Indeed. The most liberal metro areas, like NYC, have many fewer firearm death rates per capita than Republican-leaning areas like Florida and Texas.
Alas, when faced with facts that disagree with their beliefs, most people will immediately get busy finding plausible explanations that would allow them to continue believing the same things without losing face. "Surely there must be something wrong with these figures," they'll think.
Blue cities are generally subject to the same gun regs as rural areas in red states; if not, state legislators are more than happy to take away cities’ legal ability to regulate.
Sure. And if gun regulations are the same throughout the state, but per-capita gun homicide is higher in a blue city within a red state, then that implies something about blue governance correlates to higher gun violence. The fact that the difference is likely not due to gun restrictions only strengthens the argument against their effectiveness.
* From 2016 to 2020, the two U.S. counties to experience the most gun homicides per capita were rural* (see Figure 1); Phillips County, Arkansas: 55.45 age-adjusted homicides per 100,000 people; Lowndes County, Alabama: 48.36 age-adjusted homicides per 100,000 people*
* From 2016 to 2020, 13 of the 20 U.S. counties with the most gun homicides per capita were rural: (see Figure 1); 80 percent of these 20 counties are in states that received an “F” grade for their weak gun laws, according to Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s 2021 annual state scorecard rankings.
* In 2020, the total gun death rate for rural communities—when age-adjusted per 100,000 people—was 40 percent higher than it was for large metropolitan areas.
I checked the population of both Phillips County, Arkansas and Lowndes County, Alabama and they have ~15k and ~10k populations, respectively. That's a single digit number of homicides over a 4 year period.
The Mark Twain quote concerning statistics would be pertinent here.
Yes, the numbers were per capita, so urban areas have the advantage of dividing their incidents by their huge population numbers. It’s like playing the lottery, the odds might be better for being a victim of crime in rural areas, but there are alot more people in urban areas who will become a victim (just less chance it will be yourself).
I'm not sure it's so simple. You're assuming the same random distribution of victims in each place. But crimes are rarely random, and to the degree that they are crimes of opportunity (mugging, robbing a store, senseless violence) vs. premeditated targeting (revenge, passion, etc), it's possible that urban crimes are "more random" than rural crimes. I don't know that they are, of course, but you'd need to be a bit more careful than simply assuming normally distributed randomness of being victim to a homicide.
No, cities are even less dangerous for most people by that measure. Most people in cities aren’t in gang, nor are they dealing drugs or picking up hookers on the Highway. This is a well known issue, even in “dangerous” cities like St. Louis, homicide victims are often related to the perpetrators in some way (eg in an opposing gang). Violent crime victims are also more likely to be poor (this is true in rural areas as well).
> In 2020, the total gun death rate for rural communities—when age-adjusted per 100,000 people—was 40 percent higher than it was for large metropolitan areas.
The variance in homicide rate is going to be drastically larger for a tiny county of 10k people than a county with 1 million. The difference between 0 homicides/100k and 50 homicides/100k is five people. So trying to compare a few giant urban counties and a bunch of small rural counties is going to result in the small rural counties dominating both the lowest and the highest spots. I noticed they did not list the 20 counties with the lowest homicide rates, I suspect because it would have been 20 tiny rural counties with a rate of 0. And that would have contradicted their narrative.
They also selectively choose between "gun deaths" and homicides, and also apply an "age-adjustment" fudge factor, so the numbers they present are not accurate representations of actual homicide rates. Homicide also includes justifiable homicides, like self-defense or justifiable use of force police shootings.
It's a pretty classic example of selective presentation and twisting of statistics to suit a pre-established narrative. Not really surprising given who paid for the piece.
> that implies something about blue governance correlates to higher gun violence
I disagree.
I believe it implies that population density is correlated with gun deaths.
FWIW, I’m as pro-gun as a person can be. While I allow for the idea that restrictions may lead to greater gun violence (not “gun deaths”, but “gun violence”), the evidence I’ve seen for that seems to account for only a very small portion of the difference.
My (untested) belief is that people who are often on in a position where they cannot contact others for help develop a tendency to solve problems (real or perceived) themselves. In other words, independence breeds self-reliance. Contrast that with people who have possibly literally never been in a situation where if they screamed for help no one would be able to hear them. It makes total sense to me that “just call the police” would be their viewpoint; it’s consistent with their lived experience.
When you live somewhere police response is a half hour or more - even assuming you’re able to contact them - owning and carrying a firearm is far more reasonable.
You are also doing shallow reading as well, for the sake of your priors. The title is clickbait and does not align with the main premise of the author, thanks editors!
> The reasons for these disparities go beyond modern policy differences and extend back to events that predate not only the American party system but the advent of shotguns, revolvers, ammunition cartridges, breach-loaded rifles and the American republic itself. The geography of gun violence — and public and elite ideas about how it should be addressed — is the result of differences at once regional, cultural and historical. Once you understand how the country was colonized — and by whom — a number of insights into the problem are revealed.
It's so wrong to ever include suicides in city/location violence statistics/discussions. All it does is muddy the discussion for no discernable benefit. Yes, self-directed violence is a thing, but it's not what people mean when they talk about violence in cities.
It's not what you mean when you talk about violence in cities. There was nothing calm and sedate when mi amigo Doug put the barrel of a .357 in his mouth and pulled the trigger.
If you don't care to look at the statistics for suicide, look at the map that says "homicides" and not the maps that say "deaths" or "suicides".
To ignore suicides - which are the majority - in order to sensationalize the rest is not going to help anyone. And look where we are?
Yet this is what the media does. And the unaware masses follow along championing a false narrative. We need transparency in order to have the necessary discussions.
Whatever we do what we're doing now lacks transparency and is unacceptable. I have no issue with people being concerned about mass shootings. But when those are a fraction and the majority is ignored - because the media loves to sensationalize (read: profit from) from mass shootings - that is a problem.
We can't have adult discussions when less than 50% of the data on gun related deaths is on the table.
Sounds like Southern Americans are going to be upset no matter what. The solution (as implied by TFA) is not stricter gun control. The solution is to change the culture in those areas with high gun violence. And if there's one thing some Americans hate more than blaming firearms, it's being told their culture is harmful to their health.
They are including suicide, and in a state like Wyoming, 85% of gun violence is gun suicide. Still not great, maybe conservatives are just more depressed, but it’s not the same as violence against others.
30 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 79.1 ms ] threadAlas, when faced with facts that disagree with their beliefs, most people will immediately get busy finding plausible explanations that would allow them to continue believing the same things without losing face. "Surely there must be something wrong with these figures," they'll think.
It's human nature.
* From 2016 to 2020, the two U.S. counties to experience the most gun homicides per capita were rural* (see Figure 1); Phillips County, Arkansas: 55.45 age-adjusted homicides per 100,000 people; Lowndes County, Alabama: 48.36 age-adjusted homicides per 100,000 people*
* From 2016 to 2020, 13 of the 20 U.S. counties with the most gun homicides per capita were rural: (see Figure 1); 80 percent of these 20 counties are in states that received an “F” grade for their weak gun laws, according to Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s 2021 annual state scorecard rankings.
* In 2020, the total gun death rate for rural communities—when age-adjusted per 100,000 people—was 40 percent higher than it was for large metropolitan areas.
The Mark Twain quote concerning statistics would be pertinent here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
They also selectively choose between "gun deaths" and homicides, and also apply an "age-adjustment" fudge factor, so the numbers they present are not accurate representations of actual homicide rates. Homicide also includes justifiable homicides, like self-defense or justifiable use of force police shootings.
It's a pretty classic example of selective presentation and twisting of statistics to suit a pre-established narrative. Not really surprising given who paid for the piece.
I disagree.
I believe it implies that population density is correlated with gun deaths.
FWIW, I’m as pro-gun as a person can be. While I allow for the idea that restrictions may lead to greater gun violence (not “gun deaths”, but “gun violence”), the evidence I’ve seen for that seems to account for only a very small portion of the difference.
My (untested) belief is that people who are often on in a position where they cannot contact others for help develop a tendency to solve problems (real or perceived) themselves. In other words, independence breeds self-reliance. Contrast that with people who have possibly literally never been in a situation where if they screamed for help no one would be able to hear them. It makes total sense to me that “just call the police” would be their viewpoint; it’s consistent with their lived experience.
When you live somewhere police response is a half hour or more - even assuming you’re able to contact them - owning and carrying a firearm is far more reasonable.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-11-23/...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gun-homicide-link...
> The reasons for these disparities go beyond modern policy differences and extend back to events that predate not only the American party system but the advent of shotguns, revolvers, ammunition cartridges, breach-loaded rifles and the American republic itself. The geography of gun violence — and public and elite ideas about how it should be addressed — is the result of differences at once regional, cultural and historical. Once you understand how the country was colonized — and by whom — a number of insights into the problem are revealed.
Just to clarify a bit, over half of all gun deaths are due to suicide.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miya...
https://theconversation.com/54-of-firearm-deaths-in-the-us-a...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics/gun-violence-data-wh...
If you don't care to look at the statistics for suicide, look at the map that says "homicides" and not the maps that say "deaths" or "suicides".
To ignore suicides - which are the majority - in order to sensationalize the rest is not going to help anyone. And look where we are?
Yet this is what the media does. And the unaware masses follow along championing a false narrative. We need transparency in order to have the necessary discussions.
We can't have adult discussions when less than 50% of the data on gun related deaths is on the table.
"There's a town in Georgia's got a law on the books Says if we all got guns then we won't have crooks Now what could make them think that way?"
and, on the same album:
"Violence rules, guns are cool and we've got guns, in our school"
The writing was on the wall. I was teaching at a small school in Arizona when Columbine happened. I probably did a face palm and kept teaching....