Sunday, November 18, 2007

Baghdad, NV

It also is the gun-death state. According to the Center for Disease Control, since 2000, Nevada has led the nation with an average of 26 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people.

War-torn Iraq averaged 32 gun deaths per 100,000 people last year, according to the same study.
That certainly is presented in the most hysterical fashion imaginable. I also note that somehow, in all that fair and balanced "authorized journaling," we only see the cost side of the equation, and no benefits. Surely someone in the state was able to deter violence with a firearm--or is Nevada an anomaly, where nothing works the way it does everywhere else?

Here's the other thing--I'm not sure where his CDC figures are being pulled from, but the most current WISQARS data I could find linking from the CDC site was quite different:


Even taking suicides and legal interventions into account yielded an age-adjusted rate of 16.62 per 100,000, over 9 points below what this story is claiming.

I'm going to assume he's looking at a different report, but the CDC is keeping it pretty well hidden. If you go to their website, you'll see firearms aren't listed as one of their "Top 20" categories in the search utility (top right corner of main page). I also wandered around seemingly related pages dealing with violence and injury with no luck and even did a Google news search to see if there have been any recent press releases.

I'm not claiming it ain't right in front of my face as I stumble clumsily around it...

I'll email the reporter and ask for a link to his source.

UPDATE:

My email to the reporter:

Mr. Pridgen,

"According to the Center for Disease Control, since 2000, Nevada has led the nation with an average of 26 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people."

I couldn't find this on the CDC site, and WISQARS data tells a different story from 200-2004 and isn't updated beyond that.
[Inserted graphic from above]
Even accounting for suicides and law enforcement interventions only produced an age-adjusted rate of under 17/100,000. Could you please point me to where you got your information with a link to the data and findings?

Thank you,
David Codrea

His reply:

Hi David,

Thanks a bunch for your feedback. The CDC study we used was sent straight from the CDC office in Washington DC and Atlanta Ga- you can find them at cdc.gov or call them at 404-639-3534...

Their ‘07 numbers have not been released yet- but the stats we used were from June ‘05- June ‘07

...hope this helps- and yes, we do count in that number all deaths – homicide, manslaughter, suicide and accidental deaths- remember it’s ‘gun-related death’ period...

We hashed over the numbers and the story for months in the newsroom, but I understand where a reader interested in the subject (like yourself) may have needed a better breakdown of the numbers- so I appreciate your calling this to our attention...

-a

Stay tuned.

4 comments:

Fits said...

Emailed him as well and will report back if an answer is forthcoming.

Anonymous said...

The reporter might be playing around with the age range variable. I used the same WISQARS data as you, but set the age range for 15 and older, which gave a rate of 21.2 per 100,000 from all causes. Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

I live in Reno. Even if the raw numbers are reasonably accurate,generally statistics like this are abnormally skewed due to the nature of Nevada's tourist industry. The Reno/Sparks has a base population of somewhere around 300000. Yet the number of visitors will add 20,000-60,000 per week. Veags can have well over 100,000 tourists at any one time. Tourism brings a lot of costs and the biggest has always been the number of problems the they bring with them. They directly account for a huge number of medical and law enforcement calls. Think about the motorcycle gang shootout in a Veagas casino 2-3 years ago. All of them were out of state visitors and they accounted for at least 1/2 dz. shooting "victims" as well as perps. I've never seen a study that accounted for any of the effects of the tourist numbers.

Anonymous said...

A quick look at the data leads me to believe that the reporter's numbers are for firearm deaths and injuries even though he says "deaths".