Gun deaths by state / gun laws by state
hiram alejandro rodriguez briceño | Wikimedia Commons
The Daily Beast published an interesting article last week that ranked states by gun deaths and by the permissiveness of state gun laws.
Below are the 5 states with the highest gun death rates, and the five states with the lowest gun death rates. Each state also is ranked on the relative strength/weakness of gun control laws (the lower the number, the fewer the controls).
There’s no hard and fast correlation between gun deaths and the permissiveness of gun laws. Maryland, for example, which ranks 47th on the permissiveness scale, has more gun deaths than Virginia, which is ranked 35th (Something tells me Virginia’s permissiveness ranking should be much higher).
And Vermont, which is #3 on the gun permissiveness scale, has fewer gun deaths than both Maryland and Virginia. On the other hand, Vermont has the highest gun-death rate among all the states in New England, and all of those have more restrictive gun laws than Vermont.
And, as the article notes, you’re 5 times as likely to die from a gun in Arizona (which the article calls the most permissive gun state in the nation) as in Hawaii (the least permissive state for guns).
Go to the jump for the rankings.
Top 5
#1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50
#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50
#3, Alaska
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50
#4, Arkansas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15.1
Permissive gun laws: 7th out of 50
#5, Louisiana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 19.9
Permissive gun laws: 23rd out of 50
Bottom 5
#46, New Jersey
Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.2
Permissive gun laws: 49th out of 50
#47, Connecticut
Gun deaths per 100,000: 4.3
Permissive gun laws: 46th out of 50
#48, Rhode Island
Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.5
Permissive gun laws: 42nd out of 50
#49, Massachusetts
Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.6
Permissive gun laws: 48th out of 50
#50, Hawaii
Gun deaths per 100,000: 2.8
Permissive gun laws: 47th out of 50
January 17, 2011 - 12:00 PM
This is going to get good.
Or… not.
How unsurprising all of that is.
“I say this as someone who does not want to give up my own guns — but who believes that with rights come responsibilities. Yes, liberty is precious. But so is life. It should not be so difficult for men and women of good will and good heart and sound mind to find the right balance between the two.”
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/video-jon-meacham-a-gun-owner-on-restoring-the-assault-weapons-ban/6413/
My sentiments, exactly.
O J Simpson’s ex was killed with a knife. Is there going to be a BLOG on that too?
Today must be a really slow day Dan.
What’s unsurprising Kristen, that there is nothing close to a 1:1 relationship between gun laws and gun crime? That maybe, just maybe, gun crime and crime in general are an almost incalculably complex mix of economics, social policy, geography, culture, etc.?
But hey, banning high capacity magazines will fix things! Don’t bother with working on effective social safety nets (SOCIALISM! OH NO!), finding equitable ways to fund public education, ending a drug war that pours rocket fuel on the crime bonfire, going after straw purchases, severely punishing illegal gun possession….
No, let’s slap band-aids on the severed, blood-gushing limbs of our broken system.
These statistics don’t really tell us anything, do they?
…. except that you’re more likely to die from a bullet wound in the south!
“Don’t bother with working on effective social safety nets (SOCIALISM! OH NO!), finding equitable ways to fund public education, ending a drug war that pours rocket fuel on the crime bonfire, going after straw purchases, severely punishing illegal gun possession….”
Jason, there’s nothing about those remedies I disagree with. And I’m not exactly deterred by hysterical screams of “Socialism!!!” – ever.
The stats are what the stats are. They’re just a small piece of information, but they make the “An armed society is a polite society” argument difficult to make.
Arizon has the laxest gun laws in the country, and the 2nd most gun deaths. If you want to argue that those two facts are unrelated, go ahead.
Wow – what analytical and intellectual deductions from some of you.
From Dan himself..
“There’s no hard and fast correlation between gun deaths and the permissiveness of gun laws.”
and yet you still swallowed it. Yay! for well thought and informed conclusions!
Dan
What gun laws would you like to see in Virginia?
Here are some great sources for all types of firearms and related gun stuff.
http://www.auctionarms.com/
http://www.gunbroker.com/
Virginia needs to step it up…I thought it was gonna become the Wild West, complete with alcohol fueled shoot outs in the street.
Dan Casey and the impact of Parkinson’s http://theroanoketribune.com/rich_text_39.html
Excellent point Jason #6, can you tell us why RKBA advocates would not rather be “working on effective social safety nets (SOCIALISM! OH NO!), finding equitable ways to fund public education, ending a drug war that pours rocket fuel on the crime bonfire, going after straw purchases, severely punishing illegal gun possession….“? I mean from what I can see, they would rather accept another onerous, useless, stupid gun control law or even ban that goes against what they espouse than to do or insist we do, the hard work required to actually fix the problem. Their passion is so vivid and powerful, why is it not directed at solutions that would preserve what they hold so dear and alleviate the problems we all fear? Do you not think the weight of the NRA and gun owners would be a powerful lobby for REAL change?
I wonder what they let you do with guns in Miss. that they don’t in VA.
Gun deaths?? That means they’re prolly including suicides by gun. In Alaska, more might shoot themselves because it’s sooo cold.
Vermont is not near the top and anyone that is not a felon can carry concealed with no special permission from the state. Hmmmmm.
I agree with Meachem, the assault weapons ban needs to be brought back and the extended magazines can be banned as well however neither will “solve” the real problem and that is guns in the hands of people who should not have them.
Oddly enough I agree with Jason and think we need to re-direct our considerable efforts at actually solving problems not sticking some feel good label on it and calling it a solution.
The mental health system in this nation is broken, badly. The people who come out of the woodwork to remark on someone’s weirdness, insanity and creepiness AFTER the fact should be accountable for what they did not do BEFORE the fact IMO. We need a system for monitoring guns and tracking guns and certainly for monitoring and tracking concealed weapons permit holders that is actual oversight and regulations and confiscation when there is a question. We need mental health laws that HELP people, not punish them for coming forward and seeking help and most of all we need people to realize the scope of problems we face from education to health care from financial fraud to banking abuses, from political clout to political control and the role they play in ALL of our problems.
phil @16 “I wonder what they let you do with guns in Miss. that they don’t in VA.”
You can find that information at either of these sites:
http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/MS
Sandi Saunders-
“can you tell us why RKBA advocates would not rather be “working on effective social safety nets (SOCIALISM! OH NO!), finding equitable ways to fund public education,”
Because most (not all) lean conservative on such issues. I don’t. Many of these people think that Obama is a NAZI-Communist-African cannibal for suggesting a *slightly* less idiotic health care system. They aren’t too high on social safety nets of any kind.
“ending a drug war that pours rocket fuel on the crime bonfire,”
Both sides are to blame for this one. You tell me. I’m as baffled by the continued insistence on continuing this decade’s old disaster as anyone.
“going after straw purchases, severely punishing illegal gun possession….“?”
RKBA people have pushed for these, though not as hard on the straw purchases as I would like.
“I mean from what I can see, they would rather accept another onerous, useless, stupid gun control law or even ban that goes against what they espouse than to do or insist we do, the hard work required to actually fix the problem.”
Not quite. The problem is that there is no broad agreement on what needs to be done. Both sides have tiny pieces of good ideas, but can’t get together on the big picture.
“Their passion is so vivid and powerful, why is it not directed at solutions that would preserve what they hold so dear and alleviate the problems we all fear?”
They seem to be doing fine by their standards. The laws and public opinion are swinging their direction and show no sign of reversing.
“Do you not think the weight of the NRA and gun owners would be a powerful lobby for REAL change?”
Sure, any financially powerful and influential lobby could. That’s not what the NRA does though. Their mandate is narrow, just like the ACLU or Amnesty International, etc. And again just for the record, I’m not a fan of the NRA.
When I make those proposals, the typical RKBA person isn’t my audience. They don’t want to hear that commie crap. I’m trying to get other liberals/progressives to quit boiling this issue down to inanimate objects and onto constructive thinking.
Dan, just looking at gun deaths doesn’t make the point you wanted to make here. People who can’t get guns may choose to use a knife or other means to kill someone. What you need to show is a correlation between gun control and the *total* violent death rate.
Ideally you’d find some way to factor in the rate of non-lethal violent incidents as well. But of course it’s hard to balance the (physical, emotional, and financial) impact of such incidents against a clear-cut loss of life.
The only correlation here is that there is a law against murder in all 50 states. And in all 50 states there are people who break that law on a regular basis regardless of the gun laws, knife laws, or the no murder law. I don’t see that changing.
These death rates by gun are in total. Including crime, justified self defense shooting, police shooting, and suicides. As for suicides, anyone messed up enough to actually do it will choose a means. It’s not like making the guns go away is going to change their mind, just change their means. Taking away guns is not going to change the criminals minds, just change their means.
In other words, this article didn’t say much.
Gosh, look how many people died over the holiday weekends of Christmas and New Years.
LET’S BAN CARS
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/
Mark,
My point was the article is an interesting one. And it is. As noted, there is no hard and fast correlation you can make from the data.
Arizona must be relaxing their gun laws to enable their ascencion to “top gun” status among the states. Can Alaska be far behind?
1) Mississippi
2) Arizona
3) Alaska
Jason ends with: “When I make those proposals, the typical RKBA person isn’t my audience. They don’t want to hear that commie crap. I’m trying to get other liberals/progressives to quit boiling this issue down to inanimate objects and onto constructive thinking.” Which you are somewhat uniquely qualified to do when you are not castigating us and refusing us any intelligence. However all of your solutions we already support, push and work for so obviously it is not simply us that needs to move toward more constructive thinking, is it? Why can the RKBA folk boil it down to one issue and ride it like a recliner? No one should get a pass here. If RKBA folks do not want to be infringed upon further, they need to work with us not always against us either. I see what you are trying to do, but I also see that together much more good as well as freedom could be accomplished.
Oh no! The Gun show is coming to Salem this weekend, so hide the kids, whip the wives and bed your pets….hades is coming to town!
I guess you can cram a bar of soap down someone’s throat and kill them. You don’t see many killers climb clock towers with bars of soap.
That entire argument rings hollow, sorry.
“LET’S BAN CARS”
When cars are outlawed, only outlaws will have cars!!
“Assault” is an action, not an adjective to describe an inanimate object. You can’t have an “assualt” without a person committing the action. A person so inclined can commit an assault with any number of objects, bare hands, or guns of various types or capacities.
Many of our social ills boil down to a precipitous degradation of values over the last 40+ years. The erosion of the family unit, pervasiveness of drug and alcohol abuse, and greed just to name a few.
The tragedy in Arizona (as well as VT and many others) was a Mental Health issue. Mental Health has taken a back seat in the US over the last 40+ years and as a society we are ill prepared to face the issues in the system much less deal with the attrocious consequences. Take a person with severe mental health problems and even a spork from KFC can become a dangerous object in their hands. You can’t fix the mental health issue by banning magazines or certain weapons. You have to substantively address (FUND) the programs, systems, and infrastructure (inpatient and outpatient facilities, physicians, etc.).
Why are we debating a word that has been coined by someone to describe a certain type of firearm. Whatever you choose to call them… they have no place in a civilized society.
Bug,
If you had your choice, would you rather be assaulted by a guy with a butter knife or an glock with a 30 round clip?
“Oh no! The Gun show is coming to Salem this weekend, so hide the kids, whip the wives and bed your pets….hades is coming to town!”
Comment by Gary M — January 17, 2011 @ 7:57 pm
It’s only Monday and somebodies got a stiffie already.
While those stats are true, the gun deaths include accidents, suicides, and police shootings. What needs to be looked at is the murder rate per 100,000. When the handgun ban was instituted in D.C. in 1976, it was supposed to reduce the murder rate of D.C. It did not. In fact, the murder rate soared. Since the Supreme Court struck down the D.C. ban in 2008, the murder rate has declined by nearly 25%. In 2009, D.C. had the lowest amout of murders since the 1960′s, maybe 1965 or 1967. These numbers can be found at the Disaster Center. I think the Supreme Court said it best. The First Amendment protects free speech, but does not protect it to the point of yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. You don’t gag everyone that goes into the theater just because there’s a possibility one person will yell fire. Same goes with the Second Amendment.
33.Why are we debating a word that has been coined by someone to describe a certain type of firearm. Whatever you choose to call them… they have no place in a civilized society.
Comment by Lynda K — January 17, 2011 @ 10:53 pm
Our society may be less civilized without them. If you want a more civilized society, rid the world of drugs and alcohol.
Lynda K-
“Why are we debating a word that has been coined by someone to describe a certain type of firearm. Whatever you choose to call them… they have no place in a civilized society.”
Please see my post in the other thread. You still apparently don’t know what an “assault weapon” is. They have as much place in a civilized society as any other center fire rifle. They are no more deadly than many standard hunting rifles, and in some ways, are less powerful.
34.Bug,
If you had your choice, would you rather be assaulted by a guy with a butter knife or an glock with a 30 round clip?
Comment by Steve C — January 17, 2011 @ 10:57 pm
I’d personally rather take my chances with a bullet than a sharp knife. Have you ever seen serious knife wounds? Brutal doesn’t begin to describe it.
#24 Gosh, Al, I’ve never ever heard a right-wing gun lover use that one before. How incredibly original and bright!!0
#28 “Oh no! The Gun show is coming to Salem this weekend,”
I’m washng my camo, stocking up on chawin’ tobacco and cleaning my arsenal.
“I’d personally rather take my chances with a bullet than a sharp knife. Have you ever seen serious knife wounds? Brutal doesn’t begin to describe it.”
Really? Personally I think I’d have a better chance of outrunning a knife. Which is maybe why you don’t see drive-bys executed by throwing knives out of car windows.
I know this is a serious subject, but #28 (set to Santa Claus is coming to town), #29, #30 and #42 made me laugh. Dan, I definitely missed the great humor!
Guns are scary. I will feel safer when I don’t hear about them anymore. I’ll be hiding under my bed.
“I’d personally rather take my chances with a bullet than a sharp knife. Have you ever seen serious knife wounds? Brutal doesn’t begin to describe it.”
Really? Personally I think I’d have a better chance of outrunning a knife. Which is maybe why you don’t see drive-bys executed by throwing knives out of car windows.
Comment by Kristen — January 18, 2011 @ 10:08 am
You don’t hear about a lot of knife attack victims walking into the ER and being treated and released either. If actually wounded, your odds of survival are far worse from a knife wound. Feel free to do some research on the subject for yourself from a purely medical perspective. Of course, you’re going to believe whatever you want to believe, so it really makes no difference. Me personally, my opinion, based on my knowledge of the subject, I’d rather take my chances with one over the other. You are free to form your own opinion.
pu. Seriously, you will feel safer when you don’t hear about guns anymore? The first thing that Hitler done was disarm the people. The second thing he done was led 6-8 million to the slaughter house. Does that make you feel safe. I know, it won’t happen here. That’s what was said in Germany. Now, looking back to what Hitler done, can you really say guns have no place in a civilized society? If Hitler had never disarmed the folks, he wouldn’t have been able to do what he did. That’s why police carry guns, to keep civility. Thomas Sowell, who is African-American, was quoted as saying “Why do you think they disarmed slaves? If the slaves had guns that would have been the end of slavery.” When folks are disarmed, they are sitting ducks for oppression or slaughter.
eddie,
It’s a popular misconception by certain, though not all, members of the pro-movement that Hitler banned guns. Actually, what you’re referring to was a gun registration law instituted by the Weimar Republic, the democratically elected government that preceded Hitler.
The Nazis tweaked that to ban Jews from owning guns, though.
More here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership
41.#28 “Oh no! The Gun show is coming to Salem this weekend,”
I’m washng my camo, stocking up on chawin’ tobacco and cleaning my arsenal”
That means he is cleaning his sweat pants,getting some sugarless gum,and shining his bowling ball.
Lynda: Your showing here girlie. Not only do you fail to understand the issue with “weapons” but you fail to understand symantics…”the study of how language conveys meaning”. Typically the fashion you used the word is to shrug off an error (on your part) by saying “it’s just a matter of symantics.” But the linguist is most exacting in the use of words. EXAMPLE: Democrats typically use an animal as their symbol. Some call it a donkey, or a jackass. Some even refer to the creature as an “ass”. Now, if I called you a democrat, you would probably smile with glee and say, “why yes, I am a democrat.” But then if I were to move down the line and call you an “ass” you might be offended. Point being that words need to be exact and correct, esp in the political arena. Back in the days prior to prohibition the bible toters frequently used phrases such as “that DEMON run”. “Demons” are instruments of the devil and a certain connection to EVIL. So the rub off here is that rum is evil and flows from the devil and we must ban it. It took many many years, but society did finally ban that demon and a lot of others as well. Same same with “assault rifle”. They are evil and there is no place for them. Why else do you libs use that term (assault rifle)? ANSWER: Because it sounds better and more effective than saying WEAPONS have no place in society today. Which of course, you also agree with that but “we” are not quite ready to go that far… YET.
And speaking of all my dear friends who are democrats, here’s one for you.
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4
“Al” is quoting me over on Blue Ridge Caucus, claiming one of my favorite phrases is “Go take a flying F—.”
Have I ever written that on here?
A couple of us have been pointing out for a while that Al has lost it completely. Really, his entire post #49 is incoherent raving.
“I’d personally rather take my chances with a bullet than a sharp knife”
Which is exactly why the assault knife is the primary weapon of choice by militaries throughout the world.
Hi Dan
Good discussion you’ve started here! Yes, there was gun registration laws before Hitler took control. And yes, as you correctly pointed out, the Nazis further expanded the registration laws to disarm the Jews (the “people” I was referring to in my previous post). If I’m not mistaken, the registration laws were “tweaked” in 1938. Who was the leader of the Nazi Party in 1938? Again, if I’m not mistaken, it was Hitler. Therefore, it was Hitler that banned the Jews from having guns. Unless there was someone else in the background controlling Hitler, and that is a possibility.
How the hell do you attract guys like Al, BobH, Jony/Tack and Suz? Is it your cologne or something?
50.“Al” is quoting me over on Blue Ridge Caucus, claiming one of my favorite phrases is “Go take a flying F—.”
Have I ever written that on here?”
I dont konw if you did..but I wish you would(“Go take a flying F—.”)
…and take Kristin and all the other Yankees on this blog back with ya!
instead of hidding guns why not have open carry then we will know who the cowards who can,t go out in public with a gun are
#50 Not that I’ve ever seen. Allie baby is going completely bonkers over there, Dan.
Al
I sincerely doubt you have any “friends” who are democratsa.
Jack Mcguire– Thought you were gone from this blog!
Dan: You can send my payment for generating bolg activity to the new address I sent last week. I’m trying to help them over at the BRC just like I’m helping you. Unfortunately they don’t want to pay me so don’t know how long I’ll keep it up.
Actually, the statement was from one of you topics months ago. Somthing about a saying of one of you associates. “Go take a flying F at a rolling donut” was the complete statement.
See how the menory of you libs is very selective.
As I pointed out to someone just the other day, it does not look good to spend your day in discussion with losers, lunatics and hate mongers. I guess this is the only place these misfits and defective people can come and vent their spleen without being carted off for a forced period of observation. They should thank God for anonymity. Like flies at a picnic they are a nuisance we have to put up with, hate, ignorance, incoherence and all. Don’t let them ruin a good blog.
#58 dave, by a certain time of the day Jack M usually has a hard time remembering what blog he’s on.
Al, I must have missed that new address you sent last week.
I recall, quoting someone else using that phrase now, in a blog post about the birth of the Rolling Donut Society. I was quoting a publisher I used to work.
gdad, Correct about JM, but Al is incoherent all the time.
JM can’t tell the difference between an elided single quote of someone else and non-existent multiple statements from Dan, so the sun must be over the yardarm–somewhere in the world.
Gotta get back to writing a book, though these days there’s probably more money in this.
Re: # 50
Dan,
I do believe that back in August you bosted be a member of the Rolling Doughnut Society, attended the every-other-year the reunion of the same and provided a link to the origins of the soclty’s name.
Maybe you affinity for the Rolling Doughnut Society is what is being referenced.
Aaggrr Typos / proofos
# 60
“I guess this is the only place … people can come and vent their spleen without being carted off for a forced period of observation.
———-
Sandi,
I you need to get a grip on reality — if you think this blog provides the level anonymity to avoid being carted off for a forced period of observation, where such observation is justified.
Try making statements that the justify an ECO* and see what happens.
* = i.e., provide probable cause to believe that you (i) have a mental illness and that there exists a substantial likelihood that, as a result of mental illness, you will, in the near future, (a) cause serious physical harm to yourself or others or (b) suffer serious harm due to your lack of capacity to protect yourself from harm or to provide for your basic human needs, (ii) is in need of hospitalization or treatment, and (iii) is unwilling to volunteer or incapable of volunteering for hospitalization or treatment.
As so often happens your bias has you ranting about the mote in another’s eye while denying the beam in your own eye and also has you out of touch with reality.
I know my beam quite well and I know what makes it ache. I have never denied having it or why it is there. I will not tiptoe around those I feel are a blight. Funny how some can ONLY see and comment on my “beam” and not the “mote” of those that that ruin many a thread. How often have you called out Suzie or Jack Mcquire for their “rants”, insults and debasing posts?
# 67
I have called out both right wingnut and left wingnuts — in general.
I have damned all the “name calling” — specific to individuals and collectively to sub-groups.
As for Suzie deep end rants, plenty of folk call her out. No need to pile it on — particularly when there is little new that I could add.
Jack? About the same — maybe a tad less.
OTOH, I don’t believe I have ever seen Dan or the majority of the folk on this thread call out the bias in your rantings about others.
Just trying to provide a little balance to the blog.
66
As so often happens your bias has you ranting about the mote in another’s eye while denying the beam in your own eye and also has you out of touch with reality.
Well said, Dave H. It’s hard to tell if she doesn’t see it or is just playing a game. Either way is pathetic.
So what? Gun ownership was pretty much completely outlawed in the USSR. So was free speech and basic human rights. Raise your hand if you’d like to go back and live there.
I rest my case.
I just get amazed, why not present the data in a more usable format, like the total population of a given state and the total number of gun deaths in that state. Of course, just being killed by a gun must always be “bad” and never in defense against someone trying to do harm. Also add columns showing the number of road deaths, smoking/cancer deaths, and number of people killed by piss poor self assuming yellow journalism.
“no hard and fast correlation”? Rarely in complex systems (human society, biological systems, etc) do you see such significant and strong correlations. This is the closest thing you get to a slam dunk. Might there be other factors? yes, of course. For example, a state close to a state with strict gun laws will get a benefit from that proximity, but that only further proves the point. I find it fantastically stupid we’re actually arguing if gun laws reduce gun deaths. THEY DO. duh…
Scott, you are just amazed…. I will say, you’re just uneducated. the way the data are presented is standard for epidemiology. It does not make sense to do it your way, as per capita means the same thing you’re proposing but does it in one number. Further, the number of gun deaths that occur through an “intruder-type scenario” are so small to be statistically meaningless. The most common type of gun death (the vast majority) is accidental. Are you from a Red state?
WHy do conservatives have so much trouble thinking…
Argument: some communist country has strict gun laws and no free speech.
therefore, banning guns will ban free speech.
On the surface this is a stupid argument. however, I will reject this by proving it wrong. Many democracies (Japan, many european countries) have strict gun laws and have free speech, therefore, there is no reason to believe taking guns will take free speech.
stupid people…..
Has there been a crackdown on free speech in Britain since it banned handguns in the mid-90s? Its current leaders, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, get criticised and satirized often in the media there.
Ed lopat-
“The most common type of gun death (the vast majority) is accidental.”
This is completely false. The last year for which data is available, 2009, shows 554 accidental gun deaths in the United States. There were well over 20,000 total gun deaths, so needless to say, the “vast majority” of gun deaths were not accidents.
Ed lopat-
“I find it fantastically stupid we’re actually arguing if gun laws reduce gun deaths. THEY DO. duh…”
You’re wrong again. The consensus among criminologists and other professionals in relevant fields is that gun laws don’t seem to have much effect on crime one way or the other. Also remember that the national trend over the last twenty years has been almost exclusively loosening gun laws, particularly regarding concealed carry. Over that period of time, all crime, including gun crime and murder, have fallen through the floor. There is no evidence that the loosening of gun laws is responsible for the huge drop in crime, but it’s a safe bet that it didn’t hurt.
And stop assuming that anyone who disagrees with you on this subject is some kind of red state hillbilly. The odds are good that I’m more liberal than you overall.
the old knife,how many people can you kill with a knife?vs an automatic weapon? the west had no gun laws,than a funny thing happened,its called civilization,they started banning guns,why cause gun fights were getting out of hand. the fact is you are more likely to be killed in a domestic dispute than a crime. you are in fact more likely to be killed with YOUR gun by a family member.
than there is the holy grail of the nuts,the 2nd admendment.the proof that reading comprehension IS DEAD. the right to bear ARMS,not guns,not firearms,not rifles,not hand guns,not even muskets,just ARMS.plain and simple.even a 2 year old can look it up int a dictionary.
a combat branch (as of an army)
an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
yes those are ARMS,as are nukes,nerve gas, when you go to an arms dealer ,they deal in military weapons,NOT hand guns,you buy those at a GUN dealer,you go to a GUN show,not an ARMS show.if it is NOT in the constitution you do not have that right.as the right likes to say.
gothmog-
Aside from your whole argument being fallacious, here’s the definition I got on
dictionary.com: Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary: Usually, arms, offensive or defensive implements for use in war, weapons.
Oxforddictionaries.com: weapons and ammunition; armaments
Also, handguns are used in the military. Furthermore, you are aware that words evolve, right? That they don’t necessarily mean the same thing centuries apart? Or that context matters? Have you read any of the contemporaneous writings from the framers?
gun laws reduce death,on a website that shows higher death in state’s with lax gun laws.under clinton we had a ban on semi autmatice weapons,and increase police,crime went DOWN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
look at the homicide rate vs other industrialized countries. even the suicide rate is higher.you think they be dieing in the streets,funny how our rates are more inline with drug countries,just like our infant mortality is more inline with 3rd world countries.we are becoming a 3rd world country.our education system is the pits,but woo we can bring guns on campus.like that is the MOST important thing in the world.
gothmog-
If you read the original post, you’d find that there is no clear correlation between gun laws and homicide rates. Clinton did not ban semi-automatic weapons. His law banned certain mean looking guns but actually had little to no effect on what types of guns were available. Additionally, crime has continued to plummet since his ban sunsetted. Economists and criminologists have demolished the “more cops” theory as to the drop in crime.
You have to do better than boilerplate gun control blurbs. And jeez, would it hurt to do a little fact checking?
horribly misleading statistics… Alaska’s murder rate is consistently among the lowest in the nation at around 4.5/100k… however they do have a high suicide rate.
homicide and suicide should be broken out into separate categories for accurate statistics… a suicidal person will do what ever it takes to end it, making guns less available will not drop the suicide rate it will just move them into a different category.
In order to come to any sort of solid conclusion, there are several aspects that need to be investigated further.
1) Percentage of shootings ruled accidental.
2) Percentage of shootings by non law enforcement personnel.
3) percentage of shootings committed by legal gun owners vs. illegal. 4) number of shootings committed in the process of committing a crime. 5) percentage of self-defense related shootings.
6) Percentage of firearm related injury/death across all instances per capita, related to all assaults.
THEN you compare the results in a side by side per-capita study. If places like Arizona and Mississippi are still way out in front, then yes, stricter gun laws are effective in reducing violent crime. If instead, places like Massachusetts end up showing higher, then obviously giving free rein to the citizenry to arm themselves to whatever extent they feel comfortable is the more appropriate course.
In reference to Kate….Arizona has the laxest gun laws in the country, and the 2nd most gun deaths. If you want to argue that those two facts are unrelated, go ahead…..I will take you on. Arizona borders what country? What country is the highest gun deaths due to Drug Cartels? What Drug Cartels are attempting to form in Arizona? Hmmmmmm…
It is interesting that the states with the most gun deaths are the status with the most hunting and least population. Is there any hunting in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut? Not much if any.
“Maryland, for example, which ranks 47th on the permissiveness scale, has more gun deaths than Virginia, which is ranked 35th (Something tells me Virginia’s permissiveness ranking should be much higher).”
You need to keep in minde that MD had BOTH DC and BALTIMORE in it. VA has a river with bridges separating it from DC and has NO cities of that size. Some crime bleeds in through DC…but no where near as much as it does in MD> In VA you can buy multiple registered firearms at a time. In MD you can only buy 1 a month. VA issues CCW permits…..MD DOES NOT! VA should be ranked LOWER (like about a 1 ) for permissiveness.
although arkansas is in the top 5, the vast majority of murders by firearms occure in little rock and pine bluff, the #8 and #2 most dangerous cities in america behind #1 detroit, the vast majority of those murders are black on black murders, mostly young people. the rural areas of arkansas have a low murder rate as compared to the above mentioned.
If you fudge around with numbers long enough you can get the numbers to prove whatever you want. Around here if you have a gun in your home your less likely to have your house broken into. By including suicides in this type of study it only proves that desperate people will find a way to end their lives. Those same people would have found a different way to kill themselves if a firearm wasn’t available. it wouldn’t have mattered how stringent their states gun laws were they would have still found a way.
The real study should have been how many murders were commited by legal and illegally owned weapons. I would expect that an area such as Chicago who has a total gun ban would have topped the list.
“Around here if you have a gun in your home your less likely to have your house broken into.”
So…I don’t imagine there will be any numbers to support this factoid.
M Scmidt: “By including suicides in this type of study it only proves that desperate people will find a way to end their lives. Those same people would have found a different way to kill themselves if a firearm wasn’t available”
-
There are numerous people who are survivors of suicide attempts. Not just false or half-hearted attempts, but sincere yet failed attempts. Using a gun greatly reduces the chance of surviving a suicide attempt. If one wishes to end one’s life, that should be a decision made after much deliberation, counsel, therapy, perhaps prayer, and assistance with extraneous problems, but that entire subject is a different topic than the role of guns in pushing suicide rates higher. Guns do push suicide rates higher, by their intrinsic lethality.
There IS a HUGE difference between Murder Rate and Gun Deaths. If I kill someone with a gun that is Attempting Rape, that is a Gun Death. Let’s compare Murder committed with a gun vs. Gun Law State vs. Self Defense with a gun vs. Attempted Rape, Murder, Car Jacking, Holdup, etc.
Numbers can be manipulated to tell your story they way you wan to spin it. Like missing is the strictest state gun laws death rate. How about you take the top and bottom 10 states by permissiveness and average the rates per 100K people. Also, Hawaii is separated by a little think called the PACIFIC OCEAN that make transporting illegal/un-registered firearms into the state problematic. You can further split hairs by culling out the murder rates alone.
According to my quick calculations, the 10 strictest states had a Gun Murder average of 2.69 per 100K while the least restrictive states had a Gun Murder average of 2.49 per 100K. I had to leave Washington DC off since it didn’t rate a Brady Campaign score and its gun murder rate of 16.5 per 100K would have pushed either side over the top. BTW, these are 2010 numbers.
“little think called the PACIFIC OCEAN that make transporting illegal/un-registered firearms into the state problematic”
Let’s put our thinking hats on. If all the states had the same laws, then it seems that criminals would have just as much trouble getting guns into Chicago as Hawaii. In other words it’s not the ocean its the wild open gun laws in the border states that are causing problems in cities like chicago and DC. Close the gun show loop hole and implement background checks on ALL guns sales and we go a long way to solving our out of control violence problem in US.
Jack, you’re manipulating the numbers by comparing merely gun “murder” rates. A 5-year-old shooting a 2-year old with daddy’s pistol is not “murder.” Lets compare gun death rates:
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Many states with the weakest firearms laws have the highest rates of gun-related homicides and suicides, according to a study released on Wednesday by a liberal think tank.
Alaska had the most gun deaths, with 20.28 deaths per 100,000 people in 2010, twice the national average, the analysis by the Center for American Progress showed.
Louisiana and Montana, which followed with 19.06 and 16.58 deaths per 100,000 people, respectively, were among the 10 states with the weakest gun laws, according to the study, the latest to link gun laws to firearm deaths.
Eight of the states with the highest levels of gun violence were among the 25 with the weakest gun laws, said the report, citing a study last year by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. . .
. . . Louisiana, Alaska and Alabama have the highest levels of gun violence, based on measures that include firearm deaths, suicides, homicides, and police officials feloniously killed by guns.
Hawaii, Massachusetts and Connecticut had the lowest rates of gun violence, and were among the 10 states with the strongest gun laws, the study found.”
MORE: http://news.yahoo.com/states-weakest-firearm-laws-lead-gun-deaths-study-185335813.html
And in states where there are more guns, there also are more non-fatal shootings.
Yup.
Drownings go up when the sale of ice-cream from the back of trucks goes up, also.
Also, in elementary school there is a strong correlation between shoe size and math skills.
-
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/fifteen-year-old-young-lady-leaves-maryland-anti-gun-politicians-speechless/