Gun deaths in the US

Some important information turned up on the open thread courtesy of thefrollikingmole (possibly my favourite pseudonym). Read it all. The case for concealed carry is clear. The best protection against mad and bad people with guns is other people with concealed weapons that they can use effectively.

The statistics in the Washington Post report reflect the story I was told at the Friedman Conference. The author isolated the US homicide figures for notorious hot spots from the nation at large. Looking at the rest of the nation the rate dropped from top of the world to a distant place on par with most other places in the western world. The hot spots were mostly derelict inner city areas where people of a certain kind were killing each other in very large numbers. I think he went further in the analysis and found certain quite small sub-groups within those hot spots where most of the murder and mayhem was happening. I don’t recall his plans for publication, I think he was carefully checking his analysis to be sure he had got it right because it was a very politically incorrect piece of work.

From the Washington Post.

A distinct pattern emerged: In Democratic regions of the country, which tend to be cities, people are more likely to be murdered with a gun than they are to shoot themselves to death. In regions of the country won by Republicans, which tend to be rural areas and small towns, the opposite is true — people are more likely to shoot themselves to death than they are to be murdered with a gun.

This pattern, explored in more detail in the graphic below, could partially explain differing partisan views on the issue of gun control, experts say, though they added more analysis would be necessary to prove a direct link. In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas. These charts exclude suicides, for which data are not available on a congressional district basis, so it only breaks down the fraction of gun violence that is accidental or confrontational.

In almost all cases, guns kill or injure more children, teens and people in Democratic districts. Mass shootings, which vary widely in number depending how restrictive your definition is, occur more often in Democratic districts.

UPDATE. Gary Larson on restricting recreational gun use.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Gun deaths in the US

  1. Iva Right

    So more democrats shoot each other than Republicans do? Can’t say I have much of a problem with that part of the article!

  2. Chris

    Yeah, yeah.
    Also black, also socially disadvantaged by whitey – leads to 9 times to 19 times as likely to be murdered, depending on locality.

  3. John Constantine

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Canada

    Over the northern border of the American midwest are the Canadian prairie provinces. Canadian gun laws do not seem to mean much difference in suicide rates compared to concealed carry America.

  4. John Constantine

    http://theconversation.com/rising-suicides-in-mexico-expose-the-mental-health-toll-of-living-with-extreme-chronic-violence-99131

    Across the southern border of concealed carry America is Mexico.

    Crossing the Rio Grande into right-to-bear-arms America is the quickest way for a Mexican to slash their exposure to gun violence.

  5. Lee

    Yeah, yeah.
    Also black, also socially disadvantaged by whitey – leads to 9 times to 19 times as likely to be murdered, depending on locality.

    “Blacks” are disproportionately far more likely to be killed by other blacks than “whites” in the U.S.
    And “socially disadvantaged” is, and never was an excuse for violence and murder, even if true.

  6. John Constantine

    Hawaii isn’t a gun culture state, but suicide rates on the island paradise beat concealed carry states.

    https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/06/13/new-study-finds-worrying-trends-hawaiis-rates-suicide-drug-deaths/

  7. Muddy

    “socially disadvantaged” is a euphamism for Demonrat bait. It’s an awfully broad label.

  8. John Constantine

    https://mises.org/wire/how-gun-control-became-instrument-tyranny-venezuela

    Gun Control: Turning Citizens into Disarmed Subjects

    Venezuelans are now defenseless against a government that runs roughshod over their civil liberties, while also destroying their economic livelihood. As if it weren’t enough, everyday Venezuelans must put up with rampant crime and the constant threat of colectivos, Venezuela’s infamous pro-government paramilitary units.

    Although gun control in and of itself does not automatically lead to tyranny, historical events remind us that well-intentioned interventions from previous governments can be used by the next round of political operatives for nefarious purposes. Firearms bans, confiscation, and registration give the state a virtual monopoly on violence, thus turning its citizens into defenseless subjects. When the rubber meets the road, a disarmed populace has no chance against a well-armed Leviathan.

    Foreigners may scoff at the US’s Second Amendment, but it is one of the most far-reaching rights the framers of the Constitution made sure to protect. Political turmoil can emerge at any time and citizens must have a final means of protecting themselves in the case that all institutional options have been exhausted.

  9. John Constantine

    If guns are bad, why has their yarragrad government just purchased an arsenal of many hundreds of semi-automatic rifles chambered for military grade ammunition?.

    Tyrannies cannot help but to grab the proles guns, while protecting the elites with heavily armed paramilitary death squads and unleashing red guard lynch mobs in the street.

    Flee.

    Cower.

    Beg.

    The actual instructions of their yarragrad Nazgul towards yarragrad proles that suffer a home invasion.

    Comrades.

  10. Neil

    You people are as crazy as the lefties I usually argue with. Other than you people who wants to live in a world where you walk around carrying guns?

  11. will

    “socially disadvantaged” = low IQ dysfunctional losers

  12. Rob MW

    In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear.

    Interesting. Meanwhile the Democrat contenders for the top job are pushing, very hard, to confiscate guns which would, by all accounts, mostly affect their poorer intercity base assuming of course that murdering criminals living in Democrat shitholes all passed background checks in the first place.

    Funny that; criminals will never give up their right to overpower the weak or unsuspecting by any means necessary on the one hand, and lawmakers slowly removing the right to self defence for everyone else on the other.

  13. will

    Neil
    #3096576, posted on July 3, 2019 at 9:04 pm
    You people are as crazy as the lefties I usually argue with. Other than you people who wants to live in a world where you walk around carrying guns?

    If I shared a nation with a significant defined ‘demographic’ minority who commits most of the serious crime, and by crime I mean some really horrendous viscous sadistic acts, then yes. I want to be able to defend myself.

    However I live in a nation that is generally peaceable, so no. That does not stop Australia being awash with illegal weapons, with shootings in western Sydney being the new normal. Fortunately I don’t live there and the shootings are confined to a particular demographic who generally keep their violence to themselves, but not always.

  14. Rafe Champion

    What Will said. We are lucky in Australia.

    It does not mean everyone is carrying guns all the time, in the US practically all the guns are not being carried at any given time, apart from ones owned by the bad guys and people with an occupational requirement for hardware.

    It is not necessary for everyone to carry guns. Just enough people who want to learn the skills to be effective in a crisis and also carry the weapon. Recall in the Paris mass shooting people were reduced to throwing shoes as the gunmen picked them off. One competent person with a gun in that crowd would have been enough.

  15. Rob MW

    Other than you people who wants to live in a world where you walk around carrying guns?

    I see you don’t own a car.

  16. Tel

    You people are as crazy as the lefties I usually argue with.

    So you admit you can’t argue the issue because the evidence is not in your favour.

  17. cohenite

    Other than you people who wants to live in a world where you walk around carrying guns?

    Criminals, terrorists, government thugs etc; dickhead.

  18. John Constantine

    https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/328459-gun-culture-in-russia-and-us

    A right to self-defense

    Self-defense is an important aspect of Russian law, and the constitution guarantees the right to defend one’s property. Maxim Popenker, a firearms historian and editor-in-chief at world.guns.ru summarizes this by stating, “A constitutional right is to defend one’s life. And, according to the law, one can defend it with any means at his or her disposal, including different weapons.”

    No legal prole guns in Cuba or Venezuela or North Korea or Iran or China or Cambodia or Eritrea.

    So yes,I would rather live free in Montana or Wyoming or the Dakotas and have a gun rack in my pick-up than the other places.

  19. Enoch Root

    I might have missed something…

    They are counting firearms suicide only, right? I wonder what are the figures for any kind of suicide…

  20. Neil

    So you admit you can’t argue the issue because the evidence is not in your favour.

    Do you think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons? If not why not?

  21. Tel

    Do you think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons? If not why not?

    OK, by first directing arbitrary abuse at the other people, and secondly attempting to divert and distract … now I’m 100% sure the evidence is not in your favour.

    I’m sure an Iran thread will come up before much longer, no need to derail this one.

  22. Neil

    It is not a diversion it is a valid argument. You want weapons for yourself but not other people.

    I say if Iran wants nuclear weapons go for it because that is what you people are saying whether you believe it or not

  23. Neil
    #3096617, posted on July 3, 2019 at 9:52 pm

    So you admit you can’t argue the issue because the evidence is not in your favour.

    Do you think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons? If not why not?

    Since 1979, the Mullahs have been saying they will wipe out Israel.
    If a bloke consistently said he will mass murder my family, then no, I don’t want him to have a weapon of any kind. I rather have the weapon to deter the fvckwit.

    Did you have any other idiotic comments/questions?

  24. Fair shake of the Sauce bottle

    Interesting how the study requires further analysis and publication is unclear as presumably the researchers want to ensure a robust study.

    Now if that study was on climate change… straight from hypothesis to publication. No questions asked and the key message would lead every newspaper, tv and radio bulletin.

  25. Mitchell Porter

    It is my impression that the discussion of gun violence in the US is nonsensically dishonest and a product of a culture in denial. The overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by black Americans, then in second place are “Hispanics” (I put it in quotes because I feel like there’s something odd or artificial going on with that category, but not sure what), and in a very distant third place are white Americans. Without the black crime rate, as I recall, American shooting and murder rates would resemble Canada. America does have a unique problem with insane mass shootings, and those are mostly committed by whites, but they are like terrorist acts, horrifying and attracting a lot of attention but not actually the bulk of the casualties.

    This is the Washington Post so race isn’t mentioned at all, but even the conservative discussion here focuses on political party rather than race. Even if you wish to maintain that Democrat policy is the root cause of the problem – and I would think that social liberalism is definitely a factor, in that its disintegrative effects seem to have been most pronounced among blacks – there is such a thing as black community, black culture, black identity in America, and the people who are shooting each other come from that world. So any significant reduction in the problem has to happen there as well.

  26. Fat Tony

    Go easy on Neil – he’s been a bit….strange since that dog attacked him and he didn’t have a gun to defend himself.

  27. Confused Old Misfit

    because that is what you people are saying whether you believe it or not

    No, that is not what “you people are saying”.
    It may be what YOU believe we are saying but it is not what we are saying.
    Your attempt to equate the carriage of a firearm by a private citizen with no offensive intentions with the acquisition of nuclear capability by a government with openly expressed hostile intentions to an identified regional entity is morally reprehensible.

  28. Neil

    Your attempt to equate the carriage of a firearm by a private citizen with no offensive intentions with the acquisition of nuclear capability by a government with openly expressed hostile intentions to an identified regional entity is morally reprehensible

    No it is not. Iran would say they want nuclear weapons to defend themselves just like Israel says. In fact Israel most probably has nuclear weapons.

    My argument has always been where do you draw the line

  29. bespoke

    Israel’s nukes are to balance out the mass of numbers on it’s borders. With out that they would be attacked like before.

  30. Nob

    Israel most certainly has nukes.
    If it didn’t, it wouldn’t exist.

  31. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Neil
    #3096617, posted on July 3, 2019 at 9:52 pm

    So you admit you can’t argue the issue because the evidence is not in your favour.

    Do you think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons? If not why not?

    Because they are ruled by people that want to hasten armageddon, you ignorant fuck.

    Neil
    #3096576, posted on July 3, 2019 at 9:04 pm

    You people are as crazy as the lefties I usually argue with. Other than you people who wants to live in a world where you walk around carrying guns?

    I knew this faux conservative, anti-American, Candide wannabe, John Howard worshipping lunatic would pop up here.

  32. Nato

    I don’t think there should be any laws regarding weapons in an Australian’s possession, but if you insist, I’m willing to meet you halfway and make it compulsory.

  33. Neil

    Because they are ruled by people that want to hasten armageddon, you ignorant fuck.

    So you agree with me. There should be limits on who can own weapons. As soon as you agree with that which you have the next question is where do you draw the line?

    BTW the only country which has used nuclear weapons is the USA

    I knew this faux conservative, anti-American, Candide wannabe, John Howard worshipping lunatic would pop up here

    Conservatives believe in laws and limits on who can own what. Unlimited access to whatever people want to own leads to anarchy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.