Originally Posted By godzillamax:
Per capita measure, often a good way to get apples to apples comparisons, also can be abused to really skew things. For example, if State A has 10 million residents and 10,000 gun related deaths annually, but 90% of them are concentrated in one city/locality with a population of 500,000 people, then that states per capita gun death rate is greatly skewed by the states overall large population compared to the concentrated [city] population where the bulk of those gun death transpire. In effect the per capita measure is diluted. Conversely, comparing state A to state B which only has 500,000 residents, and experiences 1,000 gun related deaths annually, but they are fairly evenly spread amongst four to five cities/localities, would not have as great of a dilution effect as state A. That is why that map is totally bogus, because it tries to compare gun deaths throughout the entire state of Alaska with that of Illinois, when in fact most gun deaths in Illinois occur in the city of Chicago which itself is more populous than the entire state of Alaska. So the honest measure would be to compare the per capita gun death rate of the state of Alaska with the city of Chicago, and then I think we would see that Chicago with its heavy handed 2A restrictions has a much higher per capita gun death rate than the entire state of Alaska.
Also, it doesn't take a genius to figure out states with highly restrictive 2A infringements (California, New York, Illinois, etc.) still have the highest rates of gun crime/deaths if measured by the city where 90% of those crimes occur. This is proof positive that restrictive gun laws in fact don't work.
I'd like to see the map and "analysis" used at the link broken down by county rather than state. I think that would be very telling.