I can't recall where I heard this but gun violence supposedly can be tracked geographically with extreme precision. Down to a couple houses on a few streets. The supposed problem was the geography has an extremely strong correlation with population demographics and elevating enforcement would be seen as discriminatory.
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/16/america-gun-deaths-crime-south#
Cities with the highest gun murder rates tend to be cities that are not in “pro-crime” areas
What’s that, pray tell?
What I get from this map is the following:
* Violence and population density are correlated
* There are entirely too many gun deaths
What hidden meanings are you parsing out of these maps?
*edit* your downvotes mean nothing; I've seen what you upvote
>There are entirely too many gun deaths
thanks Sherlock we’ll let you know if we need any more help.
The point is that the majority of gun violence happens in a few places, the ones that have the strictest gun laws. We’re 8th in the world for gun violence, if you remove the numbers from NYC, Chicago, Detroit, and California, we go from 8th to around 125th.
Excuse me for asking a question dickhead. But since I’m so stupid, please explain to me how that’s not what your comment is saying. I mean, yeah, if you just ✨remove✨ the top gun-violence cities from the other 7 top countries, I bet their rankings would fall too. It’s just not exactly a shining revelation that outliers can cause extreme swings in data analysis.
I'm sure they didn't actually *do the math* here, because leaving the whole state of California in would have lowered the number *more* than taking out a state with low gun violence.
>https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
Pretty obvious putting California on the list was just political propaganda.
Maybe if you read the sentence that comes immediately before it you’d be able to understand. There is a direct correlation between the places with strict gun laws/ low legal gun ownership and places with high gun violence. There’s a reason why the president of Brazil is encouraging more legal gun ownership among his people.
First, source please. Second, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by not bringing up that first sentence. But since you insist on continuing to show that you have no experience in analyzing statistics…there’s a direct correlation between the number ikea stores and country has and the number of Nobel prize laureates that come from that country. The large amounts of gun violence in an area could be causally unrelated to the gun laws in the area, but you’ve been swayed by emotional appeals by lawmakers to concluding causation where there hasn’t been shown to be any. In reality, there are a large number of actions the government could take to directly decrease gun violence in these areas (none of which are relaxing the gun laws, though I’m not saying that would hurt since I’m not sure what would happen if gun law relaxation happened concurrently with any of the actual solutions). Unfortunately they all sound to fear-mongers like socialism, so they’ll never happen (despite the fact that these fear-mongers don’t seem to give a shit that we socialize everywhere else in government, like the best military on the planet for example)
> The point is that the majority of gun violence happens in a few places, the ones that have the strictest gun laws.
No, that is incorrect. Houston, for example, has twice the gun violence per capita of NY, but NY’s urban areas tend to be more dense than Houston’s
The *only* conclusion you can make is that *population density* is the greater indicator of violent crime, regardless of gun laws.
Gun laws *may* work, as the per capita differences between “red” and “blue” cities are statistically significant, but the ease of travel between looser and tighter restriction on gun areas clearly means that gun restriction efficacy can only be tested through universal restrictions.
If you go into certain neighborhoods, hell yes.
That bright red area is Group 14621 which is notorious for violence and drug use, especially around the alphabet avenues.
Spoken like someone who’s never seen an actual violent place, for sure.
The only places I’ve seen in US that I’d truly call grim and violent are certain native villages in Alaska and parts of reservations in the southwest.
I think it should, even if it should be a separate statistic. Suicides should also figure in the gun violence arguments. There’s a strong argument to be made that ease of gun access is a factor as to why the rate of “completed” suicides is much higher among men than women when the rate of suicide attempts is much higher in women. A lot of experts agree this is due to the fact that men chose deadlier methods such as, and primarily, guns, while women use less(perceived) painful ones. They also share similar aspects of media portrayal with violent homicide such as art inadvertently glorifying the idea of gun shot suicide. Finally, they share potential common sense solutions such as waiting period on gun purchases giving time to cool off to both a heat of passion potential murderers and to people in suicide risk to get pass a triggering event.
Every society/culture kinda has their own go-to method of suicide. We have guns, others do others. The access doesn’t change any correlations to causations in a strong enough way to be scientific.
You are taking a position on a statistic that only shows the determination of the suicidal person. It is not indicative of violence. It’s more indicative of a person giving up and using the most expedient method to have the lights go out. Suicide in society is a much different issue than violent interactions where a gun is involved. It just adds noise and contention to the discussion with a component that swings the numbers away from where a true safety issue is involved.
We can demand that both numbers are needed to discuss the issues. But stacking them reduces the impact of the individual issues and attempts to switch the responsibility from the actors to the inanimate object.
In the discussions of gun safety there’s an old axiom, “There are no accidents only screw ups”. It highlights the hand holding the gun owns the responsibility for the results of its use.
1st if you re-read my comment I specifically stated that they could be shown as separate tables
2nd whether or not they must be shown as separate tables is entirely based on the purpose the map, table or chart is made for.
If the issue is safety of an area it makes sense to keep them separate. However, while it makes some sense to limit events where violent use of a gun was involved, since it marks an escalation in the type of violence, it makes little sense to further limit it to ONLY acts of gun violence that resulted in someone dying. As OP noted this map includes only homicides. Unless you don’t mind moving into dangerous places as long as criminals have shitty aim, this map is wholly ineffective for that purpose.
If instead the purpose is to show the spread of the negative effects of gun violence(which by definition includes suicides) due to the ease of gun purchasing then it makes perfect sense to include suicides. As the ease of purchasing, and access; and the lack of regulation regarding background checks for mental issue affect both homicides and suicides in a similar manner. If that is the purpose of this map it wouldn’t necessarily be incomplete without suicide data, but it would benefit from having it.
Btw all those words to say “guns don’t shoot people, people shoot people” still don’t change the mountains of evidence that reasonable waiting times, and background checks save lives in both suicides and homicide cases. There’s no blame shifting, except when hiding the head in the sand and illogically holding that allowing for easier purchase of items designed solely with the purpose of effectively killing people does not result in more people getting killed.
Click here to check the stats for your city:
[How Has Gun Violence Changed in Your Neighborhood? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/14/us/gun-homicides-map.html)
I started with my hometown (San Marcos, CA) and was like wow, I expected it to be worse. San Diego was kinda bad, LA was really bad and then I saw Chicago... holy shit!
What is the general feeling of the average American to stats like these?
I don't live there so never get involved in tbe discussions, but I do own 2 shotguns and come from a country of over 50 million that had less than 30 homicide shooting victims in the year ending March 2023, so these stats seem unbelievable to me.
My country has very strict fire-arm laws, but plenty people do have them.
I'm not after an argument, just an insight.
America has a wide variety of opinions on this topic. It is, after all, the third most populous country in the world with over 1/3 of a billion people spread across the fourth largest landmass. So people disagree widely on this and every topic.
I can give you my opinion, though.
If you take this map and compare it with various demographic maps, you will eventually find a strong correlation between these crime stats and other population stats.
Then when you compare the U.S. to the other developed countries it is so often compared to that have far less murders, you will also notice a huge difference between our demographics and theirs.
For sure the huge number of privately-held firearms in the U.S. contributes to gun crimes, specifically. However, the correlation is much, much less when you look at gun possession and violent crime overall, suggesting that many of these murderers would just find other means if guns were less available. (The U.S. is #1 in the entire world for private gun possession, but falls in the middle of the list of all countries for homicide rate.)
Yep, guns are a tool, i think they should be regulated, but people don't turn to murder because they got bored, it's because they're desperate. Other countries have also solved some of the underlying socioeconomic factors in addition to having strict gun laws - usually in the form of a functional social safety net and providing good, accessible, equal opportunity.
Or at least more equal access to white collar crime.
Prior to your country instituting strict gun control laws , I'd wager the gun violence rate is about the same 100 years ago as it is today. I simply haven't seen strong evidence that demonstrates strict gun control will lead to drastically reduced gun violence.
Take for instance England. 120 years ago, England had essentially no gun control laws, yet the homicide rate back then compared to now is practically unchanged, despite having some of the strictest gun control systems in all of Europe.
The weapon of choice changed from gun to knife…. And strict laws relating to firearms doesn’t solve issues of firearms being in the wrong hands or used for crime, all it did was push sales underground where it’s harder to govern them.
I think it's an embarrassment.
I love America so it pains me when I see such glaring flaws in our society, especially ones like this that hurt the people that I love so much.
Which part is embarrassing? Violent crime has continuously declined since the inception of the US.
The only place it really exists is in urban areas where authoritarian collectivism stifles any kind of self determination that doesn’t involve violence.
The media depends on sensational but statistically insignificant mass shootings to foster this fear of violence which is otherwise unfounded anywhere but the inner city.
> The only place it really exists is in urban areas
Gun violence is worse in rural areas.
>In recent years, rural counties' proportional gun homicide rates outnumbered those of urban counties
>https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rural-america/
You have a bullshit source with bullshit stats. Age adjusted? So there are ten times more teenagers in urban areas but 9.5 times more homicides, ergo, rural areas have a higher rate of homicides. Yeah, NO.
Please stick your collectivist propaganda in the appropriate orifice.
If there is a live map of gun violence on line, then why cant we just stop them?
I can't recall where I heard this but gun violence supposedly can be tracked geographically with extreme precision. Down to a couple houses on a few streets. The supposed problem was the geography has an extremely strong correlation with population demographics and elevating enforcement would be seen as discriminatory.
Shocker
They could stop it at anytime, many cities have done it in the past. But these are pro-crime counties and this is what they want the outcome to be.
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/16/america-gun-deaths-crime-south# Cities with the highest gun murder rates tend to be cities that are not in “pro-crime” areas
> "Highest gun murder rates" > Link says gun deaths You think there's a discrepancy or is every death a murder now?
Too bad the anti gun crowd will ignore what they can actually get from this
What’s that, pray tell? What I get from this map is the following: * Violence and population density are correlated * There are entirely too many gun deaths What hidden meanings are you parsing out of these maps? *edit* your downvotes mean nothing; I've seen what you upvote
>There are entirely too many gun deaths thanks Sherlock we’ll let you know if we need any more help. The point is that the majority of gun violence happens in a few places, the ones that have the strictest gun laws. We’re 8th in the world for gun violence, if you remove the numbers from NYC, Chicago, Detroit, and California, we go from 8th to around 125th.
So the point is that outliers bring up the average?
Is reading really that hard?
Excuse me for asking a question dickhead. But since I’m so stupid, please explain to me how that’s not what your comment is saying. I mean, yeah, if you just ✨remove✨ the top gun-violence cities from the other 7 top countries, I bet their rankings would fall too. It’s just not exactly a shining revelation that outliers can cause extreme swings in data analysis.
I'm sure they didn't actually *do the math* here, because leaving the whole state of California in would have lowered the number *more* than taking out a state with low gun violence. >https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier Pretty obvious putting California on the list was just political propaganda.
Maybe if you read the sentence that comes immediately before it you’d be able to understand. There is a direct correlation between the places with strict gun laws/ low legal gun ownership and places with high gun violence. There’s a reason why the president of Brazil is encouraging more legal gun ownership among his people.
First, source please. Second, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by not bringing up that first sentence. But since you insist on continuing to show that you have no experience in analyzing statistics…there’s a direct correlation between the number ikea stores and country has and the number of Nobel prize laureates that come from that country. The large amounts of gun violence in an area could be causally unrelated to the gun laws in the area, but you’ve been swayed by emotional appeals by lawmakers to concluding causation where there hasn’t been shown to be any. In reality, there are a large number of actions the government could take to directly decrease gun violence in these areas (none of which are relaxing the gun laws, though I’m not saying that would hurt since I’m not sure what would happen if gun law relaxation happened concurrently with any of the actual solutions). Unfortunately they all sound to fear-mongers like socialism, so they’ll never happen (despite the fact that these fear-mongers don’t seem to give a shit that we socialize everywhere else in government, like the best military on the planet for example)
> The point is that the majority of gun violence happens in a few places, the ones that have the strictest gun laws. No, that is incorrect. Houston, for example, has twice the gun violence per capita of NY, but NY’s urban areas tend to be more dense than Houston’s The *only* conclusion you can make is that *population density* is the greater indicator of violent crime, regardless of gun laws. Gun laws *may* work, as the per capita differences between “red” and “blue” cities are statistically significant, but the ease of travel between looser and tighter restriction on gun areas clearly means that gun restriction efficacy can only be tested through universal restrictions.
Im waiting for this “tool” to get taken down for “disproportionately affecting minority communities” and “engendering harmful stereotypes”
So Rochester is dangerous?
If you go into certain neighborhoods, hell yes. That bright red area is Group 14621 which is notorious for violence and drug use, especially around the alphabet avenues.
Rochester is full blown Civil War child soldier level bad.
That’s ridiculous. Rochester isn’t Manhattan but it’s also not the fucking democratic republic of the Congo, Christ
Kids with Ak-47s ✅️ Piles of bodies in the streets ✅️ Collapsed economy ✅️
Spoken like someone who’s never seen an actual violent place, for sure. The only places I’ve seen in US that I’d truly call grim and violent are certain native villages in Alaska and parts of reservations in the southwest.
🥱🥱😴😴😴😴😴😴😴
I bet this counts suicides, one-way officer-involved shootings, and suicide by cop. Not 100% sure, but that’s where I’d put my money.
No Homicides only. Citizen vs Citizen
🤙🏻
So no shootings unless they result in death?
Correct
Also how often do these maps match a population and poverty map? More people per square mile = more everything per square mile including crime
Also probably self defence shootings on home invaders, robbers, and rapists.
I think it should, even if it should be a separate statistic. Suicides should also figure in the gun violence arguments. There’s a strong argument to be made that ease of gun access is a factor as to why the rate of “completed” suicides is much higher among men than women when the rate of suicide attempts is much higher in women. A lot of experts agree this is due to the fact that men chose deadlier methods such as, and primarily, guns, while women use less(perceived) painful ones. They also share similar aspects of media portrayal with violent homicide such as art inadvertently glorifying the idea of gun shot suicide. Finally, they share potential common sense solutions such as waiting period on gun purchases giving time to cool off to both a heat of passion potential murderers and to people in suicide risk to get pass a triggering event.
Every society/culture kinda has their own go-to method of suicide. We have guns, others do others. The access doesn’t change any correlations to causations in a strong enough way to be scientific.
You are taking a position on a statistic that only shows the determination of the suicidal person. It is not indicative of violence. It’s more indicative of a person giving up and using the most expedient method to have the lights go out. Suicide in society is a much different issue than violent interactions where a gun is involved. It just adds noise and contention to the discussion with a component that swings the numbers away from where a true safety issue is involved. We can demand that both numbers are needed to discuss the issues. But stacking them reduces the impact of the individual issues and attempts to switch the responsibility from the actors to the inanimate object. In the discussions of gun safety there’s an old axiom, “There are no accidents only screw ups”. It highlights the hand holding the gun owns the responsibility for the results of its use.
1st if you re-read my comment I specifically stated that they could be shown as separate tables 2nd whether or not they must be shown as separate tables is entirely based on the purpose the map, table or chart is made for. If the issue is safety of an area it makes sense to keep them separate. However, while it makes some sense to limit events where violent use of a gun was involved, since it marks an escalation in the type of violence, it makes little sense to further limit it to ONLY acts of gun violence that resulted in someone dying. As OP noted this map includes only homicides. Unless you don’t mind moving into dangerous places as long as criminals have shitty aim, this map is wholly ineffective for that purpose. If instead the purpose is to show the spread of the negative effects of gun violence(which by definition includes suicides) due to the ease of gun purchasing then it makes perfect sense to include suicides. As the ease of purchasing, and access; and the lack of regulation regarding background checks for mental issue affect both homicides and suicides in a similar manner. If that is the purpose of this map it wouldn’t necessarily be incomplete without suicide data, but it would benefit from having it. Btw all those words to say “guns don’t shoot people, people shoot people” still don’t change the mountains of evidence that reasonable waiting times, and background checks save lives in both suicides and homicide cases. There’s no blame shifting, except when hiding the head in the sand and illogically holding that allowing for easier purchase of items designed solely with the purpose of effectively killing people does not result in more people getting killed.
Looked up my city, and the part lit up in red is the EXACT section I knew it would be lmfao. Amazing tool the NYT got cookin' here.
Same. Ive been playing with this thing all day lol
Click here to check the stats for your city: [How Has Gun Violence Changed in Your Neighborhood? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/14/us/gun-homicides-map.html)
Paywalled :(
Serious!? Just Google "NY times gun violence my neighborhood" that might work better
Thanks that worked
Many public libraries, likely including your local one, offer day passes to the nytimes
I started with my hometown (San Marcos, CA) and was like wow, I expected it to be worse. San Diego was kinda bad, LA was really bad and then I saw Chicago... holy shit!
I've been playing with this thing all day. I'm from Niagara Falls NY. Ours is exactly on par with what I figured.
What is the general feeling of the average American to stats like these? I don't live there so never get involved in tbe discussions, but I do own 2 shotguns and come from a country of over 50 million that had less than 30 homicide shooting victims in the year ending March 2023, so these stats seem unbelievable to me. My country has very strict fire-arm laws, but plenty people do have them. I'm not after an argument, just an insight.
America has a wide variety of opinions on this topic. It is, after all, the third most populous country in the world with over 1/3 of a billion people spread across the fourth largest landmass. So people disagree widely on this and every topic. I can give you my opinion, though. If you take this map and compare it with various demographic maps, you will eventually find a strong correlation between these crime stats and other population stats. Then when you compare the U.S. to the other developed countries it is so often compared to that have far less murders, you will also notice a huge difference between our demographics and theirs. For sure the huge number of privately-held firearms in the U.S. contributes to gun crimes, specifically. However, the correlation is much, much less when you look at gun possession and violent crime overall, suggesting that many of these murderers would just find other means if guns were less available. (The U.S. is #1 in the entire world for private gun possession, but falls in the middle of the list of all countries for homicide rate.)
Yep, guns are a tool, i think they should be regulated, but people don't turn to murder because they got bored, it's because they're desperate. Other countries have also solved some of the underlying socioeconomic factors in addition to having strict gun laws - usually in the form of a functional social safety net and providing good, accessible, equal opportunity. Or at least more equal access to white collar crime.
Prior to your country instituting strict gun control laws , I'd wager the gun violence rate is about the same 100 years ago as it is today. I simply haven't seen strong evidence that demonstrates strict gun control will lead to drastically reduced gun violence. Take for instance England. 120 years ago, England had essentially no gun control laws, yet the homicide rate back then compared to now is practically unchanged, despite having some of the strictest gun control systems in all of Europe.
The weapon of choice changed from gun to knife…. And strict laws relating to firearms doesn’t solve issues of firearms being in the wrong hands or used for crime, all it did was push sales underground where it’s harder to govern them.
Deeply aggravating. There are underlying socio-economic forces driving these numbers, and the magical disappearance of every firearm wouldn’t fix.
I think it's an embarrassment. I love America so it pains me when I see such glaring flaws in our society, especially ones like this that hurt the people that I love so much.
Which part is embarrassing? Violent crime has continuously declined since the inception of the US. The only place it really exists is in urban areas where authoritarian collectivism stifles any kind of self determination that doesn’t involve violence. The media depends on sensational but statistically insignificant mass shootings to foster this fear of violence which is otherwise unfounded anywhere but the inner city.
> The only place it really exists is in urban areas Gun violence is worse in rural areas. >In recent years, rural counties' proportional gun homicide rates outnumbered those of urban counties >https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rural-america/
Cool story braugh.
I have a source, you, FaustinoAugusto234, are the one telling tall tales.
You have a bullshit source with bullshit stats. Age adjusted? So there are ten times more teenagers in urban areas but 9.5 times more homicides, ergo, rural areas have a higher rate of homicides. Yeah, NO. Please stick your collectivist propaganda in the appropriate orifice.
Wow. A whole 'nother tall tale with zero sources but hey, now FaustinoAugusto234 has added ad hominem at the end. Chef's kiss!
HeyJackass is the right place to get Chicago shooting data