More "gun violence" propaganda - Using CNN's source to show Red states are safer

Seems like every Monday CNN is making sure to include stories about all the mass shootings that have been happening this year.

296 mass shootings (so far) this year. 334 people killed. 1,235 people injured.

I can't remember the percentage the news anchor and reporter quoted. I think one said mass shootings were up 39% compared to this time last year and the other said it was up 37%. In any case, mass shooting are up this year...and what happened at the beginning of this year? Yep, a Democrat president got into the White House and the Democrats retained majority in the House and got control of the Senate.

But, since we're looking at CNN's report, let's skip the obvious fact that President Biden was sworn in at the beginning of the year and immediately began an avalanche of executive orders to undo everything he could that Trump did. CNN would say there isn't a correlation to increased mass shootings to President Biden.

Ummm, and there isn't a correlation to increased problems at the border with President Biden's executive orders and the Democrats in control?

And ignore the almost certain fact that if a Republican were president (especially Trump), CNN would be making sure to link the increase in mass shootings to the Republican administration.

I'm not keen on Republicans either, they have their problems as well. But the Democrats are definitely a greater threat to our Constitutional liberties.

Anyway.

CNN defines a "mass shooting" as "four or more people shot, not including the shooter." Nobody has to actually be killed, just shot.

Using CNN's definition just about any gang-related shooting could be defined as a mass shooting.

Unless the incident is worthy of reporting, CNN (and other news outlets) just tend to report the numbers. If you actually go to the Gun Violence Archive that CNN likes to quote (this is the source for gun violence numbers CNN uses) you can click on each incident to get a little more information (https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting). But, don't get your hopes up too much about getting detailed information.

I haven't gone through more than a dozen incidents. I found "mass shooting" incidents that were at a house party, a graduation party, a drive by shooting, bystanders that got shot, etc. Not much in what we're used to as "mass shootings" but when you hear CNN report, you get the grocery store or similar incident.

I downloaded the csv file and did some checks in Excel.

Of 296 "mass shootings" incidents, 127 of those incidents had 0 (zero) deaths.

Still, 331 deaths from 169 incidents isn't a good thing.

How does political leanings affect "mass shootings"? I decided to add to the spreadsheet which political leaning the states had.

(https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/blue-states)

There were 120 mass shootings in blue states, 133 in purple states, and 43 in red states. Here's the deaths and injury counts:

• Blue states had 126 deaths and 497 injured from mass shootings.
• Red states had 53 deaths and 166 inured from mass shootings.
• Purple states had 152 deaths and 581 inured from mass shootings.

Blue states had more than twice the death rate in mass shootings and nearly three times the number of people injured.

Mass shootings in purple states resulted in 3.5 times the injuries as red states, and close to 3 times the death rate.

Based on those numbers (from the source that CNN uses), you are definitely safer to live in a red state.

But here's the insane thing. 

The blue states want to impose gun control on the entire nation, even though the numbers point to blue states and purple states as having the gun violence problems.

Maybe the blue and purple states should look to the red (more conservative) states for help.

Increased gun control is the biggest hurdle socialists need to pass to create a cascading loss of of liberties in America. They will continue to whittle away at other liberties and Constitutional rights through regulations, restrictions, and other laws, but it's this right we have to protect our liberties and rights that is the biggest threat. The Second Amendment is really what allows us to be free to choose how we live our lives and limit the over-reaching arm of government.

I haven't done the research but I would guess that most (if not all) the purple states had less of a "gun violence" problem if they used to be red. Texas is one that was red and is now purple. 

Now that the liberal/progressive/socialist democrats are pushing their big government-control agenda in those states, and blues are moving into those states because they're tired of the mess their blue states are in--but they are now pushing for the same regulations/legislation/policies in their new (formerly red) state--those once red states are purple.

In case you're interested, here are the political colors of the states.

Strong blue states are:

1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Hawaii
5. Illinois
6. Maryland
7. Massachusetts
8. Minnesota
9. New Jersey
10. New Mexico
11. New York
12. Oregon
13. Rhode Island
14. Vermont
15. Washington

States leaning more blue are:

• Colorado
• Maine
• Michigan
• Virginia

Purple states are:

• Arizona
• Florida
• Georgia
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Ohio
• Pennsylvania
• Texas
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin

Solid red states are:

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Idaho
• Kansas
• Montana
• Nebraska
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Utah
• Wyoming

And states leaning red are:

• Arkansas
• Mississippi
• Missouri