Brady Score – Meaningful Metric, or Misleading BS?
This article by Jonn and the comments to same got me to thinking about the subject of gun control again. It also reminded me of something I originally wrote a couple of years ago for a site that no longer exists and which wasn’t published before the site folded. And I also never got around to sending it elsewhere for publication. So here goes.
Fair warning: this article is a bit longish, and there’s some math involved. (smile)
Introduction
Fairly recently (late 2009/early 2010) the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (hereafter referred to the “Brady Campaign”) published its evaluation of US state firearms laws. It defined in this evaluation a measure it called the “Brady State Scorecard.” This Brady State Scorecard yields a single numerical value for the state’s firearms laws – the state’s “Brady Score”. The higher a state’s Brady Score, the more restrictive that state’s firearms laws.
The Brady Campaign’s thesis is that laws restricting gun and ammunition purchase and ownership promote public safety, presumably by reducing gun-related crime. They’ve been working to promote more restrictive firearms laws for literally decades.
However, with the introduction of the Brady Score the Brady Campaign has allowed a test of their thesis. This article will do exactly that.
Specifically, this article will provide a statistical test indicating whether there is reasonable evidence for a direct cause and effect relationship between restrictive gun laws and a state’s overall murder rate, a state’s firearm murder rate, and that state’s percentage of murders committed using firearms – or, in plain terms, whether gun control works to reduce gun violence. If there is indeed a strong a cause and effect relationship between restrictive firearms laws (as measured by the Brady Score) and lowered gun violence, that should be both apparent and obvious on examination of the data.
The Brady Campaign – Background
The history and mission the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is illustrative. Here is the Brady Campaign’s history:
The Brady Campaign and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has a long and rich history of working to save lives.
Mark Borinsky, who had been robbed and nearly killed at gunpoint, founded the organization in 1974 as the National Council to Control Handguns. Pete Shields became Chairman in 1978 following the murder of his twenty-three-year-old son, Nick, in 1974.
The organization was renamed Handgun Control, Inc (HCI) in 1980. In 1983, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) was founded as an education outreach organization dedicated to reducing gun violence. In 1989, CPHV establishes the Legal Action Project to take the fight against gun violence to the courts.
In 2001, HCI was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and CPHV was renamed Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in honor of Jim and Sarah Brady for their commitment and courage to make America safer.
Need to see more? Here is the Brady Campaign’s mission – again, in their own words:
We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
The Brady Campaign works to pass and enforce sensible federal and state gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence. Through our Million Mom March and Brady Chapters, we work locally to educate, remember victims, and pass sensible gun laws, believing that children have the right to grow up in environments free from the threat of gun violence.
The Brady Center works to reform the gun industry by enacting and enforcing sensible regulations to reduce gun violence, including regulations governing the gun industry. In addition, we represent victims of gun violence in the courts. We educate the public about gun violence through litigation, grassroots mobilization, and outreach to affected communities.
Given the above, one would reasonably expect the Brady Campaign to be in favor of restrictive gun laws. That is indeed the case. Indeed, from the above the Brady Campaign’s philosophy can be simply and succinctly summarized: “Guns baaaaad . . . . gun control gooooooood!”
The Brady State Scorecard
The Brady State Scorecard is the Brady Campaign’s metric to quantitatively “rate” state laws relating to firearm and ammunition purchase and ownership. To do so, the Brady Campaign has defined five major categories, each having multiple elements. Each of these categories has reasonably innocuous-sounding names: “Curb Firearm Trafficking”, “Strengthen Brady Background Checks”, “Child Safety”, “Ban Military-Style Assault Weapons”, and “Guns in Public Places and Local Control”. State laws and policies relating to each major category are rated and given a numerical score; the results are summed. The output is a single number – a state’s “Brady Score” – and ranges from a minimum possible of 0 to a maximum possible of 100. A complete description of how a state’s Brady Score is calculated, along with 2009 Brady Scores, for all states may be found on the Brady Campaign’s website here.
However, as with many such things, the “devil is in the details”. For example: “Curb Firearm Trafficking” sounds innocuous enough. However, this major category includes the subcategory “Crime Gun Identification”. “Crime Gun Identification” has two elements: “Ballistic Fingerprinting” and “Require microstamping on semi-auto handguns”. To achieve a perfect score, this means all guns would need to be fired, their ballistic signatures recorded and kept on file, and all semi-automatic handguns would require microstamping.
Similarly, under “Strengthen Brady Background Checks”, the subcategory “Permit to Purchase”includes “Fingerprinting required”. This means a perfect Brady Score requires a firearm purchaser’s fingerprints to be on file with the state. This major category also includes the subcategory “Ammunition Regulations” – and yes, that means exactly what you might think. For a perfect Brady Score, ammunition purchase would require a permit (or a point-of-sale Brady Check), and keeping records (presumably by-name) of all ammunition purchases would be mandatory.
Privacy advocates will simply love those provisions!
Finally, even the major category of “Child Safety” includes some absurd provisions. It includes the subcategory “Childproof Handguns”, with the single element “Only authorized users are able to operate new handguns”. Theoretically possible, perhaps – and maybe that will be a routine feature when Captain James T. Kirk actually commands the starship USS Enterprise some year in the 23d century. But for now, that’s pretty much a pipe dream. Requiring that by law would make most if not all current handgun designs unlawful.
Moreover, the category “Child Safety” also includes the subcategory “Juvenile Handgun Purchases”. The Brady State Scorecard defines this simply as “Must be 21”. I guess in the Brady Campaign’s view a 19 or 20 year old military combat veteran isn’t trustworthy enough to own a firearm.
In short: the Brady State Scorecard is biased as hell in favor of legal restrictions on firearms and ammunition ownership. Given the Brady Campaign’s background, that’s exactly what one would have expected.
However, regardless of it’s obviously biased origin, the Brady Score could still be a useful metric. If the Brady Campaign is correct, increasing restrictions on lawful gun ownership (and therefore legal gun availability) should lower firearm-related crime. Therefore, a higher Brady Score should be associated with a lower rate of gun-related crime. And if this effect is direct and unambiguous, a linear model (the simplest mathematical model for a cause and effect relationship) should be fairly descriptive of that effect – that is, it should show significant correlation.
Linear Models and Correlation
A model may be defined as “a simplified representation of a system or phenomenon, as in the sciences or economics, with any hypotheses required to describe the system or explain the phenomenon, often mathematically.” If such a model is to be used to predict future behavior, a mathematical basis is necessary.
The simplest mathematical models are based on linear (direct) relationships. That is, they can be expressed as a simple linear equation of the form “y = mx + b” that we all remember (and love!) from high-school algebra. Nonlinear models, while generally better at describing reality accurately, are often extremely difficult to discern, develop, or test. Moreover, for many real-world purposes, linear models suffice – particularly when there is a strong cause and effect relationship between the variable causing the observed behavior (the independent variable) and the variable showing the effect (the dependent variable).
Indeed, modern science and engineering is full of useful linear models that are simplifications of more complex nonlinear ones. Examples include Newton’s famous relationship between force, mass, and acceleration (F = MA); the well-known relationship between average speed, distance, and time (D = RT); the energy required to lift an object vertically (W = FH); and Ohm’s law for DC circuits (V = IR). Each of these neglects effects predicted by more accurate nonlinear models, but which are negligible under most conditions. In each case, a linear model is more than sufficient in daily life.
Further, linear models have been extensively studied. The problem of deriving a linear model from a set of real-world data – and of testing how well such a derived model actually describes that data – has also been extensively studied. The process of deriving such a linear model is called linear regression; the measure that describes how “well” such a model describes observed real-world data is called the correlation coefficient.
Describing the details of linear regression and the calculation of the correlation coefficient is well beyond the scope of this article. However, the calculations – while tedious – are also fairly straightforward, and are now standard functions in many spreadsheet and/or other software packages.
In plain English, the correlation coefficient describes – in virtually all cases – how well a linear equation can be used to represent observed data. The correlation coefficient ranges from -1.0 to +1.0. A value of -1.0 means all observed data lies exactly on a line with negative slope; a value of +1.0 means all observed data lies exactly along a line with positive slope. (The correlation of data lying exactly on a horizontal line is mathematically undefined.) As an example: data set with a correlation coefficient having absolute value of approximately |0.8| or more means the observed data is scattered reasonably near – but not directly on – a line.
Real life data will rarely if ever exhibit perfect correlation (e.g., +/-1.0) to a derived linear model. But if that model is a reasonably accurate representation of reality – e.g., if the cause and effect connection is real and substantial – it may well be fairly close to unity.
A correlation of zero, in contrast, usually indicates that the observed data cannot be accurately modeled by a linear equation. This figure shows examples of correlation coefficients for various data sets plotted in what is called a scatter plot – e.g., on a Cartesian X-Y axis.
A couple of cautions regarding interpreting correlation. Though suggestive, a high absolute value for correlation (e.g., one with an absolute value close to one) does not conclusively prove cause and effect – though it can be a fairly strong indicator. There could always be another underlying process unrelated to the independent variable (or on which the assumed independent variable is actually dependent) that is instead causing the observed behavior. Similarly, lack of correlation does not prove a lack of relationship – though it does indicate that a linear model doesn’t work well to represent any relationship which may exist. This is apparent from looking at the example scatter plots in the lower row here, all of which have a correlation coefficient of zero. Even a cursory look shows each scatter plot with a correlation coefficient of zero has discernible structure – but none of these structures are linear in the variables of interest and the correlation coefficient for each is zero.
Finally, one might wonder how to test linear correlation for significance. There are various methods to test for the significance of the correlation coefficient for a model determined via linear regression. A simple test, used in the Six Sigma methodology for statistical process control, is to multiply the correlation coefficient by the square root of the number of (x,y) pairs used to calculate the correlation coefficient. If this value is greater than 3, the correlation can be regarded as significant.
Now, regarding the Brady Score: a possible test now suggests itself. The Brady Campaign’s longstanding thesis is that restrictive gun control laws (which result in high state Brady Scores) result in lower gun crime. Therefore, if restrictive gun laws indeed lower gun crime, a significant negative correlation between Brady Score and measures of gun crime should be observed. All that remains is to select those measures, collect the appropriate data, do the math, and analyze the results.
Collecting the Data
Thankfully, suitable data is readily available. The 2009 Brady Score for each state is available in consolidated form at the Brady Campaign’s website. As the Brady Campaign’s basic thesis is that more restrictive gun laws lead to less gun crime, the Brady Score will be the independent variable for correlation studies.
Moreover: the UK Guardian newspaper fairly recently (October 2009) collected and made public data – obtained from US government sources – for the year 2008 regarding murders in all US states other than Florida. (The District of Columbia was also excluded.) Significantly, this data includes more than the overall murder rate per 100,000 residents. It also includes the firearm murder fraction – e.g., the percentage of murders committed in each state using a firearm. From this, it’s simple arithmetic to determine each state’s firearm murder rate per 100,000 residents.
From these data sources, we can obtain three sets of 49 x-y pairs, perform linear regression, and test the results for significance. If we use Brady Score as the independent variable, doing this will give an indication as to whether or not a linear, direct cause and effect relationship exists between Brady Score and three different measures of the relative frequency of gun violence.
Use of 2008 crime data is appropriate for this comparison. While 2009 and later data is available, the fact is that the Brady State Scorecard was published in October 2009 – so the data used regarding state laws to calculate the Brady State Scorecard was very likely 2008 or early-2009 data. (If the Brady Campaign indicated the cutoff date for their Brady State Scorecard’s data, I didn’t find it.)
We thus now have three good metrics against which to perform linear regression vis-à-vis the Brady Score and test the resulting correlation coefficient for significance. Total murder rate is the first. If the Brady Campaign is correct, a rising Brady Score should be expected to reduce the overall murder rate by reducing firearm murders. For the same reason, firearm murder rate (naturally) is the second. Finally, the firearm murder fraction is the third; a higher Brady Score should be expected to lower the proportion of murders committed using firearms by making them less available. Using rate data vice raw numbers of murders accounts for varying state populations.
All three of these metrics should show declines vis-à-vis rising Brady Score – if the Brady Campaign’s thesis that more restrictive firearms law leads to less gun violence is correct. And if the cause and effect relationship is direct and significant, a linear model should describe that fairly accurately – with a correlation coefficient that is significant. Conversely, if there isn’t a cause and effect relationship, a linear model won’t work – and the correlation coefficient computed will be insignificant.
Here’s the raw data, along with scatter plots of same. Florida and DC are omitted as firearm murder fraction and overall murder rate were not included in the UK Guardian’s data for those jurisdictions. The file is a MicroSoft Excel spreadsheet (2003 format), so you’ll need something that can read and display that file format to view the data and scatter plots.
Methodology
The methodology used in performing these tests was simple. A linear model was assumed representing cause-and-effect relationships between restrictive gun laws (as measured by a state’s Brady Score) and that state’s overall Murder Rate, Firearm Murder Rate, and Firearm Murder Fraction. The Brady Score was used as a numerical measure of the restrictiveness of a state’s firearms laws and was assumed to be the independent variable in each case. Linear regression was then performed to determine the correlation coefficient. If the Brady Campaign’s thesis is correct, the expected result is a high negative correlation in each case (e.g., a higher Brady Score would be associated with a lower rate of firearm murders, overall murders, and a lower fraction of firearm murders). Data was obtained from the sources indicated above. Each linear regression model’s coefficient correlation was calculated, and whether these correlation coefficients were significant was determined. The overall results were then analyzed and conclusions determined.
These specific steps were as followed:
1. Obtained Brady Score for all 50 US states.
2. Obtained Murder Rate and Firearm Murder Fraction for all US states except Florida and the District of Columbia.
3. Entered above data into an Excel spreadsheet.
4. Verified the data entered into Excel against data sources listed above.
5. Used built in MicroSoft Excel arithmetic functions to calculate state Firearm Murder Rate from Murder Rate and Firearm Murder Fraction.
6. Used the built in Excel function “CORREL” to calculate the correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Murder Rate.
7. Used the built in Excel function “CORREL” to calculate the correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Firearm Murder Rate.
8. Used the built in Excel function “CORREL” to calculate the correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Firearm Murder Fraction.
9. Analyzed resulting correlation coefficients for significance.
10. Examined results and determined conclusions.
Results
The Brady Campaign will not like the results presented below.
1. The correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Murder Rate was near zero and positive: +0.042418.
2. The correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Firearm Murder Rate was also near zero and positive: +0.045577.
3. The correlation coefficient between Brady Score and Firearm Murder Fraction was less than .15 and positive: +0.141732.
4. All correlation coefficients are positive. If a higher Brady Score was linked to a lower level of gun violence, a negative correlation would be expected in all three cases.
5. None of the calculated correlations are significant. In each case, the correlation coefficient multiplied by 7 (the square root of the 49 pairs used to calculate each correlation) was less than 1.0. A value greater than 3 for this test is required for a correlation to be deemed significant. This indicates lack of evidence of any direct cause and effect relationship between Brady Score and Murder Rate, Firearm Murder Rate, or Firearm Murder Fraction.
6. Scatter plots of the data reveal no obvious nonlinear structure, thus implying no easily-discerned nonlinear relationship between Brady Score and Murder Rate, Firearm Murder Rate, or Firearm Murder Fraction. If anything, the scatterplots look more like 3 random noise bursts contained in a superimposed decaying sinusoidal envelope centered around a positive constant and with the envelope decaying with increasing Brady Score.
Conclusions
1. There is no significant correlation between a state’s Brady Score and that state’s Murder Rate, Firearm Murder Rate, or Firearm Murder Fraction.
2.There is no linear relationship between restrictive gun laws (Brady Score) and a state’s rate of gun murders; between a state’s Brady Score and it’s overall murder rate; or between a state’s Brady Score and the fraction of murders committed using guns. This strongly implies that there is no direct cause and effect relationship between restrictive gun laws and either the overall murder rate, the firearm murder rate, or the fraction of murders committed by firearms. If there was such a direct cause and effect relationship, we would have expected to have observed a strong negative correlation (e.g., a correlation coefficient between -0.80 or so and -1.0) in each case above. Instead, a small positive correlation relatively close to zero (e.g., between 0.0 and 0.15) was observed in each case.
3. As a quantification of how restrictive a given state’s firearms laws are, the Brady Score appears meaningful. States with high Brady Scores indeed have highly restrictive firearms laws.
4. However, as an indicator of how laws restricting firearms affect public safety the Brady Score can be described by its initials – BS. As measured by Brady Score, restrictive firearms laws appear essentially unrelated to a state’s rate of firearms crime. Something else is the cause of the variation.
In short: restrictive gun laws don’t seem to be conclusively linked to reduced rates of gun violence. In fact, there appears to be little if any linkage at all.
Updated (22 June 2012) – A downloadable version of this article is now available here. Download and use it yourself as you see fit. However, please ask any acquaintances to download it themselves vice sending it to them – and ask them to also click a few ads here at TAH before they leave. If nothing else, that will help Jonn cover the hosting fees for TAH.
Willful ignorance. It’s a terrible thing.
Jesse, you are free to hold whatever world view you choose to have. You are not free to impose that world view upon others.
Meanwhile, criminals will continue to commit crimes with or without additional restrictions on the overwhelming majority of people who have committed no crime, with or without guns. Your choice to espouse that controlling law abiding citizens through something you call “gun control” by spouting nonsense which has nothing whatever to do with violent crime would be laughable were it not so misguided. You, Jesse, and others like you simply want to control people by removing all means of them controlling themselves.
Why do you pretend otherwise, Jesse?
Jesse–and look who keeps touting that half-assed “data” you keep citing. Brady and the other gun-grabbers.
Again, how many LEGALLY OWNED GUNS were used in murder? What percentage? What number?
Why OWB? Because he is one of the enlightened of course. His “educators” have told him how bright and special he is (for parroting their lefty nonsense) and how much better he is than the rest of us unwashed proles. He (and those like him) are “top men”, and they know what is best for the rest of us “bitter clingers” who are just too damn backwards and ignorant (he’d have us off to be “re-educated” if we couldn’t shoot back).
Lol the daily news, what a fine news source… slapping my thigh with laughter right now! The headline says murder ‘rate’ yet the numbers are flat number of murders! Apparently most conservatives didn’t make it past middle school math if these hilarious article actually exists.
I don’t need to go to fringe news sources or cite one specific study because COMMON KNOWLEDGE IS ON MY SIDE.
I’ve seen that same harvard study cited over and over and over. Its the only single study in the whole fucking world u people have and obviously a gun nut designed the study. Of course it focuses on ‘percent of households owning a gun’ and it treats each country as though its equal.
As soon as you calculate Finland, Norway and Sweden, it comes up with its ‘conclusion’. These countries are highly rural.
Rural= high number of hunters, disproportionately high percent of households owning a gun.
Rural= low crime
How convenient they way these things line up!
When it comes to facts that are large in scope, everyone has the common knowledge that can’t be debated.
Fact 1: Violent crime is far lower throughout Europe than in the US, and Europe has much greater gun control measures.
So who the fuck even cares which European country is higher than another? Its like comparing the length of differents ants, then comparing it to the height of a person (the US violent crime rate would represent the person’s height).
Fact 2: The states with very high gun murder and violent crime rates are almost all conservative gun states. Nevada, Arizona, and Alaska show that its not simply a regional thing, though almost all the southern states are in this very high bracket year after year.
It’s common knowledge and its backed up by truly nonbiased sources that a child could even read for themselves: the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Numbers.
Why come up with bullshit techniques like the “Six Sigma Methodology” when you don’t need them to make your point?
Here’s another basic point. Statistics calculated with the use of wilderness states or countries like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Finland, Norway and Sweden simply don’t change the PROBLEM throughout Lousiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Nevada, Tennessee, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas…
For counterexamples there is only Maryland, Delaware and Michigan.
Maryland and Delaware are fairly Southern or at least the closest to the South for gun trafficking. (gun traffricking IS how criminals get guns, not legally. And GUN CONTROL DECREASES GUN TRAFFICKING… congratulations on understanding this point, you get a gold star!)
And we all know how messed up the economy of Detroit, Michigan and that region is. It says nothing about gun control, that’s for sure.
Oh. The common knowledge defense. Not original, but certainly special. (Among those unable or unwilling to ponder actual data.)
aka “I have no facts, but this is the way I want it to be so I will say it over and over and over again until I convince myself and others that it is real.”
The Chicago Tribune is hardly a fringe news source.
Likewise, the New York Times – hardly a FRINGE news source.
My daily news, which you found so god-awful funny, comes from those news sources, not from fringe sources.
Your lame argument does not stand up to any kind of examination.
D’you want to go over that again, stupid? And you’re still not funny, nor are you even close to correct in your rebuttal.
I left New Mexico out of the list of state in the very high bracket for violent crime and/or gun murder. Based on the FBI numbers from 1999 to 2011.
The only statistics that count are those that are current, meaning for 2012 to 2013, you idiot.
1999 through 2011 has nothing to do what is going on NOW.
Got that part? Because if there were any relevance, Chicago would not have displaced New York City as the US city with the highest crime rate THIS YEAR.
THIS YEAR. NOT 1999, NOT 2000, NOT ANY YEAR EARLIER THAN 2011.
And maybe you should actually talk to people who live in New Mexico and in Arizon about the rise in violent crimes in their respective states since the beginning of 2012 up to today’s date.
I’m cracking up because I’m now reading the Associated Press article your talking about, “FBI: Chicago surpasses New York as murder capital of the country”
Here are a couple quotes from it:
“But residents of Chicago and New York were much less likely to be victims of a homicide than residents of Flint, Mich.”
“More than 40 percent of all violent crimes took place in the South, which accounts for 37.4 percent of the country’s population. Violent crime was less likely to be reported in the Northeast and Midwest, the data show”
The title murder capital here is based on FLAT NUMBER of murders. Chicago had more total number of murders than New York. That is completely different from the MURDER RATE.
Murder RATE means number of murders PER 100,000 people. Chicago and New York have the highest flat count of murders simply because they have millions more people than other cities throughout the US.
Middle school math….
Current rankings by violent crime RATE (get it, number of violent crimes per 100,00 people?) Chicago is only 79th in the country. New York ranks nowhere in the top 100.
Um, Jesse – “FBI numbers say you wrong, Keemosabe.” The FBI doesn’t publish an overall “violent crime rate” for Chicago. Chicago doesn’t correctly report figures for forcible rape per UCR standards. Since forcible rape is a violent crime, the FBI thus cannot calculate the standard violent crime rate for Chicago. This further means that any comparison involving a purported overall violent crime rate for Chicago is based on invalid (e.g., non-UCR) data and is thus not valid. Chicago does, however, report it’s murders and non-negligent homicides per UCR standards. Per 2012 FBI data on US cities (see http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/6tabledatadecpdf ), the city of Chicago is NOT 79th regarding murder rate. It’s in the top 40, with a murder/non-negligent homicide rate of 18.46 per 100,000 population (500 murders in a city population of 2,708,282). Further, based on 2012 data Flint, MI isn’t the worst, either – that “honor” goes to Camden, NJ, which in 2012 had a staggering murder/non-negligent homicide rate of 86.27 per 100,000 population (77 murders/non-negligent homicides in a population of 77,665). Please note that the above are individual city calculations using data extracted from the cited FBI source, not metropolitan area rates. Metropolitan area rates give a false low for most cities as they obscure the actual major city’s violence by diluting it with suburban data, thus making the city in question seem much safer than it is in reality. Using city-specific data (e.g, data for Chicago only vice for the greater Chicago area) removes this distortion and allows direct city-to-city comparisons. In fact, city-specific calculations show that cities from the 11 states having the most restrictive firearms laws (as measured by Brady Score) are disproportionally represented in the top-50 most violent cities in the USA. Based on murder/non-negligent homicide rates, fully 20 out of the top 50 cities come from 8 states: CA(#1), NJ (#2) MI (#11), NY (#4), PA (#10), MD (#7), IL (#9), and CT (#5). That’s roughly double what would be expected by a random distribution, and far less than would be expected if more restrictive firearms laws actually led to less firearm crime. In… Read more »
Trying to have a logical discussion with a fanatic is always frustrating. This one was quite typical. As they compare apples with oranges and conclude that either one makes excellent grape juice, they are convinced that such an argument is valid AND that the incredulous response of any normal person is proof of their superior position.
Sad. They would be funnier if they were not so dangerous. All fanatics are dangerous; it matters not their cause.
Jesse, for your own piece of mind just stay out of the South and other “bad” states.
What happened? OH! Thanks, Hondo, for the backup.
When a major newspaper says Chicago has displaced New York City this year as the Number One Violent City in the US, and someone with a chip on his shoulder uses incorrect info and out of date statistics as a basis for disagreement, you just can’t get through to him. I got bored with it and left.
The violent crime rates for areas like Harvey, East Chicago, Maywood, the Little Village, Back of the Yards, Pilsen, and the worst neighborhood of all – Englewood – actually elevate the overall rates because they are so gang-ridden it makes you wonder how on earth anyone can survive in those areas.
The only place I can think of that is worse is a part of Gary, IN, which spills over into East Chicago, and is so bad that no cops will go into that particular area.
It’s now spreading into downtown Chicago, on Michigan Avenue – which should be safer than any place else – with gangs of teens robbing people in broad daylight, shoplifting in stores in large groups, and running roughshod over everyone in their line of sight.
There was a warehouse fire last winter on the south side that require 5 fire companies to come and put it out. It burned for 2 full days. Just how hard does anyone think it would be to start something like that as a distraction, to move LEOs and firefighters out of one area and start a real riot, as happened in London 2 years ago?
Hondo. Neighborhoodscout.com: The 100 Most dangerous cities in America. NON-BIASED fact. Its not a liberal site, its not conservative site. It has no interest in gun issues. Their statistics are based on violent crime rate which is retrievable at the city level, how the fuck do you think state totals for violent crime are counted and published, if, according to you (LOL), things aren’t reported and counted first at the city level by police precincts. You’re neck deep in bullshit.
If your “facts” about your the top 50 cities were at all correct and these liberal states were so horrible, then why is nearly every state in the South leading the way on a state by state calculation, when its cities aren’t close to as large?
Because is one of us is making up bullshit- you. The other one read the FBI numbers DIRECTLY- me
Get your information directly, rather than spreading lies that came from an equally biased source
FBI numbers, available from 1960 to 2012:
http://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/Search/Crime/State/TrendsInOneVar.cfm
You’ve been coddled by gun nuts and fed bullshit numbers and twisting arguments to spit out.
Please try getting some information directly from the FBI numbers or just from a MAJOR NEWS SOURCE.
Well I just looked at multiple sites listing the top ten most dangerous cities by murder rate (since according to hondo violent crime rate is a big conspiracy to distort chicago an therby change all data which always shows the south having the most crime).
Well guess what, we have St. Louis, Missouri, Memphis, Tennessee, Birmingham, Alabama, and Jackson, Mississippi, coming in as TOP TEN, seems accurate, those are big dangerous cities.
Oh but according to Hondo the “TOP 50” has only 5 cities coming from low Brady score states. He says 4 are in Lousiana and the other 1 city must be a magical city that combines all 4 cities that I listed above.
(Missouri has a Brady score of 4, Tennessee has a Brady score of 2, Mississippi has a Brady score of 6)
Blah, blah, blah. What? Did you take a basic arithmetic class in 6th grade and now feel compelled to explain what we already know about math just because it makes you feel more worthwhile to yourself?
Whatever.
Jesse: do you have a reading comprehension problem? The stats and ratings I cited above are based on 2012 violent crime data published by the FBI – as the link in comment 62 clearly indicates. Had you bothered to follow that link, or even look at it and notice the fbi.gov domain, you’d know that. Missing that fact shows either ignorance or laziness; disregarding it shows mendacity. What I did prior to my reply in comment 62 was extract city-specific information from the above FBI data, then do a bit of further analysis. Want to double-check me? Go ahead. Here’s the procedure: (1) download the data yourself (it’s available for download at the FBI link cited above in spreadsheet form); (2) delete everything that isn’t specifically related to a specific city (there are many rows in the data set that are regional and/or summary or explanatory info vice city-specific data – I’d guess around 3/4 of the data set); (3) calculate the individual murder/non-negligent homicide rates for each city; (4) add a “Brady Score” column, then look up and add the appropriate Brady Score for each city; and then (5) have fun analyzing same. (Since the Brady Campaign doesn’t give a Brady Score for DC, I arbitrarily deemed its Brady Score to be equal to New York’s.) There are just short of 600 total cities, large and small, for which the FBI lists 2012 city-specific data – it’s generally listed along with data from their surrounding suburbs, but in most cases the city-specific info is identifiable and extractable. For a valid city-by-city comparison, you must use only those rows in the spreadsheet identified as belonging to a particular city – e.g., data that is identified as “City of (name)” in the Counties/Principal Cities column. Otherwise, you’re mixing in suburban information and skewing the results. (It goes without saying that you need to use only valid data collected using UCR rules if you want a valid “apples-to-apples” comparison; the FBI site I used provides that.) If you do the above – then sort the cities by murder/non-negligent homicide rate – you’ll… Read more »
I understand exactly what you did, hondo.
You made a point as though “3 out of 100” is a low Brady score whereas “4 out of 100” is not a low Brady score.
I think even your fellow pro gun nitwits on here can identify how laughable that is.
There is a REASON that the Brady score is scaled as it is, because if “3 out of 100” are “4 out of 100” are almost equal on the legal level.
There’s a word for this: DECEPTION. Making a misleading point about cities in the top 50 which you are fully aware isn’t backed by the data.
DECEPTION is what you have to resort to because the claims you’re trying to make are ludicrous. The only way to try to make it appear that liberal states and cities have more crime is by creating a faulty data set that cuts 2/3rds of the conservative states out of the picture. Frankly its sad that you’ve dug so deep into data just to find desperate angles to misportray it, by looking at forcible rape reporting standards in chicago for instance. Or making retreating claims about where suburbs as cities are separated. How will any of that change the plainly clear fact that conservative STATES were far ahead in crime from 1999 to 2011?
You know who don’t use DECEPTION? Journalists. Journalists at MAJOR NEW SOURCES. It doesn’t matter if the journalist is conservative or liberal if they were caught making a point based on DECEPTION, like 3 out 100 is low, 4 out of 100 is not low, therefore low Brady states are less present in the top 50, then they would get FIRED.
Wait, JOURNALISTS at MAJOR NEWS SOURCES don’t use deception? You mean like CNN lying about stuff during the Saddam era to maintain access to Iraq? Man, that must be some good shit you’ve gotten ahold of.
There are 32 states that rank with a Brady score of 8 out of 100 or lower and all of these states represent to us the results of conservative lawmaking.
Isolating subsets of data to make a verbal point that doesn’t fit reality is SHAMELESS DECEPTION and its all you have in your corner.
Journalist like those at 60 Minutes? Right, no deception has ever been used by a journalist to promnote an agenda… ever.
Jesse, you are an idiot, useful 1 ea….
Well deceiving isn’t a journalists bread and butter. They don’t dig into mountains of data to come up with creative ways to misportray; to support a biased viewpoint that is plainly unsupported in the first two pages of clear data for instance.
Jesse – um, that would be a “No”. There was no deception on my part – just an attempt to do an “apples-to-apples” comparison by comparing similar-sized top and bottom segments of the total population based on actual, verifiable data.
I chose 3 as the low cutoff as that gave me the same number in opposite “tails” (high and low) for comparison purposes – e.g., top 22% vice bottom 22%. When doing a comparison, it’s relatively important to compare equal segments of the population in question. Conclusions drawn by comparing the top 22% with the bottom 64% (as you seem to want above) would be essentially worthless and would tell us essentially nothing.
And if your “beloved mantra” (more restrictive gun laws guarantees fewer gun crimes) was true, the effect would be immediately obvious: low Brady Score cities would be overrepresented in the top 10% of US cities ranked by murder rate, while high Brady Score cities would be underrepresented. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
Kinda sucks when a comparison based on actual, verified data challenges your unsupported and erroneous beliefs – doesn’t it? Too bad; deal with it.
Different topic: your assertion in comment 70 above that “journalists don’t use deception” is laughable, and is on its face patently absurd. Journalists on both ends of the spectrum (conservative and liberal) both slant the hell out of the news and write deliberately misleading stories when it suits their agenda to do so. To deny that is to deny both obvious reality and human nature. If you honestly belief that statement, you’re grossly deceiving yourself.
The ‘first two pages here’ is represented as the fact that:
Lousiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Nevada, Tennessee, Mississippi, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, New Mexico, Alaska, and Alabama
Lead the country dramatically year after year in violent crime and murder rates.
Ok, so more attempts to deceive. Your “cutoff” has nothing to do with equal segments of population. As someone capable of using long winded rhetoric about statistics, I’m sure you’re aware it has nothing do with segments of population.
To quote wikipedia:
“The nine most populous states contain slightly more than half of the total population. The 25 least populous states contain less than one-sixth of the total population. California, the most populous state, contains more people than the 21 least populous states combined.”
‘deceiving isn’t a journalist’s bread and butter’? What?
Oh, dear God! That is the dumbest thing I’ve seen anyone put in writing in a LONG, LONG TIME. It is as moronic and dumbfoundingly stupid to say, never mind believe, that journalists don’t lie their asses off if it will get a headline story and a byline for them and pimp out their careers.
I cannot believe anyone who is walking upright and conscious would say something so abominably stupid, and so far from the truth about journalism that the gap may never shrink.
Jesse, if you actually believe something that asinine, you’re even dumber than I thought you were with your first post. You are SUCH a moron!
Geez!!!
Oh, yeah — your English skills — not so hot, sport. ‘Your’ is the possessive form of ‘you’. It is used thus: ‘your boat, your car, your stuff’. ‘You’re’ is the contracted form of ‘you are’, as in ‘you’re an idiot, you’re not real bright, and you’re too stubborn to admit you’re wrong’.
And middle school math? OK, bozo, that’s hardly a measure of intelligence. I took trig, got a B+. Quadratic equations in algebra, which MY generation got in 6TH GRADE, were fun, but stereo math is weird stuff approaching art like fractals. And calculus is just another language, made up of symbols. My guess is, without asking them, that most of the people here managed to get into some higher level of math and do well in it without batting an eye. And damn, I really hated math in high school, because my math teachers were either waiting to retire or anxious to get to the basketball court. Whatever, they just weren’t interested.
You, on the other hand, can’t do a simple statistical analysis, so you have to use other people’s results.
That marks you as lazy, in addition to being arrogant. So far, your point score on everything is rather low.
And you’re still not funny, so quit using LOL until you learn how to be funny.
Oh, noes!!!
Jesse’s using wiki because he cain’t get nowhere with Hondo’s statistical analysis.
Lame. Lazy. Try harder, sport.
And again, Jesse, what you once again fail to recognize is, in many cases, the DEMOGRAPHIC of those “high crime” areas/states.
I pointed it out, and Dog pointed it out in Comment 32, but I’ll repeat his comments here:
People who commit murder usually fall into one of, most of, or all of these categories
little or no education
no moral upbringing
no family structure (notably a male figure)
no job skills, or employment history
substance abuser
criminal history
This profile crosses all ages, races, genders and financial status.
How about addressing murder rates from THOSE criteria, rather than who owns weapons and who doesn’t? Notice that the places you point out have large populations of people who fit into many of those criteria?
And would you also not agree that most gun MURDERS (not homicides or self-defense killings) are committed with weapons which were illegally obtained? Would you also not agree that most MURDERS are in fact committed not with guns, but with knives or blunt objects, to the point there are nearly 3-4 times as many murders in those methods than with guns?
Ah, you may go now.
Jesse: cite your sources. Uncited sources are worth precisely zero in terms of credibility.
And, by the way, your comment 76 is rather in error. In 2008, Alaska was nowhere near top-12 with respect to either murder rate or the more relevant firearm murder rate (30th and 31st, respectively). However, two states you don’t mention – Maryland and Delaware – were in the top 12. In 2008, Maryland was 2nd in both cases; Delaware was 8th in overall murder rate and 5th in firearms murder rate. Both had substantially more stringent firearms laws in 2008 (as measured by Brady Score) than any of the states you list. The data from 2008 is linked in the basic article above. Maybe you should actually look at it before spouting off next.
Try again. But maybe you should do some research first before commenting again rather than merely parroting Brady Campaign talking points.
Not even a nice “red herring” in comment 77, Jesse. The comparison of interest isn’t based on population.
Your “beloved mantra” holds that more restrictive laws mean a lower rate of gun crime. You test that by comparing the gun crime rate in different states vis-a-vis their gun laws; actual state populations are irrelevant. That’s precisely why you compare crime RATES vice total number of occurrences – rates are independent of total population. And it should be obvious even to you that firearms murder rate is a valid metric regarding overall gun crime.
You did notice that I’ve consistently compared RATES and not occurrences, right?
Geez. Are you really that ignorant of basic math? Or are you just deliberately trying to confuse the issue because you are beginning to realize that you have no valid counter-argument?
I ask because I’ve seen both techniques used in the past by those who cannot make a valid argument. Frankly, at this point I’d guess you’re simply clueless – but your being deliberately mendacious and intentionally misleading above can’t yet be ruled out.
And @77–okay, if you want to go through population, take those nine most populus states, give me a murder rate/number of murders, then compare them to the other 41 states, which would give you a rather equal population.
IIRC, the only “red” states which fall under your criteria are Texas and Georgia. However, even there, you will find large urban areas with the criteria listed above (low income, low education, etc.) with large populations where the murder rates are far above the national average.
Go ahead and tell me California is safer than New Hampshire as far as gun violence. I’m begging ya. Please.
So according to Wikipedia, California has equal population to the 21 least populous states.
Convenient that you picked 11 states with hardly any major cities in them, to make your fantastic “point”.
Utah, Arizona, Alaska, Oklahoma, Lousiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wisconsin, and Florida.
Apparently these random 11 states represent equal “population” to
California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Hawaii
And let’s not compare their statewide violent crime rates.
Let’s compare if they had any major cities in a specific study done on only major cities.
If we looked at the statewide violent crime ratings that wouldn’t support our point.
EVEN DESPITE the liberal states having huge cities, people are far more likely to be murdered in Arizona, Alaska, Lousiana, and Florida.
Just read the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics.
A study on ONLY major cities with mostly places like Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Montana, Alaska, and Oklahoma filling in to represent all of conservative America.
Do you realize what a fucking joke you keep looping each other into?
Jesse, let me try to break this down into small points that even someone like you can understand.
a. Calculating rates vice raw numbers produces a metric that is normalized for differences in population sizes.
b. Because rates are normalized, if you use rate statistics the difference in population between states does not affect the comparison.
c. Your “mantra” asserts that a higher Brady Score means that gun crime will be lower.
d. Less gun crime means there should be less firearms murder and non-negligent homicide.
e. A strong cause-and-effect relationship can be modeled by a linear equation with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
f. Linear regression tests the accuracy of linear equation models by calculating a correlation coefficient that describes how well observed data fits a linear model.
g. In linear regression, a correlation coefficient with absolute value near 1.0 means a linear model is a good fit, while a correlation near 0 means a linear model doesn’t work.
h. Linear regression shows there is effectively zero correlation between a state’s Brady Score and it’s firearms murder rate (the correlation coefficient has an absolute value of <0.05).
i. Ergo, there is not a strong cause-and-effect relationship between Brady Score and firearms violence.
In plain language: your "beloved mantra" is simply, provably wrong. More restrictive gun laws do not guarantee less gun crime. In fact, in statistical terms there is no significant linkage between the two.
One last little thing, Jesse. Pay attention now.
The late, great J. D. Salinger, who was a counter-intelligence officer during World War II, wrote a book titled “Catcher in the Rye”, which same book has been quite popular with literate young people. Out of the tens of millions of those readers who bought and read ‘Catcher in the Rye’, there were many who were inspired to create after reading that book.
There were 3 people, out of those millions, who committed acts of violence: Mark Chapman, a psychotic, obssessive Beatles fan who fancied himself to be John Lennon and shot and killed him as Lennon was leaving his residence in New York City; John Hinckley, who shot President Reagan in an attempt to assassinate him to impress Jodie Foster; and Robert Bardo, who shot and killed actress Rebecca Shaefer as she was leaving her home on her way to work.
The claim by some so-called critics is that Salinger’s most famous published work is cause for concern because it inspired three people to acts of violence. This is a false claim, because it does not bear close examination. It fails to account for the millions of people who have been inspired by ‘Catcher’ to do creative work and who have NOT committed acts of violence.
Your claims don’t bear close examination, either. You don’t bother to do the work to support them, you borrow other people’s information, you get half of that right and you discard what doesn’t suit your program.
If that isn’t deception and failed analogy, then what is it?
Is it a story by Bigfoot?
Convenient that you picked 11 states with hardly any major cities in them, to make your fantastic “point”.
Utah, Arizona, Alaska, Oklahoma, Lousiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wisconsin, and Florida.
Really? Wanna go there? These are just off the top of my head:
Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Tucson, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Louisville, Lexington, Boise, Milwaukee, Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville…just to name a few.
NHSparky: yeah, Phoenix is only the 6th largest city in the US, and Jacksonville only the 12th. And the SLC metro area is over 1M in total population.
In fact, I doubt our friend Jesse knows that 7 of the 10 largest US cities are west of the Mississippi – and that only 2 of the 10 largest are on the East Coast. (Chicago is the other one east of the Mississippi.) Or that Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Houston, and El Paso are all larger cities than Boston.
Methinks Jesse is someone who’s never spent much time west of the Appalachian Mountains and doesn’t realize the rest of the world isn’t exactly the same as the cities in the NE US.
But I guess I could be wrong. Every region has its allotment of fools and tools.
Well, I don’t know what Jesse’s definition of a ‘major city’ might be, but if it involves having a major league sports team, then Green Bay,WI, qualifies. Bears v. Packers – Packers will win until Bears get their act together and play like they mean it.
If it’s having an airport large enough to qualify as an international hub, then Rockford, IL qualifies. Their airport is large enough to land the Concorde. Videos of the Concorde landing and departing are still available.
If it’s having a lot of high-end local business, then Orlando, FL, qualifes – Disney World and Universal City.
If it’s having a concentrated urban center with surrounding outlying bedroom communities and major manufacturing as well as universities/colleges and a high education level, then my hometown Decatur, IL, qualifies. A.E. Staley, Caterpillar, Archer Daniels (among others), Millikin University, Mt. Zion H.S. (my high school, now the elite high school if you want your kids to get into major universities). Champaign, IL also qualifies in that respect.
Let’s not forget St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis-St. Paul, or So. Dakota and No. Dakota’s abilities to attract ‘soft businesses’, as in non-manufacturing, with a growing population of highly-educated workers.
Gee whiz, major cities everywhere in every state.
You lose again, idiot!
All true, Hondo.
Repeating the obvious, once again, some more. All the statistics which the FBI collects are self-reported. Since it is typically elected officials who have a self-serving interest in official numbers reflecting low crime rates generally, and it is these same elected official who determine most policies within their jurisdictions (AND hire and fire appointed positions such as chiefs of police based at least in part upon how well they reflect those policies), there is a tendency for the numbers to be somewhat skewed depending upon a plethora of variables which may or may not be standard across the spectrum of the jurisdictions reporting statistics to the FBI. Seems like Chicago got some bad press about 6 months ago or so over this very issue – they simply changed the definitions of some violent crimes to intentionally under report the amount of violence within the city.
Even so, knowing that the actual numbers are skewed and therefore subject to more than a little skepticism, the FBI has the best raw data available.
The IRONY is that Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, and Alaska and several similar states have the enormous murder rates, ACTUALLY way beyond the liberal states, EVEN THOUGH they don’t have a leading city like Chicago or Oakland. The crime in just the rural areas of those states far outweighs the weight of having a city containing nearly 3 million people.
We could debate meaningless side points like whether or not Boise, Idaho is a big city all day just so you feel like you were right about something…
OR you could go read the FBI numbers by googling “Bureau of Justice Statistics Uniform Crime Reporting”
What will you find. A cesspool of about 12 conservative states out in front of the rest of the country for murder or violent crime, take your pick.
The only states that compare are Maryland, Delaware, and Michigan. Are these three states examples of the liberal gun-restrticted bastions that everyone keeps spouting off on? No, these states are in the low middle on Brady score, and give some consideration to their specific circumstances.: Maryland and Delaware are locating right on I-95 coming from the South, making them the first stops for trafficked guns. And Michigan simply has close to the worst economic depression in the country.
Florida has no large cities? You would almost have to go back to when Ponce de Leon was looking for the fountain of youth for that to be true.
“The IRONY is that Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, and Alaska and several similar states have the enormous murder rates”
People only use guns to commit murder? Alaska has a gun murder rate of 2.7 per 100,000 with 57.8% of the population owning guns while The Peoples Republic of California has a gun murder rate of 3.4 per 100,000 with 21.3% of the population owning guns. Kind of blows your “The crime in just the rural areas of those states far outweighs the weight of having a city containing nearly 3 million people.” point out of the water.
Highest states for gun murders, in order (source: FBI UCR numbers)
Lousiana
Missouri
Maryland
South Carolina
Delaware
Michigan
Mississippi
Florida
Georgia
Arizona
Highest states for violent crime (such as robbery), same source, in order:
Tennesee
Nevada
Alaska
New Mexico
South Carolina
Delaware
Louisiana
Florida
Maryland
Oklahoma
http://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeOneYearofData.cfm
Jesse, you ignorant slut. You say,
“Here’s another basic point. Statistics calculated with the use of wilderness states or countries like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Finland, Norway and Sweden simply don’t change the PROBLEM throughout Lousiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Nevada, Tennessee, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas…”
The primary factor in low crime rates in the states and countries you dismiss as “rural” is a homogeneous culture with strong family values. Add Utah, the Dakotas to the list. The states in the second group have populations that are much more diverse.
Yet you try to blame black on black crime in Memphis on the red state pro gun culture of Tennessee. Same with blaming the dysfunction of New Orleans, East St Louis, Bessemer on their respective states.
The problem is a culture that abandons it’s mates and offspring, forsakes a religious foundation, uses abortion as a form of birth control, and refuses to attempt to learn marketable skills, while ridiculing those few who succeed and get away from the negative culture of the Democrat plantation as sell outs, house slaves and Uncle Toms.
Your racism is so great at explaining Oklahoma, Nevada, Arizona, and Alaska
Sorry Jesse, but it ain’t racism if it’s true. Drug and thug culture, regardless of color, is a BIG driving force behind the crime rate in New Orleans, Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, etc.
And again, you’ve yet to address the murderers using LEGALLY obtained weapons versus ILLEGALLY obtained ones.
Gee, wonder why?
Its disgusting that people believe that the culture of the South can somehow keep criminals from getting guns.
Someone above ACTUALLY believed that gun control aims to “take guns away from a farmer in wyoming.” Those same farmers can always get guns because they are law abiding citizens with a use for them.
Gun control is about background checks and registration, eliminating trafficking, and eliminating gun shows filled with unregistered dealers (where dealers actually display signs saying ‘No Background Checks Here’)
If you were any gun dealer or gun store owner, do you think you would rather take home cash from a sale, or turn someone away because he looks like a “gangbanger” with baggy pants? Why would that person even dress that like or approach you when he can just get his gun from one of thousands of middlemen..