"The Geography of U.S. Gun Violence"

[Ted King]

.

[mattkime]

Smote wrote:
[quote=mattkime]
[quote=Smote]I'm not refuting it, but I'd love to hear how one side got it so wrong.

How long were you in a coma?
that is an unkind thing to say.
Birtherism
QAnon
Covid denial
Vaccine refusal
January 6th

...so lets not pretend like the mistake occurs in isolation.

[pdq]

Smote wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
If I remember what I heard on the NPR show, the guest said that contrary to what a lot of MAGA believers like to think (the guest didn't put it terms of MAGA believers - that is my spin), in terms of gun violence New York City is not only not a hellhole, it is one of the very safest places you can live in the United States.

I would absolutely love to hear how NYC is so safe. Never been there, so I have no real opinion. I'm not refuting it, but I'd love to hear how one side got it so wrong.
A combination of prejudice, ignorance and a changing situation.

New York City Is a Lot Safer Than Small-Town America



These are “external” deaths - when external things cause your death (ie non-health related). A lot safer overall, partly because very few people drive in NYC, so traffic deaths are way lower. Also, parts of NYC are quite well-to-do, and those areas are always lower in crime, as a general rule.

But, also:



Gun laws work. Success and peace breed success and peace.

Full disclosure: these graphs leave off the 9/11 attacks.

Washington Post (gift link).

[SDGuy]

One has to remember that news media often pushes a narrative - for crime, at the moment it appears to be the assaults happening in places like San Francisco & New York, as well as retail theft in large cities. Just because those crimes garner the media's attention doesn't mean those events are rampant (compared to elsewhere) - unless you dig deeper, you won't know that by looking at ust media headlines.

As a reminder for the original thread topic - there are regional differences;
from that one would gather that what works in one place may not work elsewhere.
As I noted above, if one wants to assume that it is just the laws of a particular place that affect the outcome, then to minimize homicides, everywhere in the United States should just adopt New Hampshire's laws.

I suspect that many on this board would have a problem with that, particularly with their laws on firearms
(as noted by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence:
"What New Hampshire Is Missing (i.e. these do NOT exist in New Hampshire)
- Universal background checks
- Gun owner licensing
- Extreme risk protection orders
- Assault weapon restrictions
- Large capacity magazine ban
- Waiting periods
- Concealed carry permit
- Open carry regulations")

I think the tricky balancing act that the States' and the Federal Governments are still trying to figure out is what the boundary is between what is and is not allowed (not only in the laws themselves, but answering the question of which areas are Federal, and which are the domain of the States; i.e. the age-old States' Rights question).

[pdq]

This is getting old-ish (2013), but:



Criticisms include: this includes suicide, not controlled for varying levels of education or income among states.

…and there are also ones like this:



“Strictest gun laws” is obviously subject to interpretation, but there does seem to be some (reverse) correlation here.

[btfc]

“ comppletely unregulated “

More ‘compplete’ BS from the ignorant sock troll.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

pdq wrote:
This is getting old-ish (2013), but:



Criticisms include: this includes suicide, not controlled for varying levels of education or income among states.

…and there are also ones like this:



“Strictest gun laws” is obviously subject to interpretation, but there does seem to be some (reverse) correlation here.

This is closer to what I would have expected, with red states generally having higher shooting rates.

[SDGuy]

remember - people are only dead if they are shot; no need to look at something like the overall homicide rate - those numbers are meaningless...

[pdq]

SDGuy wrote:
remember - people are only dead if they are shot; no need to look at something like the overall homicide rate - those numbers are meaningless...

Not sure what your point is - the top seven states in homicide rate are red states that are racing to eliminate whatever gun laws they still have.

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]
remember - people are only dead if they are shot; no need to look at something like the overall homicide rate - those numbers are meaningless...

Not sure what your point is - the top seven states in homicide rate are red states that are racing to eliminate whatever gun laws they still have.
I just don't see the point in posting something that is along the lines of "look - I've discovered that Gun Deaths happen where Guns exist"; it's like saying "I noticed that drownings occur where water exists", or "Did you ever notice that drunk drivers are more prevalent where cars exist, than where cars don't exist?"