Is this still true? This article (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.calhealthreport.org/2018/04...) suggests that it's no longer the case in California.

If you follow through to the referenced article, they show a map of CA with extremely high variability between counties. Moreover, the county boundaries themselves are quite broad geographically. For example, it shows Contra Costa as having 5+ gun deaths per 100k, but do you think that's Walnut Creek and Pleasanton's contribution? Or Concord's? Similar questions could be asked about Alameda or Los Angeles counties.

Can you elaborate on how this disqualifies the study findings? I also read it, they say:

"To describe the urban-rural distribution of firearm mortality, we used the county-level metropolitan/nonmetropolitan classification from the United States Department of Agriculture’s 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, which defines nonmetropolitan (rural) counties as having communities of fewer than 50,000 people with less than 25% of the workforce commuting to a metropolitan(urban)county".

Does that work?

I'm not sure how to reconcile that note with figures 5, 6 which show county level aggregation. Moreover, I just noticed that this survey deals with firearm mortality and not homicides by gunshot.

Broadly speaking, if someone says "we should severely curtail gun ownership because at a per-county level some counties have very high firearm mortality rates," it does seem reasonable to me to object on the basis that:

1. in terms of the intersection of quality of life and foundational rights, I care more about the rate of homicide, not gun mortality (which includes accident and suicide). Rights imply responsibility, so the appropriate question is whether people are capable of being responsible with their rights. It is irresponsible if you harm others with the exercise of your freedom.

2. on the basis of individual cities and towns, high gun ownership (freedom) does not seem to correlate to higher homicide (irresponsibility). That phenomenon seems restricted to dense urban areas where gun control is already in effect, and other geographies -- mostly poorer regions where stronger gang and drug enforcement seems warranted.

I'm trying to understand the problem with defining rural and urban areas at a county level. Aren't they looking at per capita fatality rates? Obviously urban centers massively out populate rural ones. I don't really see how rural land around an urban center is poisoning the results here. Ultimately, the authors found that gun violence per capita isn't significantly greater in urban counties than in rural ones.

"A statistician is someone who drowns while crossing a river that is three feet deep, on average"

If you understand that joke, you understand the objection.

Suddenly, the entire study of statistics and demography is unsound to you after I ask for clarification on your issues with a paper's conclusions.

I don't know what sort of answer you're looking for. I've lived in California my entire life, and saying all parts of Contra Costa or Los Angeles or Alameda counties are equally prone to gun violence is a statistical slight of hand that bears little resemblance to reality. Anyone who lives here knows that.

Unfortunately, in 2021, dense minority-dominated districts tend to be high in gun crime. If you don't live in one of those area, it's like a European country, in terms of living standards and crimes rates.