So I know it's been a few pages of people "discussing" back and forth, but I wanted to come back to this infographic that caused the uproar between TK and Djalil:
I did some digging and it's misleading at best, downright biased at worst.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...ths/69354/(The original article.)
Found the original map and the notes associated with it:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator...-100000/#notes
Which I think might be the point of contention between some, it is all inclusive and not specifically referencing the violent use of a firearm to cause death. Then there was some back and forth (which even rereading is a bit disjointed and hard to follow) about definitions, legal and literary, and the intent of the original poster of the graphic and his use of the term "gun violence" (thanks for that Ruk.)
I'd also like the point out the overlay of "States with at least 1 Firearm Law to Designed Protect Children." What a loaded and arbitrary classification of laws, what the overlay actually shows according to the original article is:
Trigger locks and safe storage requirements, maybe, but explain how assault weapons' bans are laws "designed to protect children." It seems the intent of the map was to point out that the majority of states that have have a law that is "think about the children" have a lower overall death by firearm rate, even if these laws don't really have anything to do with the children.
Speaking of children, federal statute states:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922
So in reality every state already has a law, at the federal level, designed to protect children.
Overall the original article had some decent points, even if according to their correlation voting for McCain was the highest contributor to death by firearm.