When manipulating statistics for one's own use, it is helpful to understand that the numbers for gun deaths are very different from the numbers from gun murders.

There are more gun deaths; that number includes suicides, accidents, and even criminals who were shot by police or other gun owners.

Several of the states on that list are in the top ten in gun deaths. None of them are in the top ten in gun murders.

And that makes complete sense. If gun use in your state is mostly for murder, then your state is into restricting them and requiring permits. If it's for shooting bears, you don't ask people to get permits. Just shoot the damn bears. Now go back and read the list of which states don't require permits, and compare that to the list of which states have bears. Here is the list again:

Maine, Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Kansas, Montana, Arkansas, Idaho, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.

12 states, 7 in bear country. None in permanent ghetto underclass country where the gun murders take place.

I re-sorted the data in UT's link (above) and got this
plot of "Gun Murders [X]" vs "Population Density [Y]".
Except for Florida, the top 10 population densities are all in the NorthEastern US.

Hmmm.... I wonder what that means - the NorthEast is a ghetto ?

They all have more big cities with ghettos in them, while ME, VT, AK, AZ, WY, KS, MT, AR, ID, NH, NM, and OK don't have many.
Plotting population density of the state tells me nothing. The density of say PA, is 9th at 286/sq mile. But two places, Philly at 3.85 million and Pittsburg at 2.4 million, account for much of the state's 12.77 million. There's mile after mile of PA with few or no people. Where do you think the murder's are mostly happening?

OK, xoB, but now how about applying that same thinking to Pamela's
post/link above about that "Harvard Study Reveals..." ?

Ooops, Sorry. I should have said "NRA Study Reveals..."

... and I'm really quarrling with UT's over-use of the word "ghetto"

I can see where that study comes from, and where it wants to go, but like all studies it's built on numbers and points the author gets to choose. That's why scientific papers have the peer review thing, to make sure the author's bias isn't steering the study. Hence the origin of, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure".
I'm not saying this is the case here, but validating or refuting, requires dissecting the methodology, which I haven't done, so I can't yea or nay on that study.

Of course most people would take the position does it agree with what I think feel, or not.

Your objection to UT's (over)use of ghetto, is probably because you don't deal with them very often... UT and I do. We know that's where the action is. There's an occasional shooting in the 'burbs/boondocks, but the almost daily action is in one of the low-rent areas of Philly, Camden, Chester, etc... the ghettos. It's not color, there's plenty of white, yellow and black folks there, it's residents are there for economic and/or mental health reasons.

What would you like to call those areas, or should we not speak of them?

'Areas of high deprivation' ;p

:facepalm:Oh get the fuck outta here, you say that and everyone will... WTF, oh, ghetto, plus think you're a bullshit artist with your "PC" verbadge.

;) You see, Jimmy. That's what comes with jumping to conclusions.

Sorry, I didn't know you're a slum lord. :p:

;)

We could call them "Walmart shootings"

.

That's a tribute to walmart, who's goal is to serve every need of every community.

Hmmm.... I wonder what that means - the NorthEast is a ghetto ?
Yes, relative to the spacious wonders of our counterparts on the left coast.
All the population density is there as well. Take the "ghettos" out of the statistical analysis, and I think a very different picture would be told.