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

81–90 of 145 posts

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

#81

Post by XorNot »

jprete wrote: post #64
dbrueck wrote: post #32

Sort of interesting, but the whole setup is oddly misleading: "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…

I think the paper is purely political. Alcohol causes 140k deaths per year, and if there were any scientific goal here they would have included alcohol before including firearms.

Alcohol notably tends to quietly kill only yourself. Smoking affects everyone around you, firearms too.

Alcohol related non-drinker fatalities would be the relevant measure (and still too many, since it's going to be drink driving largely).

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

#82

Post by alistairSH »

oaththrowaway wrote: post #36
partitioned wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s because we don’t have a choice. A stacked Supreme Court that says any gun law has to be a gun law that would’ve been cool in 1776 has made any progress impossible without violent revolution

If that were true, the NFA would be repealed (the legal ground for it was pretty shaky originally and somehow it has stood)

Laws don’t magically get repealed. Somebody has to challenge it in court and show that it damages them/infringes in their rights. The NFS might fail if challenged (I don’t think it’s been challenged since Bruen), given the Bruen decision. But it’s not in the GOP’s interest to find a challenge, as that would almost certainly definitely turn off swing voters.

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

#83

Post by notacoward »

chrisco255 wrote: post #78
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…

I don't think it's true that a majority of Americans want stricter laws. We generally want more authority to carry without restriction, as seen in the rise of states that allow for concealed carry without a license. The laws are nonsensical, since there's many times more firearms in the country than people. Nevermind that we share a porous border with a country known for powerful drug cartels. At any rate, I'm a 10th…

At this point, what state governors and legislatures do has little to do with what the people of that state - let alone of the country generally - want. Let's look at real data.

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.

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

#84

Post by mortureb »

ianai wrote: post #46
mortureb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s a correlation but the correlation probably wouldn’t be so high. The north east is plenty dense compared to the south east (iirc). I think this really shows a cultural difference amid population and probably other things. 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 reconstru…

If we’re jumping to conclusions a much simpler explanation would be that Republican led states enact policies that lead to poor health outcomes.

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

#85

Post by mortureb »

parineum wrote: post #52
mortureb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The population centers are also democratic hotbeds so it’s most likely a matter of policy.

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

#86

Post by icegreentea2 »

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…

Well, it's cause a rounding error of Democrats aren't going to vote for an otherwise ok candidate if they don't support tougher gun control laws, while a non-rounding error of Republicans supports would probably not support a Republican candidate if they did support more gun control.

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?

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

#87

Post by oaththrowaway »

maxerickson wrote: post #61
oaththrowaway wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people that are in favor of stricter gun laws don't understand the current laws that already exist and just hear buzzwords like "gun show loophole"

Not really fair to throw that out there without articulating what you think it means to understand the current laws.

If you ask most people if they support "background checks" you're going to find that almost all people support that, things change a bit when you explain the difference between the existing background checks and the proposed "universal background checks".

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

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

#88

Post by jeffbee »

This is a bit of a meta comment, but it's interesting that slapping data from WONDER onto a choropleth, with some paragraphs describing the map in words, amounts to research from authors with these titles. I am not saying this research isn't worthwhile, but I am saying there are members of the public doing research at this level or higher and just publishing it on Medium, Observable, or their blogs. Perhaps weekend volunteer researchers should seek university affiliations so they can get published in prestigious journals.

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

#89

Post by oaththrowaway »

notacoward wrote: post #83
chrisco255 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's true that a majority of Americans want stricter laws. We generally want more authority to carry without restriction, as seen in the rise of states that allow for concealed carry without a license. The laws are nonsensical, since there's many times more firearms in the country than people. Nevermind that we share a porous border with a country known for powerful drug cartels. At any rate, I'm a 10th…

At this point, what state governors and legislatures do has little to do with what the people of that state - let alone of the country generally - want. Let's look at real data. 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 reas…

People typically don't understand the laws as they exist currently

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

#90

Post by neovialogistics »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #35
neovialogistics wrote: post #2

The distribution along the basin and range parts of the country are very interesting. Just eyeballing it, it looks like there is a significant altitude component. Is it just the second and third-order effects of higher transportation costs, or is it something to do with barometric air pressure?

The basin and range distribution is particular to firearm suicides. 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.

Most of those social factors you've listed are things that are influenced by base transportation costs, so I wonder if there are similar patterns in other places with gun ownership and varying topography: Australia, Canada, Russia, Southeastern Europe...
Post reply on HN