Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

fau.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 145 posts

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#51

Post by netsharc »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #42
netsharc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like, just with many issues in the US, it's become another "The other side is against it, so we're for it!" problem... "Our kids are getting shot up in school, but the Democrats want to ban guns, so we're pro guns, there must be other solutions! Maybe Ivermectin also creates bullet-proof kids!". The opposition also becomes saboteurs because any wins they give the ruling party means the ruling party gets to look…

> Seems like, just with many issues in the US, it's become another "The other side is against it, so we're for it!" problem... 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.

At the moment I can't think of Democrats sabotaging things that would be good for the American public to benefit themselves politically; care to find examples for me? Then we can put the examples of Republicans doing that on one side of the scale, and the examples of Democrats doing that on the other side, and call them equally bad... ;-)

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#52

Post by parineum »

mortureb wrote: post #8
ghayes wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The graph is, in a large way, an inversion of population density.

That’s one correlation but it seems like that conjecture doesn’t extend to Florida or Texas.

You might want to take another look at that map and then look at where the big cities in florida and texas are located. The smoking blob pretty much stops at the major cities in Texas and the population centers of Florida are white as California.

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#53

Post by ianai »

paulcole wrote: post #18
UberFly wrote: post #7

Strange that the counties with major cities like Chicago with high gun violence don't even register?

Why is that strange? 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?

In cities, you get “bad neighborhoods.” We’re seeing county data.

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#54

Post by CoastalCoder »

masfuerte wrote: post #41
ct0 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 2 schools of thought on the constitution. Living constitutionalists believe that the constitutional adapts or changes and can be fluid based on "modern" beliefs and the interpretation changes to allow for that. Originalists believe the text is strict and not up for debate and that the contract of the constitution is fixed. Most of what we are seeing is based on these 2 ideas in conflict.

That whole debate feels like a distraction. If the majority wants gun control don't debate the meaning of the text, amend it.

The 2nd amendment falls within the Bill of Rights.

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.

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#55

Post by oaththrowaway »

netsharc wrote: post #28
daniel_iversen wrote: post #11

I think I read somewhere recently that the majority of Americans were in favour of stricter gun reforms, yet no real change I laws seem to happen and all the current presidential candidates over in the US seems to not even dare touch the subject. I find it reprehensible and puzzling how they’ve got this weird relationship with guns, but it’s interesting how often people are using a certain interpretation of their con…

Seems like, just with many issues in the US, it's become another "The other side is against it, so we're for it!" problem... "Our kids are getting shot up in school, but the Democrats want to ban guns, so we're pro guns, there must be other solutions! Maybe Ivermectin also creates bullet-proof kids!". The opposition also becomes saboteurs because any wins they give the ruling party means the ruling party gets to look…

Republicans only care about gun rights when Democrats are in office. Same with Democrats about abortion. Neither do anything to reinforce either right when they control a majority of the branches of government.

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#56

Post by parineum »

tester756 wrote: post #23
abeyer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have such a spotless track record as far as banning addictive recreational substances, I'm sure it'd be just as easy as that.

I'm not saying that banning is best idea, but I'm arguing against ppl acting as if banning smoking would be against freedom

Banning anything is against freedom. Instead of trying to contort English and logic, explain why it's _worth_ the loss of freedom.

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#57

Post by readthenotes1 »

thrill wrote: post #12
tester756 wrote: post #9

Smoking is biggest shit that's widely accepted, why? idk 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…

"I know smokers and a lot of them says that they'd want to drop this shit, but they can't." Yes, they can.

Apparently nicotine is one of the most addictive substances out there.

They can if they move to a magical place where they can get any I suppose.

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#59

Post by ianai »

fbdab103 wrote: post #45
cjensen wrote: post #39

Some random observations on this... 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,…

Given suicide is relatively rare, I am wondering if this might be an artifact of low absolute population?

Yes, rural Nevada is a whole other level of barren. That big “county” in the center is federal land with almost no (maybe none at all?) population.

Also this is just firearm suicide. Maybe more enlightening with a general suicide from any cause indicator.

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#60

Post by parineum »

Taek wrote: post #26
tester756 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dropping requires specific traits, mindset, strong discipline, etc. That's pretty high bar. Not everyone can, *especially when surrounded by smokers*.

Capitalist society has intentionally trained the general population to believe in free will and the strength of the human mind, such that population members say "I'm better than being brainwashed by ads" and allowing corpos to get away with a lot, lot, lot more manipulative psychological than should be legal. Believing that smoking addiction is a mind-over-matter problem is one major extension of this.

And that's why there's such a huge correlation between smoking and capitalism.
Post reply on HN