Is this apples and oranges?


PDA






herkyguy
January 4, 2013, 09:18 AM
I got to thinking....

Chicago has over 500 murders this year. NYC has close to 450 (something Bloomberg actually brags about).

I live in eastern NC. I believe my neighborhood alone has more legally owned guns than either Chicago or NYC combined. People actually head down to the creek and shoot pumpkins on Thanksgiving....it's a family affair. Between hunters, of which there are a lot, and retired military folks, there are a lot of guns here.

Yet my neighborhood has had a total of ZERO murders.

Does this make for a good argument as to why guns are NOT the problem? Or is this apples and oranges?

It makes sense to me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is this apples and oranges?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1911 guy
January 4, 2013, 09:27 AM
I'm not a statistics guy, but the case could be made in your favor quite easily. Murders and other violent crimes are figured by population, 1 in every 10,000 for example. I would imagine that purely by the numbers, figuring gun ownership the same way, X per 10,000, would show a result pretty close to what John Lott wrote about: More Guns, Less Crime.

Just keep in mind what Samuel L. Clements said about numbers. There's three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Ehtereon11B
January 4, 2013, 09:28 AM
There are lots of variables when comparing crime rates between one place and another that I had to look at when doing criminal analysis research in my undergrad. For example, VT has some of the lowest gun crime in the nation, between 6-14 TOTAL murders per year not just with firearms. Alabama has about 199 a year with firearms. Then you have to take all the socio-economic factors such as population density. Population density has a surprising effect on crime, the less people in an area, the lower the crime rate. Anyone who looks at crime rates in cities know that. But also weather. VT is much colder than Alabama and crimes that start outside such as home burglaries are low and crimes that happen indoors such as cyber or white collar crime are relatively high.

45_auto
January 4, 2013, 09:39 AM
You'll find population density, race, and income level to be much better crime indicators than gun ownership. For exsmple, what's the average value of homes in your neighborhood? What percentage of the people in your neighborhood have incomes below the poverty level? In New York and Chicago it's over 20%.

1911 guy
January 4, 2013, 09:50 AM
I find the dichotomy somewhat surprising. The left is more than willing to use everything from (and I quote from other posters who have done studies):

population density
race
income

But when someone makes a practical statement that they choose not to live in a "culturally diverse" city complete with the attending slums, they are somehow a "redneck" or some other perjorative term.

I'm not trying to label you guys as leftists, you're just sharing the information you know the modeling to be comprised of. Food for though about the thought process of the left. Use everything in the book to excuse bad behavior, but label people as "intolerant" when they make decisions based on the information you provide.

beatledog7
January 4, 2013, 10:11 AM
Big city murder and gun crime rates are driven by demographic factors that are outside the realm of politically correct discussion. The mayors and police chiefs of those cities are wont to admit the well-known reasons why these crimes are so prevalent because they want us to believe that evil guns are the problem.

JustinJ
January 4, 2013, 10:48 AM
Statistically it is absurd to compare a population the size of a neighborhood with on the size of a large city. Also, there are countless other variables that contribute to murder rates. In my neighborhood we don't all shoot pumpkins together on thanksgiving as it is in the city limits but we've had no murders either. Does that prove that anything. Of course not.

I find the dichotomy somewhat surprising. The left is more than willing to use everything from (and I quote from other posters who have done studies):

population density
race
income

But when someone makes a practical statement that they choose not to live in a "culturally diverse" city complete with the attending slums, they are somehow a "redneck" or some other perjorative term.

The "right" plays the exact same game. And no offense but you have absolutely no understanding of statistics if you think the OP's comment was practical. And where does the OP claim his neighborhood is not "culturally diverse". Are you seriously trying to inject your "views" on ethnicity into another thread? If a person believes there is no "cultural diversity" among retired military and hunters then i can't really think of a better term than redneck. Well, i can but it wouldn't be appropriate.

herkyguy
January 5, 2013, 07:38 AM
I appreciate the insight from those more familiar with statistical analysis.

But shouldn't those other variables be part of the conversation? My whole point is that in popular media, guns are presented as an independent variable that, if removed, would solve our problems.

So why wouldn't my neighborhood serve to disprove that theory and add some weight to alternative arguments for reducing violence??

I know I'm beating a dead horse but mental illness and violent games/movies are still not part of the discussion.

It seems easy to prove that the presence of guns does not, by itself, translate to more violence. With that perhaps we could help redirect the conversation.

Midnight Oil
January 5, 2013, 08:19 AM
I know I'm beating a dead horse but mental illness and violent games/movies are still not part of the discussion.

I'm no expert when it comes to statistics and statistical analysis. However, I would like to say that blaming violent video games/movies is no different than blaming the gun. All this doing is pushing the entertainment industry to get eaten by the zombies while the pro gun crowd makes its getaway (maybe that's the point?). Mental illness as well as the treatment (and/or lack thereof), in my opinion, are the main factors.

I don't know if you remember, but during Columbine, the media blasted artists like Marilyn Manson and games like Doom for their violent outbursts. We've come a long way from Doom, and yet overall violence is way down...

herkyguy
January 5, 2013, 09:13 AM
Agreed. BUT, there is an interdependency of variables at play.

I'm not saying remove gun control entirely from the discussion, but too many people (especially the "independent" types) are being fed this myth that if we ban guns and hi-capactiy magazines, our bigger problems with violence will go away.

I don't believe that to be the case.

Not to mention the gross violation of 2A.

Midnight Oil
January 5, 2013, 09:26 AM
herkyguy
no doubt. there is a lot of disinformation going on. outright lying to the public through MSM which leads them to believe that the only way to stop mass killings is to ban semis and "hi cap mags". there is no justification for making such claims, but justification and logic isn't needed when you're able to cloud all of that with emotional content. As far as inter-dependency goes, yes, i guess i can see it that way. Once again though, we are talking about a very small percent of the population. Just like mass shootings are and should be viewed as an anomaly, i believe the same approach should be taken with viewing the negative effects of movies/games.

Ehtereon11B
January 5, 2013, 12:25 PM
I have seen a few limited studies to look for a connection between violence and video games. Studies show that young adults and teenagers that play violent video games and first person shooters have better vision, problem solving, reaction time, and less overall stress than those that play a placebo game such as scrabble. It is because of celebrity cases like Columbine where the kids played Duke Nukem I believe and Adam Lanza from CT that liked to play Call of Duty. These are the cases that cause people to go "Its those darn all video games" when there is really no evidence to support it. It is almost the same argument as saying "That evil bayonet lug on that black rifle told him to shoot up the school." If video games were the sole cause of violence, there would be hundreds of thousands of school shootings since COD Black Ops II sold $1 billion worth of copies in about a week.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is this apples and oranges?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!