3 ms·

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 somet

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.

bobthepanda 4y ago
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rural-america/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rur... * 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.
- itsyaboi 4y ago
  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.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    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).
    - TechBro8615 4y ago
      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.
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        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).
    - itsyaboi 4y ago
      > 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
  - pseudo0 4y ago
    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.
Ancapistani 4y ago
> 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.

bobthepanda 4y ago

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rural-america/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rur... * 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.

itsyaboi 4y ago
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.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  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).
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    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.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      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).
  - itsyaboi 4y ago
    > 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
- pseudo0 4y ago
  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.

Ancapistani 4y ago

> 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.