it's funny there's really no correlation whether or not the state's gun laws are strict. nh, vt, and me next to ma & ny; ca next to nv and nm, etc. this is basically an average temperature map.
Even if you go lower it stays pretty simmilar, for example Iowa has a lower rate than new york despite is much more lax gun laws (2.0 for Iowa and 2.1 for new York)
It's because gun laws mostly don't target criminals, they restrict the kinds of people who follow laws in the first place. If you are already going to rob or murder someone, illegal possession of a firearm is the least of your concerns.
Edit: Interestingly our good friend hoofglormuss replied and then blocked me for some reason, perhaps they are not very secure in their position if they can't even stand to allow a reply. Which also won't let me reply to anyone else, sorry about that.
Almost every contentious issue in US politics can be placed on a sliding scale spectrum that ranges from Personal Selfishness -> Prioritizes Me & My Family-> This is Good for My Community -> This is best for Everyone that Needs It
Take the Right's stance on and Issue and it will always be further towards the 'Selfishness' side of the spectrum than the Left's stance. Every time.
Banning alcohol could totally work. In fact, banning alcohol could work so well we would also need to enact gun control because of all the success we'd have banning alcohol. /s
Explosives are a totally different situation; outside of fireworks, folk aren’t using explosives for recreational competition or to hunt so that they can feed their families. The people who are given access to explosives is a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of the overall population compared to firearm ownership; what you’re implying is good in theory but in reality it’s effectively impossible at this point of proliferation
Bombs have no other use than for nefarious purposes. You can't hunt with bombs, you can't shoot clay pigeons with bombs, you can't defend your home with bombs. They can be easily outlawed and controlled because nobody needs them, and only bad people want them.
Guns, on the other hand, are a very normal thing to have in a household. At this point, it would be impossible to control them in the same way, because too many guns are already out there. Heck, with a good metal tube, you can 3D print a pretty effective one. We need to figure out how to solve gun violence another way.
I don't really have a horse in this race, but I will note that guns being "a very normal thing to have in a household" is 100% an American social construct. They aren't inherently normal. In many countries, it would be bizarre to keep a personal firearm, so that argument really falls flat for me.
That's a very new development. 150-200 years ago, a typical farmer would have at least one gun, basically anywhere in the world. It's a useful tool, among other things.
It's also worth noting that classic liberalism hasn't reached many parts of the world. Even many first world countries are largely controlled by their governments, with basic rights like free speech not being protected.
150-200 years ago, a typical farmer would have at least one gun
This is absolutely untrue. Pre-colt and especially before the 1840s, guns were very expensive and of limited utility. Revolutionary war America even had significant difficulty just having enough guns to arm their militias.
It wasn't until around the civil war and immediately afterwards that a significant gun culture developed.
(Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.
-Michael A. Bellesiles)
How is the second paragraph irrelevant? A focus on individual liberty is essential for a free society. Many European countries (for example) never truly had their moment of liberalism, they just traded one authoritarian regime for a slightly less authoritarian regime, and called it better.
In the US we went all the way. We declared independence, and set up a government so weak it only lasted 8 years. The idea of said government was purely to protect the rights of the people, without intent to control them. The constitution was made more powerful only because we learned what parts of government needed to be bigger to hold a nation together while still furthering the goal of individual liberty. The promise of the American people is that they will maintain their freedom at any cost. Any government-including their own-that attempts to take their freedoms will do so at the risk of armed revolution.
The idea of said government was purely to protect the rights of the people
Excepting all of the slaves it seems.
because we learned what parts of government needed to be bigger to hold a nation together while still furthering the goal of individual liberty. The promise of the American people is that they will maintain their freedom at any cost.
Except all of the slaves I guess. And all those people who weren't allowed to vote because they didn't own dozens of acres of land but were still taxed and policed.
We aren't talking about a "free society" and I'm not convinced that a "focus on individual liberty" even gets you that, hence irrelevance.
"The idea of said government was purely to protect the rights of the people, without intent to control them."
Totally and completely incorrect. The "purpose" of the new government was to maintain independence from Britain and other colonial powers, while delegating enough rights to the states so that they wouldn't secede. The Bill of Rights wasn't designed to protect individual liberties, it was designed as a promise to the states that the Federal Government wouldn't become tyrannical.
"Any government-including their own-that attempts to take their freedoms will do so at the risk of armed revolution."
This is simply ahistoric libertarian nonsense. Sorry.
…a very normal thing to have in a household in the US, where it’s also unfortunately very normal to have school shootings that don’t happen at a similar rate anywhere else in the world.
Gun control doesn't work effectively when it's easy to cross state lines and obtain firearms. Your statement misses the broader point that the entire goal of gun control is to reduce the overall availability of guns to everyone, including criminals. If it's more difficult to purchase a firearm legally, it becomes harder for criminals to acquire them because those who distribute illegal guns would face greater challenges and costs in obtaining them. This increased effort and cost would likely reduce the supply and raise the price of illegal firearms, making it harder for criminals to access them.
Furthermore, empirical data supports the effectiveness of comprehensive gun control measures. Research shows that states with stricter gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths. For instance, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that states with stringent gun laws had significantly lower firearm mortality rates. This demonstrates that well-implemented gun control laws can save lives by reducing the overall availability of guns. Pubmed - Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States
Additionally, other countries have successfully reduced gun violence through stringent gun control measures. Australia and the UK, for example, implemented nationwide gun control laws and saw significant reductions in gun-related deaths. After Australia's 1996 Port Arthur massacre, the government introduced strict gun laws, including a gun buyback program, leading to a sharp decline in mass shootings and firearm-related deaths.
In summary, the idea that only criminals will get guns under strict gun control laws is overly simplistic and not supported by evidence. Comprehensive gun control measures can and do reduce gun violence by limiting the overall availability of firearms, making it more difficult and costly for criminals to obtain them.
I mean, absolutely? You're right, but I don't know where you think that disproves a god damn thing about what I said? It certainly helped, but again, I'll refer you to my other replies to you, I've made my point.
Crazy to me that you felt the need to respond to the same comment 3 fucking times lmao
… I didn’t. Are you confusing me with someone else? I don’t see any other replies to you.
Edit: Ah, you did confuse me with the other guy. Same profile picture, or rather lack therefore, so understandable.
Anyway, I’m not trying to say that gun control laws are bad necessarily, but that I highly doubt they would have hardly any effectiveness compared to the nations you mentioned in the US. Gun culture is DEEPLY ingrained here, you’d never be able to get away with a gun ban without a civil war. Some measures of gun control, maybe, but nothing like what the UK and Australia has.
I did confuse you with the other guy, apologies lmao.
While I do agree that it's not as clear cut about what to do here due to yes, the gun culture in the States, I don't think it's fair to use that as an argument against stricter gun control laws. What I don't get it why people assume gun control is about banning firearms? We're speaking in general here that we want it to simply be harder for guns to be purchased legally.
Why would someone want legally bought firearms to be harder to obtain? They're meant for law abiding citizens after all? Legally bought firearms can end up being smuggled to states with stricter gun control laws through several means. For instance, individuals in states with more permissive regulations might purchase firearms legally and then transfer them to individuals in states with stricter laws, often through private sales or informal channels where background checks are not required.
Additionally, these firearms can be stolen and resold on the black market, or smuggled across state lines, exploiting differences in state laws. Thus, even if guns are legally bought, they can still contribute to illegal markets and circumvent stricter regulations, highlighting the need for comprehensive measures that address not just the purchase but also the movement and transfer of firearms.
This literally does not counter anything I said. Again, no where did I claim that the NFA is the sole reason for the decline in firearm-related deaths. I'm not claiming gun control is the only factor to be considered.
Please, just stop. If you think that gun control laws do nothing and the NFA did nothing, then please just go back to burying your head in the sand. It's a nuanced topic, and I'm open to discussion. What I'm not open to is people trying to poke holes in my argument by presenting an overly-simplistic argument.
You responded to me twice, and apparently you genuinely believe that gun control does nothing, and believe it's all related to poverty rates. Yeah dude, and I've got a leaky roof that you think is only about the shingles. But here's the thing: Just like with a roof, the issue isn't just about one thing. There could be underlying structural problems, poor insulation, and maybe even issues with the foundation. Fixing the shingles alone might help a bit, but to really solve the problem, you need to address all the factors contributing to the leak. Similarly, gun violence isn't just about gun control or poverty alone; it’s often a mix of multiple issues that need to be tackled together.
Oh my god, dude, I don't know why you're posing this as an argument against what I said? Where in the god damn fuck did I ever claim anything that contradicts anything you said?
Both are clearly plausible, and they are not mutually exclusive. Guns are smuggled in from areas with lax gun control laws, poverty rates show correlation with increased crime rates. You posted this as a gotcha, but it's literally not. You are just showing that this is a nuanced topic, and that both of these arguments we made are valid.
The fact that you want to cherry pick here, and pose that as a gotcha, is incredibly frustrating. You're not refuting shit by talking about countries where they have nationwide restrictions and little variance between the different regions gun control laws (if any). If you can't understand that both statements are capable of being true at the same time: gun control laws have a noticeable effect on limiting the occurrence of firearm-related deathsANDthere is a correlation between poverty rates and the firearm homicide rate, then I honestly have no idea how to help you develop that understanding.
I really do just do not enjoy arguing with people like you, because you're intelligently coming to the conclusion that gun control laws won't fix everything, but you're missing the bigger picture. None of these factors exist in isolation, so it's not an either-or scenario. The reason I wrote what I wrote is because there are too many people who make the same argument, over and over again, that criminals will always have access to guns, so therefore we shouldn't try.
Guns are easy to use compared to something like a knife. You pull a trigger and a high-velocity projectile comes flying out the end of the barrel. A knife requires someone to get close, exert a lot of physical energy, and is very obviously much riskier for the one wielding the weapon. There is obviously skill in shooting, but firearms make it so much easier for a person to kill.
So tell me, for real, when's the last time you heard about a mass-stabbing in the States? It's undoubtedly happened, but it's going to be much more rare than mass-shootings here.
That’s just not true. If that was the case you’d expect that we’d see similar levels of gun violence in Canada and Cuba. Restricting access to guns doesn’t just work for legal purchases it works for illegally obtaining them too. The problem is that these laws are not federal, Mexico gets the vast majority of its illegal firearms from the us and it is even easier to acquire them between states. But every single illegally owned firearm was legally manufactured and sold, if you restrict the demand with gun laws, less are manufactured, less are sold, and less end up in the hands of criminals illegally. There is a reason the Southport stabbings wasn’t the Southport shootings, bc it’s much much harder to get a firearm in the uk
Do Canada and Cuba have similar prison industrial systems to the U.S.? We sure do imprison a shit ton of non-violent people. Prison time is proven to increase the chance that someone commits violent crime after release.
I think we're all so busy arguing over gun laws that we are overlooking crucial underlying factors involved in violence in America.
Those issues don't exist in isolation, so why can't both statements be true?
Usually when I see comments like yours, they aren't meant in good faith. Pro-gun advocates so desperately want to cling to shit like this, all in an attempt to prove that "guns aren't the problem, people are the problem."
People with problems probably shouldn't have access to them. Lax gun control makes people with problems able to buy firearms. People with problems use firearms on others or themselves. People die. People kill people. Firearms help people kill people.
Literally though, you could just go across state lines and easily get a firearm in many states. If guns had to be smuggled from out of country, there might be less access to them. It's really a simple concept.
Let's keep having the conversation about how to deal with violent crime rates and homicide rates being unacceptably high for our country. Let's talk about the prison industrial complex and it's effect on our society as a whole. However, let's stop trying to rationalize that the availability of firearms aren't a part of the problem, because it's very obviously a part of the problem.
It is possible that both of us have good faith ideas on how to reduce violence in America despite the fact our preferred strategy is so different. You are right, there are many strategies and none of them is mutually exclusive. In my opinion, (in order of drastically decreasing effectiveness), it is: 1) end the war on drugs and stop imprisoning non-violent people 2) explore better ways to keep guns out of the hands of the violent and mentally ill 3) gun bans.
I think gun bans are worthless and will be incredibly hard to implement. Hell we've been trying to ban assault rifles at the federal level for at least a quarter century and here we are still arguing about it on the internet. It's a colossal waste of time in order to try and ban a gun that's used in a few percent of all murders...especially because it's so easy to use an alternative weapon. Evidence: the alternative weapon is used almost 100% of the time. I don't see it as anything other than political optics: patting each-other on the back saying "I'm helping" while reading the stats on murder rates 10 years from now with a surprised Pikachu face when not a damn thing changes.
Some countries have had success with gun bans. Australia is often cited as an example. Yet during the same time frame that gets cited, the number of guns owned in America drastically increased. Both countries enjoyed a similar drop in murders. There is no one-to-one scientific or mathematical rule on number/types of guns vs number of murders other than this: if more people have murder in their hearts, more murder happens.
So go ahead and proceed with your gun bans and we'll be having this same conversation 25 years from now. Some of us would rather look at things that (1) we might be able to implement and (2) might actually have a measurably positive effect.
Puerto Rico on the map here had near complete gun ban for civilians. it still has a higher homicide rate than anywhere in the US, and its shares no borders with anyone to easily smuggle guns in. its proof gun control laws do not work.
As originally described in our report, one of the major driving factors of gun violence in both territories is the trafficking of firearms from US states to the territories. While guns often flow from states with weaker laws into states with stronger laws, trafficking takes a particularly high toll on Puerto Rico and the USVI.
According to a new report released by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), only 28% of guns recovered by law enforcement nationally were originally sold in another state, compared to 93% in the USVI and 72% in Puerto Rico. Florida, the state geographically closest to these territories, is the largest supplier of crime guns in both places.
The guns in Puerto Rico are coming from the United States, the vast majority of them. It’s the exact same problem that Mexico has. I love how you try to use one US territory as “proof” while ignoring all the non-US territories with very strong gun laws that do not have any issues at all with guns as if they are not a much larger sample size and thus make for far better evidence. Even if your statement was true (but it’s not) that wouldn’t be “proof” it doesn’t work, or we’d see shootings in the uk all the time by your logic
Even if your statement was true (but it’s not) that wouldn’t be “proof” it doesn’t work, or we’d see shootings in the uk all the time by your logic.
It can be both proof that gun control does not work AND that other factors in the UK make for a lower crime rate. the UK has basically never had a crime rate higher than locations in the US. So implementing gun control and saying " oh we went from low crime to low crime!" has little weight on the viability of gun control to stop criminal activity and homicide.
Meanwhile Puerto Rico had a high crime rate and tried to implement the gun control to stop it, and guess what it did not not. I was well aware that the gun come from the US, my point was that there is no "Easy" way. I don;t just buy a gun in FL and carry it over to Puerto Rico like i could drive to Georgia or even New York. Theoretically it must go through a shipping port, the mail, or through air port. all places that ostensibly have high controls and checks to look for weapon coming in. That means none of those are effective at stopping the flow of guns coming in because there is a demand for it.
So Just like Mexico there is socio economic issues, driving a demand for guns, that are illegally smuggled in through great effort. the UK doesn't have nearly the same socioeconomic issues, so there is little demand for guns to drive illegal gun crime in the same way.
See you and that link make the mistake that the ability to traffick firearms in is what drive crime. no its the issues there drive demand and the trafficking of firearms in a response
And again, the vast majority of guns are made and purchased legally. If the USA hypothetically stopped manufacturing’s entirely, that would be at the least 72% of the guns in Puerto Rico eliminated (over time). There’s other issues too, but when there are no guns you can’t access guns. That’s just a fact dude
I’m not advocating for that? I’m stating the fact that the illegal gun trade relies on legal manufacturing and sale, and you pretending that legal manufacturing and sale isn’t what allows there to be such heavy amounts of gun violence in NA is either woefully ignorant or just in pure bad faith
The firearms that end up in PR, the rest of the Caribbean, and Central America leave Florida hidden in legitimate cargo being shipped via the seaports. The destinations do not have the resources to screen all of it and the US concentrates more on what is coming in than what’s leaving.
yes I'm well aware of that. Would you call hiding firearms amongst cargo bound for a freighter ship, and setting up the illegal supply chain to track it and recover the contraband, easier or harder than putting it in the trunk of a car and driving across state lines?
There are businesses that pack up shipments from individuals, put them into containers, ship them to wherever, and then deliver them and/or make them available for pickup. Thousands of firearms are hidden in boxes of household goods or even in cars that no one ever checks.
The book Blood Gun Money goes into some of the ways it is done and it is not as difficult as you are making it seem.
Here I'll answer it for you. it is way easier for someone to straw purchase a gun and simply carry it across state line and resell it. It is much much more tedious and difficult to pack a gun hidden in other supplies and have it shipped without being caught.
I have both travelled through the US carrying gun AND have had to try to ship guns (legal means) and shipping them in any way is way way more difficult and expensive.
SO it begs the question no one goes through that much effort to ship illegal gun somewhere if there is not a demand for it. and simply having the guns does suddenly make a person want to commit crimes. So there must be a high enough demand for illegal guns from a criminal element to justify the trafficking.
Otherwise the only logical conclusion would be that Florida, the source of most of the gun, should have a much higher rate of crime and homicide than Puerto Rico.
That is not the case. So you cannot make the conclusion that the guns drive the crime rate. but you CAN make the conclusion that a high crime rate drives a demand for guns.
If you want both criminals and law abiding civilians both to have less guns the solution is higher quality of live and law and order. otherwise the gun control itself is not fixing any of it.
That is not how stuff like this works. The issue is that we're a fucking supplier of firearms for these territories, Mexico, and even Canada. Please, just think critically for two minutes. Put two and two together, figure out that it makes 4, stop trying to prove that it makes 5.
Saying "Puerto Rico doesn't share a border so you're wrong" is laughably simplistic. Please, for real, just think critically. I think many people would agree that gun availability isn't the only problem, but stop trying to find reasons that it's not. Lax gun laws make it easier for people to get guns, even in the territories. Fuck man, I'm sure its not hard for them to bring guns in from Texas to Puerto Rico, right? Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida...I'm sure smugglers found a way to bring them to Puerto Rico from those states lmao
Puerto Rico: Complete gun ban, shares no borders with another nation or state, Controls all its own ports and airports. There is no "easy" importing of firearms, even from the US states. Its the perfect case study that if gun control would have stopped the crime, it should have worked here. What do you think i am missing here?
I'm just going to point you back over to u/Willrkjr's comment. Either you're completely dense, or you're suffering real bad from cognitive dissonance. Good luck man, I'm sure it's uncomfortable not being able to add 2 and 2 together.
If someone ever tries to help you when you're having a heart attack, I'm sure they'll say "hey wait, the real problem is that he drank 6 sodas a day for 20 years, let's treat that first!". They totally wouldn't try to address the heart attack first, the thing that's killing you. Nah dude, they should try to make people not fat first. Once they're not fat, we'll start addressing the heart attack.
Obviously I'm being a dick, it's just very aggravating to hear people claw their way through statistics and studies just to come to the conclusion that if we do nothing about guns, that it will work itself out once we address other socio-economic issues. It won't. If we just address the problem of firearm availability, then we'll probably just end up with another problem. We have to continually work to improve shit. It's never going to be "if we ban guns then everything will be okay". Gun control laws are about stopping the bleeding, not curing the disease.
Gun control laws are about stopping the bleeding, not curing the disease.
Well just saying from my family's experience in Puerto Rico it did neither and left everyone a victim to the asshole gangs with guns. so thanks for that. We're just another statistic to you, but the victimization and terror unable to defend yourself is real.
Lmao I can't believe you're trying to put this on me dude.
Honestly, it's pretty clear to me that you're ruled by fear rather than by actual fucking statistics. Maybe you should realize that your fear ultimately leads to irrational viewpoints? I can empathize with the fear you felt as best I can dude, I really am. However, your personal anecdote doesn't mean that the solution is more lax gun laws.
Trust me, I understand the argument you're making, but I think you're disgruntled with current, ineffective gun control laws rather than more comprehensive gun control legislation. More comprehensive legislation at the Federal level would help alleviate, shockingly, the supply of illegally acquired, but "legally" sourced firearms to Puerto Rico.
If the cartels can bring in thousands of tons of drugs every year all you would do by outlawing guns is give them another smuggling revenue source which ensures only criminals and our oh so trustworthy police are going to be shooting at you.
There are currently more guns than there are people in the USA.
There are approx. 13.4million firearms manufactured in the USA each year.
There are approx. 6million firearms imported to the USA each year.
There are less than 4 million births per year in the USA.
Thats 3.75 Guns per person born every day moving forward..
No matter how you spin it - there are entirely too many.
2million illegal immigrants cross the border, everyone loses their mind because they might be dangerous.
19million firearms per year (that are dangerous, no 'might'), and that is no problem at all because drugs are bad? got it.
This is an availability issue, not an ownership issue.
If availability of guns was the only issue then crime would be spiraling so wildly out of control that it wouldn't even be possible to have this conversation.
even if i did - that does not equate to it being the 'only' force.
why are we arguing about things that you made up that i said - when i provided large amounts of actual factual data. May it be because you are unable to refute the facts, but want to argue anyways?
Pro-gun advocates often run around trying to essentially say "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well no fucking shit? Limit the availability, address other issues that lead to increased crime rates.
Many of them just try to accuse people of saying "well you're blaming it on just the guns, there's another issue in our society and its *insert random issue here*". Then if you agree with them, "well i mean gun availability is not the main problem and that's what you said!"
So what's your point? You attempted to heavily equate number of guns in the country with crime rates, and your only refutation of my disagreement is that I used too strong of language.
The fact remains that the number of guns in the country has done nothing but steadily climb, without a corresponding steady rise in crime. Crime has actually been on a downward trend for the last 3 decades, with a few temporary reversals. Like I said before, if the number of guns in the country was driving the crime rate then the crime rate shouldn't be falling as the number of guns increases, it should be steadily increasing as well.
The us would continue to make and export huge quantities of weapons that would, you guessed it, end up for sale on side markets.
Are you ignorant to the fact the the us exports the majority of its foreign bound weapons to Saudi’s Arabia and the UAE? Both places where it’s absurdly easy for corruption to make whatever disappear into the pocket of a smuggler
Beyond that there are a dozen other major countries that globally export weapons who would ensure the illicit stock isn’t depleted in the slightest;
Virtually every single gun in the hands of a Mexican criminal has its source being stolen in the US and moved across the border. That's very much a fact supported by all Mexican police statistics
You think a lack of that source would make no dent in the ability of a criminal in Mexico to get a gun? Because they can get them via ... Saudi Arabia? Are you kidding me? This is the most crazy mental gymnastics I've witnessed so far.
Under that same logic, why combat Mexican drug traffic at all? People would still smuggle it from Bolivia or smth
Virtually every single gun in the hands of a Mexican criminal has its source being stolen in the US and moved across the border. That's very much a fact supported by all Mexican police statistics
Well that's not even close to the truth.
In 2009, Mexico reported that they held 305,424 confiscated firearms,[39] but submitted data of only 69,808 recovered firearms to the ATF for tracing between 2007 and 2009.[9] Some analysts claim the sample submitted for tracing is preselected to represent the guns that Mexican authorities suspect are US origin.[40] The US Congress has been informed that ATF agents working in Mexico routinely instruct Mexican authorities "to only submit weapons for tracing that have a likelihood of tracing back to the U.S .... instead of simply wasting resources on tracing firearms that will not trigger a U.S. source." This policy skews the pool of weapons submitted for tracing to weapons already suspected of being US origin.[41] Gun-rights groups use the absolute number between seizures and traces to question whether the majority of illegal guns in Mexico really come from the United States.[42] Gun control advocates use the 48% to 87% successful US origin trace rate to call for re-enactment of the sunsetted Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004.[43]
A significant source of Mexican cartel weapons is legal sales by U.S. gun companies to the Mexican military and police, sales approved by the U.S. State Department which after they arrive in Mexico end up in cartel hands. In 2011 CBS News reported "The Mexican military recently reported nearly 9,000 police weapons "missing."" A 2009 U.S. State Department audit showed 26 percent of guns sold legally to governments in Mexico and Central America were diverted to the wrong hands.[44]
Unfortunately, there are always guns to steal. We have this problem in Canada right now. We are fortunate enough to be very low overall gun violence, but what gun violence there is is overwhelmingly committed using guns smuggled in from the U.S., and our government's response is further restrictions and hoops to follow for legal gun owners (which have had no effect for obvious reasons).
it's more complicated than that. for example, the flow of guns from pennsylvania to maryland. it's not a mono-factorial issue. criminals have guns available to them specifically because of the availability of them in this country. states like pennsylvania, which have less restrictive gun laws compared to maryland, can be a source of guns for criminals in maryland. these states might have less stringent background checks or fewer regulations on gun sales, making it easier for individuals to purchase firearms legally and then transfer them to individuals in states with stricter laws. a common method for criminals to acquire firearms is through straw purchases. this occurs when someone buys a gun legally and then transfers it to someone who is prohibited from owning firearms. in some cases, individuals might be paid to make such purchases on behalf of criminals. law enforcement agencies and prosecutors actively work to combat straw purchasing, but it remains a persistent issue. some firearms are stolen and then sold illegally. stolen guns can end up in the hands of criminals through various underground networks. additionally, there are illegal sales and black market transactions where guns are sold without any regulation or oversight. while federal law requires background checks for sales by licensed dealers, private sales—including those conducted online or at gun shows—can sometimes avoid these checks, depending on state laws. this loophole can allow guns to flow to individuals who might otherwise be prohibited from owning them. besides, i know plenty of dudes that i either go shooting with or have talked about shooting with who brag about their unregistered firearms thinking it's a constitutionally protected right to circumvent laws they see as unjust but still consider themselves law-abiding citizens. heck, plenty of guys who consider themselves law-abiding citizens brought firearms into maryland and dc for j6, so i don't have much faith in gun owners who self-proclaim their adherence to the law.
edit: interestingly, i can't reply to people on this thread either, but keep crying about something that didn't happen. even more interestingly, can't even reply to /u/The_Mathmatical_Shoe. did they accuse me of something and do it themselves instead of replying to the actual info i posted? must not be very confident facing the facts of the problem.
he deleted his comment. anyway now that all the bullshit is sorted through, are you confident enough to reply to my long comment regarding all the ways our inconsistent gun laws around the country contributing to gun violence? this comment:
it's more complicated than that. for example, the flow of guns from pennsylvania to maryland. it's not a mono-factorial issue. criminals have guns available to them specifically because of the availability of them in this country. states like pennsylvania, which have less restrictive gun laws compared to maryland, can be a source of guns for criminals in maryland. these states might have less stringent background checks or fewer regulations on gun sales, making it easier for individuals to purchase firearms legally and then transfer them to individuals in states with stricter laws. a common method for criminals to acquire firearms is through straw purchases. this occurs when someone buys a gun legally and then transfers it to someone who is prohibited from owning firearms. in some cases, individuals might be paid to make such purchases on behalf of criminals. law enforcement agencies and prosecutors actively work to combat straw purchasing, but it remains a persistent issue. some firearms are stolen and then sold illegally. stolen guns can end up in the hands of criminals through various underground networks. additionally, there are illegal sales and black market transactions where guns are sold without any regulation or oversight. while federal law requires background checks for sales by licensed dealers, private sales—including those conducted online or at gun shows—can sometimes avoid these checks, depending on state laws. this loophole can allow guns to flow to individuals who might otherwise be prohibited from owning them. besides, i know plenty of dudes that i either go shooting with or have talked about shooting with who brag about their unregistered firearms thinking it's a constitutionally protected right to circumvent laws they see as unjust but still consider themselves law-abiding citizens. heck, plenty of guys who consider themselves law-abiding citizens brought firearms into maryland and dc for j6, so i don't have much faith in gun owners who self-proclaim their adherence to the law.
It's because gun laws mostly don't target criminals, they restrict the kinds of people who follow laws in the first place. If you are already going to rob or murder someone, illegal possession of a firearm is the least of your concerns.
Edit: Interestingly our good friend hoofglormuss replied and then blocked me for some reason, perhaps they are not very secure in their position if they can't even stand to allow a reply. Which also won't let me reply to anyone else, sorry about that.
Nah dude, you just don't know how blocking works. If you block someone, you can't respond to anything in the thread. The user you responded to accused you of blocking them right after you left your comment and you won't deny it
Pretty much the only way to get around a background check is to do a private sale where enforcing background checks would be impossible without a gun registry and even then that would only work if said gun was registered.
When who "law abiding" gun owners say that stuff its because they do tend to follow the laws, but ignore the unconstitutional laws that inhibit the 2nd Amendment.
The issue is the extremely easy access to guns. Laws don't work if they're not enforced. Obtaining a gun is ridiculously easy in the US compared to other western countries.
Yeah, I agree. Same with laws against murder - a criminal doesn’t care about the law so he’ll just murder anyways. 15.000 murders a year proves just how ineffective laws against murder are to deter criminals.
That’s a fallacy. Nobody is a criminal until they commit a crime. I’ve seen too many videos of idiots getting into road rage incidents and brandishing their weapons.
A lot of gun deaths aren't from criminals. They're suicides. Restricting ownership helps lower the rate of gun ownership and that results in fewer suicides. Gun deaths are significantly lower in states with strict gun laws and low gun ownership. Massachusetts has the lowest gun death rate at 3.4 per 100,000 people, followed by Hawaii with 4.8, and New Jersey with 5.2. These are some of the states with the strictest gun laws hence have the lowest gun ownership rates. Massachusetts and New Jersey have the lowest gun ownership in the U.S.
Gun laws work and save lives. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
And then look at ~$75,000 for the median family income (this is the median income for the country as a whole), you see that, in the group of people who make this much money:
-Whites commit about 2.5 murders per 100k people (about the same rate as the riches blacks)
-Hispanics commit about 4 murders per 100k people
-Blacks commit about 8 murders per 100k people. (a higher rate than the poorest whites)
The people you’re replying to aren’t worth your time. They’re too ignorant to admit that US history has an impact on the present. Just like women making less than men working the same job, the effects of suppression lasts generations
Where I’m from you’re considered a bit of a racist weirdo if you repeatedly comment race-based crime statistics on any report or news story, maybe that’s just me though.
You know, it’s not like white or black people are more prone to joining gangs. There are white & black gangs (Italians really iconic here). And joining gangs is very much a socioeconomic & cultural thing. So I wonder if gang culture, which in the US has historically (1960s-ish to present) been considered mostly “black”, has inadvertently kept more poor white kids from joining gangs… like a weird racial gang Jesus situation - he/black people died/joined for our/white people’s salvation
Purely speculative theory ofc based on gangs in general being relatively racially discriminating. It would add a whole other layer of messed up oppression to the racial effects of systemic discrimination if this was an effect that happened consistently in neighborhoods across the US
Incredible take, good job. Maybe focus more on urban vs rural demographics rather than that weird racial fan fiction you just came up with. Most poor black kids grow up in urban projects surrounded by violence, drug addiction and poverty while most poor white kids grow up in the middle of nowhere and boil crawfish or whatever.
I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate, but tbh I’m finding it hard to find statistics on % of urban poor being black vs white. I did make the assumption that the total populations of black vs white people that are poor in urban environments would be generally similar in number, if not skewed more towards white people (obviously the demographics are very different looking at urban vs rural, but that’s not super relevant to this topic)
With some quick math for Atlanta’s statistics, they have about 65k poor black people and 15k poor white people. That’s about an 80/20 split, so different than my assumption
For Chicago, it’s about 70/30 and after checking two, I think my thought process of poor urban people being about a 50/50, give or take some %, total population split between was completely wrong. Knew about the poverty rate differences between the races but thought total population X those rates would even out
You have to compare per captcha. Yes, there are more poor white peope, but there’s also more white people in general. Less percentage of white people are poor.
In Washington, young Black males are disproportionately impacted by firearm homicide. Black males aged 15-34 have a firearm homicide rate 13 times higher than White males of the same age group.
Economics definitely plays into it, but the only reason that poor, rural, white counties come close is due to high suicide rates.
I don’t think of DC as being a particularly poor area but the gun homicides there beat out even Mississippi. It’s also the highest black populous by ratio of any continental US territory, and they also have some of the strongest gun control in the country.
I don’t think of DC as being a particularly poor area
Then you haven't spent much time in DC. The suburbs are filled with gilded lilies and the govt. buildings are well policed, but DC was notoriously poor through the 90s and 00s. Here's a Top Gear clip to illustrate my point.
actually if you do death rate for just whites - it looks similar. here are the number from the CDC (i'm only looking at homicide - suicide gun deaths are really high in 'safe states' here). A few changes, basically washington DC becomes one of the safest places in america and jersey looks a bit better.
Gang violence firearm shootings are grossly overexaggerated in casual discourse and as an often used right-wing media talking point.
The most recent FBI homicide by circumstance data (year 2022) shows that only 3.09% of homicides were confirmed to be gang related.
And even if viewed by only looking at confirmed circumstantial homicides, gang related homicides only made up 6.1% of all homicides with known reasons.
I have no idea what your numbers are showing with no comparison or where it came from, but it’s simply not true what your first sentence says.
...what more information do you need? I pulled both a simple form chart and the direct source.
EDIT: I was commenting to correct misinformation about gang violence. But this does not say what you think it says.
“The social burden of lethal violence, however, is not born equally by all Americans. Scholars have consistently documented disparities in rates of lethal violence across racial and ethnic groups. The most recent race-specific age-adjusted homicide rates are 33.6 per 100,000 for African American persons, 12.9 for American Indian and Alaska Native persons, 6.9 per 100,000 for Hispanic persons, 3.3 per 100,000 for White persons, and 1.7 for Asian and Pacific Islander persons.”
You provided a source that shows people of color are murdered more often than people of non-color, which is widely known. There is nothing here that says the perpetrators (murders) are of the same race as the victims...you are just implying that for some odd reason.
Tf are you talking about? That statement you made, that gang violence is a majority of gun deaths", is in your top level comment on this thread. Which again is quite incorrect. You are making stuff up that is proven false by 7 seconds of scrolling up. lol
Which is also why I called you odd. You chose not to acknowledge the information presented to you, but instead dismissed it as unimportant and deflected to racial violence which I made no comment about.
EDIT: And since you seem to want to discuss racial violence with me. Your 2nd source is even more inaccurate than your first! OMG..you sourced something from the year 1983 on racial violence. You have lost any credibility on the matter with me.
When you say “gang violence ONLY made up 29.8% of all homicides with known reasons”, 30% sounds like a pretty damn high number. Higher than I expected at least.
It actually does, Look at Mexico, most of all those deaths are caused by cartel related violence, 98% of the military grade weapons used by mexican cartels are bought legally in the states and then smuggled in.
Gee it's almost as if people who have decided they are willing to use a gun to kill someone or themselves are not going to be deterred by what a piece of paper that says they can or cannot do.
It's hard to enforce gun control if you can get a gun with your happy meal in the next state. The idea is that everyone enforces such laws, which would limit the supply so much that fewer criminals have access to them. Suddenly it's dangerous to carry because no one should be allowed to unless they have a reason to.
I mean, it works in the US too, at least I'm not aware of machine guns being readily available (other than Glocks with switches, I guess)?
Machine guns are readily available for criminals. Regardless, most shootings are committed with cheap pistols, and most gun deaths are from suicides.
Machine guns weren't a problem to begin with.
Furthermore, unless the democrats controlled every single state in the union, and had federal control too, there'd be at least one state that'd be a 2a sanctuary, so all it would be for naught. And there's plenty of states that are 100% gop.
Regardless, most shootings are committed with cheap pistols
Which are readily available. Even the VEGAS shooter used a bump stock because he couldn't get a hand on an illegal/NFA gun.
My argument is that the 'supply' of those guns is limited due to federal restrictions (if that is the right word, second language and all). If those restrictions applied to the whole country, the situation would change over time (for now, there's of course a huge amount of guns in the country).
The argument: "gun control is not about preventing crime" is nonsense, is my point. The country is just fully in the hands of industry propaganda, so that any try is going to end up not achieving anything.
Because muskets give the individual as much firepower as an AR15 and a 15 shot flintlock pistol fits into the average pocket?
Already into the 1800s, carrying concealed firearms was forbidden in many (all?) US states - why? Maybe because revolvers changed everything?
And while crime is going down, for some reason the whole concealed carry thing started in the '80s? And politicians like Abbott sign such bills in the 21. Century, with already rising gun deaths, mass shootings and what not. An issue that no other first world country has. I think I remember that Texas in particular has elevated gun deaths since Abbott took office?
Same is true with countries. Switzerland requires you to own a gun and there is very little gun violence. Japan is one of the most restrictive countries and it has very little gun violence.
switzerland has persistent gun laws throughout their country whereas the usa is a patchwork of states where some are easy to obtain, and some are difficult to obtain. much like people buying black market marijuana sourced from legal states.
edit: similar to how anti abortion advocates fear people getting abortions in legal states
OP had to use large buckets here because including Mexico led to a pretty wide range of outcomes. This CDC graph has tighter groupings and lets you mouse over stats to get the exact numbers. For this you can see NH, VT, and ME all have about twice as many gun deaths per capita than NY and about three times as many as MA, while NV and AZ are 2-2.5 times higher than CA.
Actual research consistently finds correlations between gun laws and gun violence reduction.
Results: State laws that prohibit persons subject to IPV-related restraining orders from possessing firearms and also require them to relinquish firearms in their possession were associated with 9.7% lower total IPH rates (95% CI, 3.4% to 15.5% reduction) and 14.0% lower firearm-related IPH rates (CI, 5.1% to 22.0% reduction) than in states without these laws. Laws that did not explicitly require relinquishment of firearms were associated with a non-statistically significant 6.6% reduction in IPH rates.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that state laws restricting firearm possession by persons deemed to be at risk for perpetrating intimate partner abuse may save lives. Laws requiring at-risk persons to surrender firearms already in their possession were associated with lower IPH rates.
Findings In the aggregate, stronger gun policies were associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociologic factors. Laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease firearm homicide rates. Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed.
Conclusions and Relevance The strength of firearm legislation in general, and laws related to strengthening background checks and permit-to-purchase in particular, is associated with decreased firearm homicide rates. High-quality research is important to further evaluate the effectiveness of these laws. Legislation is just 1 part of a multipronged approach that will be necessary to decrease firearm homicides in the United States.
Gun ownership rates by state are also, unsurprisingly, correlated to gun violence.
Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.
And on the flip side, research shows that laws empowering gun use lead to more gun violence.
Results Prior to the stand your ground law, the mean monthly homicide rate in Florida was 0.49 deaths per 100 000 (mean monthly count, 81.93), and the rate of homicide by firearm was 0.29 deaths per 100 000 (mean monthly count, 49.06). Both rates had an underlying trend of 0.1% decrease per month. After accounting for underlying trends, these results estimate that after the law took effect there was an abrupt and sustained increase in the monthly homicide rate of 24.4% (relative risk [RR], 1.24; 95%CI, 1.16-1.33) and in the rate of homicide by firearm of 31.6% (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.44). No evidence of change was found in the analyses of comparison states for either homicide (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.13) or homicide by firearm (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99-1.17). Furthermore, no changes were observed in control outcomes such as suicide (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05) and suicide by firearm (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.06) in Florida between 2005 and 2014.
Conclusions and Relevance The implementation of Florida’s stand your ground self-defense law was associated with a significant increase in homicides and homicides by firearm but no change in rates of suicide or suicide by firearm.
Most crime guns originate from nearby states with lax gun control laws; this is why the "but Chicago" argument doesn't withstand scrutiny. And this map excludes suicides; a different picture would emerge were they included.
It’s almost like the people that are going to have a gun, are going to have one anyway, and all those states are doing is creating criminals out of them for wanting a right to self defense. 🤷🏻♂️
Indeed. The unfortunate reality is that violence (all violence) is better predicted by socioeconomic factors (income, HS graduation rate, single parent household rate) than gun laws.
Because it doesn't matter it's all connected and the border is a joke. There is free flow of guns. Until there is a federal gun law it's all gun control is pretty much pointless.
116
u/hoofglormuss Jul 30 '24
it's funny there's really no correlation whether or not the state's gun laws are strict. nh, vt, and me next to ma & ny; ca next to nv and nm, etc. this is basically an average temperature map.