Geography of gun violence

They dance around the heart of the issue like a tap dancer. Avoiding ethnic subcultures. There is nothing wrong with most AA culture. I like and love my AA friends and colleagues but, there is an AA sub-subculture that is the problem. This is demonstrated in the urban centers up north but is more spread out in the south where they are a greater percentage of the population and not as concentrated to urban centers. Look at shooting records in rural southern counties and mostly the same perpetrators are seen as urban centers. This is a sub-subculture of thuggishness not to be confused with AA culture.

I get tired of the “race” issue. As a medical professional, we all bleed red. Went to help a friend that lives nearby with a snake that is AA and everyone on that country road is AA. While standing in her front yard talking people passing would slow down and stare. To the point she said something. You can figure out why. Some of the places I frequent to eat are the same way, I get stares, side looks, and sometimes snares. The we-them animosity in this country is slowly tearing us apart.

Racism is stupid, profiling is just looking at facts and and applying it to your risk assessment. Sorry for the rant.

From the article
“The data did allow us to do a comparison of white and Black rates among people living in the 466 most urbanized U.S. counties, where 55 percent of all Americans live. In these “big city” counties there was a racial divergence in the regional pattern for homicides, with several regions that are among the safest in the analyses we’ve discussed so far — Yankeedom, Left Coast and the Midlands — becoming the most dangerous for African-Americans. Big urban counties in these regions have Black gun homicide rates that are 23 to 58 percent greater than the big urban counties in the Deep South, 13 to 35 percent greater than those in Greater Appalachia. Propelled by a handful of large metro hot spots — California’s Bay Area, Chicagoland, Detroit and Baltimore metro areas among them — this is the closest the data comes to endorsing Republican talking points on urban gun violence, though other large metros in those same regions have relatively low rates, including Boston, Hartford, Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland. New Netherland, however, remained the safest region for both white and Black Americans.”
 
Last edited:
I was unable to make sense of all the statistical sleight of hand in my first reading so I tried again. I rapidly came to the conclusion the author's premise is flawed and the 'facts presented' were severely distorted to fit the narrative.
The problem with this is the uneducated seize on reports like this and treat them like the Holy Grail as these reports fit what they want to believe, regardless of veracity. Misinformation of the worst kind.
 
mellocollins said:
there is an AA sub-subculture that is the problem
Click to expand...
He identified this, but rather than being honest about it he attributed it to region.

But is his conclusion wrong generally? Does anyone think that there are fewer homicides per capita committed with a firearm in the South than in NYC?
 
The fact that they are so focused on violence involving guns rather than just violence shows that they really do not care about violence. They also do not acknowledge that guns and other weapons can cause the outcome of violence to be in favor of the intended victim instead of the aggressor. If they really cared about violence, such things as the martial arts would be subjected to their wrath. Liberals have no shame.
 
The metric seems off - and has always seemed off in most of these types of articles.

I mean, if the argument is out to prove that the guns are the problem, then why would I choose to set my metric up measuring against the # of people (per capita) as opposed to the # of guns?

As the population begins to grow in our region from other parts of the country, I expect the metrics will begin to change as well to suit the argument.
 
The 'statistics' used in this story are rather, um...

www.wral.com

Fact check: Harris says 1 in 5 Americans has lost family to gun violence

Just days after a series of high-profile incidents of gun violence, Vice President Kamala Harris sought to put the frequency of shootings in the United States into context: "A heartbreaking 1 in 5 Americans has lost a family member to gun violence."
www.wral.com www.wral.com

I want to believe that these 'fact check' people are capable of being objective. But this story does not 'square' with any observable reality.
 
mostly22lately said:
The 'statistics' used in this story are rather, um...

www.wral.com

Fact check: Harris says 1 in 5 Americans has lost family to gun violence

Just days after a series of high-profile incidents of gun violence, Vice President Kamala Harris sought to put the frequency of shootings in the United States into context: "A heartbreaking 1 in 5 Americans has lost a family member to gun violence."
www.wral.com www.wral.com

I want to believe that these 'fact check' people are capable of being objective. But this story does not 'square' with any observable reality.
Click to expand...
If the 1200 people surveyed all live in Chicago, I would think that number could approach 50%.
How tentative of a relationship includes "family"? 3rd cousins?
 
mostly22lately said:
The 'statistics' used in this story are rather, um...

www.wral.com

Fact check: Harris says 1 in 5 Americans has lost family to gun violence

Just days after a series of high-profile incidents of gun violence, Vice President Kamala Harris sought to put the frequency of shootings in the United States into context: "A heartbreaking 1 in 5 Americans has lost a family member to gun violence."
www.wral.com www.wral.com

I want to believe that these 'fact check' people are capable of being objective. But this story does not 'square' with any observable reality.
Click to expand...

It includes suicide. So here is some statistical analysis for you. Half of gun deaths are suicides. So only 2 in 5 know someone that has been affected by actual gun violence that was not self inflicted.

30% had purchased a gun for self defense
40% had took some form of gun training or practiced with a gun
 
Last edited:
In this analysis they did break out suicide vs homicide. They didn’t break out lawful killings, ie police or self defense.

Here is CDC data of homicides by state, no idea how they define homicide.

Stats of the States - Homicide Mortality

www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
 
I would like to see this data broken down by party affiliation. I have a good hunch that Democrats and their supporters kill more people than any other group, be it political, social, or racial.
 
And when data does not fit the narrative, there is the ever-popular 'just ignore it' approach.
Notes: First Nation, Greater Polynesia, New France and Spanish Caribbean are not included among major regions.
Click to expand...
 
The big problem is that the tyrants and controllers are using aggregate data and then trying to argue that it applies to and indicates a problem at the individual level. It doesn't work. It like taking average IQ and making a statement about how smart or dumb an individual is.
 
chiefjason said:
It includes suicide. So here is some statistical analysis for you. Half of gun deaths are suicides. So only 2 in 5 know someone that has been affected by actual gun violence that was not self inflicted.

30% had purchased a gun for self defense
40% had took some form of gun training or practiced with a gun
Click to expand...

Yup, suicide. But, did you mean, 1 in 10 (not 2 in 5)? And then, not 'knowing' but 'family' ?

In any case, you're squarely within the general consensus and also for my point; the "Fact Check" doesn't do anything to make me think well of their 'perfect objectivity' false front.

I also categorically reject the semantic-pejorative 'gun violence' as there is no such thing.
As soon as I see those words, I dismiss the entire body of work as political agitprop.
 
Diablos said:
daily shootouts up here
Click to expand...

Proportionally more, less, same as LA, NYC, Chicago? And what's the rate of gun violence in the rural counties?

If you watch the news you would think that Durham is the wild West with running gun fights. But when you nail down the numbers and realize that 99% of shootings is within the same 12, 15 square blocks, it changes the perspective. That's what the article is doing. Cherry picking data and methodology.
 
Chuckman said:
Proportionally more, less, same as LA, NYC, Chicago? And what's the rate of gun violence in the rural counties?

If you watch the news you would think that Durham is the wild West with running gun fights. But when you nail down the numbers and realize that 99% of shootings is within the same 12, 15 square blocks, it changes the perspective. That's what the article is doing. Cherry picking data and methodology.
Click to expand...

i dont even have time to clean my gun before the next gunplay erupts
 
mostly22lately said:
Yup, suicide. But, did you mean, 1 in 10 (not 2 in 5)? And then, not 'knowing' but 'family' ?

In any case, you're squarely within the general consensus and also for my point; the "Fact Check" doesn't do anything to make me think well of their 'perfect objectivity' false front.

I also categorically reject the semantic-pejorative 'gun violence' as there is no such thing.
As soon as I see those words, I dismiss the entire body of work as political agitprop.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 1 in 10. Note to self, don't deal with numbers while eating. lol
 
Every time you link and click an article of the progressive left a commie gets a beer....a tallboy.
Starve
 
Dang touch screens....
Starve and dehydrate the communists, just dont click.
R
 
Yeah, guns are the leading cause of death for "children" ... somehow including ages 18 and 19 to catch the hoodrats shooting one another and excluding 0-1 years old to exclude actual health issues plus abortions. Nicely done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom