Kansas City's gun violence problems extend far beyond the horrific Super Bowl Parade mass shooting. What's behind the sudden wave of concern for victims of gun violence in Kansas City?
Thanks for the reply. I'd love to know why you focus exclusively on injuries and homicides committed with firearms? I can think of some possible reasons, but it's easier to simply ask!
because I am interested in why community-based gun violence improves and worsens across time and space. For 20 years from the late 1990s until 2014 we had historically low rates of homicides, 90% of which are committed using firearms. This has been increasing ever since and it spiked in 2020. I provide data analysis that contextualize change across time and space because no one else is analyzing data from over 1000 cities, particularly small and midsize ones.
I also think it’s hypocritical to pay so much attention to random massacre style shootings, and to not care about the shooting that happens across town at 3 AM.
Sorry to be a pest, but I can't take an article too seriously if it's built around the term "gun violence" or "firearms violence." In my opinion those are not proper scholarly terms, rather they are propaganda terms that were invented to give people the impression that violence can be eliminated by passing repressive gun laws, which in reality serves a different agenda.
Crimes are committed by people, not guns. We will not reduce violence by focusing on the weapons used.
I believe the author actually knows this, as the third sentence suggests an honest assessment: "Cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Minneapolis have reduced firearm violence by increasing homicide clearance rates, expanding violence intervention programs, and improving community-police relations." Yay!
Other than that, the article makes a number of very valid points and is well worth reading.
Thanks for the feedback. I know that the verbiage of “firearm violence“ is offputting to some. It’s also common parlance, easily understood, and descriptive of the data that I analyze. I am focused exclusively on injuries and homicides committed with firearms rather than other types of weapons.
If I could think of a non-loaded term to use that wasn’t a mouthful I would use it! If you read through my backlog of posts you will find that I frequently draw attention to examples of places with high rates of firearm violence that also have some of the strictest gun control legislation in the nation. Conversely, I highlight examples of states with high rates of gun ownership but relatively low rates of urban homicide involving guns.
I also draw attention to the glaringly obvious, yet commonly obscured fact that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents are perpetrated using handguns, not semi-automatic rifles. I have a post about the increase in Glock switches being used in shootings and recovered by the ATF. I note that these are *very* illegal, and yet that doesn’t serve as a deterrent.
We are never banning handguns in this country. This is not a newsletter that advocates for enacting more symbolic gun control laws. I’m team enforce existing laws like we actually give a shit about victims & communities presently ravaged by “gun violence,” i.e., violent individuals who use guns to harm others.
In other news, the KS nightclub shooter had a previous illegal gun possession charge that was dropped a few months before he shot 16 people. If “gun control” meant enforcement of existing laws he’d have been in prison, but unfortunately it just means passing new laws to win political points.
Thanks for the reply. I'd love to know why you focus exclusively on injuries and homicides committed with firearms? I can think of some possible reasons, but it's easier to simply ask!
because I am interested in why community-based gun violence improves and worsens across time and space. For 20 years from the late 1990s until 2014 we had historically low rates of homicides, 90% of which are committed using firearms. This has been increasing ever since and it spiked in 2020. I provide data analysis that contextualize change across time and space because no one else is analyzing data from over 1000 cities, particularly small and midsize ones.
I also think it’s hypocritical to pay so much attention to random massacre style shootings, and to not care about the shooting that happens across town at 3 AM.
Sorry to be a pest, but I can't take an article too seriously if it's built around the term "gun violence" or "firearms violence." In my opinion those are not proper scholarly terms, rather they are propaganda terms that were invented to give people the impression that violence can be eliminated by passing repressive gun laws, which in reality serves a different agenda.
Crimes are committed by people, not guns. We will not reduce violence by focusing on the weapons used.
I believe the author actually knows this, as the third sentence suggests an honest assessment: "Cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Minneapolis have reduced firearm violence by increasing homicide clearance rates, expanding violence intervention programs, and improving community-police relations." Yay!
Other than that, the article makes a number of very valid points and is well worth reading.
Thanks for the feedback. I know that the verbiage of “firearm violence“ is offputting to some. It’s also common parlance, easily understood, and descriptive of the data that I analyze. I am focused exclusively on injuries and homicides committed with firearms rather than other types of weapons.
If I could think of a non-loaded term to use that wasn’t a mouthful I would use it! If you read through my backlog of posts you will find that I frequently draw attention to examples of places with high rates of firearm violence that also have some of the strictest gun control legislation in the nation. Conversely, I highlight examples of states with high rates of gun ownership but relatively low rates of urban homicide involving guns.
I also draw attention to the glaringly obvious, yet commonly obscured fact that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents are perpetrated using handguns, not semi-automatic rifles. I have a post about the increase in Glock switches being used in shootings and recovered by the ATF. I note that these are *very* illegal, and yet that doesn’t serve as a deterrent.
We are never banning handguns in this country. This is not a newsletter that advocates for enacting more symbolic gun control laws. I’m team enforce existing laws like we actually give a shit about victims & communities presently ravaged by “gun violence,” i.e., violent individuals who use guns to harm others.
In other news, the KS nightclub shooter had a previous illegal gun possession charge that was dropped a few months before he shot 16 people. If “gun control” meant enforcement of existing laws he’d have been in prison, but unfortunately it just means passing new laws to win political points.