Today I'll do it a different way: I'll MULTIPLY one by the other, on the assumption that if the theory is correct, one figure gets lower and the other gets higher, so the line should be reasonably even, even if it might be angled (I'm sure a statistician can put me right, but at least I'm trying). Here's the data:
... and here's the graph (in block form):
The last 5 on the right leap out of the trend. My explanation is that higher rates of gun murders are more a function of lack of social cohesion and weak official control. What's yours?
8 comments:
Perhaps the South Africans are just much better shots?
what's with Thailand ?
(pardon my ignorance)
& where's Russia ?
I was only correlating the evidence I could find in those two places, hence omission of Russia and others.
A brief glance round the internet suggets that Thailand is indeed a violent place, though how much of that is down to Communist insurgents I don't know.
Sorry, I'm out of date, that would be Islamic insurgents now, in the South.
By all accounts, Thailand is quite violent, especially in Bangkok.
You would probably get a better model by dividing the gun death rate by the gun ownership rate.
@Paddington 15:46 - I did the inverse of that on Monday, would that be completely wrong?
You would get the reciprocal. What I suggested would approximate the deaths per gun.
Post a Comment