Gun love

Don Diego only listed cities with Democrat mayors (and mostly, Democrat city councils), so any comparison with Republican-run cities is impossible using the data he provided.

I doubt that was an omission on his part. I also suspect he cherry-picked the data to list only those Democratic cities with high rates of gun violence.

Let's see a complete list, all cities over, say, 250,000 population, and an indicator of the political affiliation of the cities' governments. Like DonDiego provided--only complete this time.

That a problem would take a long time to solve is no excuse for not beginning to solve it.

I think that what is possible is to de-glamorize guns in American culture. Point out how DANGEROUS it is to own a gun. Curb gun love and gun fetishism. Call the NRA out on the phony statistics it uses. Allow the CDC to perform studies on gun violence, as a health issue.

All that, we can easily do--only the will is lacking, not the means.

Don's list is the 10 cities with the most gun violence. Republican run cities would be further down the list. The fact that they are all run by democrats is no coincidence. 

Make no mistake.  Gun violence in major cities like Chicago isn't being committed by crazed NRA member mass murderers with assault weapons.  It's Gang Violence being committed by felons with illegally possessed handguns.  No amount of Gun Control or background checks is going to stop that because criminals don't care about gun laws...Duh

So here's a novel concept.  Rather than punish law abiding citizens punish the criminals.  Felons posessing guns should suffer severe consequences...Like 25 years in prison.  If you use a handgun in a crime then life in prison.  After a year or two gun violence won't be quite as attractive for the remaining violent felons.

The problem I was TRYING to discuss was handguns in the home and the associated dramatically increased risk of gun deaths.

I'm pretty tired of this discussion of "law-abiding citizens" versus criminals. That's not the issue. It's perfectly legal to own a gun. It's also perfectly legal to leave it in an unlocked desk drawer, loaded, where your six-year-old can find it. It's perfectly legal to take it out and show him how it works.

Charles is wrong. Most of the gun violence in Chicago (how the hell did we manage to get obsessed with Chicago??) and in every other city is SUICIDES. A considerable portion of the remainder is accidents. Also, incidents like fights in bars and road rage turn deadly when someone has a gun.

Charles is also wrong with his premise that draconic punishments for using a gun while committing a crime would serve as a deterrent. The death penalty has never served as a deterrent to homicide; murder rates are higher in states with the death penalty. Criminals aren't rational and don't carefully weigh the consequences of their actions.

So let's return to the discussion of handguns in the home, gun safety, and gun culture.

Do you know or understand the difference between correlation and causation? Does DonDiego?

When you say "no coincidence," you imply that there is some causal factor; that Democrats running a city CAUSE more gun violence. Given that Republicans, rather than Democrats, are the ones in favor of everyone owning a gun, that seems to be, uh, dubious at best.

I know you (and DonDiego) WANT to "prove" that there is a causal relationship, but you can't. Here's the actual logic:

1. Large urban areas, especially heavily populated inner cities, tend to have higher rates of gun violence.

2. Most large cities in the US lean Democratic.

This is a correlation. #2 does not CAUSE #1. Nor does #2 cause #1.

To illustrate:

1. Large cities have more Chinese restaurants than other areas.

2. Large cities have higher rates of gun violence than other areas.

3. Therefore, Chinese restaurants cause gun violence.

See the fallacy?

Part A

In his post of 8:47am, 3 October Kevin Lewis inquired:  "Does DonDiego have a list of major cities in the US, the political affiliations of their governments, and the rates of gun deaths there compared to a national average?"

DonDiego replied that he did not have such a list, . . . so he researched the topic of the cities with the highest rates of "gun-violence".  In fact, he presented a link to the site: "Cities with the Most Gun Violence".

Kevin Lewis is correct that the cities represented were, indeed, governed by Democrat leaders.

But poor old DonDiego did not "cherry-pick" the cities.  As stated explicitly in the original post and above: the cities addressed were the cities with the highest rates of gun-violence in the country.  And poor old DonDiego provided the firearm-homicide rates for each city and the national average, . . exactly as requested and a link to the data.

DonDiego would be pleased to correct any errors in the data presented.   

Otherwise, poor old DonDiego apologizes for posting an accurate post, . . . exactly as requested.

All DonDiego did was present tha data.  That these top-10 cities happen to all have dominant Democrat leadership may well be a co-incidence. 

DonDiego looks forward to an explanation of the co-incidence.

Part B

DonDiego respectfully declines the request to present similar data for "all cities over, say, 250,000 population."  Just researching the top-10 gun violence cities was hard enough.

He would welcome such documentation were someone else to provide it.

DonDiego did not present "the data." He presented SOME of the data--that which supported his implied contention.

In any event, he should read my post about the difference between correlation and causation.

He should also drop his obession with Chicago.

He should also stop trying to politicize this discussion with his implied premise that Democrats cause gun violence (he should read my post about correlation and causation).

He should perhaps provide his input on the aspect of the issue that I have repeatedly requested that members of this forum discuss, rather than bringing up NRA/Republican talking points: gun violence in the home.

DonDiego looks forward to an explanation of what he terms "the co-incidence." (It shouldn't be hyphenated, but whatever.) In my post re correlation vs. causation, I posited one possible explanation. Let me restate:

1. Large cities have higher rates of gun violence.

2. Large cities tend to vote and be "run by" (I'll accept that dubious term) Democrats.

3. Large cities usually have one or more professional sports teams.

4. Large cities tend to have more Chinese restaurants than other areas.

Now, any relationships between any of these premises would be correlational only. There may, in fact, be causal factors in those relationships. For instance, it might be possible that Chinese restaurants cause gun violence. But that would have to be proved, through one of a number of methods used in scientific inquiry.

In other words, it isn't enough to a) find a city that has a high rate of gun violence, b) find that it has a Democratic mayor/city council, and c) say AHA!!!!! You need some proof of causation.

Or we could solve the problem of gun violence by shutting down all the Chinese restaurants.

Here's another thought for you: find major cities that changed from a Democratic to a Republican administration, or vice versa. See if, a year after the change, gun violence rates had significantly changed. If so, you would still be only identifying a correlation, but it would be food for thought.

Kevin Lewis writes: "Most of the gun violence in Chicago (how the hell did we manage to get obsessed with Chicago??) and in every other city is SUICIDES."

Kevin Lewis is, umm, mistaken: nationwide the rate of firearm suicides [7.7 per 100,000] is significantly higher than firearm homicides [4.4 per 100,000] across the United States.

However, Chicago is a unique exception:

3.6 firearm suicides-per-100,000 vs 8.1 firearm homicides-per-100,000.

Ref: Cities with the Most Gun Violence

n.b. This is the same link which poor old DonDiego referenced earlier.

Prb'ly has nothing to do with Democrat governance.

I doubt the accuracy of your statistics, but either way...so what? As you yourself say, Chicago is a statistical outlier. Focusing obsessively on Chicago to try to prove your point about Democrats is like my trying to support a contention that the US is continually ravaged by tornadoes by focusing on Oklahoma.

I guess I need to remind you that I have been trying to discuss gun violence in the home. In Chicago or anywhere else. So I'll concede that Chicago is a cesspool of violence and that it is "run by Democrats." Can you show that it would be any less violent if it were run by Republicans? Of course you can't.

Now, can we look at the country as a whole, and the actual problem I wanted to discuss, rather than some Republican/partisan/NRA talking point?