I've Been Asked to Speak at a Gun Control Discussion

All the little grey dots are often repeats of the big logos marked on the map. WSJ also posts top dead & center with a 58 reliability and 0.00 bias.

 

Yeah the little dots are individual data points - individual articles that have been rated for factual correctness and bias based on their rating methodology. Having one or two journalists who write more biased content and several who don't can cause a source to skew one way or the other. You'll see the different sources will float around the chart year over year, which as far as I can tell correlates pretty well with how reporting at these places has changed. It's also worth pointing out that AdFonts rates outlets within the same network differently. E.g. the big news stations have written web articles, mainstream network, and business network ratings all separate.

 

Here's my favorite reference to propose to folks calling for more gun laws. It's a neat thought experiment that compares several factors between US and Canada, swapping out different variables to see how they impact homicide rates. By switching out different data points, it proposes that economic inequality is the most significant indicator for homicides due to gun violence. This experiment does not consider suicide rates or accidental shootings, so it is important to be clear when communicating with folks about what segment of gun violence is being discussed. I think it is good to speak to one category at a time to keep things on track.

https://zachmortensen.net/2018/02/20/your-gun-control-ideas-wont-work-this-one-will/

 

If you want to really prepare for this and become knowledgeable get a couple books by John R. Lott a Phd in economics who has taught at several prestigious universities. He started out anti gun but after doing thorough honest research on the topic of guns, crime, 2nd amend., self defense etc. he became a pro 2nd amendment pro gun guy. You won’t get politics in his books but you will get thoughtful insight and facts. Granted he can’t totally avoid politics but the bulk of his work is based on research, history, logic and FACTS. Indisputable facts much based on in-depth scholarly studies. You’ll get facts and truth. You can’t prepare for your presentation better than reading John Lott.

 

Seems you've already mentioned it, but your post sent me down quite an internet rathole. The CDC does have some interesting data. Interestingly, I couldn't find a single state where Homicide (regardless of method) was a top 10 cause of death. Suicide only showed up in the top 10 in a few places, and I didn't see where method was tracked. Death by a firearm is tracked, but not broken up by whether it was accidental, self-inflicted, or inflicted by another. Accidents are typically in the top 5. So, homicide with a firearm would likely be a lower number than the total firearm injury death rate.

In most cases, drug overdoses far outweigh deaths from firearm injuries. Firearm safety and responsible gun ownership is certainly important, but it seems we have a lot of more important things to deal with. The fact that drug overdoses and suicides are significantly higher points more to mental health issues to me. Looking at the maps, wtf West Virginia, Louisiana, and Mississippi?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/stats_of_the_states.htm

 

Now try the relate those numbers to poverty rates. As far as I know that's the biggest indicator of crime(including drug use).

 

Exactly, that and quality of education, and probably a bunch of other stats. Unfortunately the CDC doesn't have maps for those. These are complex issues, and focus should be on what might actually improve things. Treat the problem, not the symptom.

 

I'd never even seen held or owned a gun till the CT assault weapons ban in 2012(?). When they passed it my dad went out and bought 2 ARs and 2 Pistols before it went into effect. Now I have more than he does. He said he wasn't interested in them till they said he couldn't have one than he wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

 

One last thing, you’ll find all the statistics you’ll ever want to know in John Lott books. Two of my favorite and his best books are Gun Control Myths: How Politicians, the Media, and Botched Studies Have Twisted the Facts on Gun Control and his first book More Guns Less Crime. And a third one is The War On Guns. These are truly eye opening, mind boggling treatise on guns, gun control and crime. Ok I’m done talking about John Lott and his books.

 

Here’s another source https://franknez.com/wall-street-journal-is-owned-by-citadels-ken-griffin/

 

Yes kids bringing guns to school was not uncommon years ago. Most people don’t know or realize it but in the 40’s and 50’s and early 60’s in rural farm/ranch communities high school kids often use to drive their fathers pickups to school with guns in the rifle racks. They’d often go hunting after school. Never bothered to lock the trucks in most instances. The trucks weren’t broke into, the guns weren’t stolen and the guns weren’t used in any nefarious way. Even in my high school we had a gun range in the basement (mostly for rotc). My dad gave me my first gun, a 22 rifle at age 9, and a 16 gauge shotgun the next year. Could only use under his supervision. Somehow I managed not to shoot or rob anyone.
Our American culture has changed tremendously over the years and many factors are involved but urbanization is a major contributing factor.

 

And target shooting used to be a school sport like foot ball.

 

Part of the problem has been the prohibition of any federal funds being used to do research on gun violence. 2020 was the first time in 20 years that they were allowed to:

In 1993, Arthur Kellermann, MD, then at the University of Tennessee, and colleagues published a highly publicized paper that found keeping a gun in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk of homicide by an intimate acquaintance or family member (The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 329, No. 15, 1993). After the paper’s publication, the National Rifle Association lobbied for the elimination of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which funded the study. In 1996, Congress responded by passing an appropriations bill that stated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” In the 1997 budget, the $2.6 million that the CDC had invested in firearms research the previous year was shifted to research on traumatic brain injuries.

The amendment to the appropriations bill didn’t explicitly ban research on gun violence. But its vague wording made it hard for the federal research agencies to know what was and wasn’t allowed. Equivalent language was later added to the legislation that funded the NIH. In both the NIH and CDC, funding for gun violence and injury research ground to a halt—a chilling effect that lasted for two decades. After mounting public pressure to address gun violence, however, congressional leaders clarified in 2018 that the rule applies specifically to gun control advocacy and does not prevent the CDC from funding gun violence research. That clarification opened the door for research awards in 2020.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/news-funding-gun-research

 

Simple: use 2 hands not 1

 

My dad and my friends dad used to tell us stories about hunting doves from the school parking lot on the opening day of dove season. And no one would say anything.

times have changed

 

Here’s an interesting page from the CDC on firearm mortality

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

 

My only contribution is the suggestion to listen to the others as much or more than you speak. People can drag statistics from their favorite sources until the end of time, but nothing will get solved until people’s concerns are addressed. And that can only happen if people are actually listening.