[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The number of guns is also meaningless without knowing how many criminals are re-released into the society by government in those areas.
...
The state laws are not as strict as Chicago, yet Chicago has a vastly higher rate of homicide by firearm than nearly any other part of the country.
Why?
I would submit it is because of many reasons, but among them is their ridiculously strict gun control laws.
Chicago has a population of about 2.7 million people.
Houston, a city with very little gun control, has a population of 2.2 million people, and very little violent crime compared to Chicago.

It may be imperfect and it does not cover every variable, but the data is not meaningless.

Getting to your city comparison, here's something for you to consider: Chicago has a population density roughly four times that of Houston, according to Wikipedia (11,864.4/sq mi vs 3,623/sq mi). Having lived in New York City (population density 27,012.5/sq mi) and Los Angeles (population density 8,092/sq mi), I can tell you that isn't trivial. I also had to chuckle at this line in the article you linked:

Gun lovers are gleeful about Chicago’s deadly summer. ... But Chicago’s murder rate is not proof that gun control doesn’t work. It’s proof that, in a country with one gun per citizen, local gun laws are meaningless.

I guess they predicted who would be citing their article and for what purposes. They end with something that we've already agreed upon:

The number-one factor in predicting crime is not guns -- or lack of guns. It is concentrated urban poverty. Because of Chicago’s history as a segregated city, we have a lot of that.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

So we're left with the simple facts rather than anything statistics can tell us

Isn't everything you said based on statistics? Crime rates, poverty rates, gang activity... the data on these things will have flaws, just as all data does, but it's useful. You're using it even if you're not citing a source or working with the raw numbers. Take that data, compare it with data on other variables, and then think about what it means. That is how you achieve as unbiased a take on things as possible.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Now, if we start crunching numbers on racial demographics, poverty levels, drug gangs, and organized crime, then you get a better picture of why the Southern States are so much worse than their Northern counterparts.
Wealth alleviates the stresses and problems for many (though certianly not all) people and raising the standard of living is a must if we are to deal with these issues.

And how do you explain the results with the West and Midwest compared to the Northeast?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

There are hundreds of local news reported stories of people stopping crime (as reported by police) yet the statistics don't take them into account.
Why?
I would think it is because there simply is not enough data.
When a crime is stopped, and it isn't reported, we don't know about it.

This cuts both ways. Every time someone wants to commit a crime with a gun and yet is denied a purchase, doesn't try to make a purchase because of the regulations, or has their gun confiscated by the police, we don't hear about it. Crimes that are preemptively prevented before a person can acquire or use a gun won't make it into the statistics or the news, because it's only interesting if some action happens.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Better recheck your source.
Even they admit the following:

No, the source is fine. They pull their data from government databases which, while subject to the same imperfections as any database, is likely to be as legitimate as you can find. The issue that they're talking about is the statistics aspect, and they are absolutely correct to have a disclaimer about that.

For example, go to the link that I provided and look at either the map view or look at the ranking in the table. Their ranking is achieved by dividing "violent crime per 100,000" by "% households with a loaded firearm." The mathematical operations that they're doing are considered statistics, but it makes absolutely no sense. Consider the following example:

They list Hawaii as rank #4. Hawaii has 272.8 violent crimes per 100,000 with a 1.20% household firearm ownership. Divide the first by the second to get 227.33.

Louisiana is ranked #23 with a violent crime rate of 729.5 and household gun ownership of 10%. Division yields 72.95.

Looking purely at the products of division, Louisiana is "safer" than Hawaii thanks to its greater gun ownership... even though it has a violent crime rate of approximately triple that. Does that make any sense to you? It shouldn't. That's because doing simple division on these figures is a poor statistical method to determine if there is a trend, and what that trend is. A place could have ten times the amount of violent crime, but it would achieve a better ranking if it had ten or more times the amount of gun ownership. (Just by looking at the raw numbers for yourself, I believe you would agree with me that there is no trend.)

I'm pretty sure I made a disclaimer about ignoring the "rank" and looking purely at the raw numbers the first time that I used that link in this thread, but if I forgot to do so the most recent time, then I apologize.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

EDIT: Legem you know better than to use SourceWatch and MediaMatters, they're both far-left groups with an agenda that includes disarmament. I don't believe one whit of what they publish.

I'm not familiar with either site; while I picked up that one may have had a bias, I apologize for linking in two extremely biased sources. On the other hand, I'm a bit puzzled as to why it is that you identify these two sites as having an agenda and thus choose not to believe anything from them, yet you know that Lott and the other fellow also have agendas, and yet you seem to be fine with anything that they say.

The allegations that Lott fabricated or fudged data are serious and should be a red flag to anyone who's interested in the truth. Unless it's proven that he committed data fabrication regularly, I'm still willing to look at his data and read his biased interpretations. Not sure why you're unwilling to do the same for data and authors that don't suit your viewpoint.