Research Question
Is there a relationship between the restrictiveness of state gun laws and the rate of intimate partner homicide by a firearm in each state? In particular, is there a relationship between a state’s regulation of firearms for individuals with domestic violence related criminal records and homicide rates perpetrated by a firearm?
Each state varies in the number and restrictiveness of gun laws. In particular, states differ in how they regulate the possession of firearms for individuals with domestic violence (intimate partner violence) related charges/restraining orders and if/how firearms can be seized from these individuals.
Background on Intimate Partner Homicide (by firearm)
In this research, intimate partner homicide is defined as the killing of an individual perpetrated by a former or current spouse or partner (ex. girlfriend/boyfriend) of the victim.
- This research will focus particularly on those homicides caused the perpetrator’s use of a firearm, but this data is not available for all states and is less reliable than general firearm homicides (due to difficulty determining or lack of resources/data to report motive).
At this time, there has been plentiful research noting the high number of intimate partner homicides perpetrated using a firearm in the United States. I will include some examples of applicable research findings below to show the relevance of this issue:
From 2002: “Nearly one-third of all women murdered in the United States in recent years were murdered by a current or former intimate partner… Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds of were killed by their intimate partners… Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no weapons, according to a recent study.” Source
From 2017: “Every year, more than 1800 persons in the United States are killed by their intimate partners, and approximately 50% of these homicides are committed with firearms. Approximately 85% of victims of intimate partner homicide (IPH) are women, and IPH accounts for nearly 50% of all homicides involving women in the United States each year.” Source
From 2022: “In an average month, 57 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner—and over 4.5 million American women report being threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.” Source
Given the prevalence of intimate partner homicides using a firearm, this research project aims to investigate how state legislation regulating firearm possession and seizures may influence intimate partner homicide rates.
Background on Domestic Violence Related Firearm Legislation
- Since 1996, federal law bans possession of a firearm for anyone convicted of a felony or of a domestic violence misdemeanor crime or with a domestic violence related protective order against them:
- GUN BAN FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9): “The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’.” Source
- Despite the baseline provided by federal law, states vary significantly in the strength of domestic violence firearm laws.
- “While federal law already bars most people convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse from having guns, a separate state prohibition is important to ensure the law is enforced properly. The best states have closed the “boyfriend loophole,” going beyond the federal prohibition — which applies only to spouses, those who share a child, and co-habitants — to cover all dating partners.” This loophole also applies to the domestic violence protective order provision. Source
- While federal law states that convicted domestic violence abusers must relinquish any firearms, each state varies in the enforcement and logistical clarity of this process. Furthermore, some states exclude domestic violence firearm bans entirely from their legislation or limit the bans to specific timelines (ex. probation term). Source
- Mississippi is an example of a state with very limited firearm legislation pertaining to domestic violence. Mississippi state law does not explicitly prohibit individuals who are “convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition”. The state also does not require “courts to notify people when they become prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under state or federal law due to domestic violence”. Additionally, Mississippi law does not “explicitly authorize or require the removal of firearms or ammunition at the scene of a domestic violence incident”. Source
- California is an example of a state that has enacted many thorough provisions related to domestic violence firearm legislation. For example, it allows for courts to prohibit firearm possession for those charged (not yet convicted) of domestic violence misdemeanors. It also expands the definition of domestic violence protective orders (which prohibit firearm purchase/possession) to include “spouse/former spouse, current/former dating partner, any person who is presently or has in the past resided with the individual, any family member (even if the respondent has never resided with the individual)”. Additionally, California law requires immediate relinquishment of firearms to law enforcement, and failure to do so allows for the issuance of a warrant allowing law enforcement to search and seize firearms. Source
Potential Data Sources
Throughout the next few weeks, I will work on applying some basic scraping and natural language processing executions to gather and evaluate language used (or not used) in state firearm legislation pertaining to domestic violence offenders/situations. I will also work on gathering and cleaning data on intimate partner homicide rates perpetrated with a firearm. I am open to finding new data sources that may be more accurate or more suited to work with for this research.
Current sources on state firearm legislation:
Current sources on intimate partner homicide:
NEW CONTENT FOR BLOG POST 3
Working with potential data sources and methods of transforming text to data
State Firearm Laws (National Data)
This website compiles each state’s firearm laws and divides them into provisions and categories.
- Some of the provisions included that are applicable to this research are:
- dvro: domestic violence related restraining order
- mcdv: misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
- stalking: stalking conviction
- Some of the applicable categories listed:
- Domestic Violence
- Prohibitions for high-risk gun possession
Source: https://www.statefirearmlaws.org/national-data
Realistically, with this website, what I think I should do is scrape the table that has each state’s provisions (although it doesn’t seem to be formatted as a table in HTML). I think it may be insightful to analyze the number of firearm provisoins a state has in comparison to firearm deaths by state, as well as narrowing it down towards my research question - looking at how many domestic violence related firearm provisions there are in comparison to number of intimate partner homicides by state.
However, I have yet to be able to scrape the website in a way that I can read in the table. I was thinking perhaps using rvest() and the css_selector. However, I did play around with scraping Alabama provisions and a bit of tokenization. I don’t think this will be helpful in the long run, but I am including this to show that I at least tried something…
SFL_url <- "https://www.statefirearmlaws.org/national-data"
SFL_read <- read_html(SFL_url)
css_selector <- "#Alabama"
SFL_Alabama <- SFL_read %>%
html_nodes(css = css_selector) %>%
html_text()
Alabama <- corpus(SFL_Alabama)
Alabama_tokens <- tokens(Alabama, remove_punct = TRUE, remove_symbols = TRUE, remove_numbers = TRUE) %>%
tokens_select(pattern = stopwords("en"), selection = "remove")
Alabama_tokens
Tokens consisting of 1 document.
text1 :
[1] "Alabama" "Provision"
[3] "alcoholismalcoholism" "Firearm"
[5] "purchase" "possession"
[7] "prohibited" "people"
[9] "alcoholism" "CategoryProhibitions"
[11] "high-risk" "gun"
[ ... and 151 more ]Gifford’s Law Center (Domestic Violence & Firearms)
This site compiles the Gifford’s Law Center’s research on each state’s domestic violence related firearm regulations. The site has a link to information on each state’s provisions. The information details key provisions that a state has adopted or has failed to adopt. One of the key details that this site contains that I am interested in is firearm surrendering provisions and procedures for individuals no longer permitted to possess firearms due to domestic violence related matters.
Alabama_url <- "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-alabama/"
Alaska_url <- "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-alaska/"
NewHampshire_url <- "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-new-hampshire/"
Alabama_url
[1] "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-alabama/"Alaska_url
[1] "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-alaska/"NewHampshire_url
[1] "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-new-hampshire/"States <- c('alaska/', 'arizona/', 'arkansas/', 'california/', 'colorado/', 'connecticut/', 'delaware/', 'florida/', 'georgia/', 'hawaii/', 'idaho/', 'illinois/', 'indiana/', 'iowa/', 'kansas/', 'kentucky/', 'louisiana/', 'maine/', 'maryland/', 'massachusetts/', 'michigan/', 'minnesota/', 'mississippi/', 'missouri/', 'montana/', 'nebraska/', 'nevada/', 'new-hampshire/', 'new-jersey/', 'new-mexico/', 'new-york/', 'north-carolina/', 'north-dakota/', 'ohio/', 'oklahoma/', 'oregon/', 'pennsylvania/', 'rhode-island/', 'south-carolina/', 'south-dakota/', 'tennessee/', 'texas/', 'utah/', 'vermont/', 'virginia/', 'washington/', 'west-virginia/', 'wisconsin/', 'wyoming/')
head(States)
[1] "alaska/" "arizona/" "arkansas/" "california/"
[5] "colorado/" "connecticut/"length(States)
[1] 49State_urls <- Alabama_url
for (i in 1:length(States)){
State_urls <- c(State_urls, paste("https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-",States[i], sep = ""))
}
head(State_urls)
[1] "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-alabama/"
[2] "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-alaska/"
[3] "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-arizona/"
[4] "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-arkansas/"
[5] "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/"
[6] "https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-colorado/" StateInfo <- c()
GLC_selector <- ".article-body"
for (i in 1:length(State_urls)){
Provisions <- State_urls[i] %>%
read_html() %>%
html_nodes(css = GLC_selector) %>%
html_text()
StateInfo <- c(StateInfo, Provisions)
}
StateInfo[1:3]
[1] "Who Can Have a GunDomestic Violence & Firearms in Alabama\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tView Policy Area\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLast updated March 8, 2021 .\n\t\t\t\t\t\tAlabama enacted a law in 2015 to prohibit possession of a firearm by individuals who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and by individuals subject to a valid protection order for domestic abuse.1The term “misdemeanor offense of domestic violence” as used in this section means a misdemeanor offense that has, as its elements, the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon, and the victim is a current or former spouse, parent, child, person with whom the defendant has a child in common, or a present or former household member.2The term “valid protection order” as used in this section means an order issued after a hearing of which the person received actual notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate, that does any of the following: restrains the respondent from harassing, stalking, or threatening a spouse or former spouse of the respondent, an individual who is a parent of a child of the respondent, or an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the respondent, or a child of such individuals, or that restrains the respondent from engaging in other conduct that would place such an individual in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the individual or child and that includes a finding that the respondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the individual or child. 3A valid protection order must also by its terms, explicitly prohibit the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the qualified individual or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.4Alabama law also authorizes a judge or magistrate, who is releasing a person who has been charged with domestic violence or violation of a protection order on bail, to prohibit the person from possessing a firearm, as a condition of bail, except when such weapon is necessary for the person’s employment as a peace officer or military personnel.5Alabama law still does not:Require courts to notify people when they become prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition due to domestic violence under state or federal law ;Require the surrender of firearms or ammunition by people who have become prohibited from possessing them due to domestic violence under state or federal law ; orExplicitly authorize or require the removal of firearms or ammunition at the scene of a domestic violence incident, although Alabama authorizes a law enforcement officer to disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes that it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual. Alabama also makes it the duty of an officer arresting a person charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm to seize any handguns in that person’s possession or control.6MEDIA REQUESTSOur experts can speak to the full spectrum of gun violence prevention issues. Have a question? Email us at media@giffords.org.Contact2015 AL H.B. 47, amending Ala. Code § 13A-11-72(a).[<U+21A9>]Ala. Code § 13A-11-72(l).[<U+21A9>]Ala. Code § 13A-11-72(m).[<U+21A9>]Ala. Code § 13A-11-72(m).[<U+21A9>]Ala. Code § 15-13-190.[<U+21A9>]Ala. Code §§ 31-9-8(d), 31-9-10(d), 13A-11-84(b).[<U+21A9>]"
[2] "Who Can Have a GunDomestic Violence & Firearms in Alaska\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tView Policy Area\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLast updated September 15, 2021 .\n\t\t\t\t\t\tAlaska has no law prohibiting individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition. Federal law, however, prohibits the purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by people convicted of certain domestic abuse offenses.Alaska law provides that protective orders issued after notice and a hearing against a “household member” for victims of domestic violence may prohibit the respondent from using or possessing a deadly weapon if the court finds the respondent was in the actual possession of or used a weapon during the commission of domestic violence.1 “Household member” is defined broadly to include former and current dating partners, co-habitants, and family members.2Federal law also prohibits firearm purchase and possession by certain people subject to domestic violence protective orders.Alaska law provides that protective orders issued after notice and a hearing against a household member for victims of domestic violence may direct the perpetrator to surrender any firearm owned or possessed if the respondent was in actual possession of or used a firearm during a domestic violence incident.3In Alaska, a peace officer investigating a domestic violence incident may seize a deadly weapon in plain view of the officer, if he or she deems it necessary to protect the victim, the victim’s family, the officer or the public during the investigation.4 If a deadly weapon was actually possessed during or used in the domestic violence, the officer may seize all deadly weapons owned, used, possessed, or within the control of the alleged perpetrator.5 Firearms may be held as long as they are needed for evidence or until proceedings against the perpetrator have concluded. The firearm must be returned to the owner if it is no longer needed as evidence.6MEDIA REQUESTSOur experts can speak to the full spectrum of gun violence prevention issues. Have a question? Email us at media@giffords.org.ContactAlaska Stat. § 18.66.100(c)(6).[<U+21A9>]Alaska Stat. § 18.66.990(5).[<U+21A9>]Alaska Stat. § 18.66.100(c)(7).[<U+21A9>]Alaska Stat. § 18.65.515(b).[<U+21A9>]Id.[<U+21A9>]Id.[<U+21A9>]"
[3] "Who Can Have a GunDomestic Violence & Firearms in Arizona\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tView Policy Area\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLast updated March 8, 2021 .\n\t\t\t\t\t\tFirearm Prohibitions and Notification for Domestic Violence MisdemeanantsArizona only prohibits possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a domestic violence offense while the person is serving a term of probation for that conviction.1 A “domestic violence offense” is defined to include certain violent crimes against many current and former household and family members. In 2009, Arizona adopted “Kaity’s Law,” which extended this definition to include situations where the victim and the defendant are, or were previously, in a significant romantic or sexual relationship, as determined by a set of factors.2 Federal law also prohibits the purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by certain domestic misdemeanants.Firearm Prohibitions and Notification for Persons Subject to Domestic Violence Protective OrdersArizona law authorizes a court that is issuing a protective order against domestic violence (as defined above) to prohibit the defendant from possessing or purchasing a firearm for the duration of the order if the court finds that the defendant is a credible threat to the physical safety of the plaintiff or other specifically designated persons.3A court may issue an ex parte emergency order of protection against domestic violence if a peace officer states that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is in immediate and present danger of domestic violence based on an allegation of a recent incident of actual domestic violence. If the court finds that the defendant may inflict bodily injury or death on the plaintiff, the defendant may be prohibited from possessing or purchasing a firearm for the duration of the emergency order.4 Federal law also prohibits the purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by persons subject to certain domestic violence protection orders, although the federal law does not extend to ex parte orders.Surrender of Firearms When a Protective Order Is IssuedIn Arizona, if a court that is issuing a final domestic violence protective order (not an emergency order) prohibits the defendant from possessing a firearm, the court must also order the defendant to transfer any firearm owned or possessed by the defendant immediately after service of the order to the appropriate law enforcement agency for the duration of the order. If the defendant does not immediately transfer the firearm, the defendant shall transfer the firearm within 24 hours after service of the order.5Removal of Firearms at the Scene of a Domestic Violence IncidentIn Arizona, a peace officer arresting someone at the scene of a domestic violence incident may question the persons who are present to determine if a firearm is present.6 On learning or observing that a firearm is present, the peace officer may temporarily seize the firearm if it is in plain view or was found pursuant to a consensual search and if the officer reasonably believes that the firearm would expose the victim or another person in the household to a risk of serious bodily injury or death. The peace officer must give the owner a receipt indicating the firearm’s serial number or other identifying characteristic. The firearm must be held for at least 72 hours by the law enforcement agency that seized it.7MEDIA REQUESTSOur experts can speak to the full spectrum of gun violence prevention issues. Have a question? Email us at media@giffords.org.ContactAriz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3101(A)(7)(d), 13-3102(A)(4).[<U+21A9>]Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3601.[<U+21A9>]Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3602(G)(4).[<U+21A9>]Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3624.[<U+21A9>]Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3602(G)(4).[<U+21A9>]Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3601(C)-(F).[<U+21A9>]Id. A peace officer must then notify the victim before the firearm is released from custody. If there is reasonable cause to believe that returning a firearm may endanger the victim, the person who reported the assault or threat or another person in the household, the prosecutor must file in a court a notice of intent to retain the firearm. The notice must state that the firearm will be retained for no more than six months following the seizure. The owner may request a hearing for the return of the firearm, to dispute the grounds for seizure or to request an earlier return date. The court must hold the hearing within ten days after the request. At the hearing, unless the court determines that the return of the firearm may endanger the victim, the person who reported the assault or threat or another person in the household, the court must order the return of the firearm. Id.[<U+21A9>]"Tokens consisting of 50 documents.
text1 :
[1] "Who" "Can" "Have" "a"
[5] "GunDomestic" "Violence" "&" "Firearms"
[9] "in" "Alabama" "View" "Policy"
[ ... and 612 more ]
text2 :
[1] "Who" "Can" "Have" "a"
[5] "GunDomestic" "Violence" "&" "Firearms"
[9] "in" "Alaska" "View" "Policy"
[ ... and 404 more ]
text3 :
[1] "Who" "Can" "Have" "a"
[5] "GunDomestic" "Violence" "&" "Firearms"
[9] "in" "Arizona" "View" "Policy"
[ ... and 863 more ]
text4 :
[1] "Who" "Can" "Have" "a"
[5] "GunDomestic" "Violence" "&" "Firearms"
[9] "in" "Arkansas" "View" "Policy"
[ ... and 231 more ]
text5 :
[1] "Who" "Can" "Have" "a"
[5] "GunDomestic" "Violence" "&" "Firearms"
[9] "in" "California" "View" "Policy"
[ ... and 2,907 more ]
text6 :
[1] "Who" "Can" "Have" "a"
[5] "GunDomestic" "Violence" "&" "Firearms"
[9] "in" "Colorado" "View" "Policy"
[ ... and 961 more ]
[ reached max_ndoc ... 44 more documents ]For now, I will just create a wordcloud to show the common words used. Down the line, I will get into some more preprocessing and then analysis.
GLC_Laws_WC <- tokens(GLC_corpus, remove_punct = TRUE, remove_numbers = TRUE, remove_symbols = TRUE) %>%
tokens_select(pattern=stopwords("en"),
selection="remove")%>%
dfm()
textplot_wordcloud(GLC_Laws_WC, max_words = 50)
Firearm Homicides by State, 2019 (CDC)
The data needs to be cleaned up, but here’s a start. I pulled rates from 2019, so as to be comparable to the legislation (which is up to date), but not to be impacted potentially by COVID-19 effects on firearm homicide rates. I’ll likely take averages of the last five or so years of homicide rates to account for any potential changes due to outside variables or changes in legislation.
Gun_Hom <- read_excel("../../DACSS 697/DV Research/2019_State_Firearm_Homicides.xlsx")
kable(Gun_Hom, col.names = c("State", "Deaths", "Population", "Crude Rate per 10,000"),
align = c('c', 'c', 'c', 'c')) %>%
add_header_above(c("Table 1: 2019 Homicide Rates by a Firearm, from CDC"=4))%>%
kable_styling(fixed_thead = TRUE)%>%
scroll_box(width = "100%", height = "20%", )
| State | Deaths | Population | Crude Rate per 10,000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama (01) | 564 | 4921532 | 1.1000000000000001 |
| Alaska (02) | 27 | 731158 | 0.4 |
| Arizona (04) | 382 | 7421401 | 0.5 |
| Arkansas (05) | 282 | 3030522 | 0.9 |
| California (06) | 1732 | 39368078 | 0.4 |
| Colorado (08) | 235 | 5807719 | 0.4 |
| Connecticut (09) | 101 | 3557006 | 0.3 |
| Delaware (10) | 76 | 986809 | 0.8 |
| Florida (12) | 1227 | 21733312 | 0.6 |
| Georgia (13) | 899 | 10710017 | 0.8 |
| Hawaii (15) | 16 | 1407006 | Unreliable |
| Idaho (16) | 26 | 1826913 | 0.1 |
| Illinois (17) | 1167 | 12587530 | 0.9 |
| Indiana (18) | 496 | 6754953 | 0.7 |
| Iowa (19) | 83 | 3163561 | 0.3 |
| Kansas (20) | 160 | 2913805 | 0.5 |
| Kentucky (21) | 341 | 4477251 | 0.8 |
| Louisiana (22) | 747 | 4645318 | 1.6 |
| Maine (23) | 15 | 1350141 | Unreliable |
| Maryland (24) | 526 | 6055802 | 0.9 |
| Massachusetts (25) | 130 | 6893574 | 0.2 |
| Michigan (26) | 672 | 9966555 | 0.7 |
| Minnesota (27) | 138 | 5657342 | 0.2 |
| Mississippi (28) | 499 | 2966786 | 1.7 |
| Missouri (29) | 683 | 6151548 | 1.1000000000000001 |
| Montana (30) | 33 | 1080577 | 0.3 |
| Nebraska (31) | 49 | 1937552 | 0.3 |
| Nevada (32) | 148 | 3138259 | 0.5 |
| New Hampshire (33) | Suppressed | 1366275 | Suppressed |
| New Jersey (34) | 253 | 8882371 | 0.3 |
| New Mexico (35) | 149 | 2106319 | 0.7 |
| New York (36) | 561 | 19336776 | 0.3 |
| North Carolina (37) | 744 | 10600823 | 0.7 |
| North Dakota (38) | 17 | 765309 | Unreliable |
| Ohio (39) | 824 | 11693217 | 0.7 |
| Oklahoma (40) | 269 | 3980783 | 0.7 |
| Oregon (41) | 109 | 4241507 | 0.3 |
| Pennsylvania (42) | 788 | 12783254 | 0.6 |
| Rhode Island (44) | 22 | 1057125 | 0.2 |
| South Carolina (45) | 528 | 5218040 | 1 |
| South Dakota (46) | 26 | 892717 | 0.3 |
| Tennessee (47) | 652 | 6886834 | 0.9 |
| Texas (48) | 1734 | 29360759 | 0.6 |
| Utah (49) | 75 | 3249879 | 0.2 |
| Vermont (50) | Suppressed | 623347 | Suppressed |
| Virginia (51) | 440 | 8590563 | 0.5 |
| Washington (53) | 211 | 7693612 | 0.3 |
| West Virginia (54) | 87 | 1784787 | 0.5 |
| Wisconsin (55) | 253 | 5832655 | 0.4 |
| Wyoming (56) | 18 | 582328 | Unreliable |
| Total | 19384 | 329484123 | 0.6 |
Confirmed Intimate Partner Homicides (NVDRS)
[1] "Alabama" "...2"
[3] "...3" "Alaska"
[5] "...5" "...6"
[7] "Arizona" "...8"
[9] "...9" "California"
[11] "...11" "...12"
[13] "Colorado" "...14"
[15] "...15" "Connecticut"
[17] "...17" "...18"
[19] "Delaware" "...20"
[21] "...21" "District of Columbia"
[23] "...23" "...24"
[25] "Georgia" "...26"
[27] "...27" "Hawaii"
[29] "...29" "...30"
[31] "Illinois" "...32"
[33] "...33" "Indiana"
[35] "...35" "...36"
[37] "Iowa" "...38"
[39] "...39" "Kansas"
[41] "...41" "...42"
[43] "Kentucky" "...44"
[45] "...45" "Louisiana"
[47] "...47" "...48"
[49] "Maine" "...50"
[51] "...51" "Maryland"
[53] "...53" "...54"
[55] "Massachusetts" "...56"
[57] "...57" "Michigan"
[59] "...59" "...60"
[61] "Minnesota" "...62"
[63] "...63" "Missouri"
[65] "...65" "...66"
[67] "Montana" "...68"
[69] "...69" "Nebraska"
[71] "...71" "...72"
[73] "Nevada" "...74"
[75] "...75" "New Hampshire"
[77] "...77" "...78"
[79] "New Jersey" "...80"
[81] "...81" "New Mexico"
[83] "...83" "...84"
[85] "North Carolina" "...86"
[87] "...87" "North Dakota"
[89] "...89" "...90"
[91] "Ohio" "...92"
[93] "...93" "Oklahoma"
[95] "...95" "...96"
[97] "Oregon" "...98"
[99] "...99" "Pennsylvania"
[101] "...101" "...102"
[103] "Rhode Island" "...104"
[105] "...105" "South Carolina"
[107] "...107" "...108"
[109] "Utah" "...110"
[111] "...111" "Vermont"
[113] "...113" "...114"
[115] "Virginia" "...116"
[117] "...117" "Washington"
[119] "...119" "...120"
[121] "West Virginia" "...122"
[123] "...123" "Wisconsin"
[125] "...125" "...126"
[127] "Wyoming" "...128"
[129] "...129" "TOTAL"
[131] "...131" "...132" kable(IPH_Hom) %>%
kable_styling(fixed_thead = TRUE)%>%
scroll_box(width = "100%", height = "100%")
| Alabama | …2 | …3 | Alaska | …5 | …6 | Arizona | …8 | …9 | California | …11 | …12 | Colorado | …14 | …15 | Connecticut | …17 | …18 | Delaware | …20 | …21 | District of Columbia | …23 | …24 | Georgia | …26 | …27 | Hawaii | …29 | …30 | Illinois | …32 | …33 | Indiana | …35 | …36 | Iowa | …38 | …39 | Kansas | …41 | …42 | Kentucky | …44 | …45 | Louisiana | …47 | …48 | Maine | …50 | …51 | Maryland | …53 | …54 | Massachusetts | …56 | …57 | Michigan | …59 | …60 | Minnesota | …62 | …63 | Missouri | …65 | …66 | Montana | …68 | …69 | Nebraska | …71 | …72 | Nevada | …74 | …75 | New Hampshire | …77 | …78 | New Jersey | …80 | …81 | New Mexico | …83 | …84 | North Carolina | …86 | …87 | North Dakota | …89 | …90 | Ohio | …92 | …93 | Oklahoma | …95 | …96 | Oregon | …98 | …99 | Pennsylvania | …101 | …102 | Rhode Island | …104 | …105 | South Carolina | …107 | …108 | Utah | …110 | …111 | Vermont | …113 | …114 | Virginia | …116 | …117 | Washington | …119 | …120 | West Virginia | …122 | …123 | Wisconsin | …125 | …126 | Wyoming | …128 | …129 | TOTAL | …131 | …132 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate | Number of Deaths | Population | Crude Rate |
| 38 | 4903185 | 0.78 | –* | 731545 | –* | 32 | 7278717 | 0.44 | 34 | 22513766 | 0.15 | 21 | 5758736 | 0.36 | –* | 3565287 | –* | –* | 973764 | –* | –* | 705749 | –* | 49 | 10617423 | 0.46 | –* | 1415872 | –* | 19* | 11409362 | 0.17* | 16* | 6732219 | 0.24* | –* | 3155070 | –* | –* | 2913314 | –* | 18* | 4467673 | 0.40* | 42 | 4648794 | 0.9 | –* | 1344212 | –* | 10* | 6045680 | 0.17* | –* | 6892503 | –* | 38 | 9986857 | 0.38 | –* | 5639632 | –* | 41 | 6137428 | 0.67 | –* | 1068778 | –* | –* | 1934408 | –* | 18* | 3080156 | 0.58* | –* | 1359711 | –* | –* | 8882190 | –* | 16* | 2096829 | 0.76* | 38 | 10488084 | 0.36 | –* | 762062 | –* | 41 | 11689100 | 0.35 | 33 | 3956971 | 0.83 | –* | 4217737 | –* | 33 | 10621092 | 0.31 | –* | 1059361 | –* | 34 | 5148714 | 0.66 | –* | 3205958 | –* | –* | 623989 | –* | 29 | 8535519 | 0.34 | 24 | 7614893 | 0.32 | 16* | 1792147 | 0.89* | 23 | 5822434 | 0.4 | –* | 578759 | –* | 745 | 222375680 | 0.34 |
This data needs to be tidied (mainly pivoted longer), which I will continue to work on. The National Violent Death Reporting System does not include data for each state, but for the one’s included, the information could be useful to compare to the applicable states’ gun laws.