This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**of Gun Violence Least Squares Analysis of the Data
**

3500

Overall Firearm Deaths, y

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0

y = 15.4x - 22.24 r2 = 0.9315 WGL States

y = 7.49x - 3.37 r2 = 0.9199 SGL States

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

**Population of State, x [in 100,000s]
**

Comparison of the Overall Firearms Deaths (in 2010) for the TEN WEAKEST Gun Law (WGL) states (solid red dots) and the TEN STRONGEST Gun Law (SGL) states (light blue diamonds). All of the data for the SGL states, without exception, FALL BELOW the data for the WGL states, at comparable populations; see also the comparison presented in Figure 3 of the text, which uses an expanded scale and considers the states with populations under 10 million (100 one hundred thousands), clustered close to the origin here. Data Source: America Under the Gun, A 50-State Gun Violence Study.

Page | 1

Table of Contents

§ No. Topic Page No.

2 3 6 9 10 11 18 26 1. Summary 2. Introduction 3. Analysis of GPP Overall Firearms deaths data 4. Overall firearm deaths for the WGL and SGL states 5. States with the worst overall gun violence record 6. Brief Discussion and Conclusions 7. Appendix 1: Linear and Nonlinear laws: All 50 States 8. Reference List GPP = Arkadi Berney, Chelsea Parsons, and Charles Posner

§ 1. Summary

A mathematical analysis of the overall firearms-related deaths for the states with the STRONGEST gun laws (SGL states) and the WEAKEST gun laws (WGL states) and the top 10 states with the worst record of gun violence, as outlined in the recent study America Under the Gun, is presented here using a new and simple methodology with avoids the use of a simple y/x ratio analysis with x being the population and y the number of firearms-related deaths. Instead of studying the behavior of the y/x ratio, we investigate the nature of the relation between the population x and the overall firearms deaths y (due to all causes). A remarkably simple and linear relation, of the type y = hx + c where h is the rate of change of gun deaths with increasing population and c, the nonzero intercept, can be thought of as a “work function”, the implications of which have been discussed in a companion article on gun death statistics. A composite x-y graph of the firearms related deaths for the 10 SGL states and the 10 and the WGL states shows that the SGL states have significantly lower gun deaths, at comparable population levels Two noteworthy examples are Connecticut, a SGL state versus the WGL states of Oklahoma, Mississippi, Kentucky, or Massachusetts, a SGL state, with Arizona, a WGL state.

Page | 2

The gun violence data analyzed here was obtained from the above report, see http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/AmericaUnderTheGun.pdf (click here).

§ 2. Introduction

In a recently published study entitled America Under the Gun, see Refs. [1, 2], Arkadi Gerney, Chelsea Parsons, and Charles Rosner (hereafter simply GPP), used ten indicators of gun violence (e.g., overall firearms death in 2010, as in Table 1 here, overall firearms deaths from 2001 through 2010, firearms homicides in 2010, firearms suicides in 2010, and so on) to create an overall ranking for the level of gun violence in each of the 50 US states. The ten states listed in Table 1 were considered to have the highest overall level of gun violence in the US. Only the first of the ten indicators, the overall firearms deaths in 2010, will be examined here.

Page | 3

1) 46.36 Alaska (5. 18.01 Missouri (13.9) 96. gun laws in the country.158 419 14. Mexico (11. 4. [2]. The overall firearms death data for these 20 states is compiled in Tables 2 and 3.01 Data Source: Table 2 on page 13 in Ref. Population.3) 59.800 782 16. In this context. and 4 for the ten indicators. 1. 1. and ten states with the WEAKEST.910 1223 12.Table 1: The Firearms Deaths and Population data for the ten states with Highest Gun Violence Overall Firearms death State Firearms rate. [2]. 2. Adding these numbers gives total ranking points of 50 and therefore an average ranking point of 5.57 Arkansas (13. 2. 1. Carolina (11. The number in the parentheses is the overall average rank.6) 47. Furthermore. y/x (per Deaths.62 Louisiana (5) 45.37 Georgia (13. For example. the state of Louisiana (LA) was ranked 2.000) Page | 4 . y 100.101 144 20. The population x was computed from the values of y and the ratio y/x given by the authors to prepare the x-y graph.000) Alabama (8.253 648 14.898 931 14. GPP also provided a list of ten states which were considered to have the STRONGEST.873 846 14.2) 29.13 N.06 Mississippi (10. This makes LA the state with the worst gun violence record in the nation.669 475 16. x (in 100.4) 29.331 864 19. respectively and was again obtained from the same Table 2 on page 13 of Ref. click here. 15. after reviewing all the ten indicators.588 301 14.4) 20.28 Arizona (10) 63.62 S.2) 7. GPP also created an overall gun violence rank for each state (the average of ranks for the ten indicators) and then correlated this overall rank to the strength of the gun laws in each state. Low numbers mean a bad gun violence record.

Chelsea Parsons.1200 Overall Firearm Deaths. x [in 100. following a simple linear law of the type y = hx + c = h(x – x0) where h is the slope of the line and c is the nonzero intercept made by the line on the vertical axis (y = c when x = 0) and x0 = . on this rather controversial topic. [3] and some recent internet blogs. see also the discussion in the companion article.22. As seen here. The main purpose here is to compare the gun violence data for these three groups of states using simple x-y diagrams such as that illustrated in Figure 1.4x . Ref. [4-6]. Page | 5 . and Charles Rosner (click here).44) r2 = 0.000s] Figure 1: The overall firearms deaths versus population data for the 10 states named as the WEAKEST gun law states in the recent 50-State Gun Violence study by Arkadi Gerney. y 1000 LA 800 AZ y = hx + c = h(x – x0) = 15.9315 600 400 200 VT 0 0 10 20 30 10 Weakest Gun Law States 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Population of State.4(x – 1.24 = 15. the number of firearms-related deaths y (plotted on the vertical axis) increases as the population of the state x (plotted on the horizontal axis) increases. Refs.c/h is the intercept made by the line on the horizontal axis (x = x0) when y = 0.

403x – 22.393 555 12.000) Arizona (AZ) 63.19 Wyoming (WY) 5. with x being the taxable income.669 475 16. [7.331 864 19.32 2 The best-fit equation y = 15.Table 2: The Firearms Deaths and Population data for the ten states with the WEAKEST Gun Laws Overall Firearms death State Firearms rate.143 75 9. y 100.34 Mississippi (MS) 29.544 300 10. Some points fall above the line and some fall below the line.898 931 14. The intercept c depends on the tax bracket (the range of income levels x) and also keeps changing (becomes more negative) as incomes increase.57 Louisiana (LA) 45.21 Vermont (VT) 6. The population x was computed from the values of y and y/x to prepare the x-y graphs here.4x – 22.891 164 16.24 = 15. Page | 6 .79 Oklahoma (OK) 37. The slope h of the line is the marginal tax rate and is constant for a range of income levels x and keeps increasing. The US tax code is actually a series of straight lines with the general equation y = hx + c. y the tax owed.4 (x – 1.9315. 8].06 Kentucky (KY) 43.637 92 16.58 South Dakota (SD) 8.000) § 3.51 Montana (MT) 9. click here. see Refs. y/x (per Deaths. x (in 100.01 Kansas (KS) 28. In other words. there are small statistical “fluctuations” as we move up and down the line with increasing population x. Population.517 538 14. see discussion in articles listed under bibliography in Ref.44). [2].9315 Data Source: Table 2 on page 13 in Ref.24 with a linear regression coefficient r2 = 0. r = 0. The fixed slope h encountered here is like the marginal tax rate in tax law. Analysis of the GPP Overall Firearms Deaths Data The best-fit line through the firearms deaths data for the Weakest Gun Law (WGL) states has the equation y = hx + c = 15.256 70 11.

37 = 7. We see a similar constant rate of increase h in firearms death with increasing population x. we can compare the fixed slope to the fixed rate of fuel consumption of a vehicle. If the speed v is fixed. Or. of a moving vehicle. or the space covered. v. the additional distance traveled. we can compare the fixed slope h to the fixed speed. Or. here the fixed slope h in Figure 1 and Figure 2 (for the 10 Strongest Gun Law states) tells us that.45) r2 = 0. statistically speaking. The fuel economy MPG or KPL = ∆y/∆x. always increases by the same fixed amount ∆s = v∆t in each additional time interval ∆t.49x . when the population Page | 7 .[9] and in Ref.9199 RI 300 400 500 Population of State. or velocity. y 10 Strongest Gun Law States 3000 CA 2500 2000 1500 MI 1000 IL NY L 200 HI 500 0 0 100 y = 7.3. where ∆y is the additional distance (miles or kilometers) traveled with the additional fuel consumption (gallons or liters) ∆x. Likewise.5(x – 0. 3500 Overall Firearm Deaths.000s] Figure 2: The overall firearms deaths versus population data for the 10 states named as the STRONGEST Gun Law (SGL) states. x [in 100. [10] (click here).

32 Hawaii (HI) 43.678 1011 5. The y/x ratio works against the larger states like Arizona. The Louisiana (LA) data falls significantly above the best-fit line in Figure 1.24/x) is high for small populations (see SD in Table 2) and increases as the population increases (thus AZ > SD in Table 2).534 270 4. x (in 100. click here. the number of firearms-related deaths always increases by the same fixed amount ∆y = h∆x. Likewise.29 Michigan (MI) 98.(22.726 209 5. The population x was computed from the values of y and the ratio y/x given by the authors to prepare the x-y graph.79 Connecticut (CT) 35. r = 0.increases by a fixed amount ∆x.4 .725 538 9.393 555 12.89 New Jersey (NJ) 87.492x – 3. Because of the negative intercept c.85 Rhode Island (RI) 10. which is taken to be the ratio y/x = 15.37 = 7.9199 Data Source: Table 2 on page 13 in Ref.806 1076 10. see also Fact Sheets in Refs.000) California (CA) 372.88 New York (NY) 193.861 456 5. y/x (per Deaths. Table 3: The Firearms Deaths and Population data for the ten states with the STRONGEST Gun Laws Overall Firearms death State Firearms rate. [2]. which are perceived to have a higher than average firearms death rate compared to the states like Vermont with smaller populations.515 49 4.000) Page | 8 . 2].19 Massachusetts (MA) 65. among the SGL states. y 100.347 1064 8.45).12 Maryland (MD) 57.22 Illinois (IL) 128.5 (x – 0.66 2 The best-fit equation y = 7. Population. the firearms death rate. the overall firearms death rate is lower for the smaller states like Rhode Island (RI) compared to the larger states like CA. [1.462 2935 7.

[1. This is illustrated in Figure 3. all the 10 WGL states (red dots) and 6 of 10 SGL states (diamonds) appear in this plot. FALL BELOW the red dots at comparable populations. Hence. 1200 Overall Firearm Deaths. the effectiveness of the various measures (see Refs. NY. Only states with populations under 10 million (or 100 one hundred thousands) are included here. The three largest of the SGL states (CA. the data for all of the SGL states.000s] Figure 3: Comparison of the overall firearms deaths versus population for the 10 states named as the WEAKEST Gun Law (WGL) states with the data for SGL states. indicating. Overall Firearms Deaths for WGL and SGL States The x-y gun deaths-population diagrams also permit a direct comparison of the record of the states with the Weakest Gun Laws (WGL) and the Strongest Gun Laws (SGL). IL) with higher populations do not appear in this plot. Notice that in the composite plot of Figure 3. x [in 100. Page | 9 .§ 4. y 1000 800 600 OK MS KY S MD 400 200 KS CT I 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 0 10 20 30 Population of State. reasonably speaking.2]) taken by the SGL states to reduce the effects of gun violence. without exception.

population data for the 10 states with the highest levels of gun violence in 50-State Gun Violence study by Arkadi Gerney.000s] Figure 4: The overall firearms deaths vs. Chelsea Parsons. 1600 Overall Firearm Deaths. States with the Worst Overall Gun Violence Record Finally. states ranked after taking into account all the 10 gun violence indicators) has been plotted in Figure 4. perhaps. y 1400 1200 GA LA AL 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 AK L 20 40 60 80 100 120 Population of State. Page | 10 . x [in 100. the overall firearms deaths data for the 10 states ranked as the worst overall in gun violence (see Table 1.This reduction in the overall firearm deaths as observed here is. and Charles Rosner (click here). § 5. the most visible effect of all these measures to reduce gun violence of all kinds (which is what the overall firearms death indicator implies).

The implications of the varying y/x ratio and the nonzero intercept c is discussed in more detail in a recent article on Gun Death statistics. the best-fit line has the equation y = hx + c = 12. the ratio y/x = 12. Hence.e. As we see here. and also in the companion Page | 11 . Brief Discussion and Conclusions While most of the debate (in the popular media) as well as the scientific analysis (such as the GPP study) of the gun violence data has relied exclusively on the y/x ratios. with a linear regression coefficient r2 = 0. For this new grouping of states. § 6. i. [1. the firearms death rate. no effort seems to have been devoted to an investigation of the nature of the relation between the variables x and y that enter into this ratio. see Ref.1/x) is high for small populations and decreases as the population increases. see Fact Sheet from Refs.935. [3]. which have a higher than average firearms death rate compared to the states with higher populations. the y/x ratio works against the smaller states like Alaska (AK).. The Louisiana (LA) and Alabama (AL) data fall above the best-fit line. Because of the positive intercept c.1.5 + (105. 2].Once again. such as the firearm death rates.499x + 105. we see the same linear law relating the population and the firearm deaths.

Hence. [3].g. with the higher populations. positive intercept. MD has a lower rate than KY. which is usually taken to be the ratio y/x = m = h + (c/x) can either increase or decrease as the population x increases depending on the numerical values of the constants h and c in the linear law. is again biased in favor of the larger states in the group. Both the number of firearms deaths y and the firearms death rate. This nonlinearity in the rate of increase of the firearm deaths with increasing populations. e. reveals the first two of three possibilities. 3. The death rate decreases as the population x increases and the number of deaths also decrease. [3] (which consider two other sources of gun-related deaths data. imply that there must be some nonlinearity because of the changes in the slope h. the firearm death rate.77 million (Kentucky to Maryland). the y/x ratio is now biased in favor of the larger states with huge populations. increase as the population x increases. The firearms death rate. 1. This is due to effect of increasing population x. Type I behavior (h > 0 and c < 0) Positive slope. is found to be decreasing even as the absolute number of firearms deaths y is increasing.article. Type II behavior (h > 0 and c < 0) Positive slope. Hence. This provides a good description of most the data.34 million to 5. the y/x ratio is biased in favor of the smaller states with low populations. Hence. Hence. the firearms death rate (m). as measured by the ratio y/x. a remarkably simple and linear relation. The three simple linear trends described here. as measured by the changing slope dy/dx of the x-y graph is quite obvious if we consider the overall firearms death data for all 50 states. the y/x ratio. see Appendix 1.. All of the data examined here and in Ref. Type III behavior (h < 0 and c > 0) Negative slope. as follows. the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the Wikipedia article). (This is presented separately in Appendix 1 so as not to distract from the main discussion here. measured by the ratio y/x. These constants can be either positive or negative. of the type y = hx + c. positive intercept. This trend is revealed over the population range 4. negative intercept. relates the population x and the number of firearms-related deaths y. Ref. 2. depending on the grouping or aggregation of the gun violence data.) Page | 12 . taken together.

60 4. Whether or not the suicides data is included becomes a moot point.88 3. the exclusive use of y/x ratios to advance one or the other viewpoint. as in the many highly publicized mass murders (where guns and automated assault weapons were involved) that have captured the nation’s and the world’s attention. or self-inflicted violence. since the focus is on the x-y relationship (linear and nonlinear.The x-y diagrams considered here provides some insights into the reasons for the bewildering changes in the y/x ratios observed for different states. Including the firearms suicide data in the overall firearms deaths increases the numerator y of the y/x ratio. as opposed to violence directed at the larger population. however. Also. y 2935 1342 1492 Population. we find the following data for California in the tables provided in the GPP study. MacBradaigh has called attention to the inclusion of the data on firearms related suicides. making the problem seem more urgent and is favored by gun control advocates.462 Death rate. y/x per 100. Breakdown of the overall firearms death for California Category Overall Homicides Suicides Firearms deaths.000 7. Page | 13 .01 As we see here suicides account for a little more than (51%) of the overall firearms-related deaths.462 372. The root cause of this needless digression is. For example. Critiques on the other side of the debate call this “conflation” and entirely irrelevant to the debate. x (in 100. see MacBradaigh in Ref.000s) 372. [4] and the discussion therein. with some reflection. The analysis presented here can rightly be said to avoid this type of a criticism since it relies on a statistical analysis of the nature of the x-y relation that enters into the y/x ratio. Gun control advocates rebut the criticism by pointing out that it is hard to recover from a gunshot wound to one’s own head and the ready availability of firearms is actually an enabler and a legitimate part of the gun control debate. it will be obvious that the methodology used here overcomes some of the legitimate objections raised by gun rights advocates with regard to the “conflating” of the data.462 372.

large or small. With these caveats let us reconsider now the implications of the composite graph for the SGL and WGL states prepared in Figure 3 and expanded in Figure 5 to include the data for all the 20 states.22. 3500 Overall Firearm Deaths. and ∆x. see also the comparison presented in Figure 3.000s] Figure 5: Comparison of the Overall Firearms Deaths (in 2010) for the TEN WEAKEST Gun Law (WGL) states (solid red dots) and the TEN STRONGEST Gun Law (SGL) states (light blue diamonds). which uses an expanded scale and considers the states with populations under 10 million (100 one hundred thousands). The changes in both ∆y. the number of firearm deaths. FALL BELOW the data for the WGL states. at comparable populations.9315 WGL States 1500 1000 500 0 y = 7. the change in the population is considered and states are no longer being compared on the basis of the absolute value of their y/x ratios. All of the data for the SGL states.37 r2 = 0. x [in 100. clustered close to the origin here.4x .24 r2 = 0.see Appendix 1) and the rate of change h = ∆y/∆x.3. Page | 14 . y 3000 2500 2000 y = 15.9199 SGL States 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Population of State. without exception.49x .

34 16.73 one hundred thousands) only had 209 deaths in 2010 as opposed to the states of Kansas (KS) and Mississippi (MS). Mississippi. a WGL state.01 12.725 37. with a population of 3. another WGL state. Take for example the state of Connecticut (CT). Without exception.726 57. as discussed by GPP. Both reported the same number of deaths.32 14. Page | 15 .393 209 538 538 475 555 5.573 million (35. it appears that the effects of a higher population.49 deaths per 100. a WGL state. see also Figure 3. the number of firearms-related death for CT. home for the Newtown elementary school killings that have gripped the nation and the world.4 deaths per 100. Kentucky with a higher population had disproportionately more deaths. Oklahoma (OK) and Kentucky (KY) and Maryland (MD).517 29.79 Oklahoma.000 population compared to the slope h = 7. one of the SGL states. more than double the CT deaths.85 9. 538 in 2010. we find that all the data for the SGL states falls below the data for the WGL states.000 population for the SGL states. with nearly the same population had 538 deaths versus only 209 for CT. Even the gun rights advocates (the NRA and its allies) had to take a measured and cautious approach after these killings. Compare also Maryland. which usually tends to promote higher firearms-related deaths.669 43. were neutralized by the effects of stronger gun control laws. In other words. 555 versus Connecticut’s 209.The two linear regression lines for the SGL and the WGL states included in Figure 5 tell the whole story and the success of the “patch work” of gun control laws enacted in various states. Table A: CT compared with WGL states low populations Connecticut (CT) Maryland (MD) Oklahoma (OK) Mississippi (MS) Kentucky (KY) 35. The best-fit line for the WGL states has a significantly higher (a bit more than double) slope h = 15. with a slightly lower population had 475 deaths. with a larger population than Oklahoma. a SGL state. But more to the point here.

be it the mass murders that engage our attention. suicides seem to make up the bulk of the difference between these two states.55 million) compared to Arizona. is not mentioned in the list of either the 10 SGL or the 10 WGL states. The availability of firearms and the laws governing the gun ownerships clearly play a role here. or even the social scientist who can answer this question. population 6. with a slightly smaller population. All I know is some mathematical analysis. I know that it is hard to recover from a gunshot wound to one’s own head.39 million). Even mass murderers seem to resort to this gruesome method (a gunshot to their own head) after they have unleashed their carnage. And. Has MA been more effective than WA in preventing gun ownership? I am not the crime expert. or the unheralded suicides that affect only the near and dear of the victims of gun violence that is inflicted on the self. population 6.Another noteworthy pair is Massachusetts. The recent Boston bombings were not related in any way to guns-related violence. That is what I have focused on here. y (Massachusetts.55 million) reported 270 firearms deaths overall for 2010 compared to 609 for Washington.5 times the firearms related deaths compared to Massachusetts. Page | 16 . a SGL state (270 deaths. It is also of interest to note that Massachusetts (6. MA) 270 126 138 Firearms deaths. a WGL state (931 deaths. had nearly 3. y (Washington. Mental health issues must clearly be addressed. Why so many more firearms related deaths in WA compared to MA? Breakdown of the overall firearms death for MA and WA Category Overall Homicides Suicides Firearms deaths. The latter state. WA) 609 114 464 Sadly. Arizona. a fairly liberal state. or the legal expert.72 million) with roughly the same population as the state of Washington (6.

Page | 17 . The analysis relies on a simple x-y graph and the well-established linear regression analysis. Even those in favor of gun rights should welcome the important finding here about the reduction in overall firearm death (2010 data) in the states with the STRONGEST Gun Laws.In conclusion. All of the data for the 10 SGL and the 10 WGL states has been included to avoid any data-mining or manipulation. please note that the observations being made here are inescapable and are not motivated by any political posturing in the gun rights versus gun control debate.

For the special case of n = 1. and Posner. which can be modeled using linear regression analysis. reveals a general upward pattern. Excluding the BIG Four (the four largest states. the curve Page | 18 . Parsons. and looking at the cluster of states close to the origin. The nonlinear power law equation y = mxn + c can be fitted to this data and is illustrated in Figure 7. Linearity is evident and so is nonlinearity if we follow the data for the states with the highest number of firearms-related deaths. The slope of the curve dy/dx = m (nxn-1) = n (mxn/x) = n(y – c)/x. we get the linear law y = mx + c. y 3000 2500 TX Y FL CA 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 GA NY Population of State. 3500 Overall Firearm Deaths.Appendix 1: Brief Analysis of the 50 State Overall Firearms deaths data We will use the figure captions for extended discussion of the x-y graphs presented in this appendix. x [in 100. CA. by Gerney. TX. If c = 0.000s] Figure 6: Graphical representation of the overall firearms death for 2010 from Table 2 of America Under the Gun. FL and NY).

69 (matching CA.000s] Figure 7: Power law curves y = mxn with m = 68. lower dashed curve). 4500 Overall Firearm Deaths. given by the mathematical derivative dy/dx of our elementary calculus courses. in traffic fatality studies. the lower the firearms death rate. it should be obvious that this is a universal law and similar trends should also be observed if we examine the data for other countries.667 NY A 200 300 400 500 Population of State. In addition to nonlinearity. or a single state if we break it down county by county and so on for individual districts of counties. Page | 19 . Ref. is the true measure of the firearms death rate. the higher the population of a state. This rate is decreasing continuously as the population increases. The slope of the curve. From the x-y diagrams here.69x0. see articles listed under bibliography. and y = mxn and the slope dy/dx = n(y/x) decreases continuously as x increases.667 TX A FL A CA y = 56. rather than the ratio y/x. x [in 100. In other words. y 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 100 y = 68. (I have studied traffic fatality data using the methodology just described. upper curve) and m = 56.passes through the origin.108 (matching TX and FL. as measured by the slope dy/dx.11x0. we also observe a maximum point on the x-y graph. [9]. not the ratio y/x.

The independent variable x is usually taken as total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in traffic fatality studies with y being the total number of traffic-related fatalities. The derivative dy/dx = (n – ax)(y/x).874 is quite high indicating a very strong positive correlation between these two variables. 4000 Overall Firearm Deaths.which can be modeled using the more general power-exponential law y = mxne-ax with the maximum point occurring at x = n/a. both CA and NY (with STRONG gun laws) have lower firearms-related deaths (lower y) than the two large states of TX and FL as well as many other smaller states. According to this viewpoint. y 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 FL A TX A CA y = 8. Instead of y/x ratios for individual states.000s] Figure 8: The simpler linear law y = hx + c is illustrated here. x [in 100. Page | 20 .59x + 102. The best-fit line (see Ref.59x + 102.14 with a positive slop h and a positive intercept c (Type II behavior. [8] for a worked example) has the equation y = 8. even a pedestrian killed by a motorist. The linear regression coefficient r2 = 0.14 r2 = 0. after duly accounting for the differences in the size of the population. as discussed in the main text).874 NY Population of State.

y y = 9.807 Excludes BIG Four 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 y = 8.874 All 50 states 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Population of State. y = 8. although smaller Page | 21 .000s] Figure 9: The firearms deaths data for the smaller states (46 of 50) is modeled here using the simpler linear law.762x + 51. x [in 100. see solid line. increases the slope h (which means a higher rate of increase of firearms deaths for the smaller states with increases in the population). (Due to an unintended oversight.14 r2 = 0.14. during initial data entry.75 r2 = 0. y = 9. A new best-fit line was determined after excluding the BIG Four (CA. The data for the ME.59x + 102. TN and UT will be found in the “cluster” near the origin and so has no significant impact on the discussion thus far. The regression equation developed here is for all 50 states. This has now been fixed.75. TX. FL and NY).76x + 51. The dashed line is the prior best-fit line for all 50 states.59x + 102.this conclusion is based on a consideration of ALL of the available data. TN and UT points are not included in Figures 6 to 8.) 1600 1400 Overall Firearm Deaths. Eliminating the BIG Four. The intercept c is still positive. see Figures 8 and 9. ME.

76x . y) pair for Alabama (AL).000s] Figure 10: We envision a series of parallels to the best-fit line as illustrated here. y 1200 1000 AL 800 y = 9. 1600 1400 y = 9.74 Best-fit line y = 9.807 is quite high indicating a very strong positive correlation between these two variables. several (x. One of the parallels passes through the (x. or fall very close to it. This is illustrated by the two parallel lines (the small dashes). Also. the linear regression coefficient r2 = 0.36 Overall Firearm Deaths. as discussed in the main text).8 600 400 200 0 0 20 40 CT L 60 80 100 120 140 160 Population of State. Notice that the data for several states line up nicely along the best-fit line.139.(Type II behavior.76x + 51. with either a higher or a lower intercept c. Although we see some scatter. in Figure 10. x [in 100.6 (the 3rd worst record) based on all the ten gun Page | 22 . AL is the top in firearms death for 2010 and has an overall rating of 8. y) pairs can be seen to fall roughly on a parallel to the bestfit line.76x + 315. a state with one of the worst gun violence records. one above and one below.

Ref. to draw conclusions. the effects of “conflating” firearms deaths data by including suicides. The nonzero c is the work function for the baseball player.1 and is third best record in the nation. It is exactly analogous to the idea of a work function conceived by Einstein. [4]. where the ratio y/x = BA = h + (c/x) will either increase or decrease. all these problems are identical. The significance of these parallels and the varying intercept c has been discussed in the earlier article on gun death statistics. For the legendary Babe Ruth. Very briefly. [14-16] and the creation of billionaires in a population [17]. as the AB increase. there are no missed hits and the player has the PERFECT BA y/x = h = 1. this “conflation” of the data would certainly be important. 3). y) scores such as (1. For these games. where the first number is the AB and the second number the Hits. as noted by MacBradaigh. (3. [18-20]. If one uses y/x ratios. The lower parallel passes through the (x. and in other recent (seemingly unrelated!) articles dealing with the Debt/GDP ratio. the general relationship is revealed and y = hx + c with h < 1. Refs. We see this BA if we consider the game-by-game stats. is like the work function for a baseball player. For example. see Refs. briefly. This determines the numerical value of the nonzero c. Hence. Refs. exclusively. to explain photoelectricity. the BA y/x = h + (c/x) deviates from the PERFECT value. However. in 1905. If c = 0. Mathematically speaking. The overall ranking for CT is 43. which can be related to the missed hits. y) pair for Connecticut (home of the Newtown killings). the Airline Quality Ratings problem is exactly identical to the rankings developed by GPP for the gun violence problem. [3]. (4.violence indicators. Ruth had the PERFECT BA y/x = 1/1 = 2/2 =3/3 = 4/4 = 1. the At Bats (AB) x and the number of Hits y can be shown to follow a simple linear law y = hx + c. the batting stats for individual games reveal (x. Finally. 1). see the references cited here for a fuller discussion. as well as the gun violence problem. (2. [10-13] and Airline Quality Ratings. as noted earlier in the main text. 4). the Page | 23 . The intercept c in these problems. we will consider. if we consider more games and start aggregating the data on a monthly or seasonal basis.000. Ref. However. depending on the skill of the baseball player. 2).

000s) (2010) (2010) of Overall Table 1 Table 2 Table 4 Georgia 13. often less than 50%.4 29. i. Louisiana has the worst record (2010) in the entire nation. and violence that is externally directed (as in homicides.1% Missouri 13.5% N. the rating of 5 for Louisiana is the average value of the rank for LA across the 10 gun violence indicators.158 419 132 31.3% Louisiana 5 45.898 931 271 29.. As discussed in the main text. Table B: Homicides versus Overall Firearms Deaths in the 10 Worst Gun Violence States Average Overall Firearms State GPP rating Population. followed by Alaska and Alabama.0% Mississippi 10.6% Alabama 8.101 144 30 20. homicides are indeed a small fraction of the overall firearm related deaths. gun ownership among the mentally ill).3 59. Both self-inflicted violence. violence directed inward (as in suicides).2% Arizona 10 63.4 20.331 864 432 50. As we see from the data compiled from Tables 1.2% Arkansas 13. The conclusions based on the rate of change h = ∆y/∆x (or dy/dx in the nonlinear case) are less likely to be seriously affected or distorted.9 96. The lower the “average rank number”.8% Data sorted by population instead of the GPP overall rating in second column.2 7.6 47.2% S. Page | 24 .669 475 205 43.873 846 335 39.588 301 76 25. Mexico 11. or mass murder rampages) are legitimate concerns from the perspective of enacting gun control legislation (to discourage and/or ban outright.approach taken here avoid the effects of such “conflation” since we consider only the relative values for different states. Carolina 11.253 648 229 35.1 46. Firearms Homicides Homicides (across 10 x deaths ONLY as percent indicators) (100.2 29. 2 and Table 4 of the GPP Report (America Under the Gun).2% Alaska 5. the worse the gun violence record.e.800 782 283 36. after duly accounting for the differences in population.910 1223 443 36.

following the linear law y = hx + c. This is the same as Figure 4 with the HOMICIDES ONLY data added.499x + 105. the essential conclusion – that the number of firearm-related deaths increases at a fixed rate as the population increases . America Under the Gun (click here) Page | 25 .1 r2 = 0.Nonetheless. Parsons.719 20 40 60 80 100 120 Population of State.000s] Figure 11: The number of firearms-related deaths increases at a fixed rate with increasing population. The HOMICIDES ONLY data for the 10 states.935 Homicides y = 4.24 r2 = 0. considered to have the worst gun violence record in the nation (after taking into account all the 10 gun violence indicators) has been compiled in Table B and is plotted in Figure 11.64x + 36.remains unchanged. y) pair for Louisiana (LA) falls significantly above the best-fit line for both gun violence indicators. 1400 1200 Firearm Deaths. x [in 100. y 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 y = 12. LA has the worst gun violence record in the nation based on all ten gun violence indicators considered in the study by Gerney. and Posner. The (x. This is true for both the overall firearms-related deaths (blue diamonds) and for homicides with firearms (red dots).

2013. http://www. see worked example given http://hotmath.com/doc/140152581/Gun-Death-Statistics-and-theMethod-of-Least-Squares-and-the-Forgotten-Property-of-a-Straight-line 4. 2013. http://www.000 population) for all states is given here. 2012.americanprogress.pdf 8. since it only involves the determination of x2 and xy and the sum of all the values of x. Center for American Progress. Gun Death Statistics and the Method of Least Squares and the Forgotten Property of a Straight Line. ym). by Arkadi Gerney.html The formula for h used in this example is an actually approximate one and was used.uk/depts/maths/histstat/legendre. http://en. and Charles Posner.guardian. English Translation of the original paper http://www. Least Squares Method. December 17. On Least Squares. April 2.Reference List 1. Posted by Simon Rogers.policymic.org/issues/civilliberties/report/2013/04/02/58382/america-under-the-gun/ 2.co. Gun Violence in the United States by states.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/AmericaUnderTheGun.com/articles/38391/gun-control-2013-suicidestats-are-irrelevant-to-gun-control-policy 5. before the advent of modern computers. American Under the Gun: A 50-State Analysis of Gun Violence and its Link to Weak State Gun Laws.pdf 3. Chelsea Parson. is given below. Gun crime statistics by US state: latest data. America Under the Gun. x2 and xy. The exact formula. and ym = hxm + c since the “bestfit” line always passes through the point (xm .wikipedia. 6. Legendre. Matt MacBradaigh.scribd. Page | 26 . Datablog.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-usstate Total firearm murders and the firearm murder rates (per 100.com/hotmath_help/topics/line-of-best-fit.york. in Politics.ac. http://www. http://www. y.americanprogress. Line of Best-Fit. http://www. April 2. 2013. Gun Control 2013: Suicide Stats Irrelevant to Gun Control Policy. with xm and ym denoting the “mean” or “average” values of x and y in the data set. 2013. May 6. Published May 8.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state 7.

determine the predicted value yb on the best-fit line and the vertical deviation (y – yb) and the squares (y.yb)2 / ∑(y. This gives the denominator in the expression for h. The regression coefficient r2 = 1 .scribd.com/doc/136492067/Bibliography-Articles-on-theExtension-of-Planck-s-Ideas-and-Einstein-s-Ideas-on-Energy-Quantum-totopics-Outside-Physics-by-V-Laxmanan 10. 2013. Determine the square (x – xm)2 and the sum. 2013.000. Published April 28. http://www. Determine the product (x – xm)(y – ym) and their sum.yb)2. Articles on Extension of Planck’s Ideas and Einstein’s Ideas beyond physics. 2013. 9.scribd. r2 = +1.ym)2 } is a measure of the strength of the correlation between x and y (or y/x versus x). 2013. Page | 27 . ym). when all points lie exactly on the graph. Published April 26.com/doc/139114239/Is-US-National-Debt-Out-ofControl-The-Trillionaires-Club-of-Nations 11. using the regression equation.scribd. http://www.{ ∑(y. For a perfect correlation. http://www.com/doc/138076426/An-MIT-Non-Economist-s-Viewof-the-Harvard-UMass-Debt-GDP-Ratio-and-the-Economic-Growth-Debate 13. (x – xm) and (y – ym). An MIT Non-Economist’s View of the Harvard-UMass Debt/GDP Ratio and Economic Growth Debate. http://www. Published May 1. 2013. Bibliography. Then.com/doc/138912093/A-Brief-Survey-of-the-DebtGDP-Relationship-for-Some-Modern-21st-Century-Economies 12. A Brief Survey of the GDP-Debt Relations for Some Modern Economies of the 21st Century. Compiled on April 16. Iceland Votes Against Austerity: Analysis of Iceland’s Debt-GDP. The sum of these squares is a minimum. This can be checked by assigning other values for h (using any two points) and allowing the graph to pivot around (xm.h = ∑ (x – xm)(y – ym)/ ∑ (x – xm)2 Determine the deviations of the individual x and y values from the “mean”. The Trillionaires Club of Nations: Is the US National Debt Out of Control? Published May 2.scribd. This also fixes the intercept c via ym = hxm = c . This gives the numerator in the expression for h. or “average”.

Dean E.lib. 2013. 19. Published May 7. Frank Barton School of Business) http://docs. 2013.com/doc/138345921/Iceland-Votes-AgainstAusterity-Analysis-of-Iceland-s-Debt-GDP-Data-2002-2012 Airline Quality Report: An Analysis of On-Time Percentages. Headley (Wichita State University.com/doc/136556738/Babe-RuthBatting-Statistics-and-Einstein-s-Work-Function Tax equations and marginal tax rate also discussed here.scribd. Published April 17. Babe Ruth’s 1923 Batting Statistics and Einstein’s Work Function. Babe Ruth Batting Statistics and Einstein’s Work Function.com/doc/136489156/BabeRuth-s-1923-Batting-Statistics-and-Einstein-s-Work-Function The Method of Least Squares: Predicting the Batting Average of a Baseball Player (Hamilton in 2013). http://www.com/doc/136760664/Airline-Quality-Report-2013Analysis-of-the-On-Time-Percentages Rate of Creation of Billionaires: Analysis of 2013 Forbes Billionaires list. http://www.com/doc/139924317/The-Method-of-Least-SquaresPredicting-the-Batting-Average-of-a-Baseball-Player-Hamilton-in-2013 Page | 28 . April 8.14. Published April 18. 18. 20.scribd. 2013. http://www. Brent D. Published April 17. http://www. 2013. 2013.scribd.scribd. 17.scribd.scribd. Published April 18.scribd. College of Technology) and Dr. http://www. 16.purdue. 2013. see table 2 on page 13.edu/aqrr/23/ Airline Quality Report 2013: An Analysis of On-Time Percentages. Purdue University. Bowen (Purdue University.com/doc/128944910/The-Rate-of-Creation-ofBillionaires-Analysis-of-the-2013-Forbes-Billionaire-s-List Discussion of Millikan’s experiment in Appendix 1 here with regression equations for lithium and sodium. http://www. http://www. W. 15.com/doc/136760664/Airline-QualityReport-2013-Analysis-of-the-On-Time-Percentages Airline Quality Rating 2013. by Dr. e-Pubs.

Cambridge. His expertise includes developing simple mathematical models to explain the behavior of complex systems. production of snowflakes!). This extends (to financial and economic systems) the mathematical arguments used by Max Planck to develop quantum physics using the analogy Energy = Money.).. energy in physics is like money in economics. Bangalore. D. might Page | 29 . and General Motors Research and Development Center in Warren. Allied Chemical Corporate R & D.e. he has been interested in the analysis of the large volumes of data from financial and economic systems and has developed what may be called the Quantum Business Model (QBM). This led to a simple model to explain the growth of dendritic structures in both the groundbased experiments and in the space shuttle experiments. from the Indian Institute of Science. The author obtained his Bachelor’s degree (B. Sc.. Case Western Reserve University (CWRU). MI). He then spent his entire professional career at leading US research institutions (MIT. M.) and Doctoral (Sc. now part of Honeywell. More recently. referred to here as the generalized power-exponential law. i. like structures (called dendrites) widely observed in many types of liquid-to-solid phase transformations (e. also in Mechanical Engineering.) in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Poona and his Master’s degree (M. followed by a Master’s (S. While at NASA and CWRU. yes. and. MA. freezing of all commercial metals and alloys. he was responsible for developing material processing experiments to be performed aboard the space shuttle and developed a simple mathematical model to explain the growth Christmas-tree. E. NASA. The mathematical law deduced by Planck. each with the fixed quantum of energy conceived by Planck). Laxmanan.) degrees in Materials Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. or snowflake.About the author V.g. freezing of water. D. He holds four patents in materials processing. has co-authored two books and published several scientific papers in leading peer-reviewed international journals. Einstein applied Planck’s ideas to describe the photoelectric effect (by treating light as being composed of particles called photons. USA. E.

actually have many applications far beyond blackbody radiation studies where it was first conceived. Finance. appointed by GM corporate management. business. Page | 30 . during my professional career. Cover page of AirTran 2000 Annual Report Can you see that plane flying above the tall tree tops that make a nearly perfect circle? It requires a great deal of imagination to see and to photograph it. Robert Schrieffer (1972 Physics Nobel Prize). I also twice had the opportunity and great honor to make presentations to two Nobel laureates: first at NASA to Prof. 1986) and second at GM Research Labs to Prof. Robert Solow (1987 Nobel Prize in economics). who was Chairman of Corporate Research Review Committee. economics and management sciences now essentially seem to operate like astronomy and physics before the advent of Kepler and Newton. who was the Chairman of the Schrieffer Committee appointed to review NASA’s space flight experiments (following the loss of the space shuttle Challenger on January 28. Einstein’s photoelectric law is a simple linear law and was deduced from Planck’s non-linear law for describing blackbody radiation. Finally. It appears that financial and economic systems can be modeled using a similar approach.

- Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge and the Precession of Equinoxes
- Firearms-Suicides
- Three Types of Gun Violence and the Need for National Gun Safety Act
- Can Staten Island Be Murder Free? Yes. That's What the Generalized Idea of Einstein's Work Function Teaches us.
- Mayor Bloomberg's Comparison of NYC Homicide Rates and Wall Street Ratio Analysis
- Mayor Bloomberg’s Comparison of the Homicide Rates in Chicago, Detroit, and New York Is Re-examined
- The Batting Average (BA) and Wins Above Replacement (WAR) Relation for the Batting Leaders in the 2013 Season
- What is Wrong With Ratio Analysis? Baseball Offers an Interesting Example with Wider Applications
- Is Miguel Cabrera on Pace to Break Hack Wilson Single-Season RBI Record? Yes, he can. Read how.
- Fundamental Concepts in Data Analysis
- Trust Me, the Financial World will change forever if Wall Street starts analyzing financial data like we do baseball stats
- Is Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Even the Proper Metric to Determine Traffic Fatality Rates?
- The Correlation Between Highway Deaths and the US Economy
- Highway Fatalities Trend Shows Its First Uptick in Six Years
- Firearms-Suicides Stats Are the Only Relevant Stats in the Gun Violence Debate
- Gun Violence in America
- Michigan Firearms Related Suicides; The Suicides-County Population Law
- The Brady Campaign State Ranking and the Firearms Death Rates
- Gun Death Statistics and the Method of Least Squares and the Forgotten Property of a Straight line
- The Method of Least Squares
- The Method of Least Squares
- Is US National Debt Out of Control? The Trillionaires Club of Nations
- A Brief Survey of the Debt-GDP Relationship for Some Modern 21st Century Economies
- Iceland Votes Against Austerity

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful by VJLaxmanan

0.0 (0)

A mathematical analysis of the overall firearms-related deaths for the states with the STRONGEST gun laws (SGL states) and the WEAKEST gun laws (WGL states) and the top 10 states with the worst rec...

A mathematical analysis of the overall firearms-related deaths for the states with the STRONGEST gun laws (SGL states) and the WEAKEST gun laws (WGL states) and the top 10 states with the worst record of gun violence, as outlined in the recent study America Under the Gun, is presented here using a new and simple methodology with avoids the use of a simple y/x ratio analysis with x being the population and y the number of firearms-related deaths. Instead of studying the behavior of the y/x ratio, we investigate the nature of the relation between the population x and the overall firearms deaths y (due to all causes). A remarkably simple and linear relation, of the type y = hx + c where h is the rate of change of gun deaths with increasing population and c, the nonzero intercept, can be thought of as a “work function”, the implications of which have been discussed in a companion article on gun death statistics. A composite x-y graph of the firearms related deaths for the 10 SGL states and the 10 and the WGL states shows that the SGL states have significantly lower gun deaths, at comparable population levels Two noteworthy examples are Connecticut, a SGL state versus the WGL states of Oklahoma, Mississippi, Kentucky, or Massachusetts, a SGL state, with Arizona, a WGL state.

- Gun Death Statistics and the Method of Least Squares and the Forgotten Property of a Straight line
- WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE
- Bland Indictment
- Sonya Rose Survey
- ATK-10-155 Amtrak to Allow Firearms in Checked Baggage (11!30!10)
- 2A Rally 2013
- Gun Rod Replacement 1V2P
- Notice
- 1936 - 3454
- How to intimidate
- Drugs Prices and Systemic Violence, An Empirical Study
- 127-12
- Research Paper
- B095506 Anthro 1A Essay-2
- Sydney's newest sport
- Essay Violence in Gangs of NY
- 02/03042012 Somalia -UN SRSG on Sexual Violence in Conflict Visits Mogadishu
- Engaging Boys and Young Men in the Prevention of Sexual Violence
- Threat Assessment
- Review 878 All
- 11-FIR-POW
- Spring 2013 Newsletter
- LOAC TP
- Male Partner Sexual Violence Austalian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault
- Coker 2000
- Victimology.ppt
- 2016 03 Ancient Japanese Hunter Gatherers Warfare Inherent
- Women and Children as Victims of War
- Caprioli 2005
- teendatingviolence
- Comparison of the Strong and Weak Gun law States and the Ten States With Highest Levels of Gun Violence