Talk:Gun death and violence in the United States by state

Possibility of some bad data in the ownership table?

A year or so ago, I farmed some data from the old Wikipedia page that was merged with this one, trying to correlate firearm homicides and firearm ownership. It appears that during the merge, the "gun murder rate per 100k" data was transferred to this page identically, but the "gun ownership" data was not. For instance, this page shows firearm ownership for the state of Nebraska at 19.8%, while the old page showed it at 38.6%. I'm having a hard time sourcing this data to check it. Does anyone know the discrepancy?

edit:

I see the new data came from here:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/22/3/216

...which was based on a survey of 4000 people, but there are certain states on there such as Nebraska that I suspect were undersampled. Does anyone know the source of the data in the prior table?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.43.144.224 (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 

Definition

Maybe it would be a good idea to include a fully articulated definition into the article of what "firearm death rate" is. Im assuming it includes accidental, suicide, homicide, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 02:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Even a basic definition is missing - I assume that death rate is per year, but this needs to be explicitly stated. --Hbachus (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

From another Wiki article about 'Gun Violence' for Gun MURDERS the rate for Vermont is 0.3/100,000 while the rate for Illinois is 2.8/100,000. When suicide is considered as part of "Firearm deaths"--which it is--then the number of suicides by gun outweighs the number of homicides by gun. Look at the CDC (2013--table 10) for a comparison of statistic: suicide by gun--19,974; homicide by gun--11,208.StevenTorrey (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Differentiate between homicides and suicides as well

There should also be a categorization of states by gun homicide rates as well in the article. 2607:FB90:4A2F:8DA1:0:47:6985:2C01 (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Gun ownership data

I've seen recent research that claims a correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun deaths. Should investigate and include this data if it is reputable. Wcmead3 (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

What about Puerto Rico?

Given that the overall homicide rate figure of 4.9/100k includes Puerto Rico, why isn't Puerto Rico included in the table? Washington, DC isn't a US state, but it is included in the table of states.

For 2015, removing the population of PR and homicides from there, the US homicide rate drops to 4.75/100k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.23.113.122 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Gun ownership column is misleading. I personally live in new hampshire, and am sure that gun ownership is not as low as it would have you believe after discussing it with about 100 or so folks from the shire. I submit that the 'census' of ~4000 people per state isnt a large enough data pool to pull from, let alone considering a person is going to truthfully tell a stranger whether or not they own a gun. In new hampshire, you dont need a permit for a weapon...not even to conceal carry so the information is not only skewed, its likely impossible to obtain accurately and should be removed on the basis of being questionable "facts" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:187:4002:1180:909A:5156:3AD2:FB9A (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion in Category:Deaths by firearm in the United States by state

This article is currently in Category:Deaths by firearm in the United States by state. However that category is a container category and as such should only include other categories, not individual articles. However this article does seem a natural fit for it, so I have started a discussion at Category talk:Deaths by firearm in the United States by state as to whether or not its status as a category container should be changed, which I thought I should flag up here. Dunarc (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

County-level maps

Note: Initial two posts below have been moved from a user talk page.

To clarify why I have removed it: you mentioned that 'one of the columns has this info'. That's true. But the article is Firearm death rates in the United States by state. Yes, there is a column in the broader table. But the maps only show overall rates; this is not helpful to the reader of the specific article they are reading. The column in the broader table provides a comparison, which is why it's there. The maps do not. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 08:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh - to clarify my edit summary of "Look forward to the corrections", I misunderstood "One of the columns has this info" to mean that the data source for the map had the firearm rate info, and that the map was going to be fixed. That would be a tough fix, it would have to be some sort of toggle-able overlay to show the difference between overall rates and firearm rates - probably more work than is reasonable. But again, the rationale is that the subject matter of the article is firearm death rates. Two maps, one for overall homicide rates and one for overall suicide rates, that do not reflect firearm rates, are highly misleading, since that's not the topic of the article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 08:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have waited until I had the clarifications written up before putting the maps back in the article in the new location. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, this isn't an improvement. The added explanatory text is fairly textbook synthesis. We can't present data or graphs and ask the reader to sort columns in a particular way to reveal a correlation that "usually" exists. I'm aware that the rates "usually" correlate, but we need reliable sources to make that comparison. A bare map of overall rates without corresponding firearm rates - the subject of this article - just isn't helpful. I'm not going to revert again, but this should not be in article space until resolved. It needs a serious rethinking. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 08:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess I should mention that the table does not have any information on suicide rates, yet we have a suicide map by county. That too is further out of place, because we can't even synthesize a correlation from the other table, so there's no rationale at all for including that one. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 08:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

And to top it off (after which I'm going to bed, this is too aggravating), this article pertains to rates by state. The maps are by county. How exactly does one infer state overall rate correlation vs state gun rate correlation with a map by county? Nope. Synthesis over the top. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 08:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed the suicide rate map for now. Need more research:

https://www.google.com/search?q=firearm+suicide+rate+by+state

Suicide rate by county 2016-2020 average rate per 100,000

  No data

  5

  10

  15

  20

  25

  30

And I removed the implied synthesis in the text concerning the state and county data. Comparing column rates is not synthesis. Implying that it extends beyond the state level to the county level is synthesis.

Obvious math like a column comparison is not synthesis. There is a guideline that states this somewhere. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to put our own research into article space, particularly when asking the reader to scan the table of state rates, then view a map of counties to "see" the correlation.

And of course, I have yet another point of failure: the table is for 2019. The county maps are the average across six years, including a year past the table space. Nope. Firearm death rates in the United States by state. County level is out of scope, overall rate map across six years without firearm breakout is out of scope. I'm still scratching my head how these county-level data are supposed to fit into this article of by state.

It's a pretty map. it's not appropriate to this article. (and yeah, I haven't gone to bed yet. I'm kicking myself :) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 09:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure you have read the latest version of the text in that section in the article. It does not say what you think it is saying.

And counties make up states. People want to know. Article titles often do not cover everything broken out in a list article. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so let me see if I have this straight...

1. This article is Firearm death rates in the United States by state. For simplicity, I'll refer to it as Firearm death rates by state. That is, the subject matter pertains to deaths - homicides, suicides, accidents - for which the weapon involved was a firearm.
2. As the article stood from July to a few days ago, it presented the following.
   1. National Statistics
   2. A map of the US presenting Firearm death rates by state, for the year 2020.
   3. A map of the US presenting Firearm death rates by state, for the year 2019.
   4. A large table of state by state data, of Firearm death rates by state.
   5. A subsection of murder rates, with very clear explanation of the rationale and sources of each column, along with relevant overall murder rates, state by state populations, density, estimated gun ownership rates(this needs to be clarified in the text). All of the data is from 2010 other than the estimated ownership rates, from 2013.

On October 6, two maps were added to the article, with only "map added" as the edit summary. After I removed them, explanatory text was added below the table in the Murder section that was synthesis. The text explains nothing that isn't explained by the correct explanatory text above the table which is uncontroversial because it's purely descriptive. After it was clear that the suicide map bore no relationship to the data in the murder rate table (notwithstanding all the other ways that it bore no relationship as described), the suicide map was removed, but the homicide map was added back - again, notwithstanding it's non-relationship to the data that it is claimed that it is related to.

The two maps are of no meaningful value to this article because

1. The homicide rate map is
   1. Overall homicides only, which includes firearms, knives, bludgeons, and more - not Firearm death rates
   2. Detailed by county, which is not Firearm death rates by state
   3. An average of overall homicide rates across six years, 2014-2020, data unrelated to the table above it from 2010.
2. The suicide rate map is
   1. Overall suicide rates only, of which only about half are using a firearm, so it includes a huge amount of data completely unrelated to Firearm death rates
   2. Detailed by county, which is not Firearm death rates by state.
   3. An average of overall suicide rates across across four years, 2016-2020.

Thus far, the only rationales provided for their inclusion are:

• "counties make up states"
  • And? Cities also make up states. Along with unincorporated regions. And National forests. It's a non-sequitur to the topic of this article.
• "People want to know"
  • And? People want to know about Firearm death rates by state, that's why they are at this article. "People want to know" isn't a rationale for inclusion, when what's being included doesn't even visualize firearm death rates.
• "Article titles often do not cover everything broken out in a list article"
  • This is the well know 'other articles contain other stuff not covered by the topic'. There's an essay on this, WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's a common argument. WP:OTHERSTUFF is never successfully used an a rationale for inclusion of material; it is routinely and successfully as the rationale for removal of material from articles, because it's cluttering the article up with information that does not directly address the topic of the article.

The two maps don't belong in this article, not by any stretch. They are a distraction, a non-sequitur which shed no light on the topic. With that said, it's worth pointing out that there are other articles for which one or both maps are appropriate, relevant, and add value and insight, for example:

• Suicide in the United States (where it already is, and it's appropriate)
• Crime in the United States (where it already is, and it's appropriate)

Unfortunately, the map has also been added to List of U.S. states and territories by intentional homicide rate where it also is out of scope and non-sequitur virtually identically to this article.

I would ask that the existing map be removed, in consideration of the facts presented above. The 'explanatory' directions on how to adjust the table also don't add anything to the article, as it was added based on the rationale that users could synthesize conclusions from the county level average overall rates over a different time period, from a table of murder rates broken out by state, with specific rather than average data from a single year. It's wildly out of whack with the article. All the text really says right now is that the county level map is unrelated to anything in the article!

Ideally this article would have a table on suicide rates using firearms (by state, of course), congruent with the murder rates table. The correlations are vastly different from those for murder, and since the article is about overall rates of firearm death, having just a table that breaks out the minute details of murder rates, but no suicide rates, is a disappointing lack.

I will add as well: they are really cool maps, so to speak; the color scheme is excellent, and they illustrate overall rates of the subset of counties exceptionally well. They might be worth articles on their own that address their specific data. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll give this another day, then I'll clean up the article, absent a meaningful rationale for inclusion. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see my previous reply. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I've read it, obviously, as I replied to it. It's not a valid argument for inclusion. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the brief removal of the disputed content prematurely. Ultraviolet gives no warning of number of edits when reverting good faith edits. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly. Now, 'helpful' text has been added to the article letting readers know that the data in the table is out of date, and that "county level data for firearm deaths for murder is needed too" - in short, commentary that belongs on the talk page, not in the article.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but are you kidding? We don't add verbiage to article space basically saying that editors need to update the article. We present what we present. At best, we point out in the introductory text for the murder rate table that it is from 2010. Oh, wait - it already notes that. What we have now, in article space, is a bunch of text - all unsourced - letting readers know how to adjust a graph to reach a specifically desired conclusion (and presented below the graph!) and text comments that editors need to 'fix' a problem with the article. As well as a map that is unrelated to the subject matter. When the article already has two maps that directly provide the state-level data that this state-level article is about.

I guess I'll have to start a couple of Rfc's, as this is just bizarre. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC county-level overall homicide section in article about state level firearms deaths

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to remove the material. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Should this article, which is specifically about Firearm death rates by state, include a section and map of overall homicide rates by county? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Diff of primary disputed additions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state&type=revision&diff=1115510190&oldid=1114992074&diffmode=source cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

...And the section immediately above contains my rationale (written as usual using 10x the words necessary). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• No. I agree with User:Anastrophe opinion above, the overall homicide chart has no place in this article. This article is specifically about Firearm homicides not homicides in general. Makes absolutely no sense to have it in this article, perhaps another article thats related to it, but not this one. But, I would like to hear more from the editors that wish it to be added. Regards, --Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 23:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  See the section in question: Firearm death rates in the United States by state#County-level map of US murder rate. The logic for its inclusion is pretty clear there. It's a work in progress. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Works in progress should be built on the talk page, particularly when the starting point bears zero direct-line relationship to the topic of the article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's relevant to the article. You have yet to contribute any substantive edits to this list article as far as I can tell. I looked back to the beginning of the article in 2015. You basically parachuted in recently and started into long-winded wikilawyering. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please stop personalizing your arguments. I didn't "parachute in", I got a change notification email, looked at the article, and saw irrelevant information added to it along with a not very coherent justification for inclusion. I'm fairly appalled that an editor feels such a sense of ownership over an article. I've been editing articles here for sixteen years. That fact doesn't matter either, since I don't own anything on wikipedia. I edit for the first time on countless articles routinely, as we try to improve Wikipedia. That is not a yardstick by which we measure the value of editor's contributions. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: When I click on the diff link above, it just takes me to the main page. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never set up a diff for posting. I'll see if I can fix. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: You can just get the diff you want from the page history and then link to that, like this]. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mudwater yeah, I just changed it the plain url. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• No: This article is about firearm deaths, including homicides, suicides, and accidents. A map of overall homicide deaths is more misleading than informative in this context, mainly because many homicides are by means other than firearms. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Eventually, there will be a table or map posted about homicide, suicide, etc. rates at the county level. Then the section usefulness will be more obvious. And it is much more likely to be included with an article about states, not as a separate article on counties. Title could then be changed to "Firearm death rates in the United States by state and county." Though that is not absolutely necessary.

  To me this is all obvious as I have worked on many lists and tables. This is more likely to occur if it is left in as is now. Some people will then see the need to help out in filling in the needed data and map.

  I don't think people are being mislead. The section explains what is going on.

  But hey, I get it, deletionists rule. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Timeshifter: This makes no sense. So what you’re saying is (correct me if I’m wrong) to leave these charts there and eventually someone will create a new section/add maps to the article about counties and suicides? I think they should be removed for now and if in the future someone decides to create a new section about homicides by county then they can be added, but since that section doesn’t exist yet it makes no sense to have it in the article. However I do agree that in the future this article can be changed to Firearm Homicides by state and counties, this makes more sense then to create a separate article for counties, but until then, I believe the charts should be removed entirely. Regards, Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 15:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  It is more likely that county-level data for firearm homicides and firearm suicides will be added to the article sooner if the current county section remains. Because some enterprising editor is more likely to see the need. There is nothing misleading about the current section. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  You have to start with material that is directly relevant to the overriding topic of the article, first. Are you working on the relevant map? Is someone else? We don't leave irrelevant material in an article "hoping" someone will make it relevant. The material is misleading if only for the fact that the explanatory text demonstrates that there's no relevance:"The above table, though, does not break it down by county, so it does not show whether the correlation holds at the county level. Also, the table above needs more recent data. And county level data for firearm deaths for murder is needed too." cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's relevant. It clearly shows the need for more data. But you are more interested in long-winded wikilawyering. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Another expression of ownership issues, as I see that this editor was the original creator of the article. Tossing out various aspersions, without providing a single clear statement for inclusion a little more nuanced than 'I think it belongs' (paraphrasing), isn't helpful. I've provided exceedingly clearly detailed explanations for my rationale for removal. I haven't seen any counter arguments to them - only, again, statements that you think it belongs, with little beyond 'it'll get better/be relevant later'. I would ask you to try to collaborate. I have not said 'this chart can never be in this article'; nobody has that power here. I'm saying that the "rationale" presented in article space lacks a coherent base (for all the reasons I've provided), so it should not be in article space. And since the accompanying map literally has no data on firearm rates, it should not be in article space. Until such time as it does. A scattered 'work in progress' is embarrassing in article space.The existing two maps provide precisely the information this article addresses; the new map add no new information to the article topic. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Timeshifter: I don’t believe it misleads, It does however seem out of place. I’m going to stick with my vote of No for I do not agree with your “leave and hope” argument. Regards, Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 20:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have edited a lot of tables and lists. I know what I am talking about. I wonder how many you all have edited. I myself try not to annoy the regular editors of lists and tables. It drives away editors from those articles. I suggest you all do more productive editing. No offense.

This article gets an average of 138 views per day the last 60 days. Some of those viewers might want to help out if they saw the need. But as I said, I get it, the deletionist herd rules. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

More aspersions. Not a single editor here above has written disparagingly about other editors. Not cool. I'd like to get more feedback on the Rfc, but thus far I see no support for whatever the contrary argument actually is. Please have a refresher reread of WP:AGF. Attacking other editors is not in the spirit we write this encyclopedia. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Anastrophe, you wrote previously: "And the section immediately above contains my rationale (written as usual using 10x the words necessary)." So you are the one that first brought up your long-windedness. Restating a fact that you brought up is not an attack. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The aspersion I was referring to was what you wrote directly above: I have edited a lot of tables and lists. I know what I am talking about. I wonder how many you all have edited. I myself try not to annoy the regular editors of lists and tables. It drives away editors from those articles. I suggest you all do more productive editing. No offense. "I know what I am talking about" followed by "I wonder how many you all have edited" - this expresses superiority to other editors, implying we are inferior editors. "I suggest you all do more productive editing. No offense" - this suggests that we are not productive editors compared to you. Following pretty much any declaration with "No offense" is fairly universal language for 'it's offensive, but I get a magic pass on it by saying it's not'.

This whole affair is tedious. You've had countless opportunities to explicate a rationale more persuasive than

• "[...]counties make up states. People want to know."
• "The logic for its inclusion is pretty clear there."
• "It's relevant to the article." followed by a judgemental screed about the poor quality of editor I must be.

None have been forthcoming. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 08:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: Please refrain from speaking in such a rude manner to fellow contributors. Just because editors disagree with you doesn’t mean you to need to have a “temper tantrum”. You’ve given no persuasive argument to keep the charts you proposed, again, try to be more civil, we have done nothing but be civil to you, I at least expect the same in return. Regards, Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 04:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Calling someone who disagrees with you as having a “temper tantrum” could be considered an attack. But let's all stop the gamesmanship, oneupmanship, and wikilawyering. I withdraw the deletionist accusation. I was noting the groupthink I often see on Wikipedia. It's an observation, not an attack. I am going to go edit other list articles. You guys are mostly uncooperative in my opinion, and I am allowed to have an opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That’s fair, I will apologize for that statement, I shouldn’t have sunk to such a low level. But, mostly what you said above were blatant attacks against us, not observations. But to continue this argument is pointless. @Anastrophe: is this matter closed or do you wish to hear from more editors? Regards, Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 14:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to give it another day to hear from more editors, if only because there's not been a particularly large response. I've opened a total of about...three?...RfC's in my many years on Wikipedia, so I'm not skilled in how to wrangle more responses. If anyone can broadcast this more widely - without potential charges of 'canvassing' or whatever it's called - that would be great. But if others feel consensus is reasonably broad, I'm fine with it being closed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"You guys are mostly uncooperative in my opinion, and I am allowed to have an opinion." I would gently remind you that everyone has an opinion; however expressing that opinion can often be entirely uncivil, as this quote demonstrates. I have opinions of a good many editors here - here on wikipedia not here in this discussion - that it would be utterly egregious - and likely inducing sanctions or ban against me - if I expressed them. You are entitled to your opinion; keep it to yourself if it's directed at people, rather than edits. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Well said, I completely agree. Also, two additional editors have responded and have voted No, I think we can reasonably say a consensus has been made. Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 20:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, I am not a deletionist. So I’d appreciate it if you stop referring to those who appose your argument as “deletionist”, Regards Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 05:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see my previous reply. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• No: I don't see how including data on all murders would be beneficial. A table about all murders in an article specifically about firearm murders seems to me to be at least somewhat out of scope. The article is not meaningfully improved by including this table. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• No: Common sense says that it's ridiculous to talk about something specific and show a graphic for a more general topic unless it's to highlight how significant the specific topic is to the general topic. In this case, unless it serves the purpose of showing how shootings impact the homicide stats, there is no reason to include it. It also might not make sense to put it in a list of shootings per state, and would probably be better in the article about firearms in the USA as a whole. RPI2026F1 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CDC data is "Age-Adjusted"

The CDC data referenced (both directly and via the CNN article) is labeled as "Age-Adjusted Death Rates", but I haven't been able to find any explanation of the methodology used to adjust the data. Also, what is the purpose or benefit of age adjustment in this case? At a minimum, the fact that the data has been adjusted should at least be noted here. Hptasins (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The CDC age adjustment protocol is documented in this report: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_03.pdf Hptasins (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The 2010 Data Table

I am new to this. My purpose is to say this data table should be updated. Some have posted the opinion that the overall homicide rate does not belong in this article and on the table. I disagree. If you look at CDC data from 2021: Tennessee's Firearm Death rate was 22.8 and Maryland's Firearm Death rate was 15.2. Is it safer in Maryland? No, Maryland and Tennessee both had an overall homicide rate of 12.2. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm The CDC could lay this out in a single table and stratify firearm mortality by type. Technically all deaths by firearms are homicides. But there are different types, justifiable, intentional, justifiable, accidental, and suicide. OtherInfoSeeker (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Refresh and merger

There is significant overlap between this article and Gun violence in the United States by state. Additionally, many columns in each article are superfluous. Below is a preview of a revision that I believe would be an improvement to both articles - a full version is currently on my sandbox.[1]

I am trying to keep the number of columns down to increase readability on smaller screens and avoid repetition of similar concepts. But, I generate these tables via R code so it is easy to add more columns if anyone would like to see them.

An under-represented topic has been suicide - it is the largest component of gun deaths and deserves first billing. Additionally there may be a place for content comparing gun ownership and male suicide. Per this study: [2] "Higher gun ownership was associated with higher suicide rates by any means among male, but not among female, persons."

The preview below does not include a lead, which would also need to be revised. Please do comment with your thoughts.

Gun death rates

Gun suicide rate by state (2021)

Gun homicide rate by state (2021)

Gun death rate by county (2023)

Data are from the CDC and are for the year 2021. Rates are per 100,000 inhabitants. Gun ownership estimates are from the RAND Corporation.

Location	Gun suicide rate	Suicide rate	Gun homicide rate	Homicide rate	% gun at home
United States	7.9	14.5	6.3	7.8
Wyoming	23.7	32.8	1.7	2.8	61%
Montana	21.6	31.7	2.7	4.2	65%
Alaska	19.4	30.0	4.2	6.7	57%
New Mexico	14.4	25.2	10.9	14.5	36%
Oklahoma	13.8	22.0	6.4	8.6	55%

Gun death totals

Data are from the CDC and are for the year 2021.

Location	Gun suicides	Suicides	Gun homicides	Homicides
United States	26,328	48,183	20,943	26,031
Texas	2,528	4,193	1,942	2,391
Florida	1,928	3,351	1,150	1,468
California	1,575	4,148	1,861	2,495
Georgia	1,115	1,676	1,021	1,206
Pennsylvania	997	1,885	861	1,101

Wizmut (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

As promised I have now made this change. Please say if any important data columns are missing, or if another table should be added.

I will also be nominating Gun violence in the United States by state for deletion, to make it a redirect to this article. Wizmut (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It now redirects to here. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Combined death rate by firearms. Tables, maps, and graphs

Wizmut and all. Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population:

• https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000

It usually has the latest CDC combined rates by state. Table, graph, and map.

Its map and graph can be copied under commons:Template:PD-map and commons:Template:PD-chart. They are in the public domain (read PD template pages).

Or make a new map with the data on the map. See:

• Commons:File:Template map of US states and District of Columbia.svg
• Commons:File talk:Template map of US states and District of Columbia.svg/Instructions

--Timeshifter (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)