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

91–100 of 145 posts

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

#91

Post by PopAlongKid »

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…

>I don't think it's true that a majority of Americans want stricter laws.

The majority of Americans want fewer mass shootings of random individuals out in public.

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

#92

Post by oaththrowaway »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #86
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…

Trump probably hates guns as much as Bloomberg but lots of republicans still love him

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

#93

Post by PopAlongKid »

brobinson wrote: post #48
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…

You just need 38 states to agree to amend the Constitution and repeal the 2nd amendment.

The problem is that a state with 1/60th the population of another state still gets the same say in the matter.

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

#94

Post by [deleted] »

PopAlongKid wrote: post #91
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…

>I don't think it's true that a majority of Americans want stricter laws. The majority of Americans want fewer mass shootings of random individuals out in public.

[deleted]

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

#95

Post by brobinson »

PopAlongKid wrote: post #93
brobinson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just need 38 states to agree to amend the Constitution and repeal the 2nd amendment.

The problem is that a state with 1/60th the population of another state still gets the same say in the matter.

That is by design, though. Just because state A has a big population doesn't mean it gets to strongarm state B.

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

#96

Post by fbdab103 »

ianai wrote: post #59
fbdab103 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apparently 55% of suicides are by firearms, 29% by hanging/suffocation, so guns do represent the majority[0].

[0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.9550...

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

#97

Post by noduerme »

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.

Not to mention obesity, which overlaps nicely with county maps of tobacco use, firearms ownership, alcohol abuse, unemployment, abortion bans, and places that used to own slaves.

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.

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

#99

Post by maxerickson »

oaththrowaway wrote: post #87
maxerickson wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Polled pretty high when asked as "Do you think ___ is a good idea" and ___ was "Background checks for gun purchases at gun shows or other private sales."

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.

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

#100

Post by catiopatio »

XorNot wrote: post #81
jprete wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That’s not true for firearms. More people die from falling off ladders than die in mass shootings.
Post reply on HN