Gun maps

Baxter wrote in news:mou5tk$7ln$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

Homicide rates by firearm by state are relatively easy to find. Here is one you may find useful:

Here is another state ranking you might enjoy:

Interesting value system. The states that you are LEAST likely to get shot are rated as the WORST states for gun owners. It's almost as if you nutters really want to shoot somebody.

If you graph that Guns&Ammo ranking against gum murder rates, you will find a correlation of approximately zero.

Bullshit. All the rated "worst" states are the blue states with lower gun death rates. All the "best" states are the red states that lead the nation in gun deaths. More proof that you people like the carnage.

I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. Here's the data, gun murders vs. Guns&Ammo "friendly state" rank

Sources: Gun law rankings are from

Gun murders per 100,000 population (2010)

murders Gun G&A Friendly Arizona 11 01 Vermont 51 02 Alaska 25 03 Utah 46 04 Kentucky 27 05 Wyoming 43 06 Alabama 22 07 Kansas 31 08 Missouri 03 09 New Mexico 15 10 Montana 39 11 Florida 09 12 Georgia 10 13 South Carolina 05 14 Texas 17 15 Indiana 30 16 Louisiana 02 17 Mississippi 08 18 North Dakota 48 19 Pennsylvania 12 20 West Virginia 36 21 Nevada 18 22 Tennessee 13 23 Virginia 19 24 Wisconsin 34 25 North Carolina 20 26 South Dakota 41 27 Oregon 42 28 Maine 45 29 Oklahoma 21 30 Arkansas 16 31 Idaho 44 32 Michigan 07 33 Nebraska 33 34 Ohio 29 35 New York 28 36 Colorado 38 37 Iowa 47 38 Minnesota 40 39 Washington 37 40 Delaware 06 41 Rhode Island 35 42 Illinois 23 43 Maryland 04 44 Connecticut 26 45 California 14 46 Hawaii 49 47 Massachusetts 32 48 New Jersey 24 49 New Hampshire 50 50 D. C. 01 51

Just Wondering wrote in news:55b3e39b$0$4738$ snipped-for-privacy@usenet-news.net:

I entered the "gun friendly" ranking into my spreadsheet and ran it against both the Brady ranking of the states and their homicide ranking (per 100K). In Brady it shows a stronger relationship (although a negative one) than it does to the homicide rankings. Homicide shows 0.13 on a scale of +1.0 to -1.0. The one that is different (and would be expected to be) is the ranking by Brady on gun control of the states. I compared that to the "fun state" ranking and it shows -0.68 on that same scale. Which shows a reverse ranking of gun friendly to Brady which would be expected.

Keep in mind that a positive correlation ranking indicates that as one set of numbers grows, that other one some extent also does. A negative correlation indicates that as one side rises in its rank, the other side drops to some extent.

I did a little spreadsheet work, too. I entered Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population from the Kaiser Family Foundation

The correlation between gun deaths per 100K and G&A ranking is -0.65 (a higher ranking means a lower number; this can be converted to a positive correlation by multiplying the ranking by -1, so that a higher ranking is a higher number). The correlation between gun deaths per 100K and the G&A right-to-carry score is 0.61. The correlation between gun deaths per 100K and the state's NFA score is 0.69.

There is, as expected, a high correlation between a state's G&A ranking and its gun death rate.

Rudy Canoza wrote in news:mp3dq7$8pe$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Then yous should basically match mine.

Hmmmm, my correlation factor formula goes from 1.0 to -1.0. The closer it is to 1.0 or to -1.0, the stronger the correlation is. The difference in direction is due the direction of the correlation. If one set of data increases and the other also does, the correlation is a positive one. If it goes negative and the other goes positive the correlation is a negative one. IOW, as one factor increases, the other decreses. If they don't develop a trend, then the answer comes out closer to 0.0.

Yep. I said the same thing when my correlation factor came out a 0.68. Rather close to your 0.65 and 0.69, eh?

Rudy Canoza wrote in news:mp3ead$am6$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Yep, particulary at the extremes.