Chicago has received a lot of unwanted attention because of the absolute number of murders in recent years. But, a new study finds having more gun laws leads to lower gun death rates. Which is better: the absolute number or the rate?

In the dozen or so states with the most gun control-related laws, far fewer people were shot to death or killed themselves with guns than in the states with the fewest laws, the study found. Overall, states with the most laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws.

The results are based on an analysis of 2007-2010 gun-related homicides and suicides from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers also used data on gun control measures in all 50 states compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a well-known gun control advocacy group. They compared states by dividing them into four equal-sized groups according to the number of gun laws.

The results were published online Wednesday in the medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

More than 30,000 people nationwide die from guns every year nationwide, and there’s evidence that gun-related violent crime rates have increased since 2008, a journal editorial noted.

Even this first quoted paragraph conflates two different measures: the absolute number of gun deaths versus gun death rates. What does the public care most about? Rates make more sense from a comparative point of view as they reduce the differences in population. Of course Chicago would have more murders and crimes than other cities with smaller populations – after all, it is the third most populous city in the United States. Researchers are probably more inclined to use rates. But, absolute numbers tend to lead to more scintillating stories. The media can focus on milestone numbers, 400, 500, 600 murders, as well as consistently report on percentage differences as the months go by. Rates are not complicated to understand but are not as simple as absolute numbers.

I can’t help but think that a little more statistical literacy could be beneficial here. If the public and the media heard about and knew how to interpret rates, perhaps the conversation would be different.