[HN Gopher] Geographic 'hot spots' for cigarette and firearm dea...
___________________________________________________________________
Geographic 'hot spots' for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.
Author : geox
Score : 48 points
Date : 2023-09-17 21:23 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fau.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fau.edu)
| throwaway128128 wrote:
| Confront anyone with this kind of correlation and you'll be
| accused of being an elitist snob who hates America. In America we
| are addicted to lethal things.
| dbrueck wrote:
| 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 's worded to imply that the _use_ of both, in the ways that
| resulted in death, is legal).
|
| I'd love to see fewer firearm deaths, but it just seems odd to
| try and link a really high cause of deaths with one that is an
| order of magnitude smaller, while skipping over others that are
| very preventable causes of death. You are, for example, many
| times more likely to die from poor diet than from being shot. I
| mean, using their framing, automobiles are "legal yet lethal" and
| auto deaths are the cause of about as many deaths as firearm
| deaths - and that includes suicide (i.e. intentional) deaths.
| scotty79 wrote:
| 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.
| cjensen wrote:
| Some random observations on this...
|
| 1. The suicide difference between the Mountain & Basin West vs
| the Great Plains surprises me. I would have expected Wyoming and
| Nebraska would have been more similar.
|
| 2. The gradient across Texas is interesting, particularly the
| lack of both suicide and smoking death in the southwest part of
| the state compared to the northeast.
|
| 3. Rural Nevada counties, except the northernmost two, utter lack
| the suicide rate that is seen in nearly all of Arizona.
|
| 4. It's not helpful to conflate these three causes of death.
| Seems like it would be better as separate maps
|
| 5. It's not helpful to color-code these maps as a binary choice
| between "has problem" and "does not have." I wonder how much
| subtlety is hidden by not using a gradient.
|
| 6. Unlabeled graphs are a sin. What is the definition of "hot
| spot?" And why is it hidden from the casual reader?
| pierat wrote:
| > 6. Unlabeled graphs are a sin. What is the definition of "hot
| spot?" And why is it hidden from the casual reader?
|
| Given that hidden fact, along with conflating firearm assaults
| vs suicide, tells me there's a definite bias of the story
| provided.
|
| Suicide is usually a last resort to life when faced with either
| hard to undo things, or impossible to undo things.
|
| I haven't dug much into this, but my guess it's something to do
| with the group that correlated this. But again, I find displays
| like this suspect.
| fbdab103 wrote:
| Given suicide is relatively rare, I am wondering if this might
| be an artifact of low absolute population?
| neovialogistics wrote:
| 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?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| 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.
| tomohawk wrote:
| It would seem like pairing alcohol with cigarettes would be more
| worthwhile, as alcohol is much deadlier, being involved in about
| half of suicides, half of vehicle and other deaths, half of gun
| deaths, etc.
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| Interesting how there is a correlation between smoking/firearms
| deaths and where African American communities are prominent.
| mortureb wrote:
| The northeast, northwest and south west seem to be doing
| something very right.
| ghayes wrote:
| The graph is, in a large way, an inversion of population
| density.
| tzs wrote:
| For firearm suicides it sort of is, but not really so much
| for the rest. I'm looking at the density map here [1].
|
| [1] https://vividmaps.com/us-population-density/
| mortureb wrote:
| That's one correlation but it seems like that conjecture
| doesn't extend to Florida or Texas.
| ianai wrote:
| 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 reconstruction plans never happened and his
| successor went a quite different direction.
| uoaei wrote:
| Background checks for firearm sales are doing a lot.
|
| https://www.thetrace.org/2023/06/background-check-buy-a-gun-...
|
| Though as the sister comment mentions, low-density settings
| also seem to correlate, at least for the counties outside of
| the South.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fj...
|
| It would be nice to see multiple maps, split up by category,
| with an additional one for gun-related deaths (combined suicide
| and assault).
| fisherjeff wrote:
| Very interesting but not a great map for us color deficient
| types!
| kallistisoft wrote:
| Came to make the same reply!
| UberFly wrote:
| Strange that the counties with major cities like Chicago with
| high gun violence don't even register?
| paulcole wrote:
| Why is that strange?
|
| Maybe "high gun violence" in Chicago isn't as high as you think
| it is?
|
| Maybe Chicago's population is relatively low compared to Cook
| County's population and the extra people balance it out?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Chicago and/or Cook County isn't particularly high on a per
| capita basis for violence. Generally the most violent places in
| the US are in the Southeast.
| (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-
| th...)
|
| There are certain very specific parts of Chicago where violent
| crime rates are astronomical, but if you are worried about
| widespread violent crime, your best bet is to avoid the
| southern states.
|
| Where did you learn that Chicago is so violent?
| tester756 wrote:
| Smoking is biggest shit that's widely accepted, why? idk
|
| People argue that banning it would be against "freedom"
|
| Please explain to me how:
|
| 1) causing harm to yourself
|
| 2) causing harm to people around you
|
| 3) paying for it additional taxes(!!!)
|
| 4) and all of that while being highly addictive
|
| ... how is it a freedom?
|
| The nature of it being addictive removes "freedom" from the
| consideration.
|
| It isn't freedom when you're addicted.
|
| I know smokers and a lot of them says that they'd want to drop
| this shit, but they cant.
| [deleted]
| thrill wrote:
| "I know smokers and a lot of them says that they'd want to drop
| this shit, but they can't."
|
| Yes, they can.
| tester756 wrote:
| Dropping requires specific traits, mindset, strong
| discipline, etc. That's pretty high bar.
|
| Not everyone can, *especially when surrounded by smokers*.
| Taek wrote:
| Capitalist society has intentionally trained the general
| population to believe in free will and the strength of the
| human mind, such that population members say "I'm better
| than being brainwashed by ads" and allowing corpos to get
| away with a lot, lot, lot more manipulative psychological
| than should be legal.
|
| Believing that smoking addiction is a mind-over-matter
| problem is one major extension of this.
| december456 wrote:
| There definitely should be a scientific limit for
| addictiveness, meth versus cigarettes for example. I dont
| quite care if somebody can scientifically stop taking an
| addictive substance with reasonable self-discipline but it
| becomes a problem and elimination of the freedom status if
| its too addictive that it effectively takes over your
| brain.
| abeyer wrote:
| We have such a spotless track record as far as banning
| addictive recreational substances, I'm sure it'd be just as
| easy as that.
| tester756 wrote:
| I'm not saying that banning is best idea, but I'm arguing
| against ppl acting as if banning smoking would be against
| freedom
| [deleted]
| diob wrote:
| I want it banned because my stepmom (and father cause why not)
| chain smoked indoors my whole childhood. It's weird that we
| allow that.
| xrd wrote:
| Interesting that this was created by a Florida professor but
| Florida is the only southern state where it is mapped almost
| entirely "white"; completely different than the other Southern
| states that are red indicating high mortality.
| lisper wrote:
| Only Southern Florida, which is where a lot of expats go to
| retire. Northern Florida looks like the rest of the South.
| paulcole wrote:
| There's no conspiracy here.
|
| North Florida (where I grew up) is part of The South. South
| Florida is not part of The South.
| daniel_iversen wrote:
| 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 constitution as to why
| they need all those guns, or thinking that it's the safest option
| that everyone has guns to protect themselves against the "bad
| guys" than just making it really difficult for the average
| citizen to get a firearm.
| netsharc wrote:
| 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... "Our kids are getting shot up in school, but the
| Democrats want to ban guns, so we're pro guns, there must be
| other solutions! Maybe Ivermectin also creates bullet-proof
| kids!".
|
| The opposition also becomes saboteurs because any wins they
| give the ruling party means the ruling party gets to look
| better, and hell no, we can't have that, we have to destroy
| them!
|
| Funnily enough when lockdowns started, the billions of bailout
| got bipartisan support. It seems like both sides knew a hungry
| populace would go for their heads, whatever the label after
| their name is. EDIT: then again, Dems are a more conscionable
| bunch (which makes fighting against a win-by-whatever-means-
| possible bunch hard), they knew people needed the money. The
| hypocrisy was GOP saying money doesn't grow on trees, until it
| does...
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| > 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.
| morkalork wrote:
| You've probably seen it here first hand many times: knee-jerk
| contrarianism. It will be our undoing.
| ct0 wrote:
| 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.
| masfuerte wrote:
| That whole debate feels like a distraction. If the majority
| wants gun control don't debate the meaning of the text, amend
| it.
| oaththrowaway wrote:
| 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"
| brobinson wrote:
| You just need 38 states to agree to amend the Constitution and
| repeal the 2nd amendment.
| partitioned wrote:
| 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
| oaththrowaway wrote:
| If that were true, the NFA would be repealed (the legal
| ground for it was pretty shaky originally and somehow it has
| stood)
| stevenwoo wrote:
| This looks a little bit like Colin Woodward's recent update on
| Eleven Nations of North America but with different focus
| https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/01/america-li...
| pnw wrote:
| I was intrigued to read the details but this is just a press
| release with the actual research paper locked behind a paywall
| unfortunately. I can't find the paper anywhere.
| uoaei wrote:
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00917...
|
| You've heard of sci-hub?
| Animats wrote:
| Interesting that firearms assaults are highest in the really
| empty states. Except Texas.
| ianai wrote:
| Light blue is suicide.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-17 23:00 UTC)