TexasCHLforum.com

"The most violent states."

Texas is number 6.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 0_Maryland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Might there be a criteria problem here?

Elmo

b322da wrote:"The most violent states."

Texas is number 6.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 0_Maryland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Might there be a criteria problem here?

Elmo

Five minutes of my life I will never get back.

Interesting...all Southern states with the exception of Nevada and Oklahoma. Not that I would consider anything from the Huffington Post worthwhile.

Conspicuously lacking on the list is NJ. Camden and Newark alone could represent some of the most dangerous areas in the US - as far from a peaceful setting as I can imagine. Start throwing in Atlantic City, etc. and the composite is much worse than the study judges Oklahoma to be, for example.

It sounds like another piece of data hokus pokus. Liars can figure but to really succeed, they need to create a study. Posted by the Huffington Post. Well, now, color me surprised.

Edit: logic in the one statement was backwards.

I have been told that figures don't lie, but liars do figure.

My two favorites quotes about stats:

There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, d*** lies, and statistics.

And then another favorite: Liberals use statistics as a drunk would use a light post. For support, not illumination.



Huffpo has about as much cred for me as the "batboy lives" magazines at the grocery store.

74novaman wrote:My two favorites quotes about stats:

There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, d*** lies, and statistics.

And then another favorite: Liberals use statistics as a drunk would use a light post. For support, not illumination.



Huffpo has about as much cred for me as the "batboy lives" magazines at the grocery store.

That is an order of magnitude more credibility that I give them. What is really sad is that there are fools who actually believe that drivel.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

74novaman wrote:My two favorites quotes about stats:

There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, d*** lies, and statistics.

And then another favorite: Liberals use statistics as a drunk would use a light post. For support, not illumination.



Huffpo has about as much cred for me as the "batboy lives" magazines at the grocery store.

That is an order of magnitude more credibility that I give them. What is really sad is that there are fools who actually believe that drivel.

Are you saying the batboy died?

He was the only one who knew where Elvis is hiding!!

From the article:

The index is based on five primary indicators: (1) number of homicides per 100,000 people, (2) number of violent crimes per 100,000 people, (3) number of people in jail per 100,000 people, (4) number of police officers per 100,000 people and (5) general availability of small arms.

So the mere presence of a lot of guns would make you less peaceful. Because guns are just so contrary to peace, don't you know. Take that one indicator away, and I bet the picture changes dramatically. Then there's number 3 - number of people in jail per 100,000. So a state then tends to lock criminals up rather than set them free to prey on citizens again will get a higher rating and is therefore less peaceful?

This is what is called cooking the books. Wanna portray states that enforce their laws consistently and allow gun ownership as "less peaceful"? Here's the blueprint.

Indicators 1 and 2 seem rather self-explanatory, but what does the number of police officers per 100,000 have to do with peacefulness? If a state has 100 per 100,000 and 99 of them are corrupt would they be more peaceful than a state with 50 per 100,000 and 49 of them are honest and ethical? It's a silly study designed to arrive at the conclusion that it sought to arrive at.

MInd you, I don't expect the dolts at Huffanblow Post to pick up on that. They're probably in the throes of delirium right now after finding statistical "proof" that the rednecks are less peaceful.

OldCurlyWolf wrote: That is an order of magnitude more credibility that I give them. What is really sad is that there are fools who actually believe that drivel.

I hope a lot of people in the Northeast believe it, stay where they are and don’t move to our “less peaceful” state.

As my old pappy used to say, "Figures don't lie, but liars know how to figure." Some truths don't die.

Or as I like to say, "Looks like we're going to beat the dog again."

Texas Size 11 wrote:Interesting...all Southern states with the exception of Nevada and Oklahoma. Not that I would consider anything from the Huffington Post worthwhile.

And who says Oklahoma isn't a southern state? Most if it is south of the Mason-Dixon and they contributed a division to the CSA in the War of Northern Aggression.

I believe that most of these violence stats have to do with guns being innocently dropped and they always fire when dropped.

glbedd53 wrote:I believe that most of these violence stats have to do with guns being innocently dropped and they always fire when dropped.

"The index is based on five primary indicators: (1) number of homicides per 100,000 people, (2) number of violent crimes per 100,000 people, (3) number of people in jail per 100,000 people, (4) number of police officers per 100,000 people and (5) general availability of small arms."

(1) number of homicides per 100,000 people: good indicator of violence in a population because it measures violence in the population.

(2) number of violent crimes per 100,000 people: good indicator of violence in a population because it measures violence in the population.

(3) number of people in jail per 100,000 people: poor indicator of violence in a population because it indirectly measures police enforcement.
A) It doesn't separate violent from non-violent crime.
B) It is a better indicator of police aggressiveness in getting criminals off the street and actually penalizes those cities with high enforcement and bolsters those areas with poor or corrupt policing.
C) It duplicates the second criteria.

(4) number of police officers per 100,000 people: poor indicator of violence because it indirectly measures administrative allocation of resources.
A) It does not take into account the area's police needs and compare it to the police presence to see if they are undermanned, appropriately manned, or overmanned
B) It is a better indicator of a region's aggressiveness in policing. If low rates of police to citizen ratios are interpreted as being peaceful, it actually penalizes those cities with high enforcement and bolsters those areas with little or corrupt policing. Alternatively, if high ratios are considered beneficial, it penalizes those areas with low crime rates that do not need high enforcement.

(5) general availability of small arms: poor indicator of violence because it does not measure any violence.
A) It does not take into account what those arms are used for.
B) It does not take into account who those arms are used by.
C) It duplicates the actual stats of crimes committed with firearms which are included in criteria 1 and 2.

A much better indicator of an area's level of violence might include:
-Number of violent crimes reported/committed per capita
-Number of violent crimes prosecuted/convicted per capita
-Percentage of overall crimes that are considered violent
-Percentage of overall crimes perpetrated by the area's governmental, legislative, elected, and safety personnel/officials
-Subjective poll on the free movement of people and their feelings of safety
-Presence of known and identified criminal organizations in the area