re: More than half of US Counties did not have a murder last year

quote:

---

So how does one draw any inferences from this information when these population differences aren't accounted for?

---

I'd be interested in seeing how much different a per capita murder rate similar chart would look, sure.

quote:

---

Democrats are doing so much to help murder victims and minorities

---

In fairness, standing on bodies takes a lot of effort

quote:

---

County-level comparisons aren’t the best. But, it’s a hell of a lot better resolution than state-wide stats gun-banners love to tout.

---

Definitely agreed. And frankly, I think county level analysis of issues like this, would actually be pretty optimal, although drilling down to municipality and neighborhood level would be even better, but may not be possible.

So it's not he comparison level that's the problem, it's that the comparison level needs a lot of controls to become useful, but without those it's borderline useless.

quote:

---

You can have a handful of counties with strict gun laws that account for the majority of murder in a state. If the state has reasonable gun laws... the banners will blame the state’s “lax gun laws”

---

Yeah. Guns, gun policy, and crime is even more complicated than just analyzing crime in general.

Because certain pertinent factors (gun accessibility) aren't restricted to the boundaries of the policies meant to impact the factors (can access guns from a place with easier accessibility, black market, etc.), and trying to account for this is complex and imprecise, even the best studies are too flawed, especially since how those complexities are controlled for seems to lead to discrepant results, even if all decisions were reasonable.

So I think from a baseline of the most basic, universally accepted policies, guns and gun policies have failed to reject the null hypothesis. So arguing for more control is not supported, but similarly Lott's "more guns, less crime" idea doesn't really reject it either, at this time.

quote:

---

Crime is pretty clearly a symptom of urbanization. I'm not sure anyone would disagree with that.

---

Urbanization has little to do with it. There are large parts of most urban areas where crime is relatively low.
The overriding factors are poverty and education level, and both are STRONGLY correlated to family structure.

That's where the problem lies - not in population density.

You solve one, the other two improve, and your crime rate plummets to the point that it reflects social aberration, rather than the current self inflicted cycle of poverty, ignorance, and criminal acts. The mantra about three simple rules is dead on.

The other 81% are slackers!!!!! There has to be a person or two in those counties that needs killin'

quote:

---

Urbanization has little to do with it.

---

That's false.

Population density is a direct correlation to violent crime rates.

quote:

---

The overriding factors are poverty and education level, and both are STRONGLY correlated to family structure.

---

Sure, it's multivariabled. But if you take a 100 uneducated, poor people an space them out over several miles, you would have much lower crime rate than if you put them on a single city block.

Population density makes a huge difference.

quote:

---

What's the ratio of murders per gun legally owned?

---

Extremely low . . and lower than reported because there is no accurate count of "legal guns" in the U.S.

quote:

---

neighborhood level would be even better, but may not be possible.

---

Zipcodes. And it’s possible. But banners don’t like those results.

quote:

---

Because certain pertinent factors (gun accessibility) aren't restricted to the boundaries of the policies meant to impact the factors (can access guns from a place with easier accessibility, black market, etc.),

---

Yeah. Equating strict gun laws with lack of availability is the false premise “researchers” love to make. The Cook Co interviews (while imperfect) paint a picture where availability is not hampered by even Chicago’s restrictive gun laws.

quote:

---

Yeah. Guns, gun policy, and crime is even more complicated than just analyzing crime in general.

---

It’s really not. Gang affiliation, drug trafficking, extramarital affairs all correlate to gun crime far better than gun ownership. But the banners don’t like that result. Can’t talk about personal responsibility lest you be branded a racist or a moralist. So... they play the game of intellectual gymnastics to scapegoat the inanimate object. The “complexity” comes from trying to fabricate the relationship out of third, fourth, fifth-order effects rather than the obvious.

quote:

---

So I think from a baseline of the most basic, universally accepted policies, guns and gun policies have failed to reject the null hypothesis. So arguing for more control is not supported, but similarly Lott's "more guns, less crime" idea doesn't really reject it either, at this time.

---

The difficulty is locating a control group of criminals. The reality is most don’t act based on either anti-gun laws nor lax gun laws. They pretty much operate outside of he bounds of societal-norms. So social laws... aren’t a big factor.

The difference is law-abiding citizens. They are the ones hurt by being disarmed of the means to defend themselves from those that don’t follow the laws. Punishing the law-abiding is no way to address crime.

So if the null case is correct, it shouldn’t be motivation to ban guns.

More people, more murder.

When i was in the 5th grade, i looked up the smallest towns in each state.
Out west there are towns with 9 or 25 people.

New jersey has a slew of cities 50k or more.

The more liberal the area the more violent that area is.