
Why Are Shootings Deadlier in Some Cities Than Others? - rbcgerard
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-shootings-deadlier-in-some-cities-than-others/
======
MaxfordAndSons
One thing the article didn't mention which I'm curious about is the role of
urban geography on shooting lethality.

For example, Chicago's lethality rate is almost half of New Orleans (16.3% vs
27.9%). Having been to both cities, I've noticed that Chicago has remarkably
long city blocks (1/8th mile per block iirc), with wide sidewalks and numerous
alleyways, and a very straight and regular grid in most of the South and West
side sprawl. New Orleans trends towards the opposite (though it's also much
more varied than Chicago), with narrow sidewalks, lots of narrow one way
streets, and irregular grid layouts. It's easy to see how New Orlean's
geography could favor the attacker and lead to higher lethality. Would be
interesting to see these geographic features quantified in some way.

------
bluedino
One statistic I would like to see is the % of homicides that are _solved_. So
many urban killings end up becoming cold cases because of the lack of
witnesses.

~~~
esturk
I recall reading this NPR article that says about 2/3 of homicides are
resolved. In fact, since you specified 'urban' killings, those trend higher
than rural killings.

[http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/395069137/open-cases-why-
one-t...](http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/395069137/open-cases-why-one-third-of-
murders-in-america-go-unresolved)

~~~
Retric
"clearance" is not the same as solved.

------
rbcgerard
It amazes me that we don't have better data on something like this.

~~~
ashark
The NRA and NRA-backed politicians tend to fight even _researching_ gun
deaths, let alone trying to do anything about them. If you know that, then any
gap in our knowledge about gun violence stops being surprising.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-
re...](http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-
research-2013-1)

~~~
geaserg34234
I haven't seen any evidence that the NRA has fought research. They have taken
a stand against the CDC advocating for gun-control policies, not performing
gun-violence research. The CDC has simply refused to do this research since
being banned from advocating for specific policy. The CDC is not banned from
performing gun-violence research, and has even conducted such research at the
specific behest of Obama. The conclusions of this research actually largely
vindicated a lot of the points made by the pro-gun community.

~~~
mikeash
Funding was cut for the CDC's gun-related activities at the same time as they
were banned from advocating policy. Being "allowed" to research it but not
having any money to do so is pointless.

~~~
novembermike
IIRC the money was restored pretty quickly. If you read the CDC research it
was pretty shoddy so I have a hard time being too angry about it.

------
logfromblammo
At first, I though maybe the data examined in the article might have some
correlation with organized crime presence in the cities, but then I realized
that if I were a professional assassin, I would probably never use a gun
unless the client demanded it. I would almost certainly use automobile
collisions in preference to almost everything else. And _then_ I realized that
most criminals are not clever enough to plan like that, and might just kick
down a door, shoot someone, and run away during the emergency response window.

Shooters in Baltimore apparently invest more conscious effort in ensuring
their targets are _dead_ than other cities. A 10% higher lethality rate than
other cities seems way too high to be explainable by accidental factors.

~~~
oh_sigh
How do you plan out an automobile collision homicide?

~~~
logfromblammo
Start by mapping out your target's usual movements. Check public records for
any fatal collision hot spots in the area. Check out their vehicle. That will
determine what you do next.

For instance, if I were trying to kill _me_ , I'd find out that I usually take
the same routes to and from work every day, passing twice through one
intersection that has a relatively high number of injury accidents, in a
Honda. So I would either crack the remote access security of the traffic
control computer, or install a device in it that would allow me to control it
remotely. I'd break into my car, replacing the air bag with one modified to
outwardly resemble those recalled, defective, exploding Takata air bags, but
guaranteed to explosively project shrapnel into the driver. This would be
relatively easy, as my car is not parked in a secured or observed spot. Then
I'd use my remote device and binoculars twice a day, until I saw that I was
passing through the dangerous intersection, and try to manipulate the lights
to get myself into a t-bone with a larger vehicle at 45 MPH. On impact, the
air bag would deploy with metal shrapnel and loose screws, shredding my chest,
face, and neck. That, plus any injuries from the collision itself, would
likely be fatal. Just in case, the air bag device would also contain cloth
infused with resistant bacteria cultured from the local hospital, so that any
open wounds would be _infected, antibiotic-resistant_ wounds.

I might also do a weak denial of service attack on the local emergency medical
response immediately after the collision, using a recorded message to 911 from
a burner phone. The message would suggest a high-priority emergency, such as a
stroke or obstructed airway, and hang up.

The other driver would swear that I ran the red light, and I would be too dead
to say it was actually green. The local cops would likely just sweep up the
glass, rule it as an unfortunate accident, and not investigate further. The
auto manufacturer might catch some flak for not mailing me a recall notice for
my air bag, but I'd be the 12th recall fatality, and no one would really care.
My target's bereaved spouse might even get a settlement.

That would just be for me, though. Someone else might get a flat tire in the
wrong spot, or hit a patch of black ice on a day that's too warm for it. Or
they might get their onboard computer hacked, or hallucinogenic vapor in their
interior air. Or maybe they get catfished by someone who starts sending crisis
texts while the target is driving.

Excuse me now, as I'm going to silently rock back and forth in the corner and
pretend my world is safe.

------
jeffdavis
To get good data it either needs to be either indisputable or non-
controversial. Murders (as a statstic) are controversial but indisputable.

But shootings are controversial and disputable. I suspect the numbers will be
politicized and manipulated until they are no longer a good measure.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Murders (as a statstic) are controversial but indisputable.

 _Homicides_ are (to a reasonable approximation, but even then not quite)
indisputable, _murders_ (or even "criminal homicides") aren't, even
approximately.

~~~
jeffdavis
Fair enough.

------
cal5k
One other plausible explanation: the quality of trauma response protocols in
different cities.

~~~
azernik
RTFA

"Some other experts have speculated that differences in shooting death rates
could be tied to differences in emergency medical care: Gunshot victims are
more likely to survive if they arrive quickly to a high-quality trauma center.
By that logic, however, Baltimore should be one of the least lethal cities in
the country. Dr. Sahael Stapleton, a surgeon who previously conducted research
at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, points out that Baltimore gun violence
takes place in relatively concentrated areas near the city’s state-of-the-art
trauma center."

The general takeaway is that data collection is too incomplete and too
inconsistent across jurisdictions to test lots of hypotheses well.

------
arprocter
Shot placement? That and getting a .22LR in the hand is a little different
than getting a 12ga slug to the head

------
programmernews3
I notice a correlation between the cities studied and race. I am surprised
that this obvious variable was not taken into account.

~~~
mikeash
What correlation, exactly? Picking a few cities from the list and comparing
racial demographics and the relative shooting/murder rates, I didn't see much
connection.

~~~
programmernews3
www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-shaped-by-race-in-
america/

Non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 per 1,000) and Hispanics (2.2 per 1,000) had higher
rates of nonfatal firearm violence than non-Hispanic whites (1.4 per 1,000)
[https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfm](https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfm)

[http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-
by-...](http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-by-
raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedDistributions=white--black--other)

~~~
mikeash
The topic here is not overall gun violence, but specifically the percentage of
shootings that result in death, and the fact that this percentage is extremely
different in different cities.

------
_red
Seems like there is quite a different racial makeup of those listed cities. Is
that question permitted to be asked?

~~~
mikeash
Can you put some numbers on it? This is the second comment mentioning race and
I just don't see the supposed link.

~~~
_red
Using top 4 and bottom 4 shows correlation.

[https://imgur.com/a/Imo9Y](https://imgur.com/a/Imo9Y)

~~~
mikeash
I did a scatter plot of all of them and there's a bit of a trend, but for the
most part it's just a mess:

[http://mikeash.com/tmp/screenshot_19EB61AA-4DD0-4258-A5D5-A8...](http://mikeash.com/tmp/screenshot_19EB61AA-4DD0-4258-A5D5-A8AA3B47E98F.png)

For some reason their two tables don't include the same cities, and the
numbers don't quite match up. Doing the same thing from the first table, which
includes more cities, produces this:

[http://mikeash.com/tmp/screenshot_C047DD43-3029-47E5-901C-9E...](http://mikeash.com/tmp/screenshot_C047DD43-3029-47E5-901C-9E28C9E6DEFD.png)

There is a bit of an upward trend there, but it looks pretty uncorrelated to
be.

