Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 14:21:57 GMT -5
Crime to voting base. Solution for both problems....nuke the blue areas
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 14:27:30 GMT -5
If this is true, it is extremely clear where much of the REAL problem lies. In most (not all) of the blue areas on the left map, there are rampant gang problems. Gang/drug deal related gun murders skew the US murder rate by an unbelievable amount. In fact, if you remove those numbers from the equation, the US gun murder rate falls right in line with most of Europe and Asia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 14:52:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by countrystyle56 on Jan 22, 2013 16:43:30 GMT -5
According to your map, Cook County Illinois sure doesn't show a very high gun violence rate!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 16:44:08 GMT -5
I would say it is more of an inner-city gang/drug culture thing than race. It just so happens that a large percentage of the gang members are black.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 16:45:17 GMT -5
Yes, if you blow it up bigger, you will see Cook County and extreme NW Indiana are blue.
|
|
|
Post by Boilermaker on Jan 23, 2013 9:19:11 GMT -5
Good comparison...definitely interesting similarities!
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 23, 2013 11:46:43 GMT -5
You know the old saying about when something looks too good to be true?
Pretty sure that applies here. The first red/blue map is the voting results from a recent election, being misrepresented as the "fbi gun crime map".
I couldn't find the actual source, but I also couldn't find any FBI gun-crime map that broke the results down by counties as does the first map.
Ya can't believe everything you see on the net, just the stuff I post 8^).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2013 12:12:29 GMT -5
I questioned it myself, Russ. There are areas there on that first map that didn't seem to fit,,,like the large area in blue in west of Illinois.
But, I would be willing to bet that if such a map did exist. It would be blue in and around the major cities where gang violence is highest (and where gun control laws are most strict) and red in most other areas. I'll bet the real map would be even MORE telling than this one, because it would have less large areas of blue.
|
|
|
Post by jamesaritchie on Jan 23, 2013 12:35:24 GMT -5
You know the old saying about when something looks too good to be true? Pretty sure that applies here. The first red/blue map is the voting results from a recent election, being misrepresented as the "fbi gun crime map". I couldn't find the actual source, but I also couldn't find any FBI gun-crime map that broke the results down by counties as does the first map. Ya can't believe everything you see on the net, just the stuff I post 8^). But some things you can believe, and all you have to do is look at the total number of firearms murders, and where each happened. You don't need a county breakdown, just a list of cities with extremely high murder rates. This map is EXTREMELY accurate when you do this. Stop thinking of it as a red/blue map, and simply look at the cities with the highest murder rates. It's no secret, and should surprise no one, that most gun murders occur in large cities, and the largest cities with the highest gun rate death by far are heavily democratic, and do have the stictest laws on owning guns. What this map should show anyone is that most of the country has very little murder, and much less violence of any kind, than large cities.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 23, 2013 13:25:17 GMT -5
All that matters is gun (or violent) crime rates per "X" number of people.
A single murder in a small town of 1000 people equals a crime rate of 1 per 1000. By comparison Chicago has a murder rate of about .16 per 1000.
More murders per 100,000 people in Louisiana than any other state.
Chicago isnt even top 10 in murders per 100,000 people nationwide. There are a whole lot of murders in Chicago each year but there are a whole lot of people as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2013 13:33:27 GMT -5
What part of Louisiana, Swilk? Dollars to donuts it's not most of the state... Breaking it down to just numbers removes the focus from where it should be. For instance, I'll bet parts of Chicago have among the highest gun crime rates in the world while other parts are relatively safe. Here is a link to a piece that claims Chicago to be the most dangerous "alpha" city on the planet. Stats can be used for just about any argument. www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Deadliest-Global-City-163874546.html?fullSite=y
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 23, 2013 13:57:11 GMT -5
Breaking it down to numbers is the only way to do it ..... You have to establish a base line to compare from. Chicago has a population of roughly 2.7M people and has somewhere around 16 murders per 100,000 people. You could most definitely micro it down even further and find pockets within Chicago that the rates would be much lower (think the magic mile with lots of people and relatively low crime) and pockets where the rates would be many, many times higher (think the middle of the hood with folks shooting each other every day). In the case of Louisiana a single city has the ability to skew the entire state ..... New Orleans has a murder rate of 57 per 100,000 people (there are under 400,000 people in the city) and given the fact that the entire state only has 4.5M people the entire state is skewed. But the fact is that it is the highest in the nation when looking at events per "X" number of people. If you take out New Orleans and look at the rest of Louisiana the rate falls to 9 per 100,000 .... which makes Louisiana about as dangerous over all as Gary Indiana. My point was it isnt just a total number that is relevant ..... you need to look at violence per "X" number of people. You also need to look at more than just a single year ..... My comment was directed to the one above me .... kind of just pointing out that "of course there is more crime in the cities .... that is where all the people live". Looking at only numbers of instances without taking into consideration of how many people in total there were does not work. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_ratewww.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-stateen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2013 14:34:50 GMT -5
I really don't even see state murder rates as useful data....UNLESS...you do a comparison study by first isolating the data from the major urban areas of the state and then comparing the data of the suburban/rural portions of the state against the urban areas. THEN you get a true picture.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 23, 2013 14:52:01 GMT -5
You can get a murder rate of "X" per "Y" number of people for any area large or small.
From an entire country down to an individual city block.
7 murders a year does not sound like an awful lot unless they happen in a town of 42 people.
500 murders sounds like a large number unless you they happened in a country with 50Million people.
There is also the impossible to prove theory that the percentage of crazy people is constant no matter where you sample. The difference is that crazy people are more likely to do crazy things when in contact with other people ....
A nutcase living in the backwoods of Colorado is less likely to snap and kill a bunch a folks than if that same nutcase was living in the slums of Atlanta.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2013 15:29:42 GMT -5
Let's make this real simple. The US murder rate per 100,000 (entire country) in 2011 was 4.8.
If you take gang/drug related murders out of that number, the US rate plummets to just over 1 per 100,000.
Staggeringly clear where the problem is, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 23, 2013 16:09:07 GMT -5
If we take all illegal murders out the rate plummets even further to right around 0 per 100,000 ....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2013 16:17:16 GMT -5
You are starting to confuse me. You have said things that indicate you see my point that the problem with gun violence in this country is overwhelmingly isolated in Americas largest cities and committed by recidivist gang members and drug dealers and then you throw out comments that would indicate that none of that matters, statistically. Which is it?
I say that who is doing it and where it's being done is almost the ENTIRE problem here...at least about 75% or more of it. Liberals don't want to hear that because it is easier to blame guns.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 23, 2013 16:25:45 GMT -5
Some blame guns ... some blame drugs ... some blame cities .... some blame Democrats .....
Its really a people problem. All walks of life. All colors. All locations. A certain percentage of people are willing to kill one another for reasons other than defense.
I do see your point .... just offering more food for thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2013 16:43:19 GMT -5
I questioned it myself, Russ......,,like the large area in blue in west of Illinois. . Welcome to East St. Louis..... the city with the absolute highest crime rate in the U.S. its blue too.
|
|