Louisiana #1 in Rate of Women Murdered by Men
Louisiana, with a rate of 2.53 per 100,000, ranks first in the nation in the rate of women murdered by men according to a new report issued today by my organization, the Violence Policy Center (VPC). "When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2007 Homicide Data" details national and state-by-state information on female homicides involving one female murder victim and one male offender and uses the most recent data available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report. The report is released each year to coincide with Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October.
Ranked behind Louisiana were: Alaska at number, two with a rate of 2.44 per 100,000; Wyoming at number three, with a rate of 2.33 per 100,000; Arkansas at number four with a rate of 2.29 per 100,000; Nevada at number five, with a rate of 2.23 per 100,000; Alabama at number six with a rate of 2.22 per 100,000; New Mexico at number seven with a rate of 2.21 per 100,000; South Carolina at number eight with a rate of 2.04 per 100,000; Oklahoma at number nine with a rate of 2.03 per 100,000; and, Arizona at number 10 with a rate of 1.92 per 100,000. Nationally, the rate of women killed by men in single victim/single offender instances was 1.30 per 100,000.
Nationwide, 1,865 females were murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents in 2007. Where weapon use could be determined, firearms were the most common weapon used by males to murder females (847 of 1,657 homicides or 51 percent). Of these, 76 percent (640 of 847) were committed with handguns.
In cases where the victim to offender relationship could be identified, 91 percent of female victims (1,587 out of 1,743) were murdered by someone they knew. Of these, 62 percent (990 out of 1,587) were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers. More than 10 times as many females were murdered by a male they knew than were killed by male strangers. In 88 percent of all incidents where the circumstances could be determined, the homicides were not related to the commission of any other felony, such as rape or robbery.
As the study notes in its conclusion, "The picture that emerges from When Men Murder Women is that women face the greatest threat from someone they know, most often a spouse or intimate acquaintance, who is armed with a gun. For women in America, guns are not used to save lives, but to take them."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The report states {"concluding that the figures demonstrate the importance of reducing access to firearms in households affected by IPV [intimate partner violence]. Who comes to conclusion that reducing access to firearms will lower intimate partner deaths? 51% of murders were committed by gun, and 49% committed by Non-Gun (only 2% diff). Has anyone determined if those people would have committed the same murder with some other object had a gun not been available??? (no doubt).
As indicated by report {More than 10 times as many females (1,587 victims) were murdered by a male they knew, 62% of victims were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers, 315 were shot during the course of an argument. In 88% of all incidents, homicides were not related to any other felony, such as rape or robbery.}. These murders are a response to emotion, whether spontaneous or premeditated, it is likely that most of the 51% of murders would have occurred even if there had been no gun available. It would be as easy to retrieve any other weapon type (knife, hammer, chair, etc) if gun was not available. Suggesting that fewer guns in households would reduce the number of these types of murders is absurd, since already 49% of these murders did not use guns.
Well, this certainly puts to rest the fantasy often advanced by the progunners: that guns help keep women safe.
As we see, the top ten states mentioned in the study show all have very lax gun laws. And, as we see, the risk to women isn't from the dread unknown attacker; instead, it's from their hubbies, boyfriends and acquaintances.
We also learn that when these 'men' kill women--it's usually with a firearm.
Well, this certainly puts to rest the fantasy often advanced by the progunners: that guns help keep women safe."
Actually, it does no such thing since the VPC made no attempt to determine how many lives were saved by guns.
That would be like saying the cops should never carry guns based on the number of times they are killed by their own weapons, while ignoring all the times the cops use their weapons successfully for self defense.
"And, as we see, the risk to women isn't from the dread unknown attacker; instead, it's from their hubbies, boyfriends and acquaintances."
That's been well established for decades. What does it matter in terms of the effectiveness of guns in self defense? A gun can be used to defend yourself against a stranger or someone you know with equal effectiveness.
"We also learn that when these 'men' kill women--it's usually with a firearm."
Since firearms are responsible for the majority of ALL murders in this country, that statement has no significance whatsoever.
"Well, this certainly puts to rest the fantasy often advanced by the progunners: that guns help keep women safe."
Well they would if it was the women who owned the guns, Jade.
Owning a gun is all it takes to thwart an attack? Isn't there other stuff involved? Loading, aiming, making sure the other guy doesn't shoot the second he sees you draw? I guess not. Who knew it could be that simple?
The geographic correlation in these data is interesting. If you extend the Mason Dixon line across the continent, roughly 1/2 of the states are above (north) and half below (south). 80% of the states reporting these murder rates higher than the national average are in the group to the south.
I don't know what that means exactly, but I was amazed to see how drastic the split is.
It's interesting but it doesn't actually tell you anything. It could be that domestic violence/murder rates are the same on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, but that incidents are reported more frequently in the south. It could be that rates are indeed higher in the south, but that different and "better" enforcement in the north totally accounts for this difference (e.g. abusers are identified and the situation is in some way rectified before it goes too far). It could be exactly the opposite -- it could be that enforcement is better in the south and more incidents are being reported. It could be that social attitudes in the south make it easier or more acceptable for victims to report crimes, while people in the north view domestic violence as more shameful and are less likely to report. The correlation is interesting and thought-provoking, but it does not definitely tell us anything.
I am still trying to figure out what the point of Mr. Sugarman's post was. The only point I can see is an attempt to draw an indirect "link" between the right to keep and bear arms and domestic abusers.
"I am still trying to figure out what the point of Mr. Sugarman's post was. The only point I can see is an attempt to draw an indirect "link" between the right to keep and bear arms and domestic abusers."
I was wondering what the point was too. I think you answered it. It's pretty typical.
That must be where they get the euphemistic expression for feeding your spouse to the alligators - a "Louisiana divorce"
More telling, when going to the FBI - Uniform Crime Reports data page, clicking on any report year brings up the following warning. Why wasn't this warning mentioned or included with the VPC report?
"Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment."
"However, not all states make the records of domestic violence protective orders and misdemeanors available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS),..." Section 3: Laws that help protect women from abusers, pg 11
The conclusion does not say anything about *enforcing* current laws or fixing the states that do not report to NICS accurately. I've purchased guns, the only Misdemeanor that bans you from gun purchase, is domestic abuse.
But by all means, ban every gun, get them all off the street and melt them down in a furnace. From the breakdown of statistics (pg 19-29) I'd assume the focus of the Violence Policy Center's annual reports will then turn to knives, blunt objects, and bodily force sequentially as the most common forms of female murders at hands of males and a subsequent call to ban them too. Because its the weapons killing people, not the people killing people.
Domestic violence is a terrible reality for far too many people.
However, I fail to see the connection between Mr. Sugarmann's "sympathetic" discussion and the point he actually makes:
> "The picture that emerges from When Men Murder Women is that women face the greatest threat
> from someone they know, most often a spouse or intimate acquaintance, who is armed with a gun.
> For women in America, guns are not used to save lives, but to take them."
Assuming that the first premise is accurate, how does the second follow? While it is true that firearms are the most commonly used weapons in ALL murders (not just domestic violence murders) this does not show that women do not use guns to save their lives.
Which brings me to my second comment -- what is the point of this commentary? Mr. Sugarmann is not making any definitive legislative statement (except the assertion that women don't use guns to defend themselves) and it's hard to see what his point actually is. Is the point that we should avoid visiting states like Arkansas, Nevada, and Alaska? Or is the point that women in these states should be trained in the use of fireamrs? Is the point that domestic violence efforts need to be improved in these states?
The only point that I can diistill is the following ad hominem argument (verbatim): "Some abusive men use firearms to victimize weapons. Therefore, people who like firearms should be associated with wife-beaters."
Your grip of logic is - well, it's totally lacking.
Nowhere in the article is your "ad hominem argument" in evidence.
Oh, and your grip of the definition of "ad hominem" leaves something to be desired as well.
An ad hominem argument "is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [This is the same source used by the Huff Post to define "ad hominem."]
To the extent that Mr. Sugarmann is arguing that Americans' civil right to own firearms should be curtailed or eliminated, the argument is ad hominem because the basis for the argument is fact that some undesirable people (domestic abusers) use guns. "Because wife beaters use guns to kill their wives, people who have guns are bad."
I do not disuss issues by trading insults and will ignore your "totally lacking" comment. Would you kindly explain to us all what argument Mr. Sugarmann is presenting that is NOT an ad hominem argument?
Yes, IT'S TIME TO BAN FIREARMS FOR DOMESTIC USE.
way past time.
Sorry Heller says otherwise
...............and 3/4 of the population (Gallup and CNN), and the majority of Congress (not to mention SCOTUS).
These are some of the most conservative places in the country. It's so interesting you raise this becasue I think one of the keys to Repulican women is this false sort of chivalry that exiists and is nurtured by woman. You know the kind :"Don;t raise your voice there's a woman PRESENT!" or "I HAVE A CHILD. I HAVE A CHILD " or the seminal classic "You have insulted the honor of this woman "said the Duck "you must apologize to her". You know the kind no one can object to so they take it to the nth degree. I call is Pin the Tail on the Donkey. Republicans call it leadership.
Ahh, yes. Ban guns, and murder disappears. Got it.
Next, all we have to do is completely ban baseball bats, steak knives, cricket bats, lug wrenches, and jars of tomato sauce, and we can be murder free.....
the statistics dont lie. we are the murder capital of the world because of our guns
Wrong! Read & learn! “dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html”
Among others, the UK, South Africa, Austria, Sweden & France have significantly worse murder rates!
Old SF MJT
We are not the murder capital of the world. Now if you wish to say we have the highest homicide rate of the 11 (or is it 9?) leading industrialized states, you would be correct, but your conclusion would still be wrong because even if all gun homicides are eliminated from the US stats, we would still have the highest homicide rate of the 11 (or is it 9?) leading industrialized states.
Further, if you exclude the USA and conduct a study of those same nations based upon gun density levels, you will see there is absolutely no correlation between gun density (which is the number of guns in private hands per capita). And yes there are studies on this:
“[N]o statistically significant relationship between guns and murder rates.” Jeffrey Miron, Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001, XLIV(2, pt. 2), 615-634.”[N]o significant correlations [of gunstock levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found." Abstract to Martin Killias, et al., "Guns, Violent Crime, and Suicide in 21 Countries," 43 Canadian J. of Criminology 429-448 (2001).
3 types of lies... lies, damn lies and statistics.
The knuckle dragger states, of COURSE!
I noticed that South Carolina is on the list. Another debit to Joe Wilson's state.
Bobby Jindal- soft on crime.
Maybe he doesn't consider DV against women a crime ... good ol' family values!
So by Sugarmann's provided numbers, women would be safer if they weren't acquainted with men.
I didn't realize the VPC was also an anti-marriage advocacy group.
Project much?
So you're claiming the numbers provided by Sugarmann are wrong?
"The picture that emerges from When Men Murder Women is that women face the greatest threat from someone they know, most often a spouse or intimate acquaintance, who is armed with a gun. For women in America, guns are not used to save lives, but to take them."
Utter nonsense. First of all, the study didn't even attempt to determine how many times firearms are used for self defense by women or men, so it is no position whatsoever to makes such a broad, sweeping statement.
Second of all, whether or not a gun is used for murder or self defense depends on who is holding the gun and what their intention is. It is not determined by the mere presence of a gun. Again, the study made no attempt to determine how many of the victims were armed, nor how many attempted to defend themselves, nor how many tried to do so with a gun vs other weapons or no weapon.
The authors of such a laughably biased study are in no position whatsoever to make any claims on the effectiveness of firearms for self defense. On the contrary, it only shows what pro gun rights advocates have been saying all along: The guns in the hands of the offenders are the problem, not guns in the hands of crime victims. This is a textbook examples of why all safety concerned lawful citizens, men or women, should be armed and trained for self defense.
Really? You read the study, and you know for sure that the researchers missed all those things?
I'm impressed, because I tried to download the study to take a look at the methods, but I found the link was broken. So how did you read it? Can you provide an alternate link?
The link works fine. Must have been operator error.
Here it is:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2009.pdf
Read the study for yourself. You can clearly see there is no mention of the authors attempting to determine how many domestic violence victims use firearms for self defense, nor how many of the homicide victims were armed at the time they were killed.
If it's self defense, it's not murder.
But hey, don't let reality interrupt your talking point.
Seeing as that has nothing to do with anything I said, there really isn't any response for it.
jsgaetano wrote: "If it's self defense, it's not murder."
Actually, that's spot-on correct!
Old SF MJT
The article had NOTHING to do with self defense. Why would you look at self defense stats for an article on murder rates by sex? And - those stats would be beside the point in any case: if there was a murder, obviously whatever was done in self defense was a failure.
COPerez wrote: "The article had NOTHING to do with self defense."
That's correct! And there-in lays its major failure! You cannot reasonably assess the true costs (or benefits) of something unless you look at both (the costs and the benefits). The Sugarmann article purports to look at the costs to society (or a subset thereof) incurred by firearms ownership but leaves out the other half of the equation!
Oh, wait! The “study” comes from VPC! Half-truths are the VERY BEST we can hope for!
Old SF MJT
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
