Firearms violence in Tennessee?

[LagerHead]

I think this article is uncharacteristic of Brian's past work. In this one he links to VPC data, which is widely known to be as full of holes as Swiss cheese, but neglects to link to data that shows the deterrent effect of guns or anything supporting our side. He also refers to Harvard studies that show that higher gun ownership leads to higher crime rates but ignores Harvard studies that show the opposite.

"Moreover, there is not insubstantial evidence that in the

United States widespread gun availability has helped reduce murder

and other violent crime rates."

[...]

"If you are surprised by [our] finding, so [are we]. [We] did

not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns,

but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative

finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us

where not to aim public health resources."

Source: WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE

MURDER AND SUICIDE?

A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND

SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE

DON B. KATES AND GARY MAUSER

This article is definitely going to add fuel to the anti-gun fire.

[Guest nysos]

I think this article is uncharacteristic of Brian's past work. In this one he links to VPC data, which is widely known to be as full of holes as Swiss cheese, but neglects to link to data that shows the deterrent effect of guns or anything supporting our side. He also refers to Harvard studies that show that higher gun ownership leads to higher crime rates but ignores Harvard studies that show the opposite.

This article is definitely going to add fuel to the anti-gun fire.

This article definitely did not have the unbiased feel that previous articles had. There were some unbiased points, but as whole the article seemed written more from an anti's perspective. The only real subjective points given were from some of the people's quotes, and being in an article showing what organization they belong to - it makes it come off as, "oh, this guy is part of a gun organization so obviously his view is going to be that way". Lots of info seemed very objective.

I guess what information we were not privy to, was that the article was being written around the base of a murder. The stats were just supporting body. What we probably thought was going to be an article purely based off crime statistics correlating to weapons used/types of crimes, ended up being just another news article.

my .02

Edited October 4, 2011 by nysos

[mikegideon]

I think this article is uncharacteristic of Brian's past work. In this one he links to VPC data, which is widely known to be as full of holes as Swiss cheese, but neglects to link to data that shows the deterrent effect of guns or anything supporting our side. He also refers to Harvard studies that show that higher gun ownership leads to higher crime rates but ignores Harvard studies that show the opposite.

This article is definitely going to add fuel to the anti-gun fire.

I don't believe the source data is credible enough to add much fuel. Besides, it's just one of many anti-gun articles from the Tennessean.

[9teeneleven]

What I think the article needed was more speculation about questionable numbers. I also though that the human interest bookend was underdeveloped. It could have elicited much more pathos.

If you can't get the important data, don't write the article. Goodbye long-form journalism.

[LagerHead]

I don't believe the source data is credible enough to add much fuel. Besides, it's just one of many anti-gun articles from the Tennessean.

Respectfully, I think you're wrong. There are articles and "studies" that were debunked in the 90's that are still quoted ad nauseum by anti's. They latch on to the VPC, Brady, FSA, etc. propaganda like a starving leech and never let it go.

For example, I know you've heard you are x times more likely to be murdered in your own home than to use your gun to defend your family. The "study" that produced that gem was conducted in a single county in Washington and excluded any home invasion that did not result in death. As we all know, Dr. Gary Kleck's research shows that only about 1% of defensive uses of guns result in a shot fired at all, meaning they potentially ignored 99% of data that refuted their findings. And despite this being pointed out years ago you still hear this quoted by anti's every time they start in on you.

[1gewehr]

The article would have you believe that Tennessee has a very high violent crime rate. Kind of misleading. Looking at the raw FBI data by state (FBI — Table 5) TN (overall violent crime rate per 100,000 = 613.3) actually is behind Delaware 620.9, Alaska, 638.8, Nevada 660.6, and the leader DC at 1330.2. The numbers by metropolitan area are available. To me, the numbers show that large cities cause crime. We should ban cities over 50,000 inhabitants.

also, I fail to see how breaking the numbers out into 'gun crime' serves anything other than a transparent agenda. Why is 'gun crime' worse than any other kind? Why is a murder committed with a firearm more tragic than one committed with a baseball bat, tire iron, poison, or vehicle? Until you answer that question logically, I have a difficult time respecting your journalism.

[D3vo]

I honestly enjoy reading the comments section. In there was this little gem.

"Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents."

You can see the full text here.

FBI — Caution Against Ranking

I think this was more opinion piece than news article. The news portion was firearm violence is unacceptably high. The attempt to identify the cause established it as an opinion piece with no supporting data from the FBI due to the firearm slant.

[Jonnin]

I lost the copy & paste but fox news just put out a blurb on this topic, and their numbers were that with the relaxation of gun control in DC and other states, the crime in THOSE areas are DOWN (as we have seen time and time again, carry permits = less crime) which means that relative to those areas, TN is HIGHER than it used to be... hmmm?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The Aggravated Assault getting added to the stats, skews the TN numbers quite a bit.

Am vastly ignorant of law, but wonder if Aggravated Assault really means the same thing in all the states? Brian's article says--

The federal government defines aggravated assault as an attack that inflicts severe bodily injury and is usually done with a weapon likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

But this TN Lawyer's site says--

Tennessee Assault and Battery Attorney| Aggravated Assault Lawyer in Tennessee

Assault occurs when a person threatens to use violence against another person with intent of causing bodily injury. Battery is the act of actual physical violence against a person. If a weapon is used or a person is gravely injured, then assault and battery may also be charged as aggravated assault or aggravated battery, leading to enhanced penalties if convicted.

And this--

T.P.I. -- CRIM. 6.02

Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault is guilty of a crime. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements:

[Part A:

(1)(a) that the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury to another;

or ( that the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury;

or © that the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused physical contact with another and a reasonable person would regard that contact as extremely offensive or provocative;

and

(2)(a) that the defendant caused serious bodily injury to another;

or ( that the defendant used or displayed a deadly weapon....

I'm not minimizing this law or crime, but wonder if it means the same thing in all states? It obviously means in TN that some idiot could be convicted of waving a gun around even if no victim got hurt (other than the victim's feelings).

It plainly doesn't mean that every Aggravated Assault counted for TN necessarily involved somebody getting serious bodily injury (which was Brian's definition from the Fed gov). Unless the Feds have a way of filtering crime reports from states and eliminating the instances which were simple brandishing or stupid unwise threats, then perhaps the "fair" thing to do would be to delete the Aggravated Assault numbers from the comparative stats and see where we stand then?

Ain't trying to sugar coat the stats. Doesn't matter to me what the stats say. Just trying to figure out why our stats would be vastly bigger than ferinstance GA, which is pretty similar to TN in many regards. It just seems the TN and GA numbers "ought to be" closer than the stats show unless something is skewing the results?

[daddyo]

Brian has to do what he's told, just like any employee. It's common knowledge that the editors of the Tennessean are gun haters, so if they want him to write a hit piece, then that's what he has to do.

[Guest brianhaas]

Hey guys, thanks for the constructive feedback. I figured this one would be a tough one.

The Harvard studies I cited are collected here: Guns and Death - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

And I'd point out that the study Lagerhead links to tracks gun ownership across the world, not the U.S.

As to some of the other points, I'm not sure how to address them. The numbers are what they are, the folks I reached out to said what they said.

I presented the best level of detail I could in terms of the data quality.

Lester: The definition of "aggravated assault" is the one we quoted in the story. We're using FBI data, so we're going by their definition for the purpose of this article.

What you're seeing is some of the flaws of the way FBI categorizes things. The UCR system is horribly outdated, doesn't have the level of detail that it should and should probably be tossed in favor of another system.

[Guest brianhaas]

Brian has to do what he's told, just like any employee. It's common knowledge that the editors of the Tennessean are gun haters, so if they want him to write a hit piece, then that's what he has to do.

I love comments like this. If my editor told me to write a story with a particular slant, I'd tell him/her to go to hell.

How about you provide some proof before you go tossing out serious accusations about ethics?

[QuietDan]

I'm actually pretty impressed with the level of knowledge and the dialog on this forum.

Read the comments on the Tennessean's website after Brias Haas' story. When you filter out the lunatics, which are legion, almost every point of Brian's story that is being challenged was DISCUSSED HERE FIRST, in some detail.

Therefore, I'm thinking it's a good use of Brian Haas' time to dialog with TGO prior to finalizing one of his gun-oriented stories. We, in my opinion, did point out some of the pitfalls he might face. The Tennessean cuts his paycheck, so clearly he's not going to badmouth management at the Tennessean, but these stories don't get assigned out of Haas' fevered mind. They are assignments from his EDITOR, and unless he's living in a different editorial universe that I'm not familiar with, the editor thinks he knows what the story is before he assigns it. The editor also controls the timeline. If the editor has an agenda, even if the writer does not, it permeates the story.

I think Brian Haas did a good story within the constraints established by his editor. The sheer volume of comments after his story, and the number of folks just not buying into the story's premise, may suggest to the editor(s) to look into the larger story from a different perspective and give the writer sufficient time to dig into it. Or not, at the risk of their diminishing penetration into and credibility in the market-place. After a while, no one pays to read the blather that gets pumped out. That irritates the advertisers, and the newsroom shrinks.

Clearly, despite political pressure and political reluctance from the various Tennessee cities, we need to look into the gun crime statistics for the cities, geographically and demographically. The politicians would then see facts that they clearly don't want to see -- and don't want us common citizens to see.

A really good newspaper would blast right through the reluctance and the dithering of the political class. If Nashville's Tennessean, in conjunction with Memphis' Commercial Appeal and other major newspapers in the state, were to dig into this and not let go, they would serve Tennessee well.

Otherwise, we'll all do it ourselves over the internet, and the newspapers will become more irrelevant than they've already become.

[QuietDan]

I love comments like this. If my editor told me to write a story with a particular slant, I'd tell him/her to go to hell.

How about you provide some proof before you go tossing out serious accusations about ethics?

Bless you Brian Haas and let's make a distinction. No editor worth spit would ever tell a writer what to Write, but they spend all day telling writers what to Write About. They won't tell you what path to take, but they will tell you to go North. If you then go East, they often say, "that's not the story," or "that's not what I'm looking for." At least, just about every editor I've ever run across.

With the sheer volume of comments on your story, you've touched a live wire, I think. That gives you independent data for your editor to mull over. I'm thinking the editor would want to commission stories that people are interested in, enough to buy a newspaper or take out a subscription.

I would hope that the interest in the story would be sufficient motivation for your editor(s) to give you additional assignments and additional resources to write on the topic. Hey, job security, maybe a little, in a profession that has become increasing insecure in the last ten years.

Thank you for giving your readers your best.

Edited October 5, 2011 by QuietDan

[Jonnin]

most papers are on the internet though, so its the same thing. My electronic american rifleman has animated/popup/annoyware ads, the internet is probably BETTER for the "papers" than physical paper is -- the web lets the advertiser spy on anyone who sees their ad, anyone who clicks on it to follow up, etc, while there is no good way to see who read an ad in a magazine or paper.... eventually electronic will be the way to go as the few folks that read physical papers slowly surrender to technology, kicking and screaming all the way (some of em).

[Guest brianhaas]

most papers are on the internet though, so its the same thing. My electronic american rifleman has animated/popup/annoyware ads, the internet is probably BETTER for the "papers" than physical paper is -- the web lets the advertiser spy on anyone who sees their ad, anyone who clicks on it to follow up, etc, while there is no good way to see who read an ad in a magazine or paper.... eventually electronic will be the way to go as the few folks that read physical papers slowly surrender to technology, kicking and screaming all the way (some of em).

You would think. The only problem is, online advertising makes pennies on the dollar when compared to the print product. Most newspapers still make 60-80% of their revenue from the print product, even with the problems papers have been seeing.

It's a conundrum that papers are feverishly trying to figure out.

[sigmtnman]

Is there any data to indicate the state of residence for the attackers? Perhaps due to the shear number of states that border TN, there is a greater pool of folks who cross the state line to commit the crime further from home where they are less likely to be identified? Although, I reckon the inverse could be true as well.

[Guest brianhaas]

Is there any data to indicate the state of residence for the attackers? Perhaps due to the shear number of states that border TN, there is a greater pool of folks who cross the state line to commit the crime further from home where they are less likely to be identified? Although, I reckon the inverse could be true as well.

Unfortunately, no. The data I posed a few pages back is all that's included. It's simply offense data, with firearms crimes broken out on a statewide level. Yet another argument for a better crime stat system.

[daddyo]

I love comments like this. If my editor told me to write a story with a particular slant, I'd tell him/her to go to hell.

How about you provide some proof before you go tossing out serious accusations about ethics?

How do you conclude that I'm challenging your ethics? If anything, I was trying to defend you. I won't make that mistake again.

Didn't mean to offend.

[Garufa]

Perhaps your next story could be on the inadequacies of UCR data, including state and local reporting methodologies?

[mikegideon]

The Aggravated Assault getting added to the stats, skews the TN numbers quite a bit.

Am vastly ignorant of law, but wonder if Aggravated Assault really means the same thing in all the states? Brian's article says--

But this TN Lawyer's site says--

Tennessee Assault and Battery Attorney| Aggravated Assault Lawyer in Tennessee

And this--

T.P.I. -- CRIM. 6.02

I'm not minimizing this law or crime, but wonder if it means the same thing in all states? It obviously means in TN that some idiot could be convicted of waving a gun around even if no victim got hurt (other than the victim's feelings).

It plainly doesn't mean that every Aggravated Assault counted for TN necessarily involved somebody getting serious bodily injury (which was Brian's definition from the Fed gov). Unless the Feds have a way of filtering crime reports from states and eliminating the instances which were simple brandishing or stupid unwise threats, then perhaps the "fair" thing to do would be to delete the Aggravated Assault numbers from the comparative stats and see where we stand then?

Ain't trying to sugar coat the stats. Doesn't matter to me what the stats say. Just trying to figure out why our stats would be vastly bigger than ferinstance GA, which is pretty similar to TN in many regards. It just seems the TN and GA numbers "ought to be" closer than the stats show unless something is skewing the results?

That's exactly WHY I brought up the aggravated assault number. That number is what put Tennessee so high in the rankings. I don't think brian had a response. Same old deal. Anybody can be number one if you pick the right numbers.

[Guest brianhaas]

Perhaps your next story could be on the inadequacies of UCR data, including state and local reporting methodologies?

Yeah, unfortunately, I doubt anyone besides police, academics and policy wonks would read that. It'd likely be far too academic.

It's a great idea for a story and I'd love to write on it, but it would be a tough sell.

[sigmtnman]

Yeah, unfortunately, I doubt anyone besides police, academics and policy wonks would read that. It'd likely be far too academic.

It's a great idea for a story and I'd love to write on it, but it would be a tough sell.

Perhaps if you could weave dancing with stars into the story it would sell.

[LagerHead]

And I'd point out that the study Lagerhead links to tracks gun ownership across the world, not the U.S.

I actually realized that. My point was more to the rabid anti-gunners who make blanket statements like lower gun ownership = less crime. I also can't tell you how many times I have read that the U.S. has the highest murder and suicide rates in the world, neither of which are true. The article does however make a very valid point, directly refuting the antis' blanket statements. That study, along with others by the like of John Lott show the folly of gun control in this country. Because of the different socioeconomic factors that are present in this country as opposed to say, England or Switzerland, gun control just does not work.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I presented the best level of detail I could in terms of the data quality.

Lester: The definition of "aggravated assault" is the one we quoted in the story. We're using FBI data, so we're going by their definition for the purpose of this article.

What you're seeing is some of the flaws of the way FBI categorizes things. The UCR system is horribly outdated, doesn't have the level of detail that it should and should probably be tossed in favor of another system.

Thanks Brian

It appears at least somewhat likely that the aggravated assault stat is not directly comparable between states. Just a guess. It was easy to find the TN state law defining aggravated assault, but if there is a TN state law defining "brandishing" I can't find it. If in fact some states have a "brandishing" statute but TN just charges it as aggravated assault, then obviously we couldn't compare apples to oranges?

So just for giggles, lets do a ranking of your sample data, using your numbers, considering only murder and robbery, which one might hope are fairly consistently defined across states.

One problem of just summing all three stats is that if one stat is drastically larger than another stat, then you might as well just compare the biggest numbers and forget about the small numbers as noise. For instance if comparing robbery + murder, the number of robberies are so much bigger than the number of murders that you might as well not even count the murders. You are basically doing a robbery ranking with the murder "noise" added in.

Another problem is that these groups are not guaranteed exclusive. For instance if there is a murder committed in the course of a robbery then the one crime would be double-counted (likely triple-counted if you also consider the aggravated assault category).

There would be ways you could attempt "more fair" un-skewed ranking all the states for the set of [murder, robbery] using statistical normalization on both categories. It would be necessary to set up a spreadsheet on the all-state data and manipulate it as one big chunk. One possible method would be to convert all the numbers to z scores for each category/state and then rank each state's average or sum of category z scores. Z scores are all of the same magnitude so it isn't a complete statistical travesty to sum or average population z scores, though there could be quibbles about the double-counting problems.

Here is a quick-n-dirty attempt on the limited data set, perhaps slightly less skewed between big and small numbers-- Calculate the incidence per 100K on Gun Murder, and incidence per 100K on Gun Robbery. Then take the geometric mean of Murder and Robbery, and rank the geometric means. A geometric mean is "proportionally equi-distant" between numbers and may be a little less skewed than merely adding Murder + Robbery. Geometric mean is calculated here as (Murder * Robbery)^0.5

DC - Murder 16.5 - Robbery 259.8 - Geometric Mean 65.5

GA - Murder 04.9 - Robbery 080.8 - Geometric Mean 19.9

DE - Murder 04.2 - Robbery 093.4 - Geometric Mean 19.8

SC - Murder 04.7 - Robbery 060.5 - Geometric Mean 16.9

TN - Murder 03.6 - Robbery 076.3 - Geometric Mean 16.6

Edited October 4, 2011 by Lester Weevils