New Years Trivia
Q: What do guitars, pool tables, and baseball bats have in common?
A: They were involved in twice as many non-justifiable homicides in New Hampshire last year as firearms were.
From this list of New Hampshire's 20 homicides of 2008, here are the "weapons of choice" used.
1. Guitar, boot
2. Firearm
3. Sword
4. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
5. Motor vehicle
6. Weapon not specified (blunt object)
7. Firearm
8. Weapon not specified (still under investigation)
9. Firearm (justifiable homicide, self-defense)
10. Pool table
11. Weapon not specified (information not released)
12. Weapon not specified (traumatic injury)
13. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
14. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
15. Weapon not specified (blunt object)
16. Baseball bat
17. Baseball bat
18. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
19. Axe
20. Weapon not specified (multiple left rib fractures)
Compare and Contrast:
Twomurders non-justifiable homicides (10% of all homicides) committed with a gun in the entire state of New Hampshire (population 1.32 million).
In the City of Boston (population approx. 600,000), there were 60 homicides recorded in 2008, 46 of which (77%) were committed with a firearm.
Sure, there are a whole lot of apples and oranges being left out of the equation in this particular round of "My Statistics Can Beat Up Your Statistics" (such as violent, non-incarcerated, repeat offender population), but I'm still not seeing anything to justify Mumbles Menino's incessant calls to make his city the national model for legislation and policies that he claims have helped to prevent gun-related violence.
Anyone in this day and age who still thinks that strict gun control laws do anything to prevent drug-fueled, gang-related violence in the inner cities of America is a moron.
UPDATE: Like clockwork, a representative from the John Rosenthal Fan Club showed up in the comment section to criticize my "distorted facts and statistics" by posting some of his own.
And, to those of you who haven't figured it out by now, this post was not intended to be taken as a serious statistical analysis, by any stretch of the imagination. I assumed that would have been obvious to even the most casual of readers.
It's apparent some of the folks commenting did so without reading the post through to the end.
A: They were involved in twice as many non-justifiable homicides in New Hampshire last year as firearms were.
From this list of New Hampshire's 20 homicides of 2008, here are the "weapons of choice" used.
1. Guitar, boot
2. Firearm
3. Sword
4. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
5. Motor vehicle
6. Weapon not specified (blunt object)
7. Firearm
8. Weapon not specified (still under investigation)
9. Firearm (justifiable homicide, self-defense)
10. Pool table
11. Weapon not specified (information not released)
12. Weapon not specified (traumatic injury)
13. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
14. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
15. Weapon not specified (blunt object)
16. Baseball bat
17. Baseball bat
18. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
19. Axe
20. Weapon not specified (multiple left rib fractures)
Compare and Contrast:
Two
In the City of Boston (population approx. 600,000), there were 60 homicides recorded in 2008, 46 of which (77%) were committed with a firearm.
Gun Homicide Rates per 100,000 residents:
New Hampshire = 0.15
Boston = 7.7
Sure, there are a whole lot of apples and oranges being left out of the equation in this particular round of "My Statistics Can Beat Up Your Statistics" (such as violent, non-incarcerated, repeat offender population), but I'm still not seeing anything to justify Mumbles Menino's incessant calls to make his city the national model for legislation and policies that he claims have helped to prevent gun-related violence.
Anyone in this day and age who still thinks that strict gun control laws do anything to prevent drug-fueled, gang-related violence in the inner cities of America is a moron.
UPDATE: Like clockwork, a representative from the John Rosenthal Fan Club showed up in the comment section to criticize my "distorted facts and statistics" by posting some of his own.
And, to those of you who haven't figured it out by now, this post was not intended to be taken as a serious statistical analysis, by any stretch of the imagination. I assumed that would have been obvious to even the most casual of readers.
It's apparent some of the folks commenting did so without reading the post through to the end.
