8 of 10 most violent states in america are - you guessed it - red

[beevul]

120. I'm not running away from anything.

"I just pointed out the idiocy of your saying that a huge city of 2.5 million having 435 murders had a worse problem than a town of 34 with one. Of course Chicago has more murders. This is also have more births, more television sets, and more parking spaces. They have more people."

They also have more gun laws. Hows that working out btw? They seem to anually lead the nation, or come really close to leading the nation, in homicides.

Lets see...Chicago 2.5 million, 435 firearm homicides, thats a rate of 17.4 gun deaths per 100k. Why...thats a worse rate than 6 of the ten worst states you posted up thread. So Chicago has a worse problem, than 6 of the ten states you listed, right? (see, I can play this game too)

And yet #43, Illinois as a whole has a rate of 8 Gun deaths per 100k.

Why is that? Oh, its because theres an added 10.33 million added to the overall population number, and comparatively very few more firearm deaths added at the same time.

I guess in your link there should be a * by #43, Illinois, and this at the bottom:

*providing you steer clear of Chicago.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html

I wonder how many other states in your top ten would also get a *...


"That's precisely the reason that aggregate statistics are used when trying to compare populations of different size. It's not my fault if you can't (or won't) understand this simple fact."

So you say. I assert that the reason YOU and the other anti-gunners use them, and more specifically use them at the state level, is to dilute the the actual number of murders and hide them within a "rate". I'll give you this, it might fool those who are unaware or uninformed.

If it was the problem of murders you were interested in, you'd focus on the problem where it exists, rather than including outlieing areas where it doesn't generally exist, and in doing so, lowering the "rate". Interested in comparing cities instead of states?

I'll just bet not.

Those who are genuinely interested in comparing places to each other, and interested in good faith research and honest and factual conclusions, generally don't compare places that are so dis-similar, and then hide behind "rate", in the first place.

Like I said:

Interested at all, in comparing cities instead of states?

I kind of doubt it.


I just couldn't help but return to this though:

"I just pointed out the idiocy of your saying that a huge city of 2.5 million having 435 murders had a worse problem than a town of 34 with one."


Lets apply this to a critical situation - like you and so many others characterize the situation in the "low rate of gun violence utopia" of Chicago.

A ship is sinking.

There are two rooms, that have all the leaks, and all the leaks are the exact same size. Repair may only be attempted to one room or the other but not both.

One room has 435 leaks and 2.5 million marbles in it for a rate of 17.4 leaks per 100k marbles. The other has one leak and 34 marbles in it for a rate of 2941 leaks per 100k marbles.


If we go by your reasoning, and look at the leak RATES, the room with one leak has a worse leak rate, and would indicate a worse problem than the alternative room, and all efforts to stop the boat from sinking should be directed there.

Because, by your logic, the rate is the indicator of the problem, not the actual number of leaks...

Your logic misidentifies the problem, and applied, it sinks the ship, because it misidentifies the problem.

I sincerely hope that no ship ever depends on your logic to stay afloat...