4 ms·

By grouping statistics into these things we call "countries" we are also "excluding" certain statistics. For instance, why are we ignoring cartel murders just s

by d2vid 14y ago

By grouping statistics into these things we call "countries" we are also "excluding" certain statistics. For instance, why are we ignoring cartel murders just south of the US/Mexican border even though the US drug market is the driving factor? The parent comment is providing a better, more specific grouping that helps shed light on where murders are actually happening in the US and points us towards where we need to focus our efforts if we want to actually change the murder rate in the US. Inner city interventions will result in the greatest improvements to the murder rate, whereas focusing efforts elsewhere has literally zero chance of bringing the murder rate into line with the rest of the G8 because that's not where the murders are happening.

robbiep 14y ago
The parent comment is introducing a new variable which may or may not be useful in, as you suggest, providing targeted approaches to reducing deaths by firearms. It still flies in te face of convention which still treats a whole country as a whole country, in the perhaps naive assumption that by averaging the nations stats you will be able to get a good comparison of what the average citizen puts up with an thus providing a ground for comparison with other average citizens in other nation-states, regardless of their level of development, or even, indeed, if they have 'inner city slums'. And all that is leaving aside the matter of whether the statement is actually true, as questioned by a number of other threads
- jlgreco 14y ago
  It's not a new variable, it's just a new, equally arbitrary, line on the maps. In slums you have a completely different expectation of law enforcement and law enforcement presence, social service, education, economy, transportation, etc. In every respect except for lines on a map, slums are a completely different world. "Countries" are an obscenely coarse classification, we should always be open to more fine-grained analysis.
lostlogin 14y ago
What a great comment. Encouraging people to look beyond their backyard to see the effects of what they do day to day is not easy, but it is important. Looking at stats for murder, poverty etc is more meaningful when examined globally.

by d2vid 14y ago

robbiep 14y ago

The parent comment is introducing a new variable which may or may not be useful in, as you suggest, providing targeted approaches to reducing deaths by firearms. It still flies in te face of convention which still treats a whole country as a whole country, in the perhaps naive assumption that by averaging the nations stats you will be able to get a good comparison of what the average citizen puts up with an thus providing a ground for comparison with other average citizens in other nation-states, regardless of their level of development, or even, indeed, if they have 'inner city slums'. And all that is leaving aside the matter of whether the statement is actually true, as questioned by a number of other threads

jlgreco 14y ago
It's not a new variable, it's just a new, equally arbitrary, line on the maps. In slums you have a completely different expectation of law enforcement and law enforcement presence, social service, education, economy, transportation, etc. In every respect except for lines on a map, slums are a completely different world. "Countries" are an obscenely coarse classification, we should always be open to more fine-grained analysis.

lostlogin 14y ago

What a great comment. Encouraging people to look beyond their backyard to see the effects of what they do day to day is not easy, but it is important. Looking at stats for murder, poverty etc is more meaningful when examined globally.