4 ms·

> I'm not saying that this validates Republicans positions, but it certainly doesn't provide evidence against it. But it does. It shows that Democratic run sta

> I'm not saying that this validates Republicans positions, but it certainly doesn't provide evidence against it. But it does. It shows that Democratic run states (California, New York, Illinois, Washington, etc.) have lower murder rates than Republican run states (Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, etc.) REGARDLESS of what the murder rate is in cities (of which Democratic-run states states tend to have more of). None of the most urbanized states (NJ, CA, MA, NV, etc.) are in the top-10 murder for states [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...

giantg2 5y ago
"It shows that Democratic run states (California, New York, Illinois, Washington, etc.) have lower murder rates than Republican run states (Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, etc.)" It's only showing the top ten. If it's actually claiming that, then we would need to see the comparison of all states, because some of the Republican run states have lower rates than some some of the Democrat run states. So it seems that we can't make that absolute statement. We can see things like how New England is split between party and yet the rates are similarly low regardless of party running the state (still not addressing the city level claims). The article makes no mention of this. It simply picks the top ten, as Republicans could do for the cities with the highest murder rate. Neither address policies or the true underlying issues. On top of that, it's looking at states that voted for Trump. Why did they choose this instead of looking at the governor's party? If they did that, the top state would flip categories. Again, this article feel like a distraction that is highly politicized, mismatches counter argument to argument, and offers very little actual substance. Not to mention, the article is not presented in a way that would do anything other than validate one side's already held belief rather than dig into the topic.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > Not to mention, the article is not presented in a way that would do anything other than validate one side's already held belief rather than dig into the topic. This is how you see it. Your first response being "How is this study wrong?" rather than "How might my assumptions be wrong?" kind of proves the point.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "Your first response being "How is this study wrong?" rather than "How might my assumptions be wrong?" kind of proves the point." Not at all. My first question was which of my assumptions are wrong, then double check that my facts were right. Those didn't line up with the article, which is when I stated to see interesting unexplained choices, like using Trump instead of governor or a matrix of policies.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      > like using Trump instead of governor or a matrix of policies. And if they used Governor, you might complain that they didn't use Statehouse. And if they used that, you might come up with another reason. My guess is that they used Trump AND Biden because they were the only politicians on the ballot in each of the states they studied. Many states didn't even have a Governor race in 2020 (the year they studied for election and murder).
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Why would the election, that happened in Nov and was only effective the following year, matter for that year's data? If we're trying to disprove polices, then the governor has final veto power even if the legislature outnumbers them, plus they are the ones who set regulations (although city level regulations can vary wildly). Using the election is like using a future tangentially related event (because inauguration happens the following year and doesn't even have power at the state level) to predict a past outcome. It doesn't make sense. So yeah, I'll complain about something being illogical especially if it skews the numbers - I'm not just making up reasons. The best thing would likely be to look at a matrix of policies for each state to identify potential impact from a specific policy over time and in combination with the other factors.
        long_time_gone 5y ago
        > Why would the election, that happened in Nov and was only effective the following year, matter for that year's data? As I mentioned, likely because it was a data point that crossed city, county, and state lines. I can't think of another data point that provides that type of insight across such a broad swath of the population at a specific point in time. If you have some, please provide, it would make for a richer data set. > The best thing would likely be to look at a matrix of policies for each state to identify potential impact from a specific policy over time and in combination with the other factors. Plenty of that analysis is available, unfortunately the results don't penetrate the echo chamber. Here are a few [1] [2] [3]. [1] https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254669.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254669.pdf [2] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your-ground/violent-crime.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your... [3] https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/ https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-...

giantg2 5y ago

"It shows that Democratic run states (California, New York, Illinois, Washington, etc.) have lower murder rates than Republican run states (Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, etc.)" It's only showing the top ten. If it's actually claiming that, then we would need to see the comparison of all states, because some of the Republican run states have lower rates than some some of the Democrat run states. So it seems that we can't make that absolute statement. We can see things like how New England is split between party and yet the rates are similarly low regardless of party running the state (still not addressing the city level claims). The article makes no mention of this. It simply picks the top ten, as Republicans could do for the cities with the highest murder rate. Neither address policies or the true underlying issues. On top of that, it's looking at states that voted for Trump. Why did they choose this instead of looking at the governor's party? If they did that, the top state would flip categories. Again, this article feel like a distraction that is highly politicized, mismatches counter argument to argument, and offers very little actual substance. Not to mention, the article is not presented in a way that would do anything other than validate one side's already held belief rather than dig into the topic.

long_time_gone 5y ago
> Not to mention, the article is not presented in a way that would do anything other than validate one side's already held belief rather than dig into the topic. This is how you see it. Your first response being "How is this study wrong?" rather than "How might my assumptions be wrong?" kind of proves the point.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Your first response being "How is this study wrong?" rather than "How might my assumptions be wrong?" kind of proves the point." Not at all. My first question was which of my assumptions are wrong, then double check that my facts were right. Those didn't line up with the article, which is when I stated to see interesting unexplained choices, like using Trump instead of governor or a matrix of policies.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    > like using Trump instead of governor or a matrix of policies. And if they used Governor, you might complain that they didn't use Statehouse. And if they used that, you might come up with another reason. My guess is that they used Trump AND Biden because they were the only politicians on the ballot in each of the states they studied. Many states didn't even have a Governor race in 2020 (the year they studied for election and murder).
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Why would the election, that happened in Nov and was only effective the following year, matter for that year's data? If we're trying to disprove polices, then the governor has final veto power even if the legislature outnumbers them, plus they are the ones who set regulations (although city level regulations can vary wildly). Using the election is like using a future tangentially related event (because inauguration happens the following year and doesn't even have power at the state level) to predict a past outcome. It doesn't make sense. So yeah, I'll complain about something being illogical especially if it skews the numbers - I'm not just making up reasons. The best thing would likely be to look at a matrix of policies for each state to identify potential impact from a specific policy over time and in combination with the other factors.
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        > Why would the election, that happened in Nov and was only effective the following year, matter for that year's data? As I mentioned, likely because it was a data point that crossed city, county, and state lines. I can't think of another data point that provides that type of insight across such a broad swath of the population at a specific point in time. If you have some, please provide, it would make for a richer data set. > The best thing would likely be to look at a matrix of policies for each state to identify potential impact from a specific policy over time and in combination with the other factors. Plenty of that analysis is available, unfortunately the results don't penetrate the echo chamber. Here are a few [1] [2] [3]. [1] https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254669.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254669.pdf [2] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your-ground/violent-crime.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your... [3] https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/ https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-...