Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.
fau.edu
fau.edu
"Smoking and firearms are among the leading causes of avoidable premature death in the United States"
The statement is true for smoking but it takes some work to make it true for firearms. And then it describes tobacco and firearms as "both are legal yet lethal" - it borders on nonsensical to pair them that way (I guess possessing both can be legal, but it's worded to imply that the use of both, in the ways that resulted in death, is legal).
I'd love to see fewer firearm deaths, but it just seems odd to try and link a really high cause of deaths with one that is an order of magnitude smaller, while skipping over others that are very preventable causes of death. You are, for example, many times more likely to die from poor diet than from being shot. I mean, using their framing, automobiles are "legal yet lethal" and auto deaths are the cause of about as many deaths as firearm deaths - and that includes suicide (i.e. intentional) deaths.
Still, I'd say calling a color-coded overlay of those things "political" is actually too kind.
To me this reads visually as a weak attempt to get some viral traction for posting something like those covid infection / vaccination maps, which wealthy city-dwellers clucked over while reveling in the schadenfreude of The Redneck getting his Just Desserts.
It's not political, so much as a kind of snuff porn indulged in by certain people. Nor has it lost its paternalistic "public health" overtones in this remix.
[edit] don't get me wrong, I'm all for bringing the backwards South into the 21st Century and putting an end to its reactionary BS that has no place in a modern democracy. My point is that shaming them has no effect whatsoever; it's just a sop to prop up the sense of superiority that's unhelpfully been cultivated by coastal elites.
[edit 2] I was a middle child.
Alcohol related non-drinker fatalities would be the relevant measure (and still too many, since it's going to be drink driving largely).
Tobacco, smoked outside, is a minor pollutant no worse to people nearby than the SUVs driving by on the street, and certainly not as bad as what's in most Americans' well water or fast food packaging.
nothin quiet about it. I can walk away from second hand smoke, but I can't just shrug off a drunk driver t-boning me.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-...
[2] https://www.lockjawladdergrip.com/blog/ladder-safety-usa-202...
[3] https://abcnews.go.com/US/mass-shootings-days-2023-database-...
Meanwhile, roughly as many people are killed in automobile accidents as there are gun deaths (of any kind, including suicide) every year.
Statistically, you likely don’t know a single person killed by a gun or a car. I absolutely do not.
Now, heart disease? Statistically you’re unlikely not to know someone who died from it.
In reality, you’re not going to be a random victim of gun violence. Gun homicides primarily consist of internecine violence between criminal elements who primarily use handguns.
Finally, there’s been a large rise in gun homicides over the last few years coinciding with a large rise in violent crime in general. Solve the crime issue, you solve the gun homicides.
And then you do it again: "what about automobile accidents?" Well that's a good question! Except (1) a great deal of effort is spent on reducing them, and (2) there are less drunk-driving related crashes then gun homicides in the US[1] - 13,384 in 2021.
And now you're onto just standard whataboutism about everything else. Maybe all causes of death are serious! Maybe one of these causes though has not only a historic lack of attention, but has been the unique recipient of legislation specifically designed to prevent the CDC even looking into it![2]
Because of everything you've listed, you know what's unique? No one is doing anything about gun-related death or injuries. Regulations are actively rolled back, and people like you work to shutdown any possible discussion of the problem. Literally no one is stopping you talking about cars, or heart disease, yet I seriously doubt you'd be bothering to "whatabout" those in any of the numerous studies which get posted.
> “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.)
The CDC wasn't banned from looking into it. They have looked into how guns may lead to deaths [0][1][2]. The were banned from using it to promote gun control.
Regulations are going to and fro. Some of them are getting rolled back, while others are progressing. Most of the ones that are getting rolled back have been useless at their intent. Or they violate the constitution. Or both!
0: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm 1: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0069-3140.pd... 2: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6230a1.htm
While I agree, the one government tasks one law enforcement agency (ATF) with managing them.
Kind of like alcohol, right? (which has nearly 4x the annual deaths vs firearms)
It’s like saying that Christianity continues to be the most popular choice of religion in the US. Sure it’s optional, but there’s a bit of inertia involved.
Even grouping all firearm deaths together is almost always unhelpful. Ordinary violent crime with firearms is very different from a school shooting is very different from suicide by firearm.
Then grouping firearm deaths together with a highly addictive and slow-killing vice like cigarettes just adds to the confusion.
1. The suicide difference between the Mountain & Basin West vs the Great Plains surprises me. I would have expected Wyoming and Nebraska would have been more similar.
2. The gradient across Texas is interesting, particularly the lack of both suicide and smoking death in the southwest part of the state compared to the northeast.
3. Rural Nevada counties, except the northernmost two, utter lack the suicide rate that is seen in nearly all of Arizona.
4. It's not helpful to conflate these three causes of death. Seems like it would be better as separate maps
5. It's not helpful to color-code these maps as a binary choice between "has problem" and "does not have." I wonder how much subtlety is hidden by not using a gradient.
6. Unlabeled graphs are a sin. What is the definition of "hot spot?" And why is it hidden from the casual reader?
Also this is just firearm suicide. Maybe more enlightening with a general suicide from any cause indicator.
[0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.9550...
Given that hidden fact, along with conflating firearm assaults vs suicide, tells me there's a definite bias of the story provided.
Suicide is usually a last resort to life when faced with either hard to undo things, or impossible to undo things.
I haven't dug much into this, but my guess it's something to do with the group that correlated this. But again, I find displays like this suspect.
Most people don't understand the difference. And to be quite frank, the organizations running the polls might not understand either, or it's in their best interest to not explain
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/743516166/npr-newshour-marist...
I thought you were maybe speaking more expansively though. Like what about people that think almost no one should privately own a pistol or whatever.
(ie. recheck any odd notions you might have about gun bans in Australia)
Stricter gun laws, more complicated laws aren't the answer - simple clear uniform gun laws, equally reinforced will do the job.
Unfortuneately the very nature of the (un)United States seems predestined to never enact uniform laws wrt firearms let alone maintain an up to date central register of information etc.
The opposition also becomes saboteurs because any wins they give the ruling party means the ruling party gets to look better, and hell no, we can't have that, we have to destroy them!
Funnily enough when lockdowns started, the billions of bailout got bipartisan support. It seems like both sides knew a hungry populace would go for their heads, whatever the label after their name is. EDIT: then again, Dems are a more conscionable bunch (which makes fighting against a win-by-whatever-means-possible bunch hard), they knew people needed the money. The hypocrisy was GOP saying money doesn't grow on trees, until it does...
I'm confused by your comment. Your main thesis is worded as though it applies to all U.S. political groups, but the rest of your post seems specifically anti-Republican.
(Which would be ironic, but I don't support either party.)
Same could be said about taking a more piecemeal and less legally inventive approach to healthcare reform back under the Obama administration. They passed exactly as much as they thought they could squeak through the legislative process. A plan with 2/3 consensus could have been pursued but they decided to burn all the political capital they could instead. Enter Trump shortly later... a "fighter".
Unfortunately "control a majority of the branches of government" isn't enough to get legislation passed. You need control of house, senate, and presidency. The senate is particularly difficult because of filibusterers, so you need 60% votes, not a simple majority.
[1] https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/united-states/former-p...
At any rate, I'm a 10th generation American, and the sense of responsibility for protecting life and liberty with firearms is deeply embedded in my culture. It's not weird, we're the oldest democracy for a reason, the people are armed and stubborn.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
57% think gun laws should be more strict.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/26/politics/cnn-poll-gun-laws/in...
This time it's 64%. Yes, it is true that Americans want stricter gun laws. Your made-up reasons why Americans oppose gun control are Not Even Wrong when in fact there is no such opposition.
The majority of Americans want fewer mass shootings of random individuals out in public.
Put another way, I think it's fair to say that the majority of people who care about enacting stricter gun control, also do not put it in say... the top 5 issues, especially at a national level (loosening gun control laws might be otherwise). The converse position is true on the other side. I don't think there are many gun fans who would say... "repeal the NFA" as a top 5 'must have' position. But "national semi-auto ban"... well, that's like a top 5 position right there.
Put another way - would you have preferred Obama to enact ACA, or stricter gun control laws?
Maybe the "living document" view is the only obvious play, given past SCOTUS rulings?
N.B.: I've never studied law, so I may have no idea what I'm talking about.
Witness the various efforts to “repeal Citizens United,” which often (always?) require amending the First Amendment.
This includes saying things like: constitutional review didn't exist until Marbury v Madison. This ignores that it was a thing under the various state constitutions, with it not being called out specifically, and that it falls naturally under the fact that SCOTUS has the power to decide all cases and controversies, and Stare Decisis combines with that to say that if SCOTUS decides one way on a constitutional issue, they'll continue to decide the same way on that issue, so if a lower court judge decides the other way, they'll get reversed when it gets appealed, probably summarily in a one line opinion of the Court.
So low population state "strong-arming" the majority is OK? The design is poor, it is Tyranny by the minority.
The design appears to be working well looking over the 240 years since the US' Constitution was ratified. A broad consensus of the states, _not of the people in the US as a whole_, is required to effect large scale, national changes.
The intent is to make it changeable, but not too changeable. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's not beneficial if it can be changed at a whim.
This topic is a bit more complicated than an outside observer would be able to pick up on without perhaps doing a bit more research. One common misconception people from other countries seem to have is that all the change is being made at the federal level. In fact, quite a lot of legislation is produced from smaller jurisdictions, and gun legislature changes frequently, and becomes more strict over time especially in heavily populated areas like Chicago, Seattle, New York City, their respective counties, etc. Keep in mind, the US is larger geographically than all of Europe, so there's a lot of diversity in issues and ideals across the states.
Gun reforms at the federal level are complicated. There is a large portion of the US (at least geographically) that is vehemently against a gun reform, or additional legislature on the subject. And not that this conversation has been about the subject of a nationwide gun ban, but often enough that's where these conversations lead so I'll just take it there -- there's a real concern that a national ban of guns would increase the frequency of gun related violent crimes. Guns are such a large part of the culture here, and so many people have them, and would likely not return them in a ban scenario but rather hide them, that the people committing violent crimes would be more unopposed than ever. We would hope that the people committing such crimes wouldn't suddenly become more ambitious. Couple that concern with the general lack of confidence in our police force. Generally in an active shooter situation, the police are arriving on scene 5+ minutes after casualties have already started piling up. Or in the case of someone threatening your life, the police can't really do anything about it -- often your best bet is just to file a restraining order... which of course doesn't stop a person from assaulting you.
A common thread amongst gun advocates seems to also be that restricting the ability for law abiding citizens to acquire guns is not an effective counter to gun related crimes. If there's one thing that the Mexican drug cartel has made clear, it's that if there's a market for the trafficking of illegal objects, they can be smuggled en masse into the country and be sold to people that are clearly willing to break the law. I think this argument holds some merit, and I say "some" because of course there are gun crimes committed with legally acquired guns.
My disclaimer of bias is that I am a legal gun owner, but I am for gun control legislation. I am agreeable to things such as required universal background checks on gun purchases. Background checks are already required by the federal government for store gun sales, but background check requirements from private sales (person to person) vary from state to state. I am not against a national gun registry. I am not against the restriction of types of firearms that are used disproportionately to commit violent crimes as long as there is a probation period where the new restrictions are measured for efficacy. What I am personally against is what I see more commonly instituted, which is legislation that is purely reactionary and pushed by people with a lack of knowledge on the subject. I talk to too many people about gun control that are familiar with the terms "bump stocks" and "binary triggers" and wanted them banned, but they couldn't even tell me what these things were when asked. I talk to too many people that think I could just go to a gun store and buy a full auto machine gun, which is also false and would be federally illegal. This is just to say, gun control is a topic of much ignorance (from both sides of the fence.) I think it is equally ignorant to be universally against gun control measures, but unfortunately I think their ignorance is at least somewhat valuable in fighting off the ignorance from the other side. I wish that our elected officials were more likely to talk to experts on a topic before proposing what they might propose, but the unfortunate truth is that they don't, and often need reining in.
Someone "universally against gun control measures" here. I'd be interested in knowing how I'm as ignorant as people who want to regulate things based on scary buzzwords, vaguely describing items that they generally lack any knowledge of.
I'd assert it's possible to hold this position, yet also be quite well informed about the history, mechanics, laws, and social consequences surrounding firearms and their accessories. For example, one could simply consider retaining the individual agency that this part of the Bill of Rights has preserved for us as being of higher utility than any of the downsides that additional (or existing) legislation purports to address. My personal view is a bit more nuanced than that (in fact, I agree with most of your post), but wanted to point out that one could start with different base axioms/heuristics, examine the same data, and end up with a different end perspective via perfectly rational (i.e., non-ignorant) reasoning.
As to your previous message:
> I'd be interested in knowing how I'm as ignorant as people who [...]
To be fair, ignorance is sometimes subjectively influenced by the ideals of the person judging. I see it as ignorant to completely ignore the topic of gun crime in our government. You see it as an acceptable loss, to be written off. We disagree here.
Suicide is an act of bodily autonomy.
Is it just the second and third-order effects of higher transportation costs, or is it something to do with barometric air pressure?
Those are rural places, with limited access to healthcare, cultures of shame around mental health, limited economic opportunities, and high rates of gun ownership.
I have no way to know causality, but my guess is that the social factors are far more important than the barometric pressure.
North Florida (where I grew up) is part of The South. South Florida is not part of The South.
I agree with you mostly but if you look at the Opportunity Atlas (https://www.opportunityatlas.org/) all of Florida looks pretty bad. But I suppose that doesn't all correlate to gun violence?
News likes to use statements like "The most violent city in America" and then happen to leave off the qualifier of "only if you count cities with over 1 million population". When you start including per capita statistics of smaller towns.
Beau did a episode on this a while back...
Maybe “high gun violence” in Chicago isn’t as high as you think it is?
Maybe Chicago’s population is relatively low compared to Cook County’s population and the extra people balance it out?
There are certain very specific parts of Chicago where violent crime rates are astronomical, but if you are worried about widespread violent crime, your best bet is to avoid the southern states.
Where did you learn that Chicago is so violent?
Edit-firearm suicide. Not the general category. Key is at the end of the page, sort of unhelpfully.
You've heard of sci-hub?
People argue that banning it would be against "freedom"
Please explain to me how:
1) causing harm to yourself
2) causing harm to people around you
3) paying for it additional taxes(!!!)
4) and all of that while being highly addictive
... how is it a freedom?
The nature of it being addictive removes "freedom" from the consideration.
It isn't freedom when you're addicted.
I know smokers and a lot of them says that they'd want to drop this shit, but they cant.
Many states already prohibit exposing children to secondhand smoke.
In the end people end up with an addiction and aren't able to release themselves from it, thus it isn't freedom for them.
This logic is simple and coherent.
I wouldnt be smoking hater if it had no impact on me.
Yes, they can.
Not everyone can, *especially when surrounded by smokers*.
Believing that smoking addiction is a mind-over-matter problem is one major extension of this.
They can if they move to a magical place where they can get any I suppose.
I’ve outside of this heard the South has in someways never really bounced back from the end of slavery. Could be a kind of cultural scar or lack of “infrastructure”. Like how Lincoln’s reconstruction plans never happened and his successor went a quite different direction.
At least anecdotally it feels that way.
I moved from one of the states that was totally clear in this map, to eastern Texas when I was younger and the social scars from the civil war still exist and by the way some people talk even to this day, you'ld think the war had ended last year. It was complete insanity to me.
https://www.thetrace.org/2023/06/background-check-buy-a-gun-...
Though as the sister comment mentions, low-density settings also seem to correlate, at least for the counties outside of the South.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fj...
It would be nice to see multiple maps, split up by category, with an additional one for gun-related deaths (combined suicide and assault).