to “why”. Start with inner city vs rural, poverty, single parent household, drug use, etc… I’m sorry the truth hurts but facts don’t take emotions into consideration.

      • The percentage of black murders commuted by Democrats are probably demographically 100% but in reality most the murderers of any race are probably non participants in the political system. Party affiliation is irrelvent. What isn’t irrelevant is that the jurisdictions with highest murder rates are run by Democrats who have gone out of their way to design a system that produces criminals.

      • You can’t compare correlations to get an accurate result.
        Just because 93% of Black people vote Democrat, doesn’t mean that 93% of Black people who commit a murder were Democrats.
        A large percentage wouldn’t even be legally allowed to register to vote, because Felons in many States can’t register, and a large percentage of those who commit homicides already have felony conviction.
        Plus, I’d ventured that of the 7% registered as Republicans, a much smaller percentage are committing homicides than other Black people, because they tend to be older.

      • It’s not that the numbers are inaccurate, per se.

        The entire method relies on every citizen being ideologically align to a political party.

        MOST murders in the U.S. are perpetrated by people who don’t care about politics, at all.

        • John Wayne Gacy, the mass murderer of 33 young men, was a devout worker for the Democratic Party. Proven fact.
          While it may be true that not all criminals are politically active, it is also true that many of the worse mass killers were also known to be strong Democrats.
          William Booth, Southern Democrat.

      • Let’s begin with me, I am not a liberal, I am not a Democrat, I have no stake in the data being proved or disproved. I simply want it to be known that this article is insignificant and bigoted. The statistics are not calculated correctly and the racial data is not correct. The comparative times are wildly at odds and so even if the numberrs Were correct, and they aren’t, this page would be utterly worthless mathematically speaking. Furthermore, the correlation between gun crime and racial statistics is only useful for representing current inmate populations.

        OK I will tell you why I think the numbers are wrong. The formula that is used here is expressed as the populations total murders over a given time multiplied by the proportion of the population which fits a category such as 10,945 x .525 and then diluted into a further calculation of the same problem, such as 5746.12 x .93. This method is completely flawed, not only does it increase in inaccuracy the more you continue this calculation (seeing as we have no numbers to confirm that the original calculation or the secondary calculation bears out into reality) but it is not the correct equation. A statistician doesn’t use n x n(2)=y and then y x n(3)=z they use this y = y1 + (x – x1) x [(y2-y1)/(x2-x1)] there is a website that will do this calculation for you. https://www.easycalculation.com/analytical/linear-interpolation.php but you need to go here https://www.bjs.gov/rawdata.cfm and get Actual Numbers. The percentages are not statistically important without the raw data.

        after you have finished that equation you need to calculate the skew of the statistics, account for variable change, account for human error and errors in the raw data set. after all of that you will have a statistically meaningful number. There is not a single word of this whole article that is mathematically correct in any way, including but not limited to comparative time sets, comparative data sets comparative population numbers, political assossiaction numbers calculations, skew or any other factor.

    • True

      Each murderer is an individual, and many probably don’t register to vote anyway.

      But it is pretty clear that there is a single group (black, male, big city, 15-40 years old) which commits around 50% of murders, yet is only around 5% of the population – and it part of a larger group that is monolithically Democrat.

    • Frankly, it is a very rational analysis, more of an engineering style than statistics.
      Engineers do real stuff, statisticians play imaginary games.

      • If you think this is a valid statistical analysis in any sense, you are woefully incorrect. See various comments above.

    • Do ever see anti gun people break ranks. Of course not,they are focused on the goal of taking our God given rights away from us. Many on our side are often too worried about being the smartest in the room or looking for the credit for work they didn’t do. I am looking forward to your analysis of the data.

    • Calm your tits Rocket (and I seriously doubt that claim as NO ONE in my realms of AE acts as arrogant as you). Did anyone else hear see how tongue-in-cheek this article is? It proves the point of political affliation, whilst also showing how you can simply mangle numbers to suit whatever your goal is. Jeebus, a elementary school kid could have pointed this out to you…

    • Absolutely agree. Far too many assumptions made that will skew the results.
      Probably the most galling to me is that registered voters affiliation is public record and convicted criminal names are as well. While the data may cost money, it is easily attainable.
      We, 2A proponents, really need to refrain from the manipulation of statistics, intentionally or unintentionally, that our protagonists display.

    • Explain? I mean yeah, income and population density would skew the actual numbers, since both play their part more in acts of violent crime than mere political affiliations, but how would you do it?

      not being a smart ass, genuinely curious.

    • I have done much the same research a few years ago, then someone sent me something saying that the highest gun crimes were in the Bible belt, so I played the game. I looked up each state then the county, then each district and precinct.sure enough the state was high all of the areas of high gun crimes were democratic areas. I see this as being more of a moral problem. a lack of morals has a lot to do with the way we think and act. look at the Amish a little quirky but they don’t have the kind of violence most groups have. if you want to have a solid country it has to have a solid moral core. Thomas Jefferson said a country with a God base can not survive long. I have led by example in my home and you couldn’t ask for better kids and my standards are very high.

    • Rocket is right.
      Well for starters, he assumes that people that commit these crimes vote, when more often they do not.
      Then, he does not take away repeat offenders that have done time. These individuals have a high repeat rate, and in most states can not vote, but often their original political registration stays in the books.
      This apples to all races.

      Those are the two easy ones to dispute/discredit.

    • Your first mistake is assuming that voting for a party makes you a member of that party, which you know isn’t true. So you were fine with publishing statistics based on imaginary data, which makes ALL of this complete bulls**t. Nice waste of time, bozo…

    • Sure, blame the methodology for being not exactly perfect and throwing the baby out with the bath water. Due to exorbitant cost to track down each and every felon (and hope they are actually honest!) it is impossible to get an EXACT figure.

      We can, however, use data available to get some useful and ‘less than rough’ results.
      It matters not if someone was from a city or whether they actually voted or registered. Those werent the question. The question, essentially, was what party and party’s values did they identify with and have an affinity for.

      Liberals attack Conservatives every day with ZERO statistics: “If you didnt vote for Obama then you are a racist”. “If you are White then you are inherently racist and have White Privilege. See?!? I think the stats are pretty spot on given my court experience.

    • Right, I feel like it would be more useful to know what percentage of the shootings are politically motivated. Living in a big city where drive by shootings and gang violence by people of color are the norm, I would have to figure that if they are registered, they are Democrat, but I don’t think the bloods and crips gang fight is because of political differences.

    • There is another way of finding more reliable statistics. Using a specific geographic location that is in the highest majority of each party affiliation. That will give the most accurate calculations compared to the mean of the entire country.

    • Guns or their use by civilians are not up for debate. “Shall not be infringed” is the referee whistle here. As for the political association to mass shooters to illustrate an example of flawed ideology, is more than fair and a button pusher for liberals, because they try their best to disassociate themselves with these by contesting their views as either “unsubstantiated” or they right out lie as they did with news week where they tried to convince readers that Paddock was a Christian and the “Far Right” is denying it. Liberals are fully aware of those that pander left leaning views have the higher propensity for gun violence. They do this by re galvanizing their “peaceful” stance on antigun beliefs and use displacement to lay their sins on the opposition. You are already the party the party that gave power to the KKK, Jim Crowe, and now Antifa which all have resulted in violence. Most inmates especially African Americans identify as democrat/liberals yet you say it is a poor argument to associate them with the higher percentage of murder, but in the same breath will make the excuse that it is amongst the poor (whom very often vote democrat), that higher more serious crimes are committed to guilt republicans for higher taxes and marginal job prospects, so it can’t be both ways. All the mass murders were either liberals, democrats (the difference is between those that vote and those that claim or valid by action their liberal views), or muslims. You don’t need be registered as democrat to claim liberal views just as conservatives do not with their views; it is a comparison of what we find similar in their actions and views that make mass shooters more than likely liberal or lean left. Conservatives are often Christians and are dictated by those beliefs. Liberals on the other hand seem to be more prone to criminal behaviour because they lack the moral aptitude of adhering to a system of laws or guidance that does not build on their views. Their floor is freedom from those systems that they have been taught to demonize which is why those that hate Christians, The constitution, laws, because they are all systems of control. They spend millions of dollars to subjugate laws that do not permit them this freedom from this system which is why they try to destroy things as the definition of marriage, free speech, and try to make the wrong things legal like pedophilia, letting in illegals, or simply not saying a word when people they vote for like Obama break his oath of office 87 times… With that being said, the likelihood that most if not all of these mass shooters are leftist is almost a guarantee. You hate laws that do not let you be deviants; we don’t.

  3. Seems legit. If we deport the democrats, this leaves California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New York, Mass., New Jersey, Connecticut, and a few other states open for re-colonization. I’m in.

  4. “Guns aren’t the problem, Democrats are.”

    We already knew that. But it is nice to have the actual data that proves it.

    • Research mass killers since the dawn of the ‘internet age’ and determine politcal affiliation.

      Remember, nothing goes away on the ‘net.

      I’m convinced that research will show the majority are left-leaning…

  5. How many high-profile murders were committed by Democrats?

    How many murders committed by professed Conservatives?

    Democrats want to tax firearms and ammunition sales and give the money to Planned Parenthood to kill nearly 50% of everyone who passes through their doors.

    The U.S. State Dept. through ITAR regulations, tax firearms and ammunition manufacture, and they use it in programs overseas, one of which is the promotion of abortion.

    “Poop to that” – Marvin Boggs

  6. America in 2016 is basically where Weimar Germany was in 1932, morally speaking.
    Healthy societies don’t need to regulate firearms. Most of Europe had virtually no gun control in 1900. Millions of small, concealable firearms were being churned out by factories in Britain, France, Belgium, Germany and Spain between the late 1800’s and the middle of the 20th century.

      • no doubt the American form of bat shit crazy will follow within 20 years.

        Plus we way more civilian arms than Germany ever had along with a penchant for individual liberties.

      • Exactly this.

        All ISIS needs to do is pull off a large-scale attack a couple of weeks before the election, ideally the kind that would make for the most dramatic TV picture. And that will be that – hello President Trump, goodbye First Amendment. The rest will follow.

        • Trump already has this election in the bag. But another terrorist attack and lack of response other than hand wringing by the dems will make it a shoe in.

        • Trump is twelve points down on Clinton and now that primary season is over, it’s going to be 24/7 fawning over her. I don’t see how he has a chance in hell of winning.

        • Awww, CarlosT, I love your posts but this time you’re wrong.

          A shallow dive of the data reveals the methodology they are using in the polls to prop up Hillary. They are weighting the mix of voters way out of line for either of the past two elections. When adjusted, Trump is leading nationally and in battleground states. And he has four months to beat Crooked Hillary like a red-headed step-child.

          Remember, he was going to hose her in a press conference on Monday, but a crazy jihadi went and shot 100+ people…

        • Makes one wonder if that little stain had clinton ties…. It’s certainly a convenient diversion for the ‘beast, and an opportunity for them to bang on their drum.

  7. As much as I loathe gun-grabbing national-office Democrats, I’m trusting that this “analysis” is presented “tongue-in-cheek” style.

    • Yep, but it is a step or two above what passes for scientific analysis on the part of the American left.

      • True enough–but then leftist intellectual “analysis” is, after all, a pretty low bar to surmount…

  8. This isn’t firearm homicides by party affiliation, this is firearm homicides by race, multiplied by party affiliation by race. I’m sorry, the two aren’t the same, no matter how convenient it is to calculate.

  9. Them other races, not black or white, is some peacefull mofos according to this fellow. We ought to let them be in charge for a while.

  10. Good grief.

    You can’t just assume that out of the population of blacks, exactly 90 percent of murders are committed by democrats because 90 percent of registered blacks are democrats.

    You’ve not even established that murders are committed only by registered voters. In fact, I’d bet good money that that’s not only something you can’t establish, it’ll be possible to establish it is NOT true.

    So given you’ve listed no percentage for murderers who aren’t registered to vote, this so-called “study” is a valueless, festering, rancid piece of shit that should be given no credence–and will discredit anyone who does.

    Just be glad I didn’t tell you what I *really* think.

  11. “If Democrats stopped shooting people, we could reduce our firearm related murders by almost 70%

    Guns aren’t the problem, Democrats are.”

    I have to say, I like this guy!

    His stats seem to be equally as valid as the rabid gun-grabbers…

  12. This was touched upon by youtuber Stefan Molyneux in one of his videos, not specifically party lines but demographics. The reason why most large cities have problems with homicides is their demographic downtown. I feel that RF’s use to show party affiliation is correct with the demographic race breakdown. If you try to find that specific Stefan Molyneux video be forewarned his videos are often too long and wordy. I normally can’t sit through them but the one I am referring to I did and found it informative.

  13. So can we get a homicide watch list started and put all the dems on it? Ban them from firearms ownership. You know, for the children.

  14. Way too many assumptions and correlation without supporting evidence of causation. That said, there’s something that tells me the author was aware of that and trying to make some point. I just can’t figure out what that point is. Maybe the point is that this is exactly the kind of research scientists are given multi-million dollar grants of my money to do. If so, we’ll done!!

  15. People are saying this is stupid and inaccurate… I thought it was satire to be honest.

    • It was funny, but true.

      Maybe we should do a proper random sample and figure out exactly what their party affiliation would be. I’m banking all those criminals don’t go to church on Sundays…

  16. Mr. Farago:

    You should send that over to The Trace. ?

    It seems anti-gun, so they might publish it before they read it.

  17. The Article is a fine example of how referenced statistics are manipulated to achieve a desired result. This is a common practice by anti-gun politicians, groups and “scholars” .

    A reference is needed that reflects murderers social or civic desire to take part in the political process. Lol

    • I wholeheartedly agree; I think the percentage of murders committed by Democrats are much HIGHER than RF’s deductions state….

  18. Good work. Remember, however, that the govt fraudulently includes nonwhite Mestizos and Arab/Islamic people as “whites.” Probably half of your white crimes are probably committed by nonwhite Hispanics/Arabs who vote Democrat. (This also means that if a nonwhite Mestizo/Arab kills a white person out of hate, it’s considered a white-on-white crime.)

  19. I don’t intend to discuss politics/religion/sexual preference/national origin with anyone trying to kill me, and with damn few that aren’t.

  20. Gun control has nothing to do with race ,sex, nationality , the people that want gun control don’t give a shit about who dies they kill thousands of people each day for money and power.They want your freedoms and you must be their slave. If you give them all they will want more .IT’S TIME THAT THEY DIE.

  21. This would be even more interesting if adjusting for ethnicity, also. Since 2013, the FBI has resumed tracking Hispanic/Latino which allows separation from non-Hispanic ‘White’.

  22. This would be equivalent to me saying 80% of the asian population eat, so if 1000lbs of beans are sold 80% of it must be eaten by asians, when in reality they probably only eat rice. There is no correlation of party affiliation to gun purchase or crime committed unless you polled the shooters. It also completely ignores issues like education level, poverty level, or any other factors that could affect crime due to long term discriminatory practices.

  23. Most perpetrators are male, and most males vote Republican, therefore most of them must be Republican.

    Same exact reasoning.

    Really, really stupid.

  24. According to data compiled by Mother Jones magazine, which looked at mass shootings in the United States since 1982, white people — almost exclusively white uneducated men — committed some 64% of the shootings.

    And since white uneducated men voted for Republican or Libertarian 76% of the time, we can say that non-white, educated, female Democrats committed murder by guns 0.000001% of the time.

    Your calculations are stupid and irrelevant.

    Guns don’t kill people. The bullets destroying skulls and internal organs kill people.

  25. …..Let’s Cut the Crap, shall we?

    Conservatives are NOT running around SHOOTING and KILLING Americans. MOST Homicides are committed in Big Cities; Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, etc…..The overwhelming percentage of Criminals are (in this order, per FBI Stats) ; Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Asians, other. …..Some criminals vote, some don’t, but the overwhelming number of criminals that vote….VOTE DEMOCRAT.

  26. These numbers are wrong. The assumptions made lump hispanics with whites. Hispanics vote 67% democrat and commit 27% of the murders. Whites vote 26% democrat and commit 23% of murders. If you extrapolate whites from hispanics you find that democrats commit 73% of the murders. Check for yourself but understand that when they claim black vs whites it really means black vs whites/hispanics.

  27. There is one GAPING Hole in this calculation. The calculations were based off data from THE ONLY TIME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT WE HAD AN AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT. That makes the 90+% of black voters casting a vote for the democrats an anomaly and thereby disqualifies your calculations. I suspect your original hypothesis that democrats commit more murders than republicans is probably correct, but if so, it is most likely at a much smaller margin. It certainly is not a 2/3 vs 1/3 margin

  28. Mattg, I suspect that your numbers understate the case against democrats. Quite badly. Your methodology assumes a relatively pure Gaussian distribution of murders across party lines.

    Without doing some heavy math, my guess would be that in excess of 90% of murders are committed by people who identify as or associate themselves with democrats. It wouldn’t even surprise me if it were 95%.

  29. 70% of people in the U.S. a Christian.

    Therefore 70% of all mass shootings are committed by Christians.

    Also 70% of all rapes are too.

    Also 70% of all Terrorist attacks.

    And 70% of all telemarketing calls.

    70% Of all attendees of Synagogue must be Christian.

    And 70% of all homeless people are Christian too.

    70% of all people with Diarrhea are Christian.

    100% of your calculations are useless.

    This is the most illogical thing I’ve ever read. I’m neither a Republican or a Democrat and wanted to see if an actual study was done on this. This was not even worth a hemorrhoid on a dolphin.

  30. Wow, that is some impressively bullshit statistical analysis there. Did you ever take High School math?

    Firstly, yes 93% of African Americans who vote do vote Democrat, but voter turnout among African Americans is not 100% and there’s no reason to think that African Americans who commit gun crimes are a representative sample of all African Americans.

    This article actually acknowledges their completely flawed methodology, but because they’re trying to sell you a false narrative they blatantly ignore it. Here’s an ACTUAL quote from the article you just sent.

    “[We assume] there is a 1:1 political party affiliation to each perpetrator ratio (we also know this isn’t completely correct because it assumes that every perpetrator belongs to one of these 2 political parties). We have to make this assumption because there is no other data to go off of for this portion of the analysis and I believe that any error caused by it would only be +/- a few percentage points (hardly enough to have any substantial influence over the outcome).”

    No, you DON’T have to assume that. Less than half of the population belongs to either of the two parties and it’s HIGHLY likely that violent criminals are not politically active. I bet that a very small minority of people who commit gun crime are Democrats OR Republicans. Most criminals are probably neither.

    Democrats are centrists, not Leftists. The short list of terrorist attacks (terrorism has to be politically motivated) is almost entirely made up of religious fanatics, who occupy the right side of the political spectrum. Most attacks are not politically motivated, however. Republicans aren’t shooting people, but far-right radicals are. Democrats aren’t shooting people, and neither are far-left radicals. That’s why the FBI considers right-wing terror to be the biggest terrorist threat.

  31. Suppose that your flawed analysis were correct.

    Then tell me WHY you want to keep firearms so readily available to everyone ? ?

    This is a great example of the irrationality of the Gunnie outlook ! !

  32. Oh dear, this is the most illogical, convoluted article I have read in a long time. Amazing that someone would spend their time manipulating numbers in that manner. Anyone with any education can see right through your attempt to justify your BS. But then that is not your target audience is it?

  33. This article is a good example of stastical jerrymandering. I guess all those people committing suicide on Alaska were Democrats.

  34. This is a duplicate comment, I just figured that it deserved being in a larger forum.

    Let’s begin with me, I am not a liberal, I am not a Democrat, I have no stake in the data being proved or disproved. I simply want it to be known that this article is insignificant and bigoted. also, I want it known that I Love my second amendment rights, I’m an avid target shooter and I average around 750 shots down range a week; I’d average more if my budget allowed. The statistics are not calculated correctly and the racial data is not correct. The comparative times are wildly at odds and so even if the numbers Were correct, and they aren’t, this page would be utterly worthless mathematically speaking. Furthermore, the correlation between gun crime and racial statistics is only useful for representing current inmate populations.

    OK I will tell you why I think the numbers are wrong. The formula that is used here is expressed as the populations total murders over a given time multiplied by the proportion of the population which fits a category such as 10,945 x .525 and then diluted into a further calculation of the same problem, such as 5746.12 x .93. This method is completely flawed, not only does it increase in inaccuracy the more you continue this calculation (seeing as we have no numbers to confirm that the original calculation or the secondary calculation bears out into reality) but it is not the correct equation. A statistician doesn’t use n x n(2)=y and then y x n(3)=z they use this y = y1 + (x – x1) x [(y2-y1)/(x2-x1)] there is a website that will do this calculation for you. https://www.easycalculation.com/analytical/linear-interpolation.php but you need to go here https://www.bjs.gov/rawdata.cfm and get Actual Numbers. The percentages are not statistically important without the raw data.

    after you have finished that equation you need to calculate the skew of the statistics, account for variable change, account for human error and errors in the raw data set. after all of that you will have a statistically meaningful number. There is not a single word of this whole article that is mathematically correct in any way, including but not limited to comparative time sets, comparative data sets comparative population numbers, political assossiaction numbers calculations, skew or any other factor.

  35. This entire premise of your numbers is heavily faulty. You forgot to mention that using the political affliction of the general populace of Blacks and Whites as representative of the political affliction of murderers of those races is highly erroneous. Even if 40% of Whites votes for Democrats in general, it could be 10% of White murderers who vote for Democrat. If it made sense to treat the political demographics of Black/White people in general and Black/White murderers as the same, you might as well treat the political affiliation of the general population as a whole and the political demographics of murderers as the same.

    • I completely agree with you! This “data” is, at best, flawed. I wonder if it occurred to the author that most murderers don’t vote, or even register with a political party!
      I believe this was written as an attempt to rile up liberals, and nothing more. I’d be shocked if any of my students turned in a research paper this poorly done, and I teach 6th grade! I can’t believe anyone bothered to take the time to publish this, even on a BS website like this!

  36. According to your data, WHITE REPUBLICANS ARE TWICE AS LIKELY to commit a gun crime than white democrats. No surprises here.

  37. Democrats are to blame for most of the murders in this country and almost all of the murders in large cities. Democrats are most likely to get killed by other Democrats. No surprises here.

  38. So by your logic 61% of white murderers are republican. Which means white republicans are more dangerous than white democrats. But of course this is bullshit logic because it doesn’t take into account gender (most murderers are male so including female voting % throws ur numbers off) and there’s really no correlation in these numbers. For all we no all white murderers are republican or they could have no political affiliation or it could be any ratio really. Bottom line just because 61% of whites vote republican and 39% vote Democrate does not mean murderers will be split by the same ratio

    • And of course we gloss over the fact that 6-7% of the population is responsible for 50% of the murders. Oh, and that black on white crime is much more prevalent than the other way around. Granted you are most likely to be the victim of crime by the major demographic of your social circle, but you can’t argue there’s a HUGE disparity of murders committed by a very small demographic in the US.

  39. The mental gymnastics required to conclude this analysis is even remotely valid would make even Stephen Hawking’s brain hurt.

  40. Typical right wingers spewing out stats that mean nothing. Hey moron, did you know there are more Democrats than Republicans and did you also know more Democrats live in big cities. It’s less likely that a murder will be committed by a republican when his nearest neighbor is a mile away.

  41. Liberals commit more crime, more violence, and more sexual abuse. They are less moral because they reject God and the morality that goes with Him. They also see lying as a matter of course and have no qualms knowingly deceiving others. The far left merges into Satanism.

  42. Interesting coorelation. We already know that over %50 of murders are committed by one demographic, black males which make up 6-7% of the population. And again, most of those are committed in high-crime areas dominated by democratic politicians and policies. This was a simplistic approach to get an idea of crime by ideology. Is it flawed? Most certainly. But I wouldn’t say any more so than the polls taken by news organizations that survey 800-1200 people and extrapolate that to the entire US population. In fact, I would argue their methodology is much less accurate.

  43. Landed on this page while searching the web for some factual data on this very subject. I like the work that went in to it and there is no doubt that a lot of time was spent on research. As much as I want to know what the real the numbers are, without them being evidence based, the true message will be lost by the fact that there is no way to substantiate the numbers. As you stated in your article, there are many assumptions. Like that the gun murder rates across political and racial lines actually line up with the voting numbers. The numbers for dems could be better or far, far worse. The whites that committed these crimes could have been 98% democrat instead of the 39% number used or it could be less. Not to mention that it also assumes that all of the black perps, for example, are voters or say that they would identify with a particular political party. Again, what you presented is very thought provoking and I’m not trying to pick it apart, as you already disclosed your assumptions, I just wish there was a way to obtain good numbers. In the end, I believe that your numbers are very conservative which is a safer way to lean. Thanks for your hard work!!!

  44. I like your conclusion that guns aren’t the problem, Democrats are.

    I was a Democrat and converted to being a Republican once I discovered what the Democrat party was up to. I don’t agree with your analytical method but your conclusions are probably correct. The Democrats are generally soft on crime and want to take away guns from the honest person make it impossible for them to protect themselves. Look at Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco and other Democratic control cities where crime is bad.

  45. Here’s the fallacy that makes this article a waste of time:
    You assume that 9/10 blacks are Democrats and 9/10 murders are committed by blacks;
    What stops you from assuming that all 9 of those murders were committed by the 1/10 black guy that was conservative?
    This analysis simply does not pass even the most basic level of scrutiny.
    Totally useless.

  46. Facebook sensorship is blocking this from being reposted. The liberal banning of fact based studies that are against their liberal agenda is frightening.
    I can only hope conservatives or the Supreme Court can force Facebook to allow all views to be posted

  47. We queried the Cruz campaign, but didn’t hear back. CNN reported that Cruz’s campaign, when asked, cited research by two academics, Marc Meredith, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Michael Morse, then of Stanford University. They published a paper in the January 2014 edition of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science titled, “Do Voting Rights Notification Laws Increase Ex-Felon Turnout?” (After we published our item, Cruz defended the statement to ABC News on the basis of that study.)…Cruz’s claim relies not on the general thrust of the paper but on some of the data contained within it.

    For instance, in New York, about one-third of felons released from prison registered to vote after their release. Of those, about 62 percent registered as Democrats and 9 percent registered as Republicans, with 26 percent registering as independents or with other parties.

    In North Carolina, about a quarter of those who were released registered after their release. Of those, 52 percent registered as Democrats, 19 percent as Republicans and 22 percent as independents or with other parties.

    And in New Mexico, 41 percent of those who were released registered to vote. Of those, 55 percent registered as Democrats, 10 percent as Republicans and 18 percent as independents or with other parties.

  48. Well, looking at the way groups like BLK, ANTIFA, and other democratic leftists are doing in the US, we don’t need statistics to see reality at play. You don’t see Republicans out hurting people, burning cities down, destroying people’s livelihood, and so forth. Democrats are in support of it. none of them are trying to stop these terrorists. so, I agree that the vast majority of violent crimes {including gun crimes} are by people outside the Republican community.

    • Antifascists aren’t a democratic organisation.
      Democrats aren’t Leftists, they’re centrists.
      Liberals have always been enemies of the Left, they always ally with the right against them.

      Bidens & Clinton’s election is a good example, rather allying with he left, Clinton allied with an anti-labor vp. Biden also went further right, has a history of doing so. He’s written. The 1995 omnibus that was copied word for word for the patriot act.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here