In previous installments, we’ve examined what we call The Chicago Gambit, which is cherry picking statistics to make the case that stricter gun laws cause a rise in crime, as well as its counterpart, which we call The D.C. Gambit — which is cherry picking data to argue that looser gun laws cause a drop in crime. Now let’s look at a tactic that allows the gun propagandist to do both simultaneously.
3: The Comparison Gambit
Chances are at some point you’ve seen an Internet meme like this one:
Since (as the perpetrators of this propaganda would have you believe) there are no major differences between Chicago and Houston besides climate and gun policy, then the latter must be responsible for the difference in crime.
First of all, the figures listed in this chart aren’t exactly accurate. In fact, some of them are way off. Most glaringly, Chicago experienced about 500 homicides in 2012, not 806. By the way, the figures listed in the table vary considerably from version to version of this meme, as if those circulating it just alter them willy-nilly without bothering with even a modicum of research. One version slyly inserts a 1 before the 806, making 1806 homicides in all!
But as incredible as it may sound, statistical inaccuracy is not the main problem of this and other items like it. The main problem is false equivalence. Even if we take the “facts” listed at face value, there are some stark problems.
First, there is a substantial difference in population between these two cities — Chicago has about 25 percent more residents. And those are just the people living within the city limits. Both cities are part of sprawling metropolitan communities that don’t end where city boundaries do. The population of Houston and environs is 5.6 million, while that of Chicagoland is about 10 million — almost double. Furthermore, the Houston metropolitan area is more centrally placed in the state, and surrounded by more sparsely populated communities. Chicagoland is the heart of an urban sprawl extending into 3 states, with great variation in gun policy — including deep-red, gun-totin’ Indiana.
There is, in other words, a big difference in population density. Chicago’s, at about 11,800 inhabitants per square mile, is more than 3 times that of Houston’s at some 3500 per square mile. Could this be a contributing factor? Quite possibly.
And even the above table acknowledges that there are variations in ethnic composition. Chicago, for instance, is listed as 38.9 percent African-American, as opposed to 24 percent for Houston. Does this suggest that blacks are more violent? Not so fast: Chicago is also listed as 38.7 percent Caucasian, as opposed to Houston’s 26 percent. And it also doesn’t do much for gun culture visions of ethnic superiority that the supposedly much safer Houston has a larger percentage of Hispanics. Still, it’s possible that ethnicity — perhaps in conjunction with other factors — does indeed contribute somehow.
The meme even mentions, albeit facetiously, that climate could play a role. No, there’s no reason to believe that cold weather in itself makes people more violent, but it might make a contribution under certain circumstances. In other words, as far-fetched as it might sound, while cold weather in general does not make people more violent, it might do so in Chicago specifically. At least that possibility can’t be ruled out. And that’s just the point: there are a great many factors, known and unknown, that can’t be ruled out; but those who disseminate this chunk of propaganda focus on only those factors that seem to buttress their cause.
The meme also fails to mention that 2012 was an unusually high year for homicides in Chicago; or that violent crime, as well as crime in general, have been steadily declining in the city. Or that the homicide rate for the past dozen years or so has been substantially lower than it was previously. (The average since 2004 has been around 450 per year.) Or that the 2012 spike in homicides occurred two years after a certain Supreme Court ruling that supposedly restored “constitutional gun rights” to Chicagoans.
The moral of the story is that there is more to life than guns. But as long as we’re playing the comparison game, let’s try two more cities, shall we? How about… oh, Boston and New Orleans.
New Orleans has about 380,000 people, while Boston has about 650,000. That’s a difference of about 70 percent. So, all else being equal, we’d expect Boston to have about 70 percent more homicides and 70 percent more crime than New Orleans, right?
But of course, all is not equal. Massachusetts has very strict gun laws, and Louisiana has very lax gun laws. So then if the “more guns, less crime” folks are correct, then Boston should have way, way more violence, right? But that’s, er, not quite how things are.
New Orleans has the seventh highest homicide rate in the nation, with a homicide rate last year of 42.7, compared to Boston’s 6.1. In 2014, Boston’s overall violent crime rate was 725.7, compared to 973.9 in New Orleans. The property crime rate for Boston was 2,638.9 with a burglary rate of 409.5; for New Orleans these figures were 4,231.8 and 893.3.
You can cherry pick statistics to “prove” just about anything. But to get a more accurate picture of an overall trend, you need to examine as broad a spectrum as possible. Comparing a large number of cities is more reliable than comparing just two, and comparing states is more reliable still. And when you d0 a comprehensive comparison of gun laws with gun deaths across the states, you see that stricter gun laws clearly correspond to fewer gun deaths. That doesn’t prove that “gun control” works, but it goes a long way toward discrediting the contrary belief.
Pretty ballsy of anyone who deliberately changes data in order to obtain their own desired results.
I think that most experts recognize the methodological and statistical complexity of this problem and can only say with certainty that statistical variables regarding gun use, vary way, way too much to yield accurate or reliable conclusions. But as you say–there are many instances in which less strict gun regulations corresponds with more gun crimes, or in which more homicides occur, in areas with looser gun laws. So at any rate, our current knowledge shouldn’t be used to give gun owners and the NRA a free pass.
In today’s political environment, there are constant attempts to put spins on, or to deliberately skew results in favor of those who want conceal and carry laws, or in favor of those who want to eliminate gun free zone. So, one can only assume that this problem is perpetuated by gun advocates who think zero gun regulations are good for business, and who want to benefit financially from more easily maintained corporate bottom lines. It certainly doesn’t come from most gun owners in America, most of whom support implementing some sort of extra gun regulations.
I forget the exact statistics concerning the power of the NRA, but that organization has only about 4 million gun owning members in it, while the number of gun owners who support tougher gun laws, is much, much greater! So there are more than enough reasons to think this issue turns on money, not on human lives or personal safety!
Thanks again, POP!
One thing is sure, it’s a complex problem. If it was simple, it wouldn’t be a problem. (I would hope). I have an interesting article I need to dig up that lends some insight into the subject.
You made some good observations. I think when examining these types of statistics we need to understand that it’s easy to jump to conclusions. Law abiding gun ownership clearly does impact crime within populations, but to which extent, depends very much on the culture within the population. So one could start analysis by trying to understand the “Gun Culture.” While I don’t agree that a population with strict gun control is in any way safer than a population with little gun control, I do agree that politics is best left out of good analysis, if we want to truly understand this phenomena.
Many people who have studied this problem and who have gathered data on it, realize that it is virtually impossible to conduct a study comparing different groups of gun owners in different areas with exactly the same variables being present in each case, or even in only two of them.
I also could not really say if gun regulations can directly reduce gun crimes beyond any doubts, but I wouldn’t say they absolutely can’t either. My feeling is that government can, does, and should play a vital role in protecting the public from crazy people with guns. In that sense, whatever we can do to keep at least some guns out of the hands of even one potential mass shooters, is the most ethical and the correct goal for us to pursue.
Very well said. But I think the flaw in your conclusion is that Government can prevent violent acts. To say the government could prevent any type of crime is a fallacy that would place a unrealistic expectation on the government systems. Ask any police officer what can be done to stop crime? They will tell you it begins in the home, with the family and community. We cannot take a strategic approach to ending crime without turning into a police state. It’s up to the families and communities to create a healthy sustainable culture and ensure the members within society get the healthcare they need.
Actually I never said that the government could prevent all types of violence or all types of crimes. Of course it all starts at home, and depends largely on the environment one lives in. But as for me, I am happy we have a police force, local, State and Federal governments ,which can all play a role in reducing crime and reducing violence. I think without any policing of neighborhoods and with no court systems, we would all find out pretty quickly that this kind of society would be saturated with many more crimes, violent or otherwise.
What I believe is that it’s a proper role for the government to help protect the public from risky and potentially dangerous products and situations, one of which is the relative ease with which guns can be purchased by people who shouldn’t have them. We don’t need all kinds of poisons in our medicine cabinets that expose young children to unnecessary harm, and we need to keep dynamite and other explosives out of the hands of those who don’t know how to use them, or from being used by people who plot violence against the government and the public. The same goes for 100 round barrel magazines, body armor, and rapidly firing weapons. Does the average guy really need all of that?
Personally, I have no doubt that my home environment instilled some very practical and ethical values in me that may have prevented me from harming myself or others, but the fact is, that even good parents are not always guaranteed the blessing of having ethical children–no matter how well they may parent. What we need from government and the police is to keep us safe from those people who are already prone to violence, or who may become that way in the future. It’s obviously just another fantasy to think that good upbringing, good schooling, etc. can solve all our social problems, just as allowing us all to be armed to the teeth wouldn’t either. I think we have an obvious need to form governments which can reasonably watch over citizens, and which allow citizens to elect or fire those office holders who are just in it for themselves.
Its true that we humans are not all bad, and that we don’t need to be submit with complete obedience to any government, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some very good reasons that the government can be, and is, a big part of, at least a partial, solution. You may disagree but I am convinced (as the saying goes), that we ARE our brothers keepers, and that is also the proper role of government—to get out of the way when not needed, but ready to step in whenever it can provide real help for others. And I think that is frequently the case.
You made a good point about elected leadership. Due to the complex nature of the election process in the US, it’s difficult to elect middle grounded leadership. So we tend to have leadership that is polar opposite, and every administration comes in and tears up the landscape and reforms many programs etc. I don’t believe this is doing Americans any favors. And in knowing our leadership is stratified by polar opposite perspectives and in many ways fundamentally extreme, it further supports a need for citizens to avoid relying on government to protect us. I’ve worked in many other nations that suffer from high rates of violent crime and corruption. I’ve spent time in some of the most hostile environments on the planet, during periods of total government collapse, and one thing you wont see is government helping people. It’s usually a multi-national organization, religious group, and any manner of NGO out there shipping water trucks, , food, and shelter. In my work mapping Human networks, and agricultural resources for civil and agricultural projects, I have come to realize the general lack of understanding most governments have over resources within their domain. The amount of support from NGO’s is seldom quantified, but I can tell you NGO’s bring a huge amount of resources to the table that the government has little to do with in the US. If we could map all of the resources, including the military and police coverage in America, we would discover that citizens need to maintain as much independence as possible from the resources we so often take for granted. Many of the systems in place to safeguard us and protect us have been heavily influenced by the capitalist system, which creates great disparities between urban areas and rural areas in the US. We are currently focusing financial support to communities based on urbanized areas, which are calculated by population density. Unfortunately our methods for identifying and funneling resources are just really antiquated. I believe we should never be anyone’s “keeper,” but would choose the term neighbor instead. Neighbors help each other within the boundaries of mutual sovereignty. I know everyone has a view on what is neighborly and what is not, but a healthy sustainable community can never rely on the central government to look out for their health and safety. (Flint is a good example) We should also avoid building too many tall fences in our communities, because we are truly each others FIRST & LAST line of defense. And the disconnect within families and communities, can lead to many of the problems leading to violent crime and acts of terror that we had initially discussed. One common thing I noticed while working in numerous countries abroad, was the lack of a sense of community and organization led to the collapse of infrastructure within the populations. Many of these nations have strict gun control law imposed by the central governments. The law abiding folks living in the peripheral areas become predated by organized crime. And the government can seldom do anything about it in a timely manner that prevents these groups from establishing a stronghold. We struggle with this in our own communities here in America on a much smaller level. One of my good colleagues who has a career supporting US Agriculture, has written a fantastic article that discusses some of the challenges of identifying populations in need. I myself have conducted a good amount of scientific analysis doing the same at a much higher resolution. So approaching these problems with a solution that involves prohibiting the use of “dangerous” products by law abiding citizens is really just a poorly thought-out band aid, that will lead to further systemic violent crime and criminal predation. I completely disagree in entertaining the possibility of banning safety equipment such as ballistic vets (body armor). I do agree that machine guns should require a permit as they do in the US. I disagree with banning high capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons. Currently in the US you have to be screened and licensed to own a machine gun, and you have to have a BATFE FBI NICs check to be transferred a firearm. Setting “straw purchases” aside due to the illegal nature of the act, this keeps guns out of the hands of individuals who have committed crimes in the past. Beyond this point, it’s up to the law abiding gun owners to ensure their family members do not have access and if stolen should be reported within a reasonable period of time to law enforcement. The fallacy that you can go to a gun show and purchase a firearm without a NICs check is completely untrue. With the existing laws in place it really falls back on the gun owner to ensure safe storage and use of the firearms. I don’t see any need for additional laws, other than possibly punishing criminals more for violent crimes, and ensuring they get the education they need while incarcerated so they can coexist in society with the rest of the law abiding population when they get out. Just some of my thoughts.
Firstly, I think the government is set up to work best with the presence of compromise, and that much of the current impotency in our legislatures is due to Republicans who are seeking absolute control. Democrats also seek power in similar ways, but objectively speaking most of this is on the GOP. Even in our polarized system today, as long as voters have access to real information, they will have the chance to elect those who are moderate, or at least might compromise, when too much is at stake due to rigid partisan extremes. And in contrasts to the unstable or Autocratic governments which care little for their people, I strongly doubt that we are on the road to ruin and thus, can only rely on ourselves and our guns. Extreme politics aside, any President who wants despotic power would most likely be impeached before even one year in office. I’m not saying we are completely immune from corruption—obviously not. But our system is better equipped to prevent a massive collapse of our civil laws and society.
I want to make it clear that I do believe that ordinary citizens who satisfy reasonable requirements, (like having no record of criminal felonies, or of mental illnesses) should not be stripped of the right to own weapons for self-defense But I do believe that things like Body armor, and 100 round magazines, are just not required for the average person to protect him or her self. If we continue to insist on having more and more defensive firepower just to keep us safe during ever more perilous scenarios, we will eventually rationalize the ownership of Machine guns again, plus hand held Rocket launchers, tanks, or perhaps would permit explosive mines on our property–thinking that trespassing neighborhood children are at fault when they’re blown up after ignoring our no trespassing signs. This may sound severe, but my point that we have to draw the line somewhere, or else we could justify the acquisition of so many weapons that we would likely make our world more dangerous, not less so.
Another thing is that we do not always have crippling civil emergencies, at least not with enough severity to bring down the government—local, State or Federal. What you seem to be worried about what are various wild west types of scenarios, not our present state of relative stability.
To me it always seems that those obsessed with needing to defend themselves from the government often have pretty and irrational fears, about our neighbors and our friends under a democracy built on laws. It seems that you are advocating anarchy, and are not very justified in doing so.
Then there is the fact that if we have heavy defensive capabilities like body armor, tons of ammunition and perhaps even armor piercing shells, your very belief that human nature involves threatening others in unjust ways, would seem to be emboldened by our selfish desires to use destructive weapons for our own selfish and power hungry natures? So wouldn’t extreme firepower, in the long run, make matters worse? To me it seems that a more feasible consequence of making weapons of all kinds more available, would actually help create our needs to fight for survival against our neighbors. Again, I think you are using very different social systems to justify your scenarios. And as far as semi-automatic weapons go, I have heard the soundtracks of shots being fired at Columbine, New town and other notorious mass shootings, and the rate that round are being fired in such mass shootings sounds greater than one round per second. But whatever the exact frequency, its sounds like all Hell broke loose at the hands of one madman with a gun. PBS has several excellent documentaries about guns, mass shootings, and the power of the NRA. And didn’t you consider that the relief efforts of charitable organizations are largely enabled to provide their help due to governments that recognize such needs—in other words, I have never heard of a compassionate government entity which frowns on such efforts–except of course in those nations run B Despots and military Juntas. Or perhaps by fanatic pseudo religious organizations like Al Quada and ISIS.
At the present time, almost all of us know that something is wrong, but how does that justify totally condemning the government or thinking that it is a useless convenience of civilization? As I said, you may have a point about letting government get to big, or too powerful, but we are far from the verge of civil collapse, and even if we eventually become such a more dangerous society, that does not logically imply that all of those problems are blamable on the failure of Democratic political systems or the banning of 100 round ammunition magazines. There’s prudent measures and then there is political overkill. Neither of these implies that our Democratic governments are solely at fault if we descend into chaos after the San Andrea’s fault tosses California into the Pacific Ocean, or if North Korea launches a nuke at America. However, in those cases it won’t matter how much body armor we wear or how many rounds we can squeeze off per minute with our semi-automatic weapons. Even without those kinds of catastrophic events, body Armour and semi-automatic weapons will matter very little, as ways to prevent violence anyway!
I respect your feelings but I respectfully disagree with them.
I used to work a threat analyst for the dod. Your assessment of probable threats to national security are very limited. Don’t take this as an insult, I’m sure your experience with real world threats is limited. As far as blaming the GOP for the woes of political polarization, is very short sighted and biased. I believe it’s apparent now that you do not seek the truth but rather choose to take sides. I understand the luster of acceptance, but the mess we are in will only be resolved by moderate thinking. It’s been a pleasure to be part of the conversation. I will depart in hopes that this dynamic strikes an eager want in those who read this to dig deep and seek the truth by their own logic, and speak with their own voices.
About your previous comments,
There are just two points I would like to make. First, the old “both sides do it,” is no longer applicable to the Republican power grabs in Congress. From refusing to raise the debt ceiling (twice) to shutting down the government, The GOP has signaled no willingness at all to even begin to compromise. Some of the old guard, like John Boehner, and the newer young guard, like Paul Ryan, recognize that the obstruction at the hands of their own party is sending the democratic process straight to Hell in a hand basket, but can do nothing to stop their Tea Party Constituents from forcing endless and detrimental power trips intended to gain control of Congress and ignore many of the Democratic principles we live under.
You must know that, most Republicans in the House and Senate have willingly signed the Norquist pledge which in essence asserts way before the fact, that any bills designed to raise taxes, will not even be considered for a vote. Therefore, the GOP has done essentially nothing to revive any apparently antiquated practices like legislative give and take. However, many Democrats on the far left, are not so arbitrarily required to vote in accordance with extreme partisan loyalties, and are not bound to obey similar partisan oaths. There is also little reason to doubt that members of the old guard, like Boehner and McConnell have been effectively rendered impotent, and could do little to contain the damage being done by Tea Party green horns who tried to became ever more ruthlessly empowered—especially after overseeing the obstruction of moderate court Justices, and by planning to appoint clearly conservative Justices instead—apparently in order to establish nearly unlimited financial and political power that is now easily available for use by large corporations which have magically attained the same rights as individual people? Out of necessity Democrats have also been forced to establish Super Pacs for their own support—something Citizens United has granted politicians the use of in order to fund massive campaign expenses, under the premise that super Pacs possess the same legal rights and status as real human beings? If you don’t believe the partisan motivations involved, just honestly ask yourself how many members of Congress (either Democrats or Republicans) are currently and actively engaged in the efforts to overturn Citizen’s United?
Probably Like you, I don’t have all the answers. But republicans have made it clear that whatever happens to the economy or the military, Obama is to blame. Obama is also to blame for all abortions, the stock market’s crash, the size of the national debt, the next tornado in Pennsylvania, the terrific droughts happening all over the world and even for listening to climate scientist who have tried their best to break through the BS, just to properly inform us about this problem for many decades? Obama is also blamed for Benghazi, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and for the Muslim faith itself. In fact, you name it! Obama is probably to blame for it somehow.
Any political propaganda through which Republicans have been overseeing the public flogging and virtual political imprisonment of a good president like Obama, represents hopelessly corrupt and insidious abuses of political power—but no—not shared equally by Democrats and Republicans! I sincerely wish the facts suggested otherwise—but they don’t!
Another thing I’d like to question, is your belief that, because you managed crisis situations while working for the DOD, this fact automatically means your understanding of the threats to our political system are the only realistic and/or true viewpoint to have. In response, I would ask you to reflect on whether all of your colleges were in complete agreement with you. And if all of their work was completely backed up by proven and objective facts. In the absence of such certitude, does that really qualify you or them, to claim having superior knowledge about the 2nd amendment–without thinking you represent the only game in town? and—specifically concerning what gun regulations are needed, and which ones are not?
It’s always frustrating to me when I introduce some very valid concerns about gun ownership and gun regulations, such as the question of whether we really need to have a personal arsenal at our disposals or whether some limits to personal access might be the better way to go, and then be put down with the argument that, well you don’t really know what I know and therefore, my views are obviously more accurate and valuable than your own. Whatever you have studied or not, it would seem foolish to base one’s argument on the idea that because many unknowns exist, we should be able to arm ourselves to the teeth in respond to uncertain futures.
The last point I want to make is that we often need a strong federal government to enforce laws or actions which will benefit us all, and which can be better used to secure our safety due to the greater resources at its command. In the civil rights era, black Americans would have gotten nowhere if State governments across the south had been allowed to make anti-segregation accommodations by themselves! We might still see many KKK crosses burnings, bull whippings, and horrific hangings, just because a black man did so much as smile unguardedly at a white woman. And, we might still have segregated restrooms, class rooms, restaurants, buses, and many citizens who might be denied other simple human dignities. So while it’s easy to dream about the freedom to regulate one’s own ethical standards and make better decisions about just about everything for ourselves, sometimes human beings are motivated by hate, fear and social conditioning. The government’s enforcement abilities to implement laws and programs that assure we will all have a just, fair, and more enjoyable life, must sometimes take precedence over more politically self-centered State and/or local governments. On every level there are some assurances that we can best give ourselves, but more likely, there will often be situations in which Federal authorities can provided unquestionably better freedoms and regulate dangerous situations more thoroughly, while our personal opinions cannot adequately ensure constitutional and democratic results!
I first wrote the letter above in my word program and then pasted it here. I didn’t realize that it would be printed in such a long skinny format. There seems to be no more than two words in each line.
I did it this way since a previous comment which I had worked on for a long time, was zapped just before It was ready to post it, and I didn’t want to be left without a copy of the above one in case the same thing happened.
Are there some ways I can alter my comments in my word program to make them show up a bit more horizontally here? Please tell me if there are. The way they’re printed now seems a ridiculous and wasteful use space.
Sorry about that.
I don’t think there’s any problem on your end. The responses in the thread are getting progressively narrower, and I haven’t seen that happen to such an extent in the past. I’ll see if I can adjust my settings to prevent it.
I hope you can adjust to prevent it. Wouldn’t that at least preserve some of the space on this blog?
I see you managed to add some of the line width again.
Thanks a lot! I have changed my email account to the one I sign out with below, but I am having a Hell of a time re-registering for my word-press account. Can you help make sure that my notifications come to my new email?
POP, I wonder if you can help me. I am trying to determine the validity of the following statement, supposedly stated in a speech by Hillary Clinton in 2011 in Colorado at the American Legion Hall.
This is an excerpt from the gun control law published with intent to put into action by the Clinton administration in the event she is elected.
“strictly prohibits the use, ownership, manufacture, or distribution of firearms by any citizen not serving in the military or special sectors of the government “executing official duties.”
I am trying to find out if this is true. I have contacted the American Legion, as well as my state senator to try to get access to her speeches. Thanks in advance.
There is no record of Clinton stating any such thing, and it is quite at odds with what she has said. Furthermore, it could be interpreted to mean that nobody but the military can manufacture guns, which wouldn’t make much sense in the U.S. This passage in fact was lifted from a Wikipedia article describing gun policy in North Korea; it has nothing to do with anything that has been proposed in the U.S.
The rule of thumb is knowing that when any rumor or extreme type of political statement of policy surfaces, and is backed by supposed quotes validating the use of extreme policies, they’re almost always untrue.
The viral spiral, and the articles on websites like Fact Check.org, are rife with claims made by various politicians, which call to mind some sort of (science fiction like) reality, or any incredibly destructive social behaviors extreme persons pursue. And as a rule, the more outrageous it may be, the most deliberately concocted it is.
I’ve seen supermarket scandal rags with headlines next to photos of Hillary Clinton along side of a little green man which read, “Hillary gives birth to Alien baby” (meaning an offspring fathered by a space traveler from another planet). And, considering Clinton’s well known moderate stance on gun regulations and her respect for private citizens who posses handguns for defense, the mythological BS you mentioned is as far removed from reality as Sarah Palin’s assertion that our President wanted to establish “death patrols,” having the power to make granny live of die?
One can almost always, discover just where, how, and when, false information begins spreading via the web. One is often able to refute such claims by simply entering relevant key words, and checking out the websites which Google lists. Usually, one can easily uncovers various deceptions either by consulting Fact Checkers, or using key words to look up weather or not Clinton ever made such extreme statements. Usually they turn out to be as plainly false, as the nose on our faces!
POP, I just wanted to make you aware that today I sent the link to this article via the comment page on CNN. I first tried to use the POP email option, but could not find a workable web address for CNN that allowed me to send it directly to them from your website. So rather than doing that, I sent this article’s address link info to them instead. I also informed them that it is but one in a multi-part series of posts that you have written about 2nd amendment issues and gun regulations. Since they have already interviewed politicians who claim that increasing gun regulations causes more crime, and relaxing them reduces the rate of crime, I though the material in your posts would be interesting to them.
I assume that since you offer options for sharing your posts at their ends, that you would not mind my sharing this one with CNN.
Thanks, appreciate it.
[…] the previous installment, we considered what we have termed The Comparison Gambit, which entails making […]
[…] national trends in crime and gun sales; and the comparison gambit, which juxtaposes cherry-picked cities and […]