Comparison of the Strong and Weak Gun Law States and the Ten States with Highest Level

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

Table 1: The Firearms Deaths and Population data for the ten states with Highest Gun Violence
Overall Firearms death State Firearms rate, y/x (per Deaths, y 100,000) Alabama (8.6) 47.800 782 16.36 Alaska (5.2) 7.101 144 20.28 Arizona (10) 63.898 931 14.57 Arkansas (13.4) 29.158 419 14.37 Georgia (13.9) 96.910 1223 12.62 Louisiana (5) 45.331 864 19.06 Mississippi (10.2) 29.669 475 16.01 Missouri (13.3) 59.873 846 14.13 N. Mexico (11.4) 20.588 301 14.62 S. Carolina (11.1) 46.253 648 14.01 Data Source: Table 2 on page 13 in Ref. [2], click here. 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. The number in the parentheses is the overall average rank. Low numbers mean a bad gun violence record. Furthermore, after reviewing all the ten indicators, 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. For example, the state of Louisiana (LA) was ranked 2, 1, 1, 18, 1, 2, 2, 4, 15, and 4 for the ten indicators. Adding these numbers gives total ranking points of 50 and therefore an average ranking point of 5. This makes LA the state with the worst gun violence record in the nation. In this context, GPP also provided a list of ten states which were considered to have the STRONGEST, and ten states with the WEAKEST, gun laws in the country. The overall firearms death data for these 20 states is compiled in Tables 2 and 3, respectively and was again obtained from the same Table 2 on page 13 of Ref. [2]. Population, x (in 100,000)

Page | 4

1200

Overall Firearm Deaths, y

1000

LA
800

AZ y = hx + c = h(x x0) = 15.4x - 22.24 = 15.4(x 1.44) r2 = 0.9315

600

400

200

VT
0 0 10 20 30

10 Weakest Gun Law States

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

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

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, Chelsea Parsons, and Charles Rosner (click 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; see also the discussion in the companion article, Ref. [3] and some recent internet blogs, Refs. [4-6], on this rather controversial topic. As seen here, 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, 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 = - c/h is the intercept made by the line on the horizontal axis (x = x0) when y = 0.

Page | 5

Table 2: The Firearms Deaths and Population data for the ten states with the WEAKEST Gun Laws
Overall Firearms death State Firearms rate, y/x (per Deaths, y 100,000) Arizona (AZ) 63.898 931 14.57 Louisiana (LA) 45.331 864 19.06 Kentucky (KY) 43.393 555 12.79 Oklahoma (OK) 37.517 538 14.34 Mississippi (MS) 29.669 475 16.01 Kansas (KS) 28.544 300 10.51 Montana (MT) 9.891 164 16.58 South Dakota (SD) 8.143 75 9.21 Vermont (VT) 6.256 70 11.19 Wyoming (WY) 5.637 92 16.32 2 The best-fit equation y = 15.403x 22.24 = 15.4 (x 1.44), r = 0.9315 Data Source: Table 2 on page 13 in Ref. [2], click here. The population x was computed from the values of y and y/x to prepare the x-y graphs here. Population, x (in 100,000)

3. 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 = 15.4x 22.24 with a linear regression coefficient r2 = 0.9315. Some points fall above the line and some fall below the line; see Refs. [7, 8]. In other words, there are small statistical fluctuations as we move up and down the line with increasing population x. The fixed slope h encountered here is like the marginal tax rate in tax law. The US tax code is actually a series of straight lines with the general equation y = hx + c, with x being the taxable income, y the tax owed. 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 intercept c depends on the tax bracket (the range of income levels x) and also keeps changing (becomes more negative) as incomes increase; see discussion in articles listed under bibliography in Ref.
Page | 6

[9] and in Ref. [10] (click here). We see a similar constant rate of increase h in firearms death with increasing population x.

3500

Overall Firearm Deaths, y

10 Strongest Gun Law States

3000

CA
2500
2000 1500

MI
1000

IL NY L
200

HI
500 0 0 100

y = 7.49x - 3.37 = 7.5(x 0.45) r2 = 0.9199

RI

300

400

500

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

Figure 2: The overall firearms deaths versus population data for the 10 states named as the STRONGEST Gun Law (SGL) states. Or, we can compare the fixed slope h to the fixed speed, or velocity, v, of a moving vehicle. If the speed v is fixed, the additional distance traveled, or the space covered, always increases by the same fixed amount s = vt in each additional time interval t. Or, we can compare the fixed slope to the fixed rate of fuel consumption of a vehicle. The fuel economy MPG or KPL = y/x, where y is the additional distance (miles or kilometers) traveled with the additional fuel consumption (gallons or liters) x. Likewise, here the fixed slope h in Figure 1 and Figure 2 (for the 10 Strongest Gun Law states) tells us that, statistically speaking, when the population
Page | 7

increases by a fixed amount x, the number of firearms-related deaths always increases by the same fixed amount y = hx.

Table 3: The Firearms Deaths and Population data for the ten states with the STRONGEST Gun Laws
Overall Firearms death State Firearms rate, y/x (per Deaths, y 100,000) California (CA) 372.462 2935 7.88 New York (NY) 193.678 1011 5.22 Illinois (IL) 128.347 1064 8.29 Michigan (MI) 98.806 1076 10.89 New Jersey (NJ) 87.861 456 5.19 Massachusetts (MA) 65.534 270 4.12 Maryland (MD) 57.725 538 9.32 Hawaii (HI) 43.393 555 12.79 Connecticut (CT) 35.726 209 5.85 Rhode Island (RI) 10.515 49 4.66 2 The best-fit equation y = 7.492x 3.37 = 7.5 (x 0.45), r = 0.9199 Data Source: Table 2 on page 13 in Ref. [2], click here. 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. Because of the negative intercept c, the firearms death rate, which is taken to be the ratio y/x = 15.4 - (22.24/x) is high for small populations (see SD in Table 2) and increases as the population increases (thus AZ > SD in Table 2). The y/x ratio works against the larger states like Arizona, which are perceived to have a higher than average firearms death rate compared to the states like Vermont with smaller populations; see also Fact Sheets in Refs. [1, 2]. The Louisiana (LA) data falls significantly above the best-fit line in Figure 1. Likewise, among the SGL states, the overall firearms death rate is lower for the smaller states like Rhode Island (RI) compared to the larger states like CA. Population, x (in 100,000)

Page | 8

 4. 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). This is illustrated in Figure 3.
1200

Overall Firearm Deaths, y

1000

800

600

OK MS

KY S

MD

400

200

KS

CT I
40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10

20

30

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

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. Only states with populations under 10 million (or 100 one hundred thousands) are included here. Hence, all the 10 WGL states (red dots) and 6 of 10 SGL states (diamonds) appear in this plot. The three largest of the SGL states (CA, NY, IL) with higher populations do not appear in this plot. Notice that in the composite plot of Figure 3, the data for all of the SGL states, without exception, FALL BELOW the red dots at comparable populations, indicating, reasonably speaking, the effectiveness of the various measures (see Refs. [1,2]) taken by the SGL states to reduce the effects of gun violence.
Page | 9

This reduction in the overall firearm deaths as observed here is, perhaps, the most visible effect of all these measures to reduce gun violence of all kinds (which is what the overall firearms death indicator implies).

5. States with the Worst Overall Gun Violence Record

Finally, the overall firearms deaths data for the 10 states ranked as the worst overall in gun violence (see Table 1, states ranked after taking into account all the 10 gun violence indicators) has been plotted in Figure 4.
1600

Overall Firearm Deaths, y

1400 1200

GA LA AL

1000
800 600 400 200 0 0

AK L 20

40

60

80

100

120

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

Figure 4: The overall firearms deaths vs. population data for the 10 states with the highest levels of gun violence in 50-State Gun Violence study by Arkadi Gerney, Chelsea Parsons, and Charles Rosner (click here).

Page | 10

Once again, we see the same linear law relating the population and the firearm deaths. For this new grouping of states, the best-fit line has the equation y = hx + c = 12.499x + 105.1, with a linear regression coefficient r2 = 0.935. Because of the positive intercept c, the firearms death rate, i.e., the ratio y/x = 12.5 + (105.1/x) is high for small populations and decreases as the population increases. Hence, the y/x ratio works against the smaller states like Alaska (AK), which have a higher than average firearms death rate compared to the states with higher populations; see Fact Sheet from Refs. [1, 2]. The Louisiana (LA) and Alabama (AL) data fall above the best-fit line. 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, see Ref. [3].

6. 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, such as the firearm death rates, 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. As we see here, and also in the companion
Page | 11

article, Ref. [3] (which consider two other sources of gun-related deaths data, the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the Wikipedia article), a remarkably simple and linear relation, of the type y = hx + c, relates the population x and the number of firearms-related deaths y. This provides a good description of most the data. Hence, the firearms death rate (m), 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. These constants can be either positive or negative. All of the data examined here and in Ref. [3], reveals the first two of three possibilities, as follows, depending on the grouping or aggregation of the gun violence data. 1. Type I behavior (h > 0 and c < 0) Positive slope, negative intercept. Both the number of firearms deaths y and the firearms death rate, measured by the ratio y/x, increase as the population x increases. Hence, the y/x ratio is biased in favor of the smaller states with low populations. 2. Type II behavior (h > 0 and c < 0) Positive slope, positive intercept. The firearms death rate, as measured by the ratio y/x, is found to be decreasing even as the absolute number of firearms deaths y is increasing. This is due to effect of increasing population x. Hence, the y/x ratio is now biased in favor of the larger states with huge populations. 3. Type III behavior (h < 0 and c > 0) Negative slope, positive intercept. This trend is revealed over the population range 4.34 million to 5.77 million (Kentucky to Maryland), see Appendix 1. The death rate decreases as the population x increases and the number of deaths also decrease. Hence, the y/x ratio, the firearm death rate, is again biased in favor of the larger states in the group, with the higher populations; e.g., MD has a lower rate than KY. The three simple linear trends described here, taken together, imply that there must be some nonlinearity because of the changes in the slope h. This nonlinearity in the rate of increase of the firearm deaths with increasing populations, 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. (This is presented separately in Appendix 1 so as not to distract from the main discussion here.)
Page | 12

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. Also, with some reflection, 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, see MacBradaigh in Ref. [4] and the discussion therein. MacBradaigh has called attention to the inclusion of the data on firearms related suicides, or self-inflicted violence, as opposed to violence directed at the larger population, as in the many highly publicized mass murders (where guns and automated assault weapons were involved) that have captured the nations and the worlds attention. For example, we find the following data for California in the tables provided in the GPP study.

Breakdown of the overall firearms death for California

Category Overall Homicides Suicides Firearms deaths, y 2935 1342 1492 Population, x (in 100,000s) 372.462 372.462 372.462 Death rate, y/x per 100,000 7.88 3.60 4.01

As we see here suicides account for a little more than (51%) of the overall firearms-related deaths. Including the firearms suicide data in the overall firearms deaths increases the numerator y of the y/x ratio, making the problem seem more urgent and is favored by gun control advocates. Critiques on the other side of the debate call this conflation and entirely irrelevant to the debate. Gun control advocates rebut the criticism by pointing out that it is hard to recover from a gunshot wound to ones own head and the ready availability of firearms is actually an enabler and a legitimate part of the gun control debate. The root cause of this needless digression is, however, the exclusive use of y/x ratios to advance one or the other viewpoint. 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. Whether or not the suicides data is included becomes a moot point, since the focus is on the x-y relationship (linear and nonlinear,
Page | 13

see Appendix 1) and the rate of change h = y/x. The changes in both y, the number of firearm deaths, and x, 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, 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.
3500

Overall Firearm Deaths, y

3000 2500 2000

y = 15.4x - 22.24 r2 = 0.9315 WGL States

1500
1000 500 0

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]

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). 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, which uses an expanded scale and considers the states with populations under 10 million (100 one hundred thousands), clustered close to the origin here.

Page | 14

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, as discussed by GPP. The best-fit line for the WGL states has a significantly higher (a bit more than double) slope h = 15.4 deaths per 100,000 population compared to the slope h = 7.49 deaths per 100,000 population for the SGL states. Without exception, we find that all the data for the SGL states falls below the data for the WGL states. Take for example the state of Connecticut (CT), home for the Newtown elementary school killings that have gripped the nation and the world. Even the gun rights advocates (the NRA and its allies) had to take a measured and cautious approach after these killings. But more to the point here, the number of firearms-related death for CT, one of the SGL states, with a population of 3.573 million (35.73 one hundred thousands) only had 209 deaths in 2010 as opposed to the states of Kansas (KS) and Mississippi (MS), Oklahoma (OK) and Kentucky (KY) and Maryland (MD); see also Figure 3.

Table A: CT compared with WGL states low populations

Connecticut (CT) Maryland (MD) Oklahoma (OK) Mississippi (MS) Kentucky (KY) 35.726 57.725 37.517 29.669 43.393 209 538 538 475 555 5.85 9.32 14.34 16.01 12.79

Oklahoma, a WGL state, with nearly the same population had 538 deaths versus only 209 for CT. Mississippi, another WGL state, with a slightly lower population had 475 deaths, more than double the CT deaths. Kentucky with a higher population had disproportionately more deaths, 555 versus Connecticuts 209. Compare also Maryland, a SGL state, with a larger population than Oklahoma, a WGL state. Both reported the same number of deaths, 538 in 2010. In other words, it appears that the effects of a higher population, which usually tends to promote higher firearms-related deaths, were neutralized by the effects of stronger gun control laws.
Page | 15

Another noteworthy pair is Massachusetts, a SGL state (270 deaths, population 6.55 million) compared to Arizona, a WGL state (931 deaths, population 6.39 million). Arizona, with a slightly smaller population, had nearly 3.5 times the firearms related deaths compared to Massachusetts. The recent Boston bombings were not related in any way to guns-related violence. It is also of interest to note that Massachusetts (6.72 million) with roughly the same population as the state of Washington (6.55 million) reported 270 firearms deaths overall for 2010 compared to 609 for Washington. The latter state, a fairly liberal state, is not mentioned in the list of either the 10 SGL or the 10 WGL states. 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, y (Massachusetts, MA) 270 126 138 Firearms deaths, y (Washington, WA) 609 114 464

Sadly, suicides seem to make up the bulk of the difference between these two states. Has MA been more effective than WA in preventing gun ownership? I am not the crime expert, or the legal expert, or even the social scientist who can answer this question. All I know is some mathematical analysis. That is what I have focused on here. And, I know that it is hard to recover from a gunshot wound to ones own head. The availability of firearms and the laws governing the gun ownerships clearly play a role here. Even mass murderers seem to resort to this gruesome method (a gunshot to their own head) after they have unleashed their carnage. Mental health issues must clearly be addressed, be it the mass murders that engage our attention, or the unheralded suicides that affect only the near and dear of the victims of gun violence that is inflicted on the self.

Page | 16

In conclusion, 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. 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. The analysis relies on a simple x-y graph and the well-established linear regression analysis. All of the data for the 10 SGL and the 10 WGL states has been included to avoid any data-mining or manipulation.

Page | 17

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.
3500

Overall Firearm Deaths, 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, x [in 100,000s]

Figure 6: Graphical representation of the overall firearms death for 2010 from Table 2 of America Under the Gun, by Gerney, Parsons, and Posner. Linearity is evident and so is nonlinearity if we follow the data for the states with the highest number of firearms-related deaths. Excluding the BIG Four (the four largest states, CA, TX. FL and NY), and looking at the cluster of states close to the origin, reveals a general upward pattern, which can be modeled using linear regression analysis. The nonlinear power law equation y = mxn + c can be fitted to this data and is illustrated in Figure 7. The slope of the curve dy/dx = m (nxn-1) = n (mxn/x) = n(y c)/x. For the special case of n = 1, we get the linear law y = mx + c. If c = 0, the curve
Page | 18

passes through the origin, and y = mxn and the slope dy/dx = n(y/x) decreases continuously as x increases. In other words, the higher the population of a state, the lower the firearms death rate, as measured by the slope dy/dx, rather than the ratio y/x. From the x-y diagrams here, 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, or a single state if we break it down county by county and so on for individual districts of counties.
4500

Overall Firearm Deaths, y

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 100

y = 68.11x0.667 TX A

FL A

CA y = 56.69x0.667

NY A
200 300 400 500

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

Figure 7: Power law curves y = mxn with m = 68.108 (matching TX and FL, upper curve) and m = 56.69 (matching CA, lower dashed curve). The slope of the curve, given by the mathematical derivative dy/dx of our elementary calculus courses, is the true measure of the firearms death rate, not the ratio y/x. This rate is decreasing continuously as the population increases. (I have studied traffic fatality data using the methodology just described, see articles listed under bibliography, Ref. [9]. In addition to nonlinearity, in traffic fatality studies, we also observe a maximum point on the x-y graph,
Page | 19

which can be modeled using the more general power-exponential law y = mxne-ax with the maximum point occurring at x = n/a. The derivative dy/dx = (n ax)(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, even a pedestrian killed by a motorist.

4000

Overall Firearm Deaths, 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 = 8.59x + 102.14 r2 = 0.874 NY

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

Figure 8: The simpler linear law y = hx + c is illustrated here. The best-fit line (see Ref. [8] for a worked example) has the equation y = 8.59x + 102.14 with a positive slop h and a positive intercept c (Type II behavior, as discussed in the main text). The linear regression coefficient r2 = 0.874 is quite high indicating a very strong positive correlation between these two variables. According to this viewpoint, after duly accounting for the differences in the size of the population, 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. Instead of y/x ratios for individual states,
Page | 20

this conclusion is based on a consideration of ALL of the available data. (Due to an unintended oversight, during initial data entry, ME, TN and UT points are not included in Figures 6 to 8. This has now been fixed. The regression equation developed here is for all 50 states. The data for the ME, TN and UT will be found in the cluster near the origin and so has no significant impact on the discussion thus far.)
1600 1400

Overall Firearm Deaths, y

y = 9.76x + 51.75 r2 = 0.807 Excludes BIG Four

1200 1000 800 600 400 200

y = 8.59x + 102.14 r2 = 0.874 All 50 states

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

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

Figure 9: The firearms deaths data for the smaller states (46 of 50) is modeled here using the simpler linear law. A new best-fit line was determined after excluding the BIG Four (CA, TX, FL and NY), see solid line, y = 9.762x + 51.75. The dashed line is the prior best-fit line for all 50 states, y = 8.59x + 102.14. Eliminating the BIG Four, see Figures 8 and 9, increases the slope h (which means a higher rate of increase of firearms deaths for the smaller states with increases in the population). The intercept c is still positive, although smaller
Page | 21

(Type II behavior, as discussed in the main text). Although we see some scatter, the linear regression coefficient r2 = 0.807 is quite high indicating a very strong positive correlation between these two variables. Notice that the data for several states line up nicely along the best-fit line, or fall very close to it. Also, several (x, y) pairs can be seen to fall roughly on a parallel to the bestfit line, with either a higher or a lower intercept c. This is illustrated by the two parallel lines (the small dashes), one above and one below, in Figure 10.

1600

1400

y = 9.76x + 51.74 Best-fit line y = 9.76x + 315.36

Overall Firearm Deaths, y

1200 1000

AL
800

y = 9.76x - 139.8
600 400 200 0 0 20 40

CT L
60 80 100 120 140 160

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

Figure 10: We envision a series of parallels to the best-fit line as illustrated here. One of the parallels passes through the (x, y) pair for Alabama (AL), a state with one of the worst gun violence records. AL is the top in firearms death for 2010 and has an overall rating of 8.6 (the 3rd worst record) based on all the ten gun
Page | 22

violence indicators. The lower parallel passes through the (x, y) pair for Connecticut (home of the Newtown killings). The overall ranking for CT is 43.1 and is third best record in the nation. The significance of these parallels and the varying intercept c has been discussed in the earlier article on gun death statistics, Ref. [3], and in other recent (seemingly unrelated!) articles dealing with the Debt/GDP ratio, Refs. [10-13] and Airline Quality Ratings, Refs. [14-16] and the creation of billionaires in a population [17]. Mathematically speaking, all these problems are identical. For example, the Airline Quality Ratings problem is exactly identical to the rankings developed by GPP for the gun violence problem. The intercept c in these problems, as well as the gun violence problem, is like the work function for a baseball player, see Refs. [18-20]. Very briefly, the At Bats (AB) x and the number of Hits y can be shown to follow a simple linear law y = hx + c, where the ratio y/x = BA = h + (c/x) will either increase or decrease, as the AB increase, depending on the skill of the baseball player. This determines the numerical value of the nonzero c, which can be related to the missed hits. If c = 0, there are no missed hits and the player has the PERFECT BA y/x = h = 1. We see this BA if we consider the game-by-game stats. For the legendary Babe Ruth, the batting stats for individual games reveal (x, y) scores such as (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3), (4, 4), where the first number is the AB and the second number the Hits. For these games, Ruth had the PERFECT BA y/x = 1/1 = 2/2 =3/3 = 4/4 = 1.000. However, if we consider more games and start aggregating the data on a monthly or seasonal basis, the general relationship is revealed and y = hx + c with h < 1. Hence, the BA y/x = h + (c/x) deviates from the PERFECT value. The nonzero c is the work function for the baseball player. It is exactly analogous to the idea of a work function conceived by Einstein, in 1905, to explain photoelectricity; see the references cited here for a fuller discussion. Finally, we will consider, briefly, the effects of conflating firearms deaths data by including suicides, as noted by MacBradaigh, Ref. [4]. If one uses y/x ratios, exclusively, to draw conclusions, this conflation of the data would certainly be important. However, as noted earlier in the main text, the
Page | 23

approach taken here avoid the effects of such conflation since we consider only the relative values for different states, after duly accounting for the differences in population. 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. Both self-inflicted violence, i.e., violence directed inward (as in suicides), and violence that is externally directed (as in homicides, or mass murder rampages) are legitimate concerns from the perspective of enacting gun control legislation (to discourage and/or ban outright, gun ownership among the mentally ill). As we see from the data compiled from Tables 1, 2 and Table 4 of the GPP Report (America Under the Gun), homicides are indeed a small fraction of the overall firearm related deaths, often less than 50%.

Table B: Homicides versus Overall Firearms Deaths in the 10 Worst Gun Violence States
Average Overall Firearms State GPP rating Population, Firearms Homicides Homicides (across 10 x deaths ONLY as percent indicators) (100,000s) (2010) (2010) of Overall Table 1 Table 2 Table 4 Georgia 13.9 96.910 1223 443 36.2% Arizona 10 63.898 931 271 29.1% Missouri 13.3 59.873 846 335 39.6% Alabama 8.6 47.800 782 283 36.2% S. Carolina 11.1 46.253 648 229 35.3% Louisiana 5 45.331 864 432 50.0% Mississippi 10.2 29.669 475 205 43.2% Arkansas 13.4 29.158 419 132 31.5% N. Mexico 11.4 20.588 301 76 25.2% Alaska 5.2 7.101 144 30 20.8% Data sorted by population instead of the GPP overall rating in second column. As discussed in the main text, the rating of 5 for Louisiana is the average value of the rank for LA across the 10 gun violence indicators. The lower the average rank number, the worse the gun violence record. Louisiana has the worst record (2010) in the entire nation, followed by Alaska and Alabama.

Page | 24

Nonetheless, the essential conclusion that the number of firearm-related deaths increases at a fixed rate as the population increases - remains unchanged. The HOMICIDES ONLY data for the 10 states, 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. This is the same as Figure 4 with the HOMICIDES ONLY data added.
1400 1200

Firearm Deaths, y

1000
800 600 400 200 0 0

y = 12.499x + 105.1 r2 = 0.935

Homicides

y = 4.64x + 36.24 r2 = 0.719

20 40 60 80 100 120

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

Figure 11: The number of firearms-related deaths increases at a fixed rate with increasing population, following the linear law y = hx + c. This is true for both the overall firearms-related deaths (blue diamonds) and for homicides with firearms (red dots). The (x, y) pair for Louisiana (LA) falls significantly above the best-fit line for both gun violence indicators. LA has the worst gun violence record in the nation based on all ten gun violence indicators considered in the study by Gerney, Parsons, and Posner, America Under the Gun (click here)

Page | 25

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

h = (x xm)(y ym)/ (x xm)2 Determine the deviations of the individual x and y values from the mean, or average, (x xm) and (y ym). Determine the product (x xm)(y ym) and their sum. This gives the numerator in the expression for h. Determine the square (x xm)2 and the sum. This gives the denominator in the expression for h. This also fixes the intercept c via ym = hxm = c . Then, using the regression equation, determine the predicted value yb on the best-fit line and the vertical deviation (y yb) and the squares (y- yb)2. 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, ym). The regression coefficient r2 = 1 - { (y- yb)2 / (y- ym)2 } is a measure of the strength of the correlation between x and y (or y/x versus x). For a perfect correlation, when all points lie exactly on the graph, r2 = +1.000. 9. Bibliography, Articles on Extension of Plancks Ideas and Einsteins Ideas beyond physics, Compiled on April 16, 2013, http://www.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. The Trillionaires Club of Nations: Is the US National Debt Out of Control? Published May 2, 2013, http://www.scribd.com/doc/139114239/Is-US-National-Debt-Out-ofControl-The-Trillionaires-Club-of-Nations 11. A Brief Survey of the GDP-Debt Relations for Some Modern Economies of the 21st Century, Published May 1, 2013, http://www.scribd.com/doc/138912093/A-Brief-Survey-of-the-DebtGDP-Relationship-for-Some-Modern-21st-Century-Economies 12. An MIT Non-Economists View of the Harvard-UMass Debt/GDP Ratio and Economic Growth Debate, Published April 26, 2013, http://www.scribd.com/doc/138076426/An-MIT-Non-Economist-s-Viewof-the-Harvard-UMass-Debt-GDP-Ratio-and-the-Economic-Growth-Debate 13. Iceland Votes Against Austerity: Analysis of Icelands Debt-GDP, Published April 28, 2013,
Page | 27

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/138345921/Iceland-Votes-AgainstAusterity-Analysis-of-Iceland-s-Debt-GDP-Data-2002-2012 Airline Quality Report: An Analysis of On-Time Percentages, Published April 18, 2013, http://www.scribd.com/doc/136760664/Airline-QualityReport-2013-Analysis-of-the-On-Time-Percentages Airline Quality Rating 2013, Purdue University, e-Pubs, April 8, 2013, by Dr. Brent D. Bowen (Purdue University, College of Technology) and Dr. Dean E. Headley (Wichita State University, W. Frank Barton School of Business) http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/aqrr/23/ Airline Quality Report 2013: An Analysis of On-Time Percentages, Published April 18, 2013, http://www.scribd.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.scribd.com/doc/128944910/The-Rate-of-Creation-ofBillionaires-Analysis-of-the-2013-Forbes-Billionaire-s-List Discussion of Millikans experiment in Appendix 1 here with regression equations for lithium and sodium. Babe Ruth Batting Statistics and Einsteins Work Function, Published April 17, 2013, http://www.scribd.com/doc/136556738/Babe-RuthBatting-Statistics-and-Einstein-s-Work-Function Tax equations and marginal tax rate also discussed here, see table 2 on page 13. Babe Ruths 1923 Batting Statistics and Einsteins Work Function, Published April 17, 2013, http://www.scribd.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), Published May 7, 2013, http://www.scribd.com/doc/139924317/The-Method-of-Least-SquaresPredicting-the-Batting-Average-of-a-Baseball-Player-Hamilton-in-2013

Page | 28

About the author V. Laxmanan, Sc. D.

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

actually have many applications far beyond blackbody radiation studies where it was first conceived. Einsteins photoelectric law is a simple linear law and was deduced from Plancks non-linear law for describing blackbody radiation. It appears that financial and economic systems can be modeled using a similar approach. Finance, business, economics and management sciences now essentially seem to operate like astronomy and physics before the advent of Kepler and Newton. Finally, during my professional career, I also twice had the opportunity and great honor to make presentations to two Nobel laureates: first at NASA to Prof. Robert Schrieffer (1972 Physics Nobel Prize), who was the Chairman of the Schrieffer Committee appointed to review NASAs space flight experiments (following the loss of the space shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986) and second at GM Research Labs to Prof. Robert Solow (1987 Nobel Prize in economics), who was Chairman of Corporate Research Review Committee, appointed by GM corporate management.

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.

Page | 30