Sunday, December 1, 2013

Debunking "A Tale of Two Cities"

You know, now that the holidays are over, I can spend a little time clearing out my email. And what do I find? A message from my dad! Let's see what he has to say!

Aw, it's cute. It really is. I love it when unsubstantiated facts and statistical anomalies are stirred together and turn into fertilizer. And this one has tables and everything! In fact, it looks something like this.
A Tale of Two Cities

Chicago, IL Houston, TX
Population 2.7 million 2.15 million
Median HH Income $38,600 $37,000
% African-American 38.9% 24%
% Hispanic 29.9% 44%
% Asian 5.5% 6%
% Non-Hispanic White 28.7% 26%

Pretty similar until you compare the following:

Chicago, IL Houston, TX
Concealed Carry gun law no yes
# of Gun Stores 0 184 - Dedicated gun stores plus 1500 - legal places to buy guns- Walmart, K-mart, sporting goods, etc.
Homicides, 2012 1,806 207
Homicides per 100K 38.4 9.6
Avg. January high temperature (F) 31 63

Conclusion: Cold weather causes murder
Now, my dad is a reasonably smart person, so I can't assume that this is evidence of incipient Alzheimer's or anything. In fact, mostly, it looks like he just forwarded somebody else's data, without bothering to fact-check it (I'm sure most of us have relatives who do that). But since it's sitting there stinking up my inbox, I guess it deserves an answer.

First off, let's start with the fact that any time the NRA tries to claim that Chicago's "unreasonable gun laws" don't do any good, it ignores the fact that Chicago is surrounded by unreasonably loose gun laws, and anybody who wants a gun just needs to drive an hour to get someplace where they can buy one without a problem. So, you know, that part's crap - Chicago's laws have minimal effect because those laws have been nullified. Or, if you really want to look at how it works:
More than a quarter of the firearms seized on the streets here by the Chicago Police Department over the past five years were bought just outside city limits in Cook County suburbs, according to an analysis by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Others came from stores around Illinois and from other states, like Indiana, less than an hour’s drive away. Since 2008, more than 1,300 of the confiscated guns, the analysis showed, were bought from just one store, Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Ill., within a few miles of Chicago’s city limits.
Now, let's look at the statistics as presented. Assuming they're accurate (and we'll get to that in a second), remember the phrase "pretty similar until you compare the following." Because, just taking them at face value, you have a 15% difference in African American populations, and a 14% difference in Hispanic populations. Anybody who thinks those numbers are "pretty similar" either failed statistics, or never graduated high school.

But you can just feel free to pull out your Klan membership card and claim that the higher number of blacks explain the difference in the murder rate. (Trust me, the argument has been made.) Of course, you'd then also have to explain how the lower percentage of Hispanics has affected these statistics, and I'd LOVE to hear you try to argue around that corner.

But then, just for fun, let's consider the REAL facts. (You remember "facts," right? Those things Fox News has no time for?) First of all, this link here goes to a Cost of Living calculator. Now, I want you to do a little homework (calm down, it isn't difficult). Compare the costs of living between Houston and Chicago.

Done? Did you notice that tricky little 22% percent (average) difference in the cost of living? So that a person making $78,000 in Houston would need to earn $100,000 to live in the same style in Chicago? Hmmm... I wonder if that has any effect?

But, you know, those numbers in the chart still seem a little off. And statistical analysis is probably a real pain when you're working with incorrect data, isn't it?

So I went looking, and it seems that there's this thing the census bureau does, and it's called the American Community Survey. But those are all these tables, filled with numbers and stuff, and I don't want to make anybody's head hurt worse than it probably does. So I found a website that extracts numbers from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, and you know, it's funny. There seems to be a discrepancy here. Just a slight one.

Because, as it turns out, the median household income for the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet Illinois metro area was $59,261 in 2012. Not $38,600, as claimed. Wow, that's a little bit of a difference, isn't it?

And look here: the median household income for the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown Texas metro area was $55,910 in 2012. Not $37,000. That's kind of interesting, too.

But, you know what else? I seem to remember just a couple of months ago, when it was big news that Chicago was the "murder capital of the USA." But, funny thing. The number of homicides wasn't 1,806, like that cute little table claimed. Seems like it was more like 500 or so. Isn't that odd?

But let's check that, shall we? How about we look at the FBI's official data? And we poke around for a while, and we see that, sure enough, the number under "Murder and non-negligent manslaughter" for Chicago was exactly 500. Kind of a round number - you know, the kind of number that might stick in your head if you had any interest in actual facts, instead of... well, I don't want to call it "fecal matter," because that would be rude. But still...

So they were... well, maybe they were off by a little bit. Roughly 1306 homicides off, to be exact: they were wrong by almost three times the actual figure! I wonder how they did with the number of homicides in Houston? Well, right there, they were MUCH closer! Houston had 217 homicides, instead of the 207 in the table! That's so much closer! I mean, it's still wrong, but it's so much better than they've been doing!

But still, it seems like a lot more people have been killed in Chicago than in Houston, doesn't it? That's just weird. Is there some sort of difference between the Chicago mobster and the Texas cowboy that could account for these numbers? I wonder if anybody has looked into this problem?
Efforts to compare the strictness of gun laws and the level of violence across major American cities are fraught with contradiction and complication, not least because of varying degrees of coordination between local and state laws and differing levels of enforcement. In New York City, where homicides and shootings have decreased, the gun laws are generally seen as at least as strict as Chicago's, and the state laws in New York and many of its neighboring states are viewed as still tougher than those in and around Illinois. Philadelphia, like cities in many states, is limited in writing gun measures that go beyond those set by Pennsylvania law. Some city officials there have chafed under what they see as relatively lax state controls...

"The way the laws are structured facilitates the flow of those guns to hit our streets," Garry F. McCarthy, the Chicago police superintendent, said in an interview, later adding, "Chicago may have comprehensive gun laws, but they are not strict because the sanctions don't exist."
So, really, even if you used accurate numbers and factored in socioeconomic data, the numbers wouldn't really mean a thing, would they? It's almost as if this email was comparing two completely unrelated things, isn't it?

I wonder if whoever put together the original chart knew that when he wrote it?

7 comments:

  1. Those readily available stats can put a real damper on a passionate arguement. A mostly untrue arguement but when you have passion what's a few inaccurate numbers? OCTO helped me with some graphs and stats several years ago (I'm so mathematically challenged) concerning AZ's Gov Brewer's claim that she needed to push through the draconian immigration laws because of the higher number of illegals resulting in a higher crime rate. Of course the state's own stats showed otherwise but that was beside the point wasn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Right on, as we used to say.

    This seems to be a fine example of passion distorting facts the way gravity warps space-time.

    Beyond that, the idea of making an entity out of " Chicago-Naperville-Joliet Illinois metro area " as though these three weren't linked only by the need to make a bad argument seem good, is suspiciously like selecting facts to suit the conclusion and rejecting all else.

    Naperville is an upscale and very white suburb, Joliet houses the state prison and is a bit gritty and Chicago is diverse as hell with some neighborhoods being extremely safe and others a war zone. It's always been that way and Chicago was wild and wooly during prohibition and in the same neighborhoods for the same reasons. Guns don't attract crime as much as crime attracts guns. Make the crime unprofitable, is my suggestion.

    It doesn't surprise me that passionate activists and their passionate opponents feel justified in making it up as they go along because their causes, after all, are so noble. Everyone from Fox to Greenpeace to Mothers Against Drunk Driving does it. At most they see it as benign exaggeration or poetic license, but it just makes everything worse.

    Tis true however that countrywide, our gun laws are so complex and divergent as to be almost incomprehensible and the difficulty in knowing whether you are legal or illegal in having one is the reason mine stay in the closet. If I'm out in the Lousiana Bayou and carry a rifle to hunt alligators, I can go to jail if I decide to hunt a few frogs as well. I can carry a concealed weapon into a bank in my town, but not into a condo association meeting -- into a restaurant, but not if I sit on a bar stool, yet we have a howling demand for more laws no matter how or what or why.


    ReplyDelete
  4. A case of laws are good, therefore more laws must be better.

    Consistency and effectiveness somehow just seems not all that important. Or so it appears at any rate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The biggest problem is the massive divergence in laws between states (and cities, and sometimes counties). Australia has the most draconian gun laws of any "free" state in the world, and their homicide statistics are so low that a friend of mine in Melbourne says they sometimes struggle for "local news." That's the comparison that the NRA doesn't want to hear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Australia has always had a much lower homicide rate than we do. The massive ban and buy-back program and the large spectrum of gun control measures were passed in 1996 as the result of a rampage shooting in Tasmania, not as the result of a chronic problem, but the odd thing is that it was a hard-line conservative Prime Minister in control at the time! Maybe that shows us how different they are down under?

      The odd thing, according to a Washington Post article last year is that while firearm homicides did decline from a third to more than a half, depending on whose statistics you believe, the biggest effect by far was the reduction in firearm suicides.

      According to an Australian group -- Gunpolicy.org -- “Australians own as many guns now as they did at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, despite more than 1 million firearms being handed in and destroyed.”

      Makes me wonder if it was the ban and buy-back or other features of their gun control that make a difference. Most homicides before the act used illegally owned guns anyway and it's being argued that the increase in enforcement has played a greater role than the buy-backs and bans. All in all, the big picture is very complex and maybe far more so than most political passion allows for.

      There were high hopes in Illinois for the Firearm Owners ID card after all and yet the effect, if there was any, is hard to measure. We're still touting it as an answer.

      I don't have any sure fire answers (pun intended) but I tend to favor improving enforcement and I would like to see more attention payed to the causes of and motivations for violence.

      All in all, it's probably been effective in reducing certain kinds of crime, but it was far more than a ban of autoloaders and hand guns and included more enforcement that the US is likely to pay for or put up with.





      Delete
  6. "Conclusion: Cold weather causes murder"

    Makes perfect sense to me. When it's cccold outside, that's the best time to pack some heat.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.