CDZ Gun deaths in all states per capita

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What worked in the UK started 150 years ago with gun licensing. It's taken that long to get we are today. Handguns under a certain length weren't banned until 1996ish. So it takes quite a while to change the culture. Anyone who thinks you can implement a UK, Aussie, New Zealand system etc.. and have the same results overnight or over a handful of years, doesn't understand guns and gun cultures.

And that’s how it will likely happen in the US – through cultural and societal change.

Not through licensing, regulations, restrictions, or bans.

 

[Blues Man]

People who think gun laws reduce murder rates are simple minded.

The murder rate in the US in the 50's was 4.6/100K
The murder rate in the UK in the 50's was .8/100k

Since 1950 the UK has banned entire classes of firearms and has restricted almost everyone from owning a firearm

The 2018 UK murder rate was 1.2/100K


Since 1950 the US has implemented an "assault weapon ban", has mandated licensed dealers perform background checks has passed literally thousands of other gun laws.

The US murder rate in 2018 was 5.9/100k

These are not even statistically significant changes.

Gun laws do not reduce murder rates.

 

[2aguy]

I used the latest data merely to illustrate that suicide rates fluctuate over time, your deluded paranoia turned it into a "gotcha moment". As to King of cherry picking, that crown definitly belongs to you.

Wrong.....you still can't explain, and your anti-gun buddies can't explain, how it is that South Korea, Japan, and China have higher suicide rates than we do....you cherry picked the only year Japan had a higher suicide rate than we did.....the only year.......and didn't address South Korea, or China....or any of the dozen or so European countries and Canada that had higher suicide rates than we did.....

 

[2aguy]

So why bother with locks at all? Just let anyone come and go as they please, but shoot the ones you don't like, is that your preferred lifestyle?

Utter drivel. Of course violent crimes happen but the easiest and cheapest way to defend yourself at home is to... wait for it... lock your doors! (Oh, and have doors capable of withstanding crowbars and battering rams, still cheaper than guns and ammunition.

Nope.....locks and dogs warn you there is danger, and keeps the danger at bay while you sleep...so you can wake up and get to your gun and then dial 911 or the British equivalent...a layered defense...with the gun the last resort and biggest deterrent, as burglary rates between the U.S. and the U.K. show...

 

[2aguy]

With or without a gun, just like Western countries, you are free. If your brain is stuck in 1776, that's where the wacky ideas come from.

Yeah...go sing "Kung Fu Fighting," at a pub Karoke night in Britain...see what happens....say that women are not men...see what happens...

 

[Blues Man]

Nope.....locks and dogs warn you there is danger, and keeps the danger at bay while you sleep...so you can wake up and get to your gun and then dial 911 or the British equivalent...a layered defense...with the gun the last resort and biggest deterrent, as burglary rates between the U.S. and the U.K. show...

911 is a joke.

Anyone who is depending on the cops to come to their aid is an idiot

 

[2aguy]

What worked in the UK started 150 years ago with gun licensing. It's taken that long to get we are today. Handguns under a certain length weren't banned until 1996ish. So it takes quite a while to change the culture. Anyone who thinks you can implement a UK, Aussie, New Zealand system etc.. and have the same results overnight or over a handful of years, doesn't understand guns and gun cultures.

Wrong....you can't show how gun licensing physically prevents criminals from getting guns or how they stop mass public shootings....you have had 3 mass public shootings, though one could be considered gang crime...since the 90s ban and confiscation..the exact same rate of mass public shootings before you banned and confiscated guns...

That means, banning guns had no effect.....

And the British police state that they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into your country...

 

[2aguy]

Acknowledge the fact that homes with guns are less safe than home without guns – try being honest and truthful for a change.

And the fact that homes with guns are less safe than home without guns isn’t going to be used to ‘justify’ gun ‘bans’ or ‘confiscation.’

They are not less safe........the studies that concluded that focused on homes with criminals, drug users, acoholics and violent domestic abusers......while ignoring normal gun owners.....

 

[2aguy]

As opposed to Kleck, Lott, et al. Who are "rabid pro-gun fanatics"? Cherry picking data again.

No....Kleck was anti-gun when he did his research, he states this when interviewed....Lott was agnostic on guns but leaned toward more gun laws not less......so you don't know what you are talking about........

 

[Open Bolt]

Higher accessibility and ownership of guns has been cited as a reason for the U.S.'s high rate of mass shootings.[5][10][51] The US has the highest per-capita gun ownership in the world with 120.5 firearms per 100 people; the second highest is Yemen with 52.8 firearms per 100 people.[51]

A study published in PLOS One in 2015 examined mass shootings in the U.S. from 2005 to 2013 (and school shootings in the U.S. from 1998 to 2013). The study authors found that the "state prevalence of firearm ownership is significantly associated with the state incidence of mass killings with firearms, school shootings, and mass shootings."[52]

A 2019 study published in The BMJ conducted a cross-sectional time series study of U.S. states from 1998 to 2015; the study found that "States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership had higher rates of mass shootings, and a growing divide appears to be emerging between restrictive and permissive states."[53] The study specifically found that "A 10% increase in state gun ownership was associated with a significant 35.1% (12.7% to 62.7%, P=0.001) higher rate of mass shootings. Partially adjusted regression analyses produced similar results, as did analyses restricted to domestic and non-domestic mass shootings."[53]

Well obviously in places with lots of guns, massacres will be committed using guns. And in places with few guns, massacres will be committed without guns.

A 2020 study published in Law and Human Behavior examined the relationship of state guns laws and the incidence and lethality of mass shootings in the U.S. from 1976 to 2018.The study found that "laws requiring permits to purchase a gun are associated with a lower incidence of mass public shootings, and bans on large capacity magazines are associated with fewer fatalities and nonfatal injuries when such events do occur."[54] The study specifically found that large-capacity magazine bans were associated with approximately 38% fewer fatalities and 77% fewer nonfatal injuries when a mass shooting occurred.[54]

I'm skeptical. I've seen reliable studies showing that magazine size restrictions make no difference.

Obviously someone has to be wrong. It remains to be seen who it is.

The American Psychiatric Association has endorsed assault weapons bans,

That's because they don't care about saving lives and only want to violate people's civil liberties.

Current restrictions on assault weapons have been sufficient to prevent criminal misuse for 90 years now. There is no justification for any such ban.

high-capacity magazine bans, and universal background checks as a way to curb gun violence in the U.S.[55]

Mass shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I endorse disbanding the American Psychiatric Association as a way to curb civil liberties violations in the US.

 

[2aguy]

As opposed to Kleck, Lott, et al. Who are "rabid pro-gun fanatics"? Cherry picking data again.

Kleck.....was not a 2nd Amendment supporter and I don't think he is now....he is simply a researcher...

An Unlikely Source Supporting Gun Ownership ​

Ask the average gun owner which of America’s major political parties is most likely to support gun control and gun bans, and the overwhelming answer will be Democrats. Therefore, if someone unfamiliar with Kleck’s research reviewed only the titles of his work and compared them with his political ideology, they might expect him to support gun control.


In "Targeting Guns," Kleck revealed his membership in several liberal organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Democrats 2000. He is registered as an active Democrat and has contributed financially to the campaigns of Democrat political candidates. He is not a member of the National Rifle Association or any other pro-gun organization. However, Kleck's studies on guns and their use in self-defense proved to be one of the most damaging arguments against gun control even as the movement peaked in American politics.
----

Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who favored a ban on all firearms, even for law enforcement officers, said that Kleck's survey was nearly foolproof:

“What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”

People ask me why I continue to debate people like Vagabond....

The reason is simple...I like to have my thoughts and ideas challenged, also, I like to expose the casual reader to ideas about guns they will hear no where else, and, in fact will hear the exact opposite, in every place they hear news or entertainment...

The biggest reason....it forces me to look and look for more data and resources to see if my points hold up....In particular, I just found this interview with Gary Kleck where he explains a lot of things about the gun research area.....

Good interview with Gary Kleck....

Probably the best of a bad lot was the famous Arthur Kellermann study from 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine. All the rest are even worse, but at least he controlled for a few possible confounding factors.


But he withheld one crucial piece of information from his readers. He knew that virtually none of the people who had been murdered while having a gun in their home had actually been killed with the gun that belonged to someone in the home. They were almost always killed by someone from outside the home, presumably using their own gun, brought in from outside the home.


So whether the victims had a gun of their own in the house had absolutely nothing to do with the event.

And Kellermann withheld that information, and a lot of people noticed the problem right away. There were even letters to the editor of the journal asking “what gives,” and he responded with a very evasive answer in his reply to the letters.

The problem became inadvertently evident a few years later when he did another study with overlapping samples, where it became evident that he did have that information, and he knew perfectly well that people are rarely murdered with a gun belonging to someone in their own household.

It’s not usually domestic violence when people are murdered in their home. Instead, it’s more likely to be something like a crack dealer sells drugs out of his own home, and a customer comes in and kills him because he wants to get the drugs and not pay for them. That’s a little more typical of people killed while having a gun in their own home, but, of course, the customer brought in his own gun to murder the dealer.

Criminologist Gary Kleck on Guns, Crime, and Their Study - Ari Armstrong

Criminologist Gary Kleck offers a wide-ranging discussion of gun ownership, defensive gun use, sources of crime, drug-war violence, substitution of suicide methods, and more.

ariarmstrong.com

 

[2aguy]

As opposed to Kleck, Lott, et al. Who are "rabid pro-gun fanatics"? Cherry picking data again.

Here....learn something...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

More government excess and overreach is not the answer; ‘bans’ don’t work – whether it’s abortion, Prohibition, or guns.

Unfortunately the assault weapons ban from the late 90's to the early 2000's did seem to correlate with a significant drop in mass shootings.

Northwestern Study Says 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban Worked

The last assault weapons ban expired in 2004, but a new study finds that had that ban remained in place, as many as 30 mass shootings could have been prevented. We speak with the study's lead author, Lori Ann Post, and Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association.

news.wttw.com

Gun crime and violence is a complex, multi-faceted problem with no quick or easy solutions – such as extreme restrictions on guns.

I generally tend to agree. But gun restrictions MUST be considered as part of the overall "fix". We need improved social safety nets and better welfare programs as well as a general strengthening of control over the guns (or at least oversight).

A good place to start would be for conservatives to stop lying and obstructing efforts to address gun crime and violence.

I agree. We REALLY need to deal with poverty and social inequality in this country and that might move the ball down the field moreso than what we've tried so far.

 

[2aguy]

Unfortunately the assault weapons ban from the late 90's to the early 2000's did seem to correlate with a significant drop in mass shootings.

Northwestern Study Says 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban Worked

The last assault weapons ban expired in 2004, but a new study finds that had that ban remained in place, as many as 30 mass shootings could have been prevented. We speak with the study's lead author, Lori Ann Post, and Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association.

news.wttw.com

I generally tend to agree. But gun restrictions MUST be considered as part of the overall "fix". We need improved social safety nets and better welfare programs as well as a general strengthening of control over the guns (or at least oversight).




I agree. We REALLY need to deal with poverty and social inequality in this country and that might move the ball down the field moreso than what we've tried so far.

Nothing, in any research on the 1990s rifle ban supports anything you just claimed......nothing.

You just made that up......after you have been shown over and over the actual research that shows you are wrong....

Why do you keep posting that when you know it is not true, or accurate?

 

[Open Bolt]

Unfortunately the assault weapons ban from the late 90's to the early 2000's did seem to correlate with a significant drop in mass shootings.

That is doubly incorrect.

First, it was not assault weapons that were banned, but rather ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15.

Second, the ban did not do anything at all to prevent mass shootings. The only thing it achieved was the pointless violation of people's civil liberties.

But gun restrictions MUST be considered as part of the overall "fix".

Not going to happen. We're not going to give up our freedom.

Sorry, but the answer is "no".

 

[miketx]

...and that might be part of the problem. I think you guys see threats in everyone around you. Certainly moreso than a healthy mental state. That's not an insult, there are things I fear that are quite irrational. They may be somewhat rational fears but exploded out of proportion.

So you arm yourself to ensure you are ready for the threats.

And in turn you have helped turn our country into a killing field. NOT because YOU are killing anyone, but because you and the thousands and thousands of other Americans who live in similar fear and take up arms to protect themselves from their neighbors have helped instill in the greater population a certain anti-social approach to everything.

Guns solve all problems in your world. And that isn't really rational or healthy.

And your sickness has infected the rest of the nation.



You have to justify it to your fellow citizens. You know, the folks you are arming yourself against all the time.

You guys are living a Wild West Movie fantasy and f'ing up everything for those of us who don't want to live your blood-soaked, bullet-riddled fantasy world.

Most stupid remark ever read. Come disarm me.

 

[ding]

Lower than what we have now. I'd settle for a gun violence rate of, oh, let's say about an order of magnitude less (I will assume you know what the phrase "order of magnitude" means.)

So if deaths from gun violence were ten times less than it currently is then those deaths would be acceptable to you?

 

[ding]

Then by all means go and see how many Sudafed packages you can buy.

What’s your point? I’m not seeing the relevance. Unless your point is you want to ban and confiscate guns which I already knew.

 

[Captain Caveman]

And that’s how it will likely happen in the US – through cultural and societal change.

Not through licensing, regulations, restrictions, or bans.

The latter changes the former.

The only thing that changes your personality is your environment. So if the gun environment is changed by law, you change. Otherwise the change is just a distortion and you just go back to your old ways.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

What’s your point?

I'm fascinated that you guys have no ability to understand metaphor.

OK: in America (where I live) you can only purchase a box or two of Sudafed. NOT because I'M making meth but because meth cooks used to use "smurfs" to go out and buy up a truck ton of Sudafed which they then extracted the pseudephedrine from to make Meth.

Most states passed laws limiting how much Sudafed even law abiding citizens like yourself could buy.

It's called "diversion" and the goal is to limit diversion from legitimate usage to illegitimate usage

I’m not seeing the relevance.

That's because you are ASTOUNDINGLY uninformed on almost EVERYTHING.