Politcs and firearms.

Anti-Rights cultists, like “Perfectly Frank”, usually try to do two things; first they want to make firearm related violence simplistic (There are too many guns) and second, they usually try to paint gun owners with a broad brush.
Frank tried it with his “Adding Color To Firearm Death Rates” . He took the very simplistic approach of ‘determining’ which states are ‘Red’ (Conservative) and which states are “Blue” (Liberal); of course the top states with high firearm death rates are predominately Red. I left a reply – actually two – with links or the images below. That was Thursday; funny how there has been no reply since then.
These images are still very simplistic but add a layer of information or two.

First, as I showed with the city statistics for the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex; not every area is the same. Especially not at the state level like Frank is trying to imply. I really like this first graphic; everyone has seen it. It shows some major cities in relation to the firearm death rates of other countries. Of course these aren’t ‘advanced, developed, western, handpicked nations’ so I’m sure some people will claim the comparison is invalid.

 

, e

 

The last graphic shows the voting pattern, broken down by county level, for ‘red’ and ‘blue’ states. Amazing how Red the country looks at this level of detail; much different from Frank’s list by state.

 

 

And when we look at the homicides by city and then look at the counties those cities are in; an amazing thing happens — it looks like many of those cities are voting liberal !!! Oh no, doesn’t that kinda run counter the ‘conservative’ areas are killing others more often?

Now, there are some important differences between urban and rural areas that need to be addressed.

Objectives. We analyzed urban–rural differences in intentional firearm death.

Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to 3141 US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category urban–rural variable.

Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI=1.29, 1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban. The most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the adjusted firearm homicide rate of the most rural. Similar opposing trends were not found for nonfirearm suicide or homicide.

Conclusions. Firearm suicide in rural counties is as important a public health problem as firearm homicide in urban counties. Policymakers should become aware that intentional firearm deaths affect all types of communities in the United States.

Cities have nearly twice the firearm homicide rate of rural areas while rural areas only have a slightly higher rate of suicide. Other distinctions have been noted.

Background: Family physicians can play a vital role in preventing gun violence, and better data on which to base their interventions might result in more effective prevention efforts. Using Washington State data, two assumptions on which interventions can be based were tested: compared with urban areas, rural areas have (1) a higher percentage of gun deaths from shotguns and rifles, and (2) a higher percentage of gun deaths from suicides and accidents.

This is important as we consider that suicides are much more common then homicides and the types of gun control laws proposed by anti-rights cultists are unlikely to address the most common rifles and shotguns used in rural suicides. That is unless they push for really draconian laws.

I won’t get into the debate about whether or not we suicide should be illegal. I’ll just note that very few of the gun control laws proposed by any of the antis address suicides.

Please join the discussion.

 

 

 

14 Responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Frank on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    I love you Bob.

  2. Posted by Bob S. on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    Frank,

    I’m taken. Happily married for 12 years. Sorry to disappoint.

    What makes me disappointed is your lack of response. Thought you wanted a dialog, that you wanted to learn. How about responding to the data presented here.

  3. Posted by Frank on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    Misrepresenting someone in the first line of your post, calling them an “Anti-rights cultist” is not the best way to solicit a a read or response Bob. I’d like to tone down the rhetoric.

  4. Posted by Weer'd Beard on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    I haven’t seen one scrap of behavior from you Frank that you are at all at being A) Open Minded, or B) consistent.

    Hell case and point, you tell Bob to “tone down the rhetoric”, and even put up a post on your own blog apologizing for using over-the-top rhetoric, and your desire to tone it down yourself.

    Then your very next post goes on with more ignorant and intentionally insulting rhetoric. When I addressed this you dismissed me.

    Sorry, Frank you have consistently showed that you are anti-gun, and all the work you have done since you started talking guns has obviously been you working VERY hard to ignore the truth, dismiss the pro-gun arguments without looking into them, and cherry picking from deeply biased anti-rights groups.

    That’s a text book definition of a “Cultist”,

  5. Posted by Frank on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    I’m sorry I haven’t answered each post and comment from the two of you. I fully admit my interaction has been superficial so far, and that the time I’ve been spending on this has been very limited. I still hope to make more time to critically read and think about more of your posts/comments.

    I still believe that I’m using fewer intellectually dishonest debate tactics in our interactions, but I suppose most folks do believe that.

    I have been thinking and reading quite a bit toward the goal of clarifying my position even further. I’ve said that some of my beliefs require a “perfect world” and will fully admit that I can be an idealist. I’d love for most folks to eventually, 100 years from now, 1000 years from now, no longer feel the need to own a gun for anything other than sport. But I realize we don’t live in that perfect world.

  6. Posted by Bob S. on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    Frank,

    Anti-rights cultists is a term coined by Linoge and adopted by many gun bloggers – and honestly you fit the description. You call, without knowing the facts, for a reduction of the number of firearms in the country. You call for greater restrictions on our rights.

    Don’t like the term; prove it doesn’t fit. What would you like to be called — and you’ll notice I call out more than just you ?

    I still believe that I’m using fewer intellectually dishonest debate tactics in our interactions, but I suppose most folks do believe that.

    One the things that makes me laugh is comments like that. I put up a post refuting your points, showing with facts, evidence, citations how your view of the situation is a.) limited, b.) simplistic and c.) basically WRONG.
    And your response is straight from your list of things not to do — You ignore the information, You attack the messenger. You claim you are too busy — but this has been a pattern since I started commenting on your blog. You don’t mind asking a bunch of questions but you seem reluctant to address questions others pose.

    You wanted a dialog– let’s talk. I don’t expect perfection — but I do expect courtesy. I’ve done you the courtesy of addressing your points. Could you do the same to address mine?

  7. Posted by Frank on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    Bob I honestly don’t know what you want to discuss at this point or what you want me to say. I can concede that rural areas are much more red than urban ones that are densely populated and generally have a higher number of college educated residents. I’ve stated in the past that I think it makes sense for most of these laws to be settled at the state or local level. I originally started writing about gun control because I disagreed with the NRA’s law suits against city’s like Philadelphia that are trying to control their own destiny. Setting laws at the state and local level is generally a policy heralded by republicans is it not? Why is that not the case with this issue?

    We’ve already discussed the comparisons against developed countries. Those countries are defined as members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and are acknowledged by the CIA World Factbook. These countries are often used as comparisons because they are mainly democratic like ours and aren’t in the midst of civil wars and other things.

    I am sure that which way a state tends to lean in Presidential elections is not the best indicator of a state having a high rate of gun deaths. But in my opinion it is an interesting observation. Perhaps this has nothing to do with guns or gun control. Perhaps it has more to do with issues of economics or education. I don’t know. But again, I consider the perception of a correlation to be an interesting thing, not to be ignored because it’s uncomfortable for Republicans/Conservatives.

  8. Posted by Weer'd Beard on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    “. I originally started writing about gun control because I disagreed with the NRA’s law suits against city’s like Philadelphia that are trying to control their own destiny. ”

    See, there’s a HUGE problem right there. The towns that the NRA is suing are BREAKING THE LAW. Pennsylvania has a non-preemption law when it comes to firearms law. That simply means that when it comes to possessing, owning, and carrying firearms in the state of PA, the State laws are the law of the land, and no town or municipality may pass additional laws or restrictions.

    So you can wax poetic all you want about “controlling their own destiny”, but the methods for which they are doing it are illegal, and frankly criminal.

  9. Posted by Bob S. on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    Frank,

    You put up a post that implied a casual relationship or at least a correlation to state level politics and firearm deaths.

    Is that relationship valid?

    How is it an interesting observation if most of the firearm related deaths aren’t happening in the areas that are of the political party you are claiming?

    The data I provided shows that suicides happen only slightly more often in the rural areas — but at the same time those areas have less population, right?

    So more suicides in the cities — which tend to be liberal. More homicides in the cities, which tend to be liberal.

    I consider the perception of a correlation to be an interesting thing, not to be ignored because it’s uncomfortable for Republicans/Conservatives.

    Jiminy Crickets — there are none so blind as those who will not see. YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE ISSUE IS WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!

    Perception isn’t reality, that is what I’m trying to tell you. Your simplistic “ohh…look at all these red states with high firearm related deaths” doesn’t pan out once the data is really analyzed.

    Honduras isn’t in the middle of a civil war, Mexico isn’t, Jamiaca isn’t. Most of the countries higher in firearm related deaths than America aren’t — Is there a Civil War in RUSSIA?

    You’re selectively ignoring the facts because they are uncomfortable to your world view.

    Setting laws at the state and local level is generally a policy heralded by republicans is it not? Why is that not the case with this issue?

    Where it makes sense and is based on the Constitution — yes. But this isn’t even remotely that case — would you let each city or state decide slavery? How about women voting?

    Our rights are spelled out in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution FOR the United States of America. That is Federal; ever city, ever state has to follow the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled, twice now in recent times, that the Right to Keep and Bear arms is an individual right and cities and states are limited in their ability to infringe on that right.Yet cities like Philly continue to try to abridge that right — in direct contravention not only to the Federal Constitution but to the state Constitution and state law. Pennsylvannia has established pre-emption; the cities and states can not make any law that is more narrow in scope, more restrictive than state law.

    Philly and other cities are still trying to do that. Are you encouraging cities to defy state law? Encouraging states to defy federal law?

  10. Posted by Frank on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    Here is my simplistic summary of this thread Bob. Let me know If I have this wrong. You beleive there is zero chance that there is any statistically significant correlation between the political leanings of a state and its rate of gun deaths. I beleive a correlation, while solutions to the problem are debatable, is possible. You’ve done nothing here to convince me otherwise, yet, and I doubt I will convince you to see things my way. I am not a professional statistician and I’m guessing you aren’t either. Wouldn’t it be prudent to try and find work from professional statisticans, preferably as politically agnostic as possible, to refer to? When I read your post above I don’t see a thorough debunking of the possibility of a correlation. Am I missing something?

  11. Posted by Paul Kanesky on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    I have a simplistic comment to make in regards to allowing cities and municipalities to enact their own firearms laws. The resultant patchwork quilt of conflicting laws would entrap thousands if not millions of law abiding people who travel thru those locations a get arrested for something which is legal in their locality.

    I also see a very strong correlation between government finally accepting that people have a right to carry concealed and passing CCW laws and the steep reduction of violent crime which resulted
    .
    Frank, you may want to read Professor John Lott’s More guns, less crime and several of his studies.
    Read the Kleck report on defensive gun use which very clearly points out that guns save as much as 100 times as many lives as they take, With up to 2.5 million defensive gun use compared to 13K murders. Unfortunately the choice itself is not between utopia and chaos. The choice is more along the lines of what will do the least amount of harm
    Keep in mind also that you cannot arm slaves and expect them to remain slaves any more than you can disarm a free man and expect him to remain free.
    Paul in Texas

  12. Posted by Frank on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    Thank you Paul for your polite tone and for those references. I will look them up. I have read more than one post coming out of “my side of be aisle” that shoot quite a few holes in that 2.5 million number. I try hard to look at both sides of that number.

  13. Posted by Frank on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    Correction to that last one. I WILL try hard to look at both sides of that number.

  14. Posted by Bob S. on 02.02.15 at 07:47

    Frank,

    Here is my simplistic summary of this thread Bob. Let me know If I have this wrong.

    You do. First and foremost to continue to insist there is a simplistic summary possible is contrary to the evidence.

    If I have this wrong. You beleive there is zero chance that there is any statistically significant correlation between the political leanings of a state and its rate of gun deaths.

    What part of the state using. Look at Louisiana for example, how about Texas — there are sections of both states that are deep blue — as liberal as you can get.The majority of the state in terms of overall population is Conservative.
    The majority of the firearm related deaths — clearly shown by the sources I cited; suicides split almost equally but most of the homicides and violent crime from the cities — are the responsibility of whom?

    The state or the segmented enclaves in the state?

    So how do you determine a correlation between the politics of the state?

    Second and most importantly — correlation is not causation. I can positively correlate the hemlines of skirts with the performance of the Dow Jones Index. When hemlines go down, so does the down. When hem lines rises (which isn’t a problem as far as I’m concerned) so does the Dow.

    SO WHAT?

    Does that mean if we require all women to wear micro-mini skirts we will have a roaring economy?

    Absolutely NOT.
    So unless you are implying that Conservatives are a.) more suicidal, b.) more homicidal and c) — this is important — want to pass legislation requiring a change of political belief; what effing difference does it make?

    How can you use (this patently false) fact to reduce deaths and injuries?

    When I read your post above I don’t see a thorough debunking of the possibility of a correlation. Am I missing something?

    Besides a complete demolition of your concept? There is a possibility but your data doesn’t support it. I could easily find half a dozen things with better correlation; the number of take out meals, the consumption of milk, etc that show the same rankings you provided.

    I’ve had to repeatedly ask you to address the facts shown in this post. It doesn’t seem as if you are looking into both sides of the issue here.

    I’ve shown that countries with fewer firearms have a higher firearm related death rate. I’ve shown states with higher firearm ownership has more or less homicide rates.

    Your simplistic view doesn’t address issues such as poverty, education, crime rates, marriage rates, any one of a dozen factors that could show better correlation and causation.

    You want to keep pushing a simplistic concept in spite of the evidence; go ahead but don’t think I won’t call you on that.

    Does the political subdivision matter at all? Hey, I know — let’s look at this at a country level Frank !!!!!

    For the last two presidential elections the country vote democratic, the Senate was democratically controlled for how long?

    So as a country, the fact that we voted democrat is associated with high firearm death rates. Look at England; they didn’t vote democrat and they have very few firearm related homicides. Right?