Red State Murder Rate is 23% Higher than Blue States... Why?

Quote by Chryses

That is what the 23% (before adjustment) or the 12% (after adjustment) greater-murder-rate-in-red-states-than-blue-states result would have one believe.

My example shows that the claim is groundless.

Your example did no such thing. What your example shows is “Here’s what the data would look like if it reflected that murder rates are higher in blue states than in red states.” It’s a glorified if/then scenario presented as fact, which is a fairly common tactic when one wants data to say it supports their position when it doesn’t. And when this action is pointed out, the new challenge/tactic becomes “Prove that my faulty data isn’t faulty” to then get everyone to focus on said faulty data versus what actual data is saying. Fairly transparent, therefore thankfully easy to spot.

I’m aware I’m quoting you, but the same applies to what Ironic has presented as well. Just didn’t wanna expend unnecessary time dabbling in false data.

Quote by ElCoco

I smelled a rat when the state's city numbers were folded into its county numbers. That mixing together hides any murder rate difference there might be between them.

Are you aware that cities are part of counties? Just like how counties are part of states.

Quote by Chryses

That is what the 23% (before adjustment) or the 12% (after adjustment) greater-murder-rate-in-red-states-than-blue-states result would have one believe.

My example shows that the claim is groundless.

This data is not suggesting that one of the political parties has a predisposition to murder. It's showing that republican policies state-wide are no better at preventing murders that Democratic policies city-wide.

Just out of interest, when you see a study that shows the San Francisco problems, do you ever ask, "I wonder if the political islands of Republicans within the city are contributing to this?" Because that's exactly what you're asking here.

Rural America Reels From Violent Crime. ‘People Lost Their Ever-Lovin’ Minds.’

https://icmglt.org/rural-america-reels-from-violent-crime-people-lost-their-ever-lovin-minds/

local prosecutor Rebecca McCoy used to think of her home in central Arkansas as a place where the worst crimes were usually stolen tractors and lawn mowers.

In March 2020, she was called to the trailer of a 72-year-old man who had  been bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat. It was White County’s first homicide in almost two years. By that December, there were 11 more...

Quote by ElCoco

That’s not true.

Here’s an example. Ramapo is a town in Rockland County, New York State.

Ramapo has a different representative in the House than Rockland County does.

Ramapo’s representative is a Democrat.

Rockland County’s representative is a Republican.

You're talking about the Federal House of Representatives. Congressional districts and counties are two different things. If counties and congressional districts were the same thing, it would be harder to gerrymander.

Quote by Magical_felix

Rural America Reels From Violent Crime. ‘People Lost Their Ever-Lovin’ Minds.’

https://icmglt.org/rural-america-reels-from-violent-crime-people-lost-their-ever-lovin-minds/

local prosecutor Rebecca McCoy used to think of her home in central Arkansas as a place where the worst crimes were usually stolen tractors and lawn mowers.

In March 2020, she was called to the trailer of a 72-year-old man who had  been bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat. It was White County’s first homicide in almost two years. By that December, there were 11 more...

It's like you said: there are more resources in the city. People quietly losing their minds in an area with no internet, spotty phone reception, and law enforcement who is used to dealing with stolen tractors. Add to that, that 60% of guns are in rural areas, and the most surprising thing about this story is the choice of baseball bat as a weapon.

Quote by Ironic

It's also interesting that the numbers (rates and dates ) changed when the murder count from the county containing the largest city was excluded.

Careful Ironic, ElCoco might try to trick you into cybersex again. Remember how betrayed you felt when he did that to you before.

Quote by ElCoco

No. I’m responding to your post

Ok but why are you statically more likely to be murdered in a red state?

Quote by ElCoco

I don't know about statically, but are you talking about your linked article?

I made a typo, very good catch. I'll fix it.

Ok but why are you statistically more likely to be murdered in a red state?

Ok, go prone now.

Quote by ElCoco

So, let me ask again. Are you talking about your linked article?

So you're going prone... of course.

And sure. Now, why are you statically more likely to be murdered in a red state?

Quote by ElCoco

Of course, what?

Third time's the charm!

Are you using the statistics from your linked article?

Yes, I'd rather use those real stats than the ones you make up in your head.

So.... Why are you statistically more likely to be murdered in a red state?

Quote by ElCoco

Ironic, and Chryses have already shown those statistics are trash.

lol, and will you be pretending to be a woman to publicly flirt with Ironic again? That was awesome.

Quote by ElCoco

And you can't defend the statistics. No surprise.

lol

Quote by Ironic

They're trash.

If those stats were worthwhile, somebody would have been able to defend them.

That's not happened yet.

Could it simply be that there are more guns in the red states?

"Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

Countless articles and reports on this... Must be the Matrix or something.

Gun Violence Rates in Rural Areas Match or Outpace Cities

https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenews/gun-violence-rates-in-rural-areas-match-or-outpace-cities

Quote by ElCoco

Everybody knows they're just part of a political hit piece. Good clean fun if you're in that game.

No.

The statistics are showing a trend. The trend is that the majority of the voting population in each state tends towards Trump, despite blue bastions. The numbers show that there's more homicide in these states, nationwide. Every singe one, right? There's supporting data, too, from separate studies looking at rural vs urban (and suburban) violence, and Magical Felix has posted this. And, still, it's called trash and a political hit piece. I mean, FFS.

And this is the problem with the political discourse. Global climate change? Isn't happening. Gun Violence? No, not guns, it's a mental health issue. January 6 insurrection? How dare you call a protest an insurrection. Red State homicide rates and why? Well, a red state has all of these blue spots....

Quote by ElCoco

If you're relying on the stats from the OP linked article, then yes, that's trash.

If you're interested in us discussing this, we'll need to use useful analyses.

The article literally just wedded the numbers from https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D76 (The CDC's mortality data) and the voting records. Which source is trash?

Quote by Chryses

The data does not suggest a political relationship to greater or lower homicide rates. It is the flawed analysis that is making the association.

The authors use the numbers – 23% or 12% (before and after adjustment) – presented in the linked article to suggest that blue states have a much lower murder rate than red states. That suggestion is unreliable due to the flawed analysis it relies upon.

We're just simply going to disagree on this.

There's no flaw in the analysis. Analysis isn't even really needed. It's just comparing one set of numbers against another for a given area: a state. It happens all of the time. How many abortions in this state and what's its political leaning, for example.

The question is why does this trend exist? Culture? Laws? Higher population of dumbasses? Because if we can bring down homicide numbers, that would be a good thing.

Quote by Chryses

That, too, is a good point.

As the difference between the red/blue state murder rates is almost cut in half when excluding the homicides from the county with the largest city, doing so suggests there is something significant about the city.

This leads me to the question, “If rather than excluding the homicides from the county with the largest city, the homicide counts from Democratic jurisdictions were excluded, what would the results be?”

If that were done, the rest (the Republican jurisdictions) would have a homicide rate independent of homicide rates from Democratic jurisdictions.

In other words, the analysis would produce directly comparable Democrat and Republican homicide rates. Those Republican homicide rates from the red states could be compared and contrasted to the homicide rates from the blue states.

That is not what the flawed analysis produces, although the authors would have one think so.

Define a "jurisdiction".

Quote by Chryses

As has been shown, both self-governing cities and self-governing counties are distinct political jurisdictions.

Within most jurisdictions, there are pockets of red and blue. How would you weed that out?

Quote by Chryses

If what you think is needed is a perfect, absolute solution, you will be disappointed.

What has been shown here is that the analysis performed on the CDC data is flawed.

I'm saying that what you need is a perfect, absolutest solution in order to believe the data before you. I'm saying the state data is good enough to show the trends.

Quote by Chryses

I have no need for some perfect, absolutist analysis. By recording the homicide counts in each jurisdiction and using the party affiliation (D/R or B/R) of the administration for that jurisdiction to organize the data, the homicide rates can be identified by political party. Doing so will enable direct comparison.

Using the faulty linked analysis results fails to provide such a direct comparison.

edited

So it's faulty when done at the state level but not at the "jurisdiction" level?

Quote by Chryses

I shall return totomorrow.

If you're in a red state, your chances of returning is not quite as good, because you might get shot.

Good luck on your return.

Quote by Chryses

No. The way the analysis was performed was the problem. The linked analysis did not produce like-to-like (B/R) entities for comparison.

I shall return tomorrow.

I knew these facts about how rural America is more murderous would trigger you, but not to this degree. You’ve been waffling bad lol

Quote by Chryses

I have no need for some perfect, absolutist analysis. By recording the homicide counts in each jurisdiction and using the party affiliation (D/R or B/R) of the administration for that jurisdiction to organize the data, the homicide rates can be identified by political party. Doing so will enable direct comparison.

Using the faulty linked analysis results fails to provide such a direct comparison.

edited

Yes because political parties would have no incentive to skew data for their constituents. What you want is to be told by people you respect which is fine. It doesn’t change the facts that just because the data is not sufficient for you that it’s pretty sound. It’s not going to win any prizes but as an nonpartisan it’s pretty clear to me.

Quote by ElCoco

The data's not trash. The analysis is.

I guess that's all you, Chryses, and Ironic can add. You think the data doesn't show a trend, so you can't really contribute to the question of why.

For the rest of us....

1. More guns in rural areas (60:40ish)

2. Honor culture (AKA more thin-skinned snowflakes willing to get violent over a slight)

3. Fewer resources when people are in crisis

What else would explain this? And also, do you think, like me, that if you were a democrat running for mayor, you'd use this data?

Quote by ElCoco

What more did you want? Since the analysis merges and mixes data from both parties and the authors present the results as if it didn't, you should be grateful that some people took the time to debunk the analysis.

I don't think anybody said the data doesn't show a trend. Can you find any post here that says the data doesn't show a trend?

.

1) Ensorceled was the one who suggested the relationship between gun ownership and murder rates.

2 & 3) Those possible causes don't have anything to do with the redness or blueness of the state, like the analysis results suggest.

.

I wouldn't be surprised that a political hit piece like that clever misuse of statistics would be used by an unscrupulous politician. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

😐

I mean, seriously 😐.

Quote by ElCoco

The debunked analysis fooled you. Now you know better.

Have you found any of my posts that say the data doesn't show a trend?

Yes. The ones that say the data is debunked,

Quote by ElCoco

What more did you want? Since the analysis merges and mixes data from both parties and the authors present the results as if it didn't, you should be grateful that some people took the time to debunk the analysis.

I don't think anybody said the data doesn't show a trend. Can you find any post here that says the data doesn't show a trend?

.

1) Ensorceled was the one who suggested the relationship between gun ownership and murder rates.

2 & 3) Those possible causes don't have anything to do with the redness or blueness of the state, like the analysis results suggest.

.

I wouldn't be surprised that a political hit piece like that clever misuse of statistics would be used by an unscrupulous politician. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

1) I did in the first post

2) So it's just a coincidence that every red state has a higher murder rate... 👍