Homicides per state, wow.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: butcherguy

Do you deny that there is a correlation between population density and increased homicide rates? Look at any state, the vast majority of the homicides occur in cities.

No. I don't deny it, I have brought it into the coversation.
You originally posted that states should not be compared to Washington DC due to sample size, now it is a matter of population density.

I think it is a matter of a separate urban culture being different and more violent that rural culture.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
That is something to look at. How did NY changed this so drastically?

I think the first noticeable change came under Giuliani and the revamped policing implemented during his first administration.

do you mean the stop and frisk thing?

originally posted by: network dude

do you mean the stop and frisk thing?

That came later, I meant more the 'broken window' policy and the targeting of crack dealers.

I was listening to a young talented artist who goes by the moniker Tekashi 6ix9ine;

He stated;

We ain't hooping #

We shooting #s.

To some degree yes... crime was priced out.

However, it isn't that you price out crime, but that you don't have a large concentration of poor blacks. That is the strongest correlation. No poor blacks = low murder rate.

Even in areas with a lot of poor whites, don't have nearly the high rates of murder.

It is a cultural issue concentrated among low income blacks.

IIRC, if you were to strip out all of the gun murder committed by blacks, the gun violence in the US would be on par with European countries.

Look at Chicago... in 2017, we had 678 murders. 527 of the victims were black. 118 were hispanic. 20 were white/other. 15 unknown. So 78% of murder victims were black. Add in the hispanic gangbangers and you are 95%! Let that sink in for a moment. In the City of Chicago with 2.75 million people, only about 20 whites were murdered in 2017.

I've seen similar numbers for NY as well. These stats carry over to practically any major city.

originally posted by: Lysergic
I was listening to a young talented artist who goes by the moniker Tekashi 6ix9ine;

He stated;

We ain't hooping #

We shooting #s.

But that beat is fire though!

a reply to: Edumakated

Yeah it makes me not want to mess with old hoes, but only new hoes.

I always love these kinds of threads / arguments.

A person can use 'statistics' like these to prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, pigs really DO fly, and fat ladies do ALL the singing!

Worse, the media and media pundits just love, love, LOVE, to foist these statistics off on the masses in an attempt to prove some tired agenda driven point. It's not the source of the data which is at fault, but rather the ways in which people manipulate the data to draw conclusions other than what the data was meant to capture. Then they toss it out as 'analysis' and 'proof'. It's the same old game...come up with the emotion driven, agenda driven, conclusion and then go out and rummage around to find the statistics to prove it.

Doesn't matter what side of any particular issue one is on, pro / con / other.

"According to 4 out of 5 Dentists surveyed, rubbing pizza sauce on your hemorrhoids will make your armpit hair grow faster!"

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
I always love these kinds of threads / arguments.

A person can use 'statistics' like these to prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, pigs really DO fly, and fat ladies do ALL the singing!

Worse, the media and media pundits just love, love, LOVE, to foist these statistics off on the masses in an attempt to prove some tired agenda driven point. It's not the source of the data which is at fault, but rather the ways in which people manipulate the data to draw conclusions other than what the data was meant to capture. Then they toss it out as 'analysis' and 'proof'. It's the same old game...come up with the emotion driven, agenda driven, conclusion and then go out and rummage around to find the statistics to prove it.

Doesn't matter what side of any particular issue one is on, pro / con / other.

"According to 4 out of 5 Dentists surveyed, rubbing pizza sauce on your hemorrhoids will make your armpit hair grow faster!"

What I love is when someone can't offer a single factual or logical rebuttal...

Yes, stats can be manipulated. I think many of us mentioned that earlier in the thread highlighting the need to get more granular with the data.

However, there is only such much that can be denied or blamed on statistical manipulation.

Fact. In Chicago 78% of murder victims were black. This is fact. Every other city... same facts. It is what it is...

Unless of course you are going to pull out of your nether regions some tripe that cops don't arrest white folks for murder.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Edumakated
Chicago is as safe of a city as anywhere. However, if you go to the south and west sides of the city, it is a war zone.

Yup, just got back from the Gold Coast area and I didn't get murdered.

Sorry to disappoint everyone.

If you ever want to scare yourself, go look up Drill music on you tube... basically Chicago's style of gangsta rap. You'll never leave the safety of the gold coast of Chicago again.

Here is one of my faves... Fredo Santana (RIP... died a couple of weeks ago from a "lean" overdose)

a reply to: Edumakated

I think you're missing my point here.

I was actually agreeing with you (although you may not have read it that way).

originally posted by: Edumakated
If you ever want to scare yourself, go look up Drill music on you tube... basically Chicago's style of gangsta rap.

The closest I got to gangsters when I was there was looing at a picture of Frank Nitti hanging in the Drake.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Edumakated

I think you're missing my point here.

I was actually agreeing with you (although you may not have read it that way).

My bad...

a reply to: Edumakated

The point was, look how many folks there are taking the presented numbers and trying to make them something other than what they are. The media is notorious for doing this too. Trying to dissect then information some other way to prove an entirely different point. The facts 'is'...people can't accept the facts.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: network dude

This line of thinking actually supports gun restrictions

You will never have a single law that will stop all gun deaths but what this does demonstrate is that with stricter gun laws you can reduce gun dealths.

I’m mean overall over the last few decades California has seen about a 50% reduction in gun deaths (Link)

Your link is misleading, as the late 80s leading up to the peak of gun violence (1993...coincidence that the study uses that as it's baseline to measure the decline?) were terrible in California, and it really had little, if anything, to do with the gun laws.

It did, however, coincide with the glorification of gangs and gang violence, and I bet that if you were able to extract gang-related gun violence from the numbers, you would have a much different picture.

The problem is a million-fold when it comes to citing numbers. The OP did a bad job, but so does the study that you cite. Everything that be manipulated to prove a point.

If you read this article from the Sacramento Bee, you'll note two things:

Killers used guns in 1,368 California homicides in 2016, up by about 200 homicides from 2014, when killings fell to a historic low, according to the California Department of Justice. The firearm homicide rate, which adjusts for population changes, increased by 15 percent from 2014 to 2016.





Most gun-related deaths in California aren’t homicides – they are suicides. The gun-related suicide rate has also risen in California during recent years, according to the CDC.

So, what you will note is that since 2014, gun violence has been on the rise again, despite the heavy gun-control laws, and that most gun-related homicides are suicides, and they're also on an increase.

The point being, comparing last year with any given year can yield a completely different result. But from the looks of things and over the past 3 years, the trend is heading back up.

As with anything, we all have to be wary on how we use numbers, derive percentages of change, and how we form conclusions.

I would argue that gun laws have less to do with things than a prevailing societal view of guns. In California, there are large portions of the state that are literally scared of guns and wouldn't touch them if they were paid (I grew up there--I know). This has more to do with use of firearms, IMO, than legal restrictions, because remember, using a gun to assault/kill/scare someone is already a crime.

a reply to: network dude

IMHO, keep in mind these are only the reported killings. And in most cases, it is gun violence that these stats are targeting.

A penis on its own does not commit rape any more than a gun on its own commits crime.

I know people love to bring up Chicago mainly as proof gun control does not work but it is totally an illogical argument. When neighboring states in this case mere minutes away have some of the lightest gun laws in the nation it basically means nothing what the laws are in neighboring place. Not arguing for gun control, just pointing out meaningless arguments.

Also, except for outliers in data such as single cities like Chicago or Detroit, etc.. you will notice the vast amount of gun deaths in general happen in Republican states by a long shot. Particularly the South.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Look at Chicago... in 2017, we had 678 murders. 527 of the victims were black. 118 were hispanic. 20 were white/other. 15 unknown. So 78% of murder victims were black. Add in the hispanic gangbangers and you are 95%! Let that sink in for a moment. In the City of Chicago with 2.75 million people, only about 20 whites were murdered in 2017.

I don't know dude... But I think even if we go by your numbers and exclude Hispanics and blacks from your stats, we've still got 20 gun homicides, which still seems like a damn high amount, for a city of only 2.75 million... going by gunpolicy.org, the whole of the UK, which is a country of 65 million only had 23 gun related homicides in 2014.

But anyway, lets have a little fun and take the US completely out of the equation for a second... Since I've been told on ATS on multiple occasions that you can't compare stats of other countries with the US to prove that lax gun laws result in more gun related homicides... apparently because the US has a "unique" culture, which can't be compared to other countries... apparently.

Ok, so according to gunpolicy.org Cananda, which has a population of about 36 million and also has extremely lax gun laws, had 156 gun related homicides in 2014... that's 0.45 per 100,000 people.

But Australia on the other hand, which has a population of about 24 million and has extremely strict gun laws, only had 10 gun related homicides in 2014... Or 0.12 per 100,000 people.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me... the easier it is to legally obtain guns in any given society, has a direct correlation to how high their gun homicide rate is going to be.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: network dude
www.gunpolicy.org...
California 1930 homicides in 2016. Texas 1459, Illinois 941.

If we look at gun laws, you would wonder how in the world two of the states with the Strictest gun laws in the nation, also have the highest homicide rate. It stands to reason, that more gun laws may not be the cure to killing.

I was a bit shocked at these numbers. I honestly didn't expect to see this.

if not gun laws, then how do we stop people from killing each other?

Hate to point out the obvious but think it might be do to population size?

So do the laws not apply to 100% of the state population?

Or are you admitting gun laws don't prevent gun crimes.

originally posted by: lightedhype
I know people love to bring up Chicago mainly as proof gun control does not work but it is totally an illogical argument. When neighboring states in this case mere minutes away have some of the lightest gun laws in the nation it basically means nothing what the laws are in neighboring place. Not arguing for gun control, just pointing out meaningless arguments.

Also, except for outliers in data such as single cities like Chicago or Detroit, etc.. you will notice the vast amount of gun deaths in general happen in Republican states by a long shot. Particularly the South.

The flaw in your logic is that if it were easy access to guns that were the issue, why don't the surrounding states have just as a high crime rates? Maybe it is because it isn't the laws, but it is the demographics.

There are far more ARs and guns in general in rural areas than urban environments. Yet, the vast majority of gun crime is committed in urban environs...

Also, Chicago is a DEMOCRAT city and has been for like 75 years. Same with Detroit. Same with Atlanta. Same with Philadelphia. Same with NYC. Same LA. While states may be Republican, the urban areas are almost always exclusively Democrat enclaves. Republicans tend to do well in rural / suburban areas, not in high density cities.

Try again, cupcake...

Again