General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 8 of 10 most violent states in america are - you guessed it - red [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)"Per capita"
It sounds so...official...and so...forthright.
Does measuring "per capita" tell you where the actual problems exist, and/or to what degree it exists?
As I said in another post:
I live close to a town with a population of 34. If there were just 1 gun homicide there annually(which there actually isn't), the rate would be something like 2941 per 100,000, and you could use it as an example of one of the places with the highest "gun homicide" rates anywhere in the world.
Of course, anyone claiming that the city I refer to has a worse "gun death" problem than say Chicago, would be completely wrong, and by magnitudes.
This, of course, is exactly the reason you and so many anti-gun posters lean so hard on "per capita" analysis, and insist on it at the state level.
Because You can take low population states like AZ - low population magnifies rates - and compare them to states like Illinios - high population dilutes rates - and paint a picture unrespresentative of reality, but one which supports your biases and pre-concieved conclusions.
Most people know that AZ is mostly desert acreage and low population at that. And that the great majority of "gun deaths" (AKA the problem you claim you're concerned with) happen in Urban areas, just like they do in Illinois.
But do you compare the actual places where the problems manifest themselves by and large? Noooo. You compare at the state level, because if you didn't, you wouldn't have anything to say at all, beyond "guns bad mkay?".
Actual numbers tell you who has a problem, and how big the problem is.
Rates are only useful in comparing similar areas/jurisdictions.
But then, I suspect you knew that.