Remarks by the President on Common-Sense Gun Safety Reform

[Benvolio]

The basic juggling results from the per 100,000 adjustment. So, a mammoth desert county with, say 2000 people and 1 death would have a rate of 50 per 100,000 and gets colored dark red. But an Illinois county with population of 20,000 and 1 death has a rate of 5 per 100,000 and gets colored light blue. And, the desert counties are much smaller than the Ill counties per the map. So the dark red gets smeared over a much larger area.

 

[T-Rexx]

^ Yes, exactly.

That would be because the desert county has a lower population density!

But again, how would gun deaths per acre be a helpful statistic?

 

[Benvolio]

^ Yes, exactly.

That would be because the desert county has a lower population density!

But again, how would gun deaths per acre be a helpful statistic?

How is it helpful to have the uninhabited deserts portrayed as high crime rate areas? Oh, I forgot. They tend to vote Republican, while the actual crime areas and criminals tend to vote democrat.

 

[T-Rexx]

How is it helpful to have the uninhabited deserts portrayed as high crime rate areas?

It tells us a lot about who is vulnerable to death by guns and where they are located. It is probably also telling us something about how the number of guns in a household affects the likelihood of them being used to kill someone in that household or at least the neighborhood.

Oh, I forgot. They tend to vote Republican, while the actual crime areas and criminals tend to vote democrat.

But the data are NOT showing what you claim - that cities have higher gun death rates than rural areas. In fact, it may be just the opposite, which is why this is so fascinating. Of course, the missing information here is how many guns are present per capita in rural vs. urban areas. The seemingly logical conclusion here is that Republican areas have higher gun death rates because they have more guns per capita. But that data is not available. Because Congress has for decades prevented such information from being collected.

 

[jbrown329]

I live in a metro area of approx 400K. When compared to an area with 70K, and both have 100 shootings, the crime rate is higher (per capita) in the smaller (less populated)area. Doesn't matter what the political make up is, that has no bearing at all.

 

[Benvolio]

I live in a metro area of approx 400K. When compared to an area with 70K, and both have 100 shootings, the crime rate is higher (per capita) in the smaller (less populated)area. Doesn't matter what the political make up is, that has no bearing at all.

Would it not be correct to say that in each of your cities, the crimes are largely concentrated in several neighborhoods, while some areas are virtually crime free?

 

[T-Rexx]

Would it not be correct to say that in each of your cities, the crimes are largely concentrated in several neighborhoods, while some areas are virtually crime free?

There is no such thing as "crime free."

It probably is true that some neighborhoods are more prone to gun violence than others, however.

It would be interesting to investigate whether that was because those neighborhoods have more guns. If only we were allowed to study this.

 

[Benvolio]

There is no such thing as "crime free."

It probably is true that some neighborhoods are more prone to gun violence than others, however.

It would be interesting to investigate whether that was because those neighborhoods have more guns. If only we were allowed to study this.

7ou must know that the most important predictor of crime in an area is race.

 

[T-Rexx]

7ou must know that the most important predictor of crime in an area is race.

I suspected that has been your concern all along.

You desperately didn't want rural (i.e., white) areas to have higher rates of gun deaths than urban black neighborhoods, because that would contradict your certainty that white people are better than black people.

 

[Kabluey]

I suspected that has been your concern all along.

You desperately didn't want rural (i.e., white) areas to have higher rates of gun deaths than urban black neighborhoods, because that would contradict your certainty that white people are better than black people.

Bingo on that front.

 

[Benvolio]

I suspected that has been your concern all along.

You desperately didn't want rural (i.e., white) areas to have higher rates of gun deaths than urban black neighborhoods, because that would contradict your certainty that white people are better than black people.

No, but it clearly is the reason you dems are going to such lengths to distort the figures to promote your anti white agenda anti Republican agenda. The screwy map was concocted by a democrat for a democrat publication and you from the beginning gloated that it shows --you wish--a higher rate in Republican areas.

 

[T-Rexx]

The screwy map was concocted by a democrat for a democrat publication and you from the beginning gloated that it shows --you wish--a higher rate in Republican areas.

The map comes from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

[Benvolio]

The map comes from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

No, no, no. They were concocted by Mark Graves for the Oregonian, allegedly from data from the CDC: "The maps, based on data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention".

The twisting and "smoothing" and coloring etc cannot be blamed on the CDC. The map was concocted by democrats who, like you. wish to use them for your anti-Republican partisan agenda.

 

[rareboy]

um yeah. That would be it.

So you don't understand incidence and prevalence and you think that the map is a huge liberal conspiracy.

Because, you know. Mathematical facts.

 

[rareboy]

So Benvolio, having discredited the map as tool of evil Democrats against Republicans...I suppose you disagree with the other two maps from the same source as well.

http://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths



I've sat here and read your nonsense about what the original map showed and couldn't believe that anyone was either that thick or that lazy to look at the other parts of the puzzle.

The original map showed gun deaths per 100K population.

The other maps show how this total number is divided into homicide and suicide.

Sweet Jesus wept.

 

[rareboy]

Oh. And everyone? Maybe just keep in mind that the maps show data from 2004 to 2010.

It would be interesting to see how, if at all, the map has changed after the 2009 financial crash.

 

[Kulindahr]

A LOT more than a couple of dozen counties, actually. Hundreds, in fact.

View attachment 1146116

http://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths

The map doesn't address the issue -- I said people getting shot at, but it includes people shooting themselves, which accounts for the high rates in rural areas.

The data comes directly from the FBI's 2014 Report on Crime"

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...le_11_murder_circumstances_by_weapon_2014.xls

And the table doesn't address my statement, since it doesn't distinguish between criminals shooting criminals or other situations.

 

[Kulindahr]

Incorrect. The article and map I posted above disprove your statement. Average gun death rates in most developed nations are between 1 and 2 per 100, 000 people. At that level, almost every county in the US has above average gun deaths. But if we go by the US average of 10 per 100,000, there are still widespread bands of gun deaths across the south of the whole nation, encompassing many hundreds of counties.





Unfortunately that is completely untrue, no matter how often gun advocates try to spread the lie.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/




There isn't. See above.



It isn't. See further above.

States with fewer gun restrictions consistently and repeatedly have more gun crime, and quite often more crime in general.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._by_state_tougher_laws_mean_fewer_deaths.html



Crime increases in areas of poverty around the world. This is not a unique US occurrence. But, of course, a hungry man with a semi-automatic weapon is a lot more dangerous in a crowd than a hungry man with a knife or a baseball bat.

Your "see above" is empty -- your map does not respond to my statements.

Donahue's research is interesting, but at best it shows that the rate of crime is poorly associated with concealed carry, since the two apparently vary independently. Indeed it suggests that violent crime decreases at first when right-to-carry laws are enacted, then settles into a new pattern. I suspect that the criminals worried about being shot change at first, but then a sort of immune effect, akin to the way people in earthquake zones live as though there isn't going to be an earthquake, takes over.

 

[Kulindahr]

It seems very strange/improbable that the deserts and most unpopulated areas are dark red; Nevada, New Mexico. But populous, high crime areas like Los Angeles and New York are dark blue. It is either phoney or a misleading anomaly. In a desert area with virtually no people, a death in a century results in dark red. It is to much of a distortion to be meaningful.

That's a good point.

It may also have to do with what an Oregonian writer once described with a creative term I've forgotten, but which was prompted by some murders in Oregon rural counties by people who didn't live there but came from outside, something we had several of in a short period and which sent the rate tallies for counties with under 100k people sky-high. If gun killings in self-defense or by LE are included, that totally skews the numbers, too; the red could merely mean that criminals in more rural counties are more likely to be shot than criminals in urban areas.

That's the trouble when you mush all the numbers together instead of sifting out the ones of innocent people getting shot at.

 

[Kulindahr]

Now compare your two maps. Your second map shows a large white area, most of Nevada with two deaths, but that area was dark red in the first. The second map shows large numbers in the area north of Chicago which was blue in the first.

Yes -- they're addressing two entirely different things. The first map didn't address my point at all.