categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

keeping score on their irrelevance

Speaking of graphics, it would appear as though the hoplophobic "gun control" extremists at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership has released another one of their yearly "scorecards"*. What does that have to do with pretty pictures? Not a darned thing, but Barron’s analysis of that scorecard generated some nice graphs that I am going to steal, along with their explanations, below:

Here is the straight comparison of the score versus the violent crimes per 100k.

bradycorrelation1

R2 dropped again to a value of 0.0016 and the correlation was calculated out to be 0.040117, while it did increase by 0.01, it is still completely insignificant and indicates there is no correlation between the Brady Score and violent crime. Moving forward though lets just limit this to the top 10 Brady Scores.

bradycorrelation2

Again the correlation is non-existent with it coming in at –0.047. Anything that could be indicated by the trend line is irrelevant due to the very low correlation.

bradycorrelation3

All scores above 50 had a correlation of 0.78 while the sample size renders it truthfully statistically irrelevant, it is trending in the direction opposite to which the Brady Campaign would claim. Next up though is all those with low murder rates.

bradycorrelation4

There are 20 states who’s violent crime rate is below 300 per 100k. The average Brady Score is 11.85. Only three states have a score above 20, and those with crime rates below 200, the lowest in the country, all have scores below 10.

The short story, for the statistically-challenged, is that the Brady Campaign’s "scorecard" is completely meaningless. There is absolutely no correlation between the wholly arbitrary and fabricated "Brady Score" and a state’s violent crime rate, indicating that there cannot be any causality either (remember: correlation does not mean causation, but causation cannot exist without correlation). Amusingly, you only find meaningful correlation when you limit the sample size to the six states with scores above 50, and then those states with higher scores actually end up having higher violent crime rates (though a sample size of six is far too small to have any statistical significance).

Given that the specious "Brady Score" is entirely based on whether or not a state has passed the current authoritarians’-wet-dream laws that the Brady Bunch are currently salivating after, it likewise follows that those laws have absolutely no guarantee of having any salutary impact on violent crime.

So why pass them? As the saying goes, "gun control" was never about the guns; it was always about the control.

Speaking of geopolitical bodies with high scores, one omission from this "scorecard" has likewise been omitted from every single "scorecard" before it, and this glaring empty spot has always amused me, given the situation – where is Washington D.C.? After all, their laws are almost the very embodiment of what the Brady Bunch wants to force on the rest of the country, and yet they are invariably, mysteriously absent. Granted, D.C. is not, strictly speaking, a "state", but when have anti-rights cultists ever troubled themselves with anything as trifling as "definitions"? Something tells me, in this particular case, they are far more motivated by the fact that the small boost in scores would be over-counter-balanced by the absurd increase in violent crime, and the potential that a correlation they would not like at all might develop…

And even better than all of this, Barron discovered something of an Easter Egg when he was comparing the 2010 Brady "scorecard" against the 2011 edition, but you will have to head over to his place for the full story on that one.

As with all the previous "scorecards", this one embodies nothing more than the Brady Campaign desperately clawing and scratching for anything even approximating "relevance", while, all the while, they destroy any credibility they might have had. If they were not so rabidly trying to destroy my individual rights, I might almost feel sorry for them…

(* – On a purely subjective point, speaking personally, I would be ashamed to publicly release an Excel spreadsheet that ugly. Their formatting is inconsistent, the border lines randomly vary as to whether or not they exist and their thicknesses, sometimes they put "0" and sometimes they leave a cell blank, and the whole thing rather looks like a high school jock threw it together in the last five minutes before class just so he could avoid getting a 0 for the assignment. Considering that this is an official product of the only remaining "gun control" extremist organization with any actual membership or money, this, indeed, shows the dire straits their movement is in.)

10 comments to keeping score on their irrelevance

  • SGB

    Like you, I wouldn’t release anything as poorly put together as their stats.

  • MAJ Mike

    Because they live in a Lib-Cong bubble, they believe any made up stat that they see. The made up stats fit their narrative. The narrative quotes the made up stats. One of my former bosses would’ve called this a “self-eating watermelon”, i.e. something that feeds off of itself.

    We poor, ignorant, uncool firearms owners only have the Second Amendment to support us. We don’t have the luxury of posting made up stats and the assistance of a willingly blind CriminalLiberalNewsMedia to carry our narrative.

  • @ SGB: Seriously. I really have to wonder if the people who are funding the Brady Campaign are happy with the return on the investment they made, considering that I can make better spreadsheets for free.

    @ MAJ Mike: The Navy referred to it as a self-licking ice cream cone, but, yeah, same general idea :).

    Thankfully, the anti-rights cultists cannot control the message any more, they cannot stop the signal, and the signal goes everywhere. Must suck for them :).

  • RKV

    Barron screwed up. That’s what I said. He grossly overstated the crime rate in the state with the highest Brady rating – the People’s Republik of Kalyfornia. FBI UCR data for 2010 indicates rate per 100000 is 441. The chart in his article has it clearly over 500. What else in this analysis has he messed up? It gives me no pleasure to point this out, and it does our efforts no good to be careless. Reply with an email address and I’ll forward you the screen shots.

  • @ RKV:

    I would have appreciated a comment on my site. I did screw up, I grabbed the wrong spread sheet to start off with and ended up using the 2006 census data when I thought I was using the 2010 UCS.

    I just placed an update on the post until I can do the numbers again tonight with 2010 UCS data.

    As I said over at the end of my update:

    1) I screwed up, and I used the wrong data set for these graphs.
    2) To many this could be considered misleading and attempting to hide the truth which impacts our credibility.
    3) Tonight I will fix all the graphs affected within this post overwriting the current images to be correct with the 2010 UCS. I will create a new post with this information as well and include a link to the spreadsheet used.

  • RKV

    I did send you a comment at your site. Check your own site Barron. I did try to keep this in house as it were. I’m a pretty reasonable guy. I just know the data well enough to spot the particular issue with one state and then follow up. I do appreciate you doing this work.

  • @ RKV:
    I have no comments pertaining to an error in the data. I went through the Disqus panel looking for Pending, Spam, and Active, nothing. Did you bump me an email through the contact me? Since I’ve moved hosting providers I’ve discovered the spam filtering at times is over the top.

    The only comment I got that could be related to you says nothing about the error.

    *Don’t think I’m mad at you, I just hate discovering a problem through someone else.

  • @ RKV: Barron made an error – he transposed numbers from an older report rather than a current one.

    There was no attempt at subterfuge on his part, and honest errors do arise when one is mucking about with that many numbers in such close proximity – I myself had a similar error in my first “Graphics Matter” run.

    Your phrasing and presentation could use some work, but the correction in general is appreciated. It is only through such public discussion and oversight that our information is honed, and it is this public nature that makes our calculations and data superior to that of those who would deprive us of our rights.

  • Thanks for the update, Barron – mistakes happen; it is how one handles them that makes all the difference.