Re: Gun maps

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/26/2015 10:15 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:55b3e39b$0$4738$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 9:48 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:55:45 -0600, Just Wondering
>>> <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 5:18 PM, deep wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:31:04 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Baxter <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:mou5tk$7ln$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Complete and recent breakdowns of gun ownership by state are
>>>>>>> difficult to find, in part because the National Rifle Association
>>>>>>> has long pushed to stifle funding for research on guns’ impact on
>>>>>>> American society. Even based on limited information, though,
>>>>>>> there appears to be a relationship between high rates of gun
>>>>>>> deaths and high rates of gun ownership.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Homicide rates by firearm by state are relatively easy to find.
>>>>>> Here is one you may find useful:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/afd42kr
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, here’s another way to look at it. These are the 10 states
>>>>>>> with the highest rate of gun deaths in the country:
>>>>>>> [chart]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These states all have much higher rates of gun ownership than the
>>>>>>> average, and are among the top 20 US states when ranked by gun
>>>>>>> ownership rates (with the exception of New Mexico, which is one
>>>>>>> of the US’s deadliest and ranks 27th):
>>>>>>> [chart]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/p69pl56
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is another state ranking you might enjoy:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/nbmuaan
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting value system. The states that you are LEAST likely to
>>>>> get shot are rated as the WORST states for gun owners.
>>>>>
>>>> If you graph that Guns&Ammo ranking against gum murder rates, you
>>>> will find a correlation of approximately zero.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. All the rated "worst" states are the blue states with
>>> lower gun death rates. All the "best" states are the red states
>>> that lead the nation in gun deaths. More proof that you people like
>>> the carnage.
>>>
>> I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.
>> Here's the data, gun murders vs. Guns&Ammo "friendly state" rank
>>
>> Sources:
>> Gun law rankings are from
>> http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/culture-politics-network/best
>> -states-for-gun-owners-2015/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_c
>> ampaign=editorial&utm_term=gunsandammo&utm_content=gunsandammo
>>
>> Gun murders per 100,000 population (2010)
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
>>
>> murders Gun G&A Friendly
>> Arizona 11 01
>> Vermont 51 02
>> Alaska 25 03
>> Utah 46 04
>> Kentucky 27 05
>> Wyoming 43 06
>> Alabama 22 07
>> Kansas 31 08
>> Missouri 03 09
>> New Mexico 15 10
>> Montana 39 11
>> Florida 09 12
>> Georgia 10 13
>> South Carolina 05 14
>> Texas 17 15
>> Indiana 30 16
>> Louisiana 02 17
>> Mississippi 08 18
>> North Dakota 48 19
>> Pennsylvania 12 20
>> West Virginia 36 21
>> Nevada 18 22
>> Tennessee 13 23
>> Virginia 19 24
>> Wisconsin 34 25
>> North Carolina 20 26
>> South Dakota 41 27
>> Oregon 42 28
>> Maine 45 29
>> Oklahoma 21 30
>> Arkansas 16 31
>> Idaho 44 32
>> Michigan 07 33
>> Nebraska 33 34
>> Ohio 29 35
>> New York 28 36
>> Colorado 38 37
>> Iowa 47 38
>> Minnesota 40 39
>> Washington 37 40
>> Delaware 06 41
>> Rhode Island 35 42
>> Illinois 23 43
>> Maryland 04 44
>> Connecticut 26 45
>> California 14 46
>> Hawaii 49 47
>> Massachusetts 32 48
>> New Jersey 24 49
>> New Hampshire 50 50
>> D. C. 01 51
>
> I entered the "gun friendly" ranking into my spreadsheet and ran it
> against both the Brady ranking of the states and their homicide ranking
> (per 100K). In Brady it shows a stronger relationship (although a
> negative one) than it does to the homicide rankings. Homicide shows 0.13
> on a scale of +1.0 to -1.0. The one that is different (and would be
> expected to be) is the ranking by Brady on gun control of the states. I
> compared that to the "fun state" ranking and it shows -0.68 on that same
> scale. Which shows a reverse ranking of gun friendly to Brady which
> would be expected.

I did a little spreadsheet work, too. I entered Number of Deaths Due to
Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population from the Kaiser Family
Foundation
(http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/#),
and three numbers from the Guns & Ammo "Best States for Gun Owners 2014"
ranking. The first number from the G&A survey was the state's numerical
rank (AZ=1, DC=51). The second number was their cardinal score for
right-to-carry (AZ=10, DC=0). The third number was the states "NFA"
score, i.e. does the state add additional restrictions on the shit
(silencers, sawed-off shotguns, etc.) that people have no business
owning anyway. Fewer additional NFA restrictions, the higher the G&A
score given.

The correlation between gun deaths per 100K and G&A ranking is -0.65 (a
higher ranking means a lower number; this can be converted to a positive
correlation by multiplying the ranking by -1, so that a higher ranking
is a higher number). The correlation between gun deaths per 100K and
the G&A right-to-carry score is 0.61. The correlation between gun
deaths per 100K and the state's NFA score is 0.69.

There is, as expected, a high correlation between a state's G&A ranking
and its gun death rate.

[Rudy Canoza]

Whoops! It's a little worse for gun-friendly states. I inadvertently
entered the deaths per 100K for Alabama as 7.6, when it is 17.6. After
correcting, the three correlations are 0.69, 0.61 and 0.70.

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:mp3dq7$8pe$1...@dont-email.me:

Then yous should basically match mine.

> (http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/#)

> , and three numbers from the Guns & Ammo "Best States for Gun Owners
> 2014" ranking. The first number from the G&A survey was the state's
> numerical rank (AZ=1, DC=51). The second number was their cardinal
> score for right-to-carry (AZ=10, DC=0). The third number was the
> states "NFA" score, i.e. does the state add additional restrictions on
> the shit (silencers, sawed-off shotguns, etc.) that people have no
> business owning anyway. Fewer additional NFA restrictions, the higher
> the G&A score given.
>
> The correlation between gun deaths per 100K and G&A ranking is -0.65
> (a higher ranking means a lower number; this can be converted to a
> positive correlation by multiplying the ranking by -1, so that a
> higher ranking is a higher number). The correlation between gun
> deaths per 100K and the G&A right-to-carry score is 0.61. The
> correlation between gun deaths per 100K and the state's NFA score is
> 0.69.

Hmmmm, my correlation factor formula goes from 1.0 to -1.0. The closer
it is to 1.0 or to -1.0, the stronger the correlation is. The difference
in direction is due the direction of the correlation. If one set of data
increases and the other also does, the correlation is a positive one. If
it goes negative and the other goes positive the correlation is a
negative one. IOW, as one factor increases, the other decreses. If they
don't develop a trend, then the answer comes out closer to 0.0.

> There is, as expected, a high correlation between a state's G&A
> ranking and its gun death rate.

Yep. I said the same thing when my correlation factor came out a 0.68.
Rather close to your 0.65 and 0.69, eh?



--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human". It just comes in many sizes and colors.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

news:mp3ead$am6$1...@dont-email.me:

Yep, particulary at the extremes.

[Rudy Canoza]

Of course. So does mine. A perfect correlation (1 or -1) is almost
never encountered in real-world data.

I got a strong negative correlation of -0.69 (after correcting for one
incorrectly entered number for gun deaths per 100K population) when I
ran the correlation on gun deaths and a state's G&A ranking. In order
to convert it to a positive number, I simply multiplied the ranking by
-1; that way, Arizona's adjusted G&A score of -1 is a higher valued
number than Alaska's score of -2. My correlation then switches sign,
becoming 0.69. I did that because some stupids (not you) would
interpret the -0.69 as showing little correlation between gun deaths and
the state's G&A ranking, when in fact it is a pretty strong correlation,
in exactly the direction we would expect: the "better" G&A says a state
is in its gun laws and culture, the more gun deaths there are.

> The closer
> it is to 1.0 or to -1.0, the stronger the correlation is. The difference
> in direction is due the direction of the correlation. If one set of data
> increases and the other also does, the correlation is a positive one. If
> it goes negative and the other goes positive the correlation is a
> negative one. IOW, as one factor increases, the other decreses. If they
> don't develop a trend, then the answer comes out closer to 0.0.
>
>> There is, as expected, a high correlation between a state's G&A
>> ranking and its gun death rate.
>
> Yep. I said the same thing when my correlation factor came out a 0.68.
> Rather close to your 0.65 and 0.69, eh?

My 0.65 was wrong because I accidentally entered the rate of gun deaths
per 100K for Alabama as 7.6, when it's actually 17.6. Once I corrected
it, the correlation went from 0.6505704208 to 0.6867944486.