Homicide Rates by Guns and Other Factors

There are often claims that there is an explosion of homicide by guns in the USA.  But the actual data are shown here for homicides and non-negligent manslaughter:

This data is from a report by the Congressional Research Service for Congress entitled Gun Control Legislation by William J. Krouse, dated 14 November 2012.  The murder rates and those committed with the use of guns are higher than one would like of course, but they are not exactly exploding.  In fact, they have been coming down.

If we just look at the murder rate by gun and exclude non-negligent manslaughter, the U.S. rate was 2.75 per hundred thousand in 2011.  But this rate varied greatly from state to state and region to region.  The list of states and DC with rates above 3.00 is given below from higher to lower rates:

District of Columbia, 12.46
Louisiana, 10.16
Mississippi, 7.46
South Carolina, 5.41
Michigan, 5.06
Maryland, 4.70
Missouri, 4.64
Arkansas, 4.39
New York, 4.12
Pennsylvania, 3.97
Georgia, 3.93
Tennessee, 3.92
North Carolina, 3.87
Oklahoma, 3.64
Ohio, 3.54
Indiana, 3.29
California, 3.25
Delaware, 3.09
Nevada, 3.07
New Jersey, 3.07

The cause of these major murder rate by gun differences by state and other local variations has not been much discussed.  There does not appear to be a simple and strong rule of thumb based on gun controls that explains this.  DC and Chicago both have severe gun control laws, yet both have very high murder rates by gun.  Maryland and New York have relatively strong gun control laws.  Many of the states in this list also have relatively weak gun controls.  Other factors are apparently at work and they ought to be identified and come under discussion.

One of the most important factors is also silenced by those who police the debate in terms of political correctness.  This chart makes it very clear that a critical factor relates to race and the use of guns in murders.

One of the popular exercises is to compare U.S. murder rates by gun with those of certain Western European countries and Japan and note that we compare badly.  The chart above localizes much of the reason for the bad comparison in the U.S. black population.  Gun control legislation that does not take this racial discrepancy into account is unlikely to achieve much.  One certainly cannot find a legal reason to infringe the 2nd Amendment Right to owning guns of black Americans, while allowing white Americans their individual right to gun ownership.  This is a problem that has to be addressed in a much broader context.

There is actually very little that can be done by legislation about the murder rate by guns.  The primary issues are deeply seated in various American sub-cultures.  Even such an issue as the effort to identify mentally ill people who should not have guns is a secondary issue.  It is one worth pursuing and trying to improve, but we should have no illusions that it will have a major effect in reducing the amount of gun murders in America.

A Fallacious Liberal Claim of Income Stagnation

Democrats like to make the claim that median U.S. worker income has been almost stagnant since 1980.  This is said to show that trickle-down, supply-side, or self-responsibility economics does not work for the median worker.  Only the rich benefit, they say.  Let us examine this claim.

It is true that between 1980 and 2005 the median worker income minus benefits increased a mere $700 from $25,000 in 1980.  This ignores the fact that benefits grew at a much faster rate than did worker compensation in the form of direct income.  It also ignores the fact that many more workers with incomes above the median are making much more money now than they were in 1980.  Average income went up much more than did median income.  In 1980, only 23% of all jobs were considered high paying professional jobs, while more than half of all new jobs since 1980 are high paying professional jobs.  If this were to continue into the future, more than half of all jobs in existence will become high paying professional jobs and the median income will climb sharply.  But as yet, the median job is not a high paying professional job.  But we should note that the stagnation in median income is not due to most new jobs being burger flipping.

There is further news indicating that the median income figures for all workers are hiding the important truth.  It turns out that both white men and white women in the workforce have had much higher income gains since 1980 than the reported all worker gain of 3%.  White men have gained in income by 15% and white women have gained by 75%!  Does this mean that non-white workers have lost income since 1980?  No, not at all.  Nonwhite men gained 16% in income.  Nonwhite women gained 62% in income.  Every one of the individual categories gained many times more than 3% in income since 1980!  The reason the median income for all workers barely increased was because the workforce came to be increasingly composed of nonwhites and white women whose median group incomes were below the median income of all workers in 1980.  Changing demographics is the explanation for the nearly stagnant median income minus benefit result.

The median income for white men rose from $30,700 to $35,200, moving most of their income distribution curve well above the total worker distribution curve median.  Nonwhite men increased their income from $19,300  to $22,300.  White women raised their incomes from $11,200 to $19,600, while nonwhite women raised theirs from $10,200 to $16,500.  Because the fraction of the population which is nonwhite is growing, part of the reason for their lower incomes is because the nonwhite men and women have lower median ages and therefore less job experience.  Younger people with less job experience generally earn less.

The fact that the median income of all workers has been essentially stagnant between 1980 and 2005 is not an indictment of supply-side economics or Reaganomics as the Democrats love to claim.  This is a result of the very large increase in the fraction of nonwhite workers in that period who have long had lower incomes than white males.  This rapidly growing nonwhite worker fraction also has a lower median age and therefore has less job experience.  The employed Hispanic population was the primary growth fraction of the employed in 2005 compared to 1980.  The fraction of white workers decreased by more than 6%, while the fraction of black workers went up about 7%.  The fraction of Hispanics increased by a factor of 2.43!

Between 1980 and 1990, the labor force participation rate for women grew rapidly before plateauing from then until 2005.  The labor force participation rate of men fell slightly from 1980 to 2005.  This also caused the fraction of workers in a lower earning group to increase.

Supply-side economics or Reaganomics was advanced as a method to raise all boats.  It performed as advertised, despite being applied in only a modest and half-hearted manner.  White female worker and nonwhite female worker income advanced sharply, 75% and 62%, respectively.  White male and nonwhite male incomes advanced less dramatically, but they still increased 15% and 16%, respectively, from 1980 to 2005.  We should all be reasonably happy with these results in the face of a rapidly changing demographics.

Racial Slander of the Tea Party Movement

Over the weekend, four members of the Black Caucus of the House of Representatives told a story of being called by the n-word 15 times as they walked through Tea Party demonstrators on Saturday.  These Representatives were John Lewis, Andre Carson, Emanuel Cleaver, and James Clyburn, the House Majority Whip.  This story was repeated by much of the media, including Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.  Emanuel Cleaver said he was spit upon.  They went on to say that a demonstrator was detained by the police, but then turned loose after consultation with Rep. Cleaver.  The story also said that men encountering this ill-behavior were stretched out as they walked through the crowd and all heard the same behavior.

This does not sound like the kind of behavior I have seen when I was at three different Tea Party protests in Washington, D.C.  There were black Tea Party demonstrators in each case and there were black speakers at at least two of them.  There were also black people selling the Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me" flags at each event.  At the 4th of July event a large banner opposing the Tea Party demonstrators and chanting "Health Care Now" was carried through the crowd and no one did anything more than chant back at them.  I saw nothing but normal human respect for the black people present.  In fact, it seemed clear to me that many there were very happy that some black Americans share our American values.

There are a lot of Tea Party people and a few are a bit odd, as a few of any large group of people are.  I have met many racial bigots who are Democrats and many who are radical left Democrats.  In fact, I have often noted that there is very little respect for blacks and Hispanics among other Democrats who believe blacks and Hispanics have less ability to manage their own lives than other Americans do and hence need special favors from the government.  This is clearly a very profound disrespect for black and Hispanic Americans, based on nothing but their race.  Therefore, it is racism.  May there be, or is it probable that there are, a few racists among the Tea Party people?  The answer is likely yes.  But, the essence of the Tea Party movement is that the vast majority of Americans are capable of managing their own lives in a responsible way and that they do not want government to take over the direction of their lives.  So, not surprisingly, and very much contrary to a common claim from the left, racism is not a common characteristic of Tea Party people.

There is a video of the four black Congressmen passing by the Tea Party demonstrators.  Rather than being strung out as in their testimony, they were clumped together.  They do not give any appearance of being threatened.  I have listened to the video over and over and I cannot make out any use of the n-word.  Many others have also listened for it and say they cannot make it out, though a couple of leftist have said they could.  There is no picture of a demonstrator approaching Rep. Cleaver and spitting on him.  There is no evidence of a policeman retaining anyone or approaching Rep. Cleaver with someone.  In fact, if the event that was said to have occurred had, I am sure that the nearby police would have gathered around the Congressmen and given them an escort and probably would have pushed back the crowd and arrested people.  None of this happened.  The police did have to arrest people in the pro-ObamaCare demonstrator crowd, but they say they did not have to arrest any anti-ObamaCare demonstrators.  Many cameras were in use by the demonstrators, but no one has come forth with any visual evidence that the racial ill-behavior occurred.  Various media reporters were also around.  What is more, if someone had shouted racial slurs, other Tea Party people would have shouted him down, based on what I have seen.  The video would have picked up the shout down!

Given that the four black Congressmen are all Democrats and all voted for the extremely socialist ObamaCare bill, it would not be surprising if they all subscribed to the very venerable socialist principle that the truth is whatever advances socialism.  This principle has been richly demonstrated in the socialist arguments for ObamaCare, which clearly have been otherworldly.  Denigrating the Tea Party protesters with a racist tag has clearly been a pattern with the left.  They have made many claims which had no substance.  I suspect they had become desperate enough to try to give substance to those slanderous claims that they made up this story.  That fits the Big Picture better than their story does.

The Right to Offer Employment Without Enslavement

As an adult with full possession of his senses, I have the right to choose to devote hours of my life to productive work. No one has the right to deny me that choice or to prevent me from doing productive work. Others have this same right. Furthermore, we have the right to work with one another to carry out tasks which we have agreed to perform together. No one has the right to deny us this cooperation. For them to do so is a significant violation of each of our individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of our happiness.

Now suppose that of the several people working cooperatively to accomplish the tasks they have chosen to work on have come to terms in this cooperation which take into account that one or more have invested many more previous hours of work and provided capital in order to make it possible for others of the group of cooperating individuals to have the job that they have chosen to take. Commonly the individual or group of individuals who invested prior hours of work and capital to make other jobs possible are the owners of a business. One would think that their efforts to create other jobs which did not require years of work with low income so that every possible penny could be re-invested in the business and who mortgaged their home and used a substantial part of their prior life savings to start a business and guide it through the first 5 to 10 years when most businesses fail, would be considered something of a good guy.

But no. Such a person is regarded with great suspicion by government. Governments at all levels are inclined to believe that this employer must be watched with an eagle eye and closely regulated. Regulation means that he will commonly be told that he must do this and he must do that or the full force of government wielded violence will fall upon his head. So, he must keep books which may require the investment of many, many more hours each year than the needs of his business actually require. He must collect payroll taxes from his employees and keep records on them and submit forms on the process to the governments. Each quarter of the year he may be required to submit state unemployment insurance fund payments with filled out forms to the state government, even in those quarters where virtually every worker has exceeded the $8500 limit on which the tax is collected. The time to fill out the form may be 30 or 40 minutes and the payment may be less than $10. The state government is not bothered by this in the least. After all, they did not have to pay the employer for his time. Indeed, the employer is never regarded as an actual individual having a finite number of hours in his life. This employer apparently has no right to believe that he has a right to these hours of his life at all. The state, local, and federal governments are all very sure that they can require an employer to turn over many tens of hours of his life every year to them.

Slavery has always been present throughout all of recorded history. Slavery is not just the case of putting chains on a man and then telling him that he must do this and that or you will whip him. In fact, the slave will do better work if the chains are not present. The slave master may find it more effective to tell the slave to do this and that and keep me happy or I will kill your wife and children. Or, in the modern age, he (or a large gang of slave masters) may instead say, you have invested years in earning a house and saving money or in building a business. How wonderful, because this means that we can force you to do our bidding with the threat that we will take your house away from you, we will take your savings, or we will take the capital of your business away. This has great advantages, because this gang of slave masters now does not have to look so brutal as they would standing there with the blood of your wife or children dripping from their hands. Now they have merely to take money and property, which is so much cleaner. But does not taking this money and property mean that they are taking the hours of the employers life used to make the money and acquire the property? Is this not a clear violation of his right to life and certainly of his right to pursue his happiness? Is this slightly higher level of abstraction really too much for most Americans and others to comprehend? Apparently it is. Or do they understand, but they really do not believe that a man has the right to life and the pursuit of happiness?

Once upon a time, Americans thought that the individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was something every man had a right to fight for whenever anyone used force to deprive him of these rights. Americans fought King George III and the English Parliament in the name of this right, but apparently any American today who is an employer is especially deprived of these individual rights. Yes, everyone is substantially deprived of them and everyone is substantially enslaved by requirements imposed with the threat of force upon many of the hours of his life. But, no one is so heavily enslaved as the damned employers.

So, what is the most recent imposition upon my time? The 2007 Survey of Business Owners and Self-Employed Persons, which Title 13, United States Code, requires businesses and other organizations that receive this questionnaire to answer the questions and return the report to the U. S. Census Bureau. The form requires information on the business and on the four principal owners of the business.

So what information is so critical that the government feels justified in taking 30 minutes of my time? Is the business owned by another company, employee owned, is it a cooperative, owned by an estate or trust, an American Indian tribal entity, a non-profit, publically held, did any individual own 10% or more of it, is it jointly owned by a husband and wife, did two or more members of the same family own the majority of the business, how many owners are there, and give the % ownership by the top four owners.

Owner: How was ownership acquired? When was ownership acquired? What functions does owner perform? How many hours does owner work a week? [60 or more is regarded as an adequate upper limit! Government workers have no idea.] Was business the primary source of income? Prior to this business, was owner ever self-employed? [Yes, I cut lawns as a kid.] What was the highest education level? Is owner male or female? What age is owner? Was owner born in US? Is Owner Hispanic, if so what type? Is owner White, Black, American Indian, Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, other Asian, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, other Pacific Islander, or some other race? [Other, human.] Is he a veteran? Is he a disabled veteran?

Business: What year was the business established? What sources of capital were used to start the business? [No government grants, loans, or insured loans, that's for sure. I did not meet the racial and gender requirements.] What was the total amount of capital used to start the business? Did business operate from home? Operate as a franchise? Did franchiser own more than 50%? What sources were used to finance expansion and capital equipment in 2007? How much of sales was from export in 2007? Did business establish operations outside US in 2007? Did business outsource functions outside US? What languages was business conducted in? What types of workers were used? What benefits were supplied? Do you have a website? Have e-commerce sales? Make on-line purchases? What are business hours? Is business currently operating?

Congress does not even read the bills they pass. What are the chances that they will study this data to learn anything about business from it? Actually, the fixation on such issues as the race of the owners suggests that they have no interest in understanding business. They simply want to have justifications for continuing to discriminate against those businesses owned by white males. They also want information on the extent of outsourcing overseas so they can monkey with businesses on that prime issue for demagogues, read most politicians.

I really am tired of being a slave to governments. Is there something wrong with me because I feel that way? Don't be shy you lovers of government expansion. Justify my slavery. Tell me why I should embrace it as a rational man. Ease my pain by giving me understanding. If you cannot do so, then share my pain enough that you will start taking action to reduce my enslavement. Don't continue being a slave master yourself. Surely you do not believe in slavery? Surely you find yourself appalled at what you have wrought? Free the slaves!