So do the politics of a state affect that state’s gun deaths?

wttw18g5kzcitpoggp6h

Back in December, after the horrible San Bernardino shootings, Crowdpac published the chart above.

Given the response to their work, they did a deeper dive and found:

ypp8h51zjbikvc6qhbwg

And thanks, Cynical, for the link.

Advertisements

5 responses to “So do the politics of a state affect that state’s gun deaths?

  1. Can’t seem to find the first chart.

    Also…I’m not sure “publicly available campaign contribution data” is an effective way to differentiate generalizations…”more liberal” and “more conservative”… about a State’s electorate and public officials. It certainly doesn’t seem accurate for Montana. Especially where guns are concerned.

    “More liberal? More liberal than what? Wyoming?” Is a good way to start a bar fight where I live.

    • Ha. The first chart is the one that’s pictured at the top of the blog post. The researchers do allow that this is the way they tried their best to ascertain the politics of a state. I wonder what would be a more accurate way.

      • You might want to look at who they’re electing. Local and State elections as well as federal. That’s a fairly good indicator.
        You might want to look at State laws on the issue you’re trying to map and assign credibility to whatever correlation has your politics positively palpitated.
        When considering contributions to political parties, you might want to look at the general economy of the State, who is doing the contributing, and to what politicians/issue block.

        Whatever you do…use some common sense. Political contributions only define ideology in about 5% of the population. For everybody else, it is a completely fluid activity that can be influenced, directed, or redirected, within time frames much too short to really draw such specific conclusions. Bad Science.

        And methodology shouldn’t be hidden in superfine print. And ignoring what every decent self-respecting social scientist includes with every examination of correlation, (it’s not causation), doesn’t add actual, useful, credibility to the argument.

        I also think…having a close and personal relationship with suicide here in Montana…(a State that has been in the top 5 suicide rates for the last 30 years or so)…that exploiting suicide for talking points on conservative politics is…well…offensive. It also lets “liberal” politics off the hook. Not good. Especially where gun issues are concerned.

        • I didn’t see this as exploiting suicide for talking points. It’s pretty incredible where the stats say suicide is more prevalent, regardless of political ideology. And I”m sorry you’ve had a close and personal relationship with it. I truly am.

          • How does Montana go from “more conservative” in chart 1 to “more liberal” in chart 3?
            This isn’t a serious examination of data or cause and effect. This is talking points. This is marketing. CrowdPac needs unique visitors to its site to promote its alleged value as a crowdfunding tool for various political aspirants and organizations.
            It’s sensationalism in a SiliconValley uniform.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s