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

101–110 of 145 posts

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

#101

Post by galangalalgol »

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.

You need a supermajority to amend it, and even if the 64% number in another post is accurate, you need a supermajority of elected representation, which don't map directly to population. Specifically, states that are less populous have the same number of senators, and typically are against more gun control. Lastly, even if you had a supermajority of representation favoring more gun control, you have to get them to agree on the same type of more gun control, so realistically you won't see an amendment until something well north of 80% favor more gun control.

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

#102

Post by pixl97 »

UberFly wrote: post #7

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

Not really. In general if you watch one of the largest news networks in the US you've highly propagandized to the point of being completely disconnected from reality.

News likes to use statements like "The most violent city in America" and then happen to leave off the qualifier of "only if you count cities with over 1 million population". When you start including per capita statistics of smaller towns.

Beau did a episode on this a while back...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCEqjXI1SLk

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

#103

Post by ta8645 »

mortureb wrote: post #3

The northeast, northwest and south west seem to be doing something very right.

It's a political paper that helps reduce trust in science. The way that the non targeted areas were pure white, was clearly designed to accentuate an arbitrary point -- there is no purely scientific definition for "hotspot". A non-political paper would have shown a proper gradient, for all regions.

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

#104

Post by scotty79 »

dbrueck wrote: post #69
scotty79 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another quality that allows to group cigarettes and guns together. They are both completely optional lifestyle choice. While cars and diet might be way harder to opt out given how cars are needed to get to work and stores and the most unhealthy diet is the cheapest and fastest one.

> They are both completely optional lifestyle choice. Kind of like alcohol, right? (which has nearly 4x the annual deaths vs firearms)

Yes. Should be included in the group as well.

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

#105

Post by noduerme »

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).

Alcohol abuse affects people around you, as does abuse of any drug. Drunk driving kills more people than secondhand smoke. And alcohol has a multiplicative effect on violence and other forms of substance abuse as well.

Tobacco, smoked outside, is a minor pollutant no worse to people nearby than the SUVs driving by on the street, and certainly not as bad as what's in most Americans' well water or fast food packaging.

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

#106

Post by scotty79 »

BaculumMeumEst wrote: post #63
scotty79 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another quality that allows to group cigarettes and guns together. They are both completely optional lifestyle choice. While cars and diet might be way harder to opt out given how cars are needed to get to work and stores and the most unhealthy diet is the cheapest and fastest one.

Do you also consider living in an area with high rate of violent crime to be a lifestyle choice?

In nearly all cases, no.

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

#107

Post by injb »

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).

I don't have proof of this but I have a hard time believing that passive smoking kills anywhere near as many people as the behaviour of drunk people.

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

#108

Post by scotty79 »

conductr wrote: post #65
scotty79 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another quality that allows to group cigarettes and guns together. They are both completely optional lifestyle choice. While cars and diet might be way harder to opt out given how cars are needed to get to work and stores and the most unhealthy diet is the cheapest and fastest one.

Even “optional” gets a little fuzzy when all these things are likely to be a cultural phenomenon; as in, influenced by your parents/family. It’s like saying that Christianity continues to be the most popular choice of religion in the US. Sure it’s optional, but there’s a bit of inertia involved.

There's inertia in everything.

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

#109

Post by ianai »

parineum wrote: post #56
tester756 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Forget what it does to freedom. The failure of prohibition and its complete turnaround really underscores the failure of the war on drugs. Don’t criminalize addiction and the cartels and violence probably deflate.

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

#110

Post by humanrebar »

netsharc wrote: post #51
CoastalCoder wrote: post #42

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... 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... ;-)

Democrats could reform specific legal immigration systems, for instance revamping the H1B program, to be less nonsensical. But the incentive is to lump that reform in with other kinds of immigration reform.

Same could be said about taking a more piecemeal and less legally inventive approach to healthcare reform back under the Obama administration. They passed exactly as much as they thought they could squeak through the legislative process. A plan with 2/3 consensus could have been pursued but they decided to burn all the political capital they could instead. Enter Trump shortly later... a "fighter".

Post reply on HN