"The Geography of U.S. Gun Violence"

[pdq]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=pdq]
[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?"
It’s just correlation. Some say correlation does not prove causation, but in reality, scientists examine (and test) correlation to establish risk (and causation) all the time. It’s how we discovered that high blood cholesterol and smoking increase your risk for heart attacks, for instance.

More guns and easy availability increase the risk of gun deaths and homicides. It’s not rocket science, and we should do something about it. In my view, reducing the availability and number of guns is the most practical option.

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]
[quote=pdq]
[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?"
It’s just correlation. Some say correlation does not prove causation, but in reality, scientists examine (and test) correlation to establish risk (and causation) all the time. It’s how we discovered that high blood cholesterol and smoking increase your risk for heart attacks, for instance.

More guns and easy availability increase the risk of gun deaths and homicides. It’s not rocket science, and we should do something about it. In my view, reducing the availability and number of guns is the most practical option.
"More guns and easy availability increase the risk of gun deaths and homicides."
That's the one change I'd make to your premise; New Hampshire has the lowest homicide rate in the Nation, by far at 0.90/100K. The next closest State (Maine) has nearly double the rate at 1.60/100K. Both of those rates are nearly rounding errors when compared to the highest homicide rates in this country, yet for their gun laws, they both receive "F" grades from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

If one were to judge the States' Laws based on actual outcome, both New Hampshire and Maine would be held up as shining examples that the rest should follow.

It is far more than just the availability of firearms which affects things (which loops back to the OP - there are vast regional/cultural differences which have an outsized effect on gun violence).

[pdq]

You’re dealing with outliers - cherry-picking, as it were; I’m looking at the whole picture.

[Lemon Drop]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
A fascinating study, here is the link to the full article:

https://www.nationhoodlab.org/the-geogra...-violence/

Oops. I looked up info on Nationhood Lab and accidentally linked to that rather than the article. Thanks for the correction.

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.
It is relatively safe if you are white.

Black Americans experience less violence in the South than in big metro areas in other parts of the country.

This study has some shortcomings that I think are pretty important to consider before embracing the conclusions.

They lack data on gun deaths for most small rural counties. The South is made up mostly of very small rural counties. The data also varies by demographics, what they have presented is data mostly for white Americans.

And just a personal observation, yes our cpuntry was settled hundreds of years ago by people with differing backgrounds and motivations. However, it is 2023 now. People have mixed and moved all over, and the culture has homogenized quite a lot. Even as we are polarized on sometimes narrow political victories. I personally think the Red/blue state thing is very misleading too, and causes people to stereotype.

You will find gun nuts everywhere, and gun safety advocates everywhere.

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
You’re dealing with outliers - cherry-picking, as it were; I’m looking at the whole picture.

No - I'd say you're completely ignoring what I wrote, and the topic of the OP: that there are regional and cultural differences at play, which have an outsized effect on violence (despite whatever laws may be in force).

You seem to have the idea that there is a one-size-fits-all solution; all the OP and myself are pointing out is that that idea is not likely to work.

[Lemon Drop]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=pdq]
You’re dealing with outliers - cherry-picking, as it were; I’m looking at the whole picture.

No - I'd say you're completely ignoring what I wrote, and the topic of the OP: that there are regional and cultural differences at play, which have an outsized effect on violence (despite whatever laws may be in force).

You seem to have the idea that there is a one-size-fits-all solution; all the OP and myself are pointing out is that that idea is not likely to work.
New Hampshire is a tiny mostly rural state with 92% white middle class people, Population 1.4M.

Nobody would suggest we extrapolate from that few people, and such a limited demograghic slice, what works for the entire country. We already know what works. We lack the will to do it and apparently prefer never ending slaughter of children.

[SDGuy]

Lemon Drop wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]
[quote=pdq]
You’re dealing with outliers - cherry-picking, as it were; I’m looking at the whole picture.

No - I'd say you're completely ignoring what I wrote, and the topic of the OP: that there are regional and cultural differences at play, which have an outsized effect on violence (despite whatever laws may be in force).

You seem to have the idea that there is a one-size-fits-all solution; all the OP and myself are pointing out is that that idea is not likely to work.
New Hampshire is a tiny mostly rural state with 92% white middle class people, Population 1.4M.

Nobody would suggest we extrapolate from that few people, and such a limited demograghic slice, what works for the entire country. We already know what works. We lack the will to do it and apparently prefer never ending slaughter of children.
Did you read the OP?

[Lemon Drop]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
[quote=SDGuy]
[quote=pdq]
You’re dealing with outliers - cherry-picking, as it were; I’m looking at the whole picture.

No - I'd say you're completely ignoring what I wrote, and the topic of the OP: that there are regional and cultural differences at play, which have an outsized effect on violence (despite whatever laws may be in force).

You seem to have the idea that there is a one-size-fits-all solution; all the OP and myself are pointing out is that that idea is not likely to work.
New Hampshire is a tiny mostly rural state with 92% white middle class people, Population 1.4M.

Nobody would suggest we extrapolate from that few people, and such a limited demograghic slice, what works for the entire country. We already know what works. We lack the will to do it and apparently prefer never ending slaughter of children.
Did you read the OP?
Yes. Obvious from my other comments.

[SDGuy]

Lemon Drop wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]
Did you read the OP?

Yes. Obvious from my other comments.
Just checking, since you didn't seem to comprehend what I had posted - namely that one cannot assume that what will work in one place (in this case New Hampshire) would work elsewhere, because of what was described in the OP: that there are regional and cultural differences at play, which greatly affect the manifestation of violence in society.

I'm just curious, though, why both yourself and pdq seem to be advocating for a one-size-fits-all approach, when this would be in conflict with what the OP is pointing out.

If I were to paraphrase your stance (please correct if this is wrong), it seems to be: "look at those places with high rates of gun violence; they should change their laws to be like places with lower rates of gun violence...but not those places with the lowest levels of gun violence, since their laws are nearly the same as the places with the highest levels of gun violence, and we can't have that".

[pdq]

SDGuy wrote:
...not those places with the lowest levels of gun violence, since their laws are nearly the same as the places with the highest levels of gun violence, and we can't have that".

Where did you get the idea that New Hampshire and Maine have the lowest levels of gun violence, anyway? Wikipedia puts New Hampshire at 14th and Maine at 17th (lowest). Those two states (easily!) have the highest level of gun violence in New England.

Big bad New York puts them both to shame. Of course, it must be the lax gun laws there.

:RollingEyesSmiley5: