The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence

[Bootstrap]

In terms of numbers and per capita risk, almost all gun violence is concentrated in a few specific areas of large cities. (Most of which have strict gun laws too.)

I hear people say that kind of thing, but it doesn't match what I find in studies and data. Here's a useful article:

The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence

A few quick sound bites:

• New York City has a lower rate of gun deaths than the national average
• Florida and Texas have very high rates
• The Deep South has the highest rate of gun deaths among major regions
• Appalachia has the highest rate of gun suicides
• The West has much lower rates than you might think

[Josh]

In terms of numbers and per capita risk, almost all gun violence is concentrated in a few specific areas of large cities. (Most of which have strict gun laws too.)

I hear people say that kind of thing, but it doesn't match what I find in studies and data. Here's a useful article:

The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence

A few quick sound bites:

• New York City has a lower rate of gun deaths than the national average
• Florida and Texas have very high rates
• The Deep South has the highest rate of gun deaths among major regions
• Appalachia has the highest rate of gun suicides
• The West has much lower rates than you might think

Sorry, Boot, but the fact is I'm likely to get shot if I go to certain places in certain cities, which is what most normal people care about. If I stay put in my law-abiding region where nonetheless all of my neighbours seem to have a lot of guns and to go outside and target practice a lot... hardly anyone ever gets shot. There hasn't even been an accidental shooting here in years.

[Bootstrap]

Sorry, Boot, but the fact is ...

Fact is, just saying something with that tone doesn't make it a fact.

If you think the article got something wrong, please identify what it got wrong and give some verifiable facts. And make sure it's something the article actually said or the summary I gave actually said, please.

[Bootstrap]

This article compares risks associated with:

1. US combat zones
2. The most violent parts of Chicago
3. The most violent parts of Philadelphia
4. The most violent parts of New York City

Note that the worst parts of Los Angeles and New York City have nowhere near the violence found in the worst parts of Chicago and Philadelphia. The worst parts of Chicago and Philadelphia are more dangerous than US combat zones!

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane ... le/2799859

[Ken]

Sorry, Boot, but the fact is I'm likely to get shot if I go to certain places in certain cities, which is what most normal people care about. If I stay put in my law-abiding region where nonetheless all of my neighbours seem to have a lot of guns and to go outside and target practice a lot... hardly anyone ever gets shot. There hasn't even been an accidental shooting here in years.

Cities are big places. The fact is that most people who live in big cities never go near the most dangerous neighborhoods, and neither do people who visit. You can live your entire lives in New York and never go near some dangerous neighborhood in the South Bronx. Or live your entire lives in Chicago and neve go near Englewood on the south side. And even if you did you'd likely to be perfectly safe since most of the violence in those neighborhoods is drug and gang related and not targeted towards outsiders.

But statistically speaking Boot is right. Most big cities don't rate high on list of most dangerous places for gun violence. There are plenty of smaller towns and rural areas (especially in the south) where rates of gun violence are higher.

[Bootstrap]

But statistically speaking Boot is right. Most big cities don't rate high on list of most dangerous places for gun violence. There are plenty of smaller towns and rural areas (especially in the south) where rates of gun violence are higher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... icide_rate

[NedFlanders]

Yeah, and people were considered to have died from COVID if they died in a car crash but tested positive for COVID.

What have we learned?!!
These charts and graphs don’t necessarily tell us anything other than failable human beings have input some data that may or may not be true and may or may not be distorted in some way. Moving the goalposts gives all kinds of room for agendas that can be pushed.

What good does charts? Not much.

Go walk the streets and share the Gospel of the kingdom of God. The charts remind me that is what we need to do everywhere. But we don’t need charts to know to do that…

[Ken]

Yeah, and people were considered to have died from COVID if they died in a car crash but tested positive for COVID.

Doubtful. Do you have evidence this was happening? Medical examiners and coroners do have standards and laws that they need to follow. None of that changed during COVID.

What have we learned?!!
These charts and graphs don’t necessarily tell us anything other than failable human beings have input some data that may or may not be true and may or may not be distorted in some way. Moving the goalposts gives all kinds of room for agendas that can be pushed.

If you think they are inaccurate or not reflective of reality, feel free to explain how and why.

[Bootstrap]

Yeah, and people were considered to have died from COVID if they died in a car crash but tested positive for COVID.

That's a political talking point. It may be true, it may be false, we need to look at the data to know. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the geography of gun violence.

Graphs are one way to view data. Most people grasp data better graphically. But there are lots of ways to look at data. For instance, if you follow the link, you will find sortable tables that let you sort in various ways. In this thread, let's look at analyses or data for the topic of this thread. Or not, if you prefer not to, no need to participate.

What have we learned?!!
These charts and graphs don’t necessarily tell us anything other than failable human beings have input some data that may or may not be true and may or may not be distorted in some way. Moving the goalposts gives all kinds of room for agendas that can be pushed.

I think we have learned that data can show surprising results that may not agree with political talking points. And when that happens, it's worth looking to see if the data is accurate or not. In this thread feel free to do that for the charts I have presented. They are based on CDC data, or at least claim to be. If there are flaws, please point them out.

This is how critical thinking works.

[Josh]

Boot,

Are you sure your graphs aren't confounded with another more obvious explanation? Just looking at those graphs, I can instantly see a correlation with a couple other demographic factors.

To have a real analysis, such confounding factors need removed first.