General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHey! Looky here! No connection between lax gun laws and gun related deaths.
Nosireebob!
The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/53345/states-with-most-gun-laws-see-fewest-gun-related-deaths
villager
(26,001 posts)...and this other one, with a slightly different magazine capacity!
Therefore, your entire post is invalid!
plcdude
(5,309 posts)provide the link to that chart?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)They should do that again by major cities so as to not discriminate against rural people. It would highlight the socioeconomic disparity which is related to violence.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)But seriously, as we all know, if they're giving away guns in Cracker-Jack boxes in Georgia, it makes very little difference if New York has gun laws. Third parties just buy them en masse in Georgia, and fence them to crooks in New York. The only solution to any of these problems is a national gun registry, so that every time a crook is caught with a gun they're not legally allowed to have, you can look up who was SUPPOSED to have it, and then go ask them why they no longer do. Nothing will ever change until the gun show loop hole is closed, and STRAW PURCHASERS start going to jail.
One possible way to do this is to simply make a federal mandate that the STATE governments have to maintain individual gun registries. That might shut up just enough of the "the federal gubmint's trying to steal our gunz" crazies get it passed into law.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)I completely agree with your assessment
and I am SO fed up with the latest influx of NRA-fueled gun nuts showing up on DU
underpants
(182,273 posts)I can't post the link but there was a thread yesterday.
Pointed out that once you remove suicide by firearms then this chart is dramatically different. For example, Utah I believe moves up to 8th while NY drops to 15th or so and half of the top ten become states with more lenient gun control laws. And Maryland, among the most stringent states, drops all the way to 45th because of the pervasive gun violence in that state. So the chart, without context, proves nothing. The WaPo also pointed out that there is little evidence that stricter gun control laws reduce suicide rates, so it is sort of disingenuous to include suicides when discussing gun control. But if the facts don't fit your story then just ignore the facts I guess.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That's because the two forms of "gun death" are so vastly different in virtually all contributing causal factors (which means the solutions to each problem are going to be similarly different).
kcr
(15,300 posts)are somehow less dead. Or simply doesn't give a shit about them.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Again, they are two very different situations in terms of the causal factors behind them, the motivations behind the acts. When problems have different causes, they'll have different solutions (obviously...).
kcr
(15,300 posts)Dead is dead is dead is dead. You are merely rationalizing it by claiming the motivation matters. It does not. Suicide by gun is every bit as violent and every bit as dead.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)*yawn*
Buh-bye...not interested in wasting any more time or keystrokes on inanities like that.
kcr
(15,300 posts)Much easier to pretend that people who blow their brains out don't count as gun victims.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)and your cute little expressions.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I've always suspected this was, by and large, the position of most 'strict' gun control proponents.
You're right in one sense:
The motivation only matters to people that are interested in eliminating the root cause, rather than going after guns.
I appreciate your candor.
kcr
(15,300 posts)There is no one single root cause. But there is one single root instrument. It's not that hard to suss out, but good on you for figuring out the position of gun control proponents. Bonus points.
Theres only one instrument involved in suicides and murders?
Who knew.
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Wonder what brand of lubricant they used?
Response to TeddyR (Reply #9)
postatomic This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That's why the distinction between murders and suicides matters: for the most part, effective solutions to each problem will be very different. There are a few examples of crossover, like waiting periods. They're not that common.
Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #23)
postatomic This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Study each type separately, for the reason I mentioned previously: the causal factors behind each type are mostly different, and that means a different solution set. The steps most likely to reduce gun-related murder aren't going to be the same ones that reduce suicides, even those steps directly relating to access to guns. I think waiting periods might be a good example of an exception, of a step that could reduce both...but such "crossovers" are rare.
malaise
(267,808 posts)The more guns are available the more people die from guns...like WTF!!!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)They show us gun ownership vs. "all homicides," ignoring the fact that 60% of homicides in the United States are homicide by gun, compared to 3.9% of homicides by gun in Estonia, 1.7% in South Korea, 11% in Slovakia, and basically all of the other countries that are either thrown in or omitted in order to mess up the correlation between gun availability and gun homicide.
Dude, you've been had by a "Chaffetz-Chart"
Check the reliable information which this chart was creatively 'extracted' from:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)focuses on guns.
TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)I thought you posted the graph to counter Malaise's argument that
"The more guns are available the more people die from guns."
(The graph, in fact, doesn't do that. As you pointed out, it compares ALL homicides to the rate of gun ownership. But I fail to see why anybody would be interested in comparing the rate of gun ownership in South Korea to the number of people killed by being hit over the head with Hyundai parts. So, I can only conclude that the chart is deliberately meant to deceive people into thinking there's no correlation between gun ownership and gun homicides. At least in the developed world, anyway.)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Taiwan and Korea have very low gun ownership yet significant violent crime rates. Some places have high gun ownership rates but low violent crime rates, i.e. Sweden. If the presence of gun were as direct a correlation to violence as offered this would not be the case.
Moreover, gun ownership has been increasing in the US while violent crime rates have been decreasing in direct contraction to the theory suggested by Controllers.
TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)..most of the crackpots who do the mass shootings are bent on suicide, and are just hoping to go out with a blaze of "glory." The mass shooters go in with the suicide by gun group (although they're obviously a very small minority of the suicide group, and are a completely different breed from the criminals and gangsters. Criminals and gangsters kill people, but always with the intention of surviving.
My first concern is getting the guns away from the criminals and gangsters. And honestly, the gun control people, with their quest for universal background checks for firearms sales of any kind, are the only ones who are proposing a realistic course of action to prevent criminals from getting guns.
We go through this every time there's a mass shooting.
1. People who are proposing sensible gun control laws that would prevent criminals from getting guns point to the mass shooting, and use it as a call to action on background checks.
2. The right wing crazies point out (accurately) that the crackpot got his guns had no criminal background, and therefore the proposed gun legislation wouldn't prevent mass shootings.
3. The call for legislation is therefore shouted down on those grounds.
We gun control people are just shooting ourselves in the foot (pun intended). We should be stressing the issue that we want background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but NOT ordinary citizens.
kcr
(15,300 posts)underpants
(182,273 posts)I stated that WaPo bent backwards to give the President two pinoccchios but I didn't have the back up on that part of it. Now I do.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Is it possible that if there wasn't a gun available when someone gets very depressed that the person might be less likely to commit suicide?
Isn't it possible that there weren't guns available when two people get very angry at each other that there would less killing in such situations?
Isn't it true that guns kept for self defense in home are more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent people than threatening intruders?
Isn't it true that countries with stricter gun laws have less firearm fatalities?
Before you answer, don't bother, these are rhetorical questions. I have multiple statistics from multiple sources for each question. Essentially the answers bare out the old saying, freedoms always have costs", in this case human lives.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)Does anybody believe that a middle aged computer programmer like Michael Dunn would have confronted a car full of teenaged African American boys over the music they were playing if HE hadn't had a gun stuffed down his pants which he believed made him invincible? Hell no. He'd have just muttered a few racist slurs to his girlfriend, driven off, and continued living in a gated community, and sending his kids to private schools where he doesn't have to SEE people of another color.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)shenmue
(38,501 posts)Anybody know what that stands for?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Gothmog
(143,999 posts)Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)It says that there no required permit to purshase nor is a background check is required to purchase a handgun in Minnesota. That is false. Both are required.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)A couple of errors don't invalidate the preponderance of correct information presented in graph form.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)I am not going to do the research.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)You identified a single state with an error, provided no link to prove that error, and then generalize from that alleged error that the entire chart is full of errors; I'm not going to do the research either because I believe the premise of the chart - it makes intuitive sense. Also the fact that some of the states which are clearly exceptions to the general rule (VT, NH) were not changed to fit the profile leads me to believe that the maker of the chart was honestly portraying facts.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Here is the link you desired:
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/Pages/firearms-permit-to-purchase-transfer.aspx
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)You are a human being, therefore you have made some errors in life, therefore I should not believe anything you say.
Also, following your link I read that if you have a permit to carry, you don't need a separate permit to purchase, and this permit to carry is good for 5 years of unlimited purchases of firearms. So for 5 years there will be no backround check or permit to purchase a gun in MN, regardless of what may have changed unless the sheriff's office happens to catch it and revoke your permit to carry. That's an awfully long time IMO. It's possible that the person creating the chart interpreted this as not being specifically required to submit to a background check for each purchase nor specifically required to obtain a permit to purchase a gun if you already have a permit to carry.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)So if someone was convicted of a felony or had a DV issue, they would be denied the purchase. That DV part of the law was passed on a bi-partisan vote last spring.
Comparing a piece of research with important details to a person's life is quite ridiculous.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Based on one fact in question. Clearly gun laws have helped where they have been put into effect.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)I don't know what other errors were made in this research.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Done arguing about it
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And those per-capita rates include suicides. Some of the worst rates are in states with particularly high suicide rates. A much more compelling case for the effectiveness of gun control regulations of those kinds in reducing gun deaths could be made by addressing only those deaths which the regulations can actually affect.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)kcr
(15,300 posts)See my linked response
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)You are trying to untie suicides with murder. So, the statistics suggest that gun laws DO have an impact in preventing/enabling suicides by gun
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The other columns? Highly unlikely. Concealed carry regulations, registration, etc., have no obvious relevance to suicide, I'd say.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)having lax gun laws and being miserable shitholes where people kill themselves to escape?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)To the best of my knowledge, places with larger numbers of people living in relative isolation tend to have higher suicide rates.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Florida, Michigan, Nevada, not so rural (virtually everyone in NV lives in Reno or the Vegas area).
7962
(11,841 posts)No way in hell will I mention what it is either.
Blus4u
(608 posts)K&R
Peace
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)And their gun laws are among the strongest in the nation.
Washington DC 16.5
Louisiana 7.7
Missouri 5.4
Maryland 5.1
South Carolina 4.5
Delaware 4.2
Michigan 4.2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Vermont and New Hampshire have the lowest murder rate and some of the lightest gun laws.
Including suicides is intentionally misleading.
louis-t
(23,199 posts)There are 8 states that have a rate that is equal to or greater than D. C. Read the chart.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I've given you the numbers above
louis-t
(23,199 posts)The date says 2013, so different date. The 2013 chart certainly is more current than your numbers. Wikipedia can be altered, and it says the page was altered today. Hmmmm.
For your entertainment, here is an example of a good guy (girl) with a gun.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2015/10/06/cpl-holder-opens-fire-shoplifter-home-depot/73468588/
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Gun-related deaths =/= gun crime.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)How is suicide by gun not a gun-related death?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)If this is about gun crime, then we can talk about reducing crime.
Suicide is obviously a mental health issue. Adding guns to imply high crime statistics is disingenuous
DC is a special district that essentially functions like a state. It's a useful illustration that gun crime is mainly urban. Adding suicides, which could be committed by any other method, is a liar's tactic.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)The word 'urban' sure is popular with gun apologists.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Sort it from gun crime, which has been declining for decades. The best way to manipulate the issue is to include suicides.
Basing one's argument on a lie... Well no wonder the gun control crowd is failing miserably.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Is essentially pointing out exceptions to the rule, as can be seen from the chart. Pointing out exceptions to a rule does not disprove the rule.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Use the actual data. Nobody is buying the suicide argument anymore.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Just like a gun is a quick, easy way to kill someone else that makes murder happen more often, it clearly makes it easier to kill yourself as well thus ensuring that it will happen more often. So speak for yourself because I'm not nobody.
Rex
(65,616 posts)You cannot have a conversation with fanatics.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)all with the same talking points
Rex
(65,616 posts)It is like Stormfront barfed in DU GD!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Kindly explain why so much of this map - which shows actual gun violence - shows quite the opposite of what your chart claims to indicate?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)of where people actually live? Higher numbers of residents will have higher numbers of "actual" gun violence, which doesn't say diddly about the rate.
Nice try.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Thank you, that's exactly the answer I was looking for, as it is the correct one.
The OP is titled "Hey! Looky here! No connection between lax gun laws and gun related deaths".
The OP is NOT titled "Hey! Looky here! No connection between lax gun laws and gun related death rates".
The singular comment from the poster of the OP is:
The comment by the poster of the OP makes it quite clear that the message he/she intends to convey is that states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun related deaths. The poster then posts up as evidence, a chart that measures rates, not deaths. The poster makes a claim using one metric, and in support posts a chart that uses another metric.
It was just as intellectually dishonest and intended to mislead in this incidence, as it has been every time it has been done.
Fact is, states with the most gun control, with few exceptions, have the most gun deaths, which dovetails with what you said about them also having the highest population, but it proves my point, and shows the OP as the disingenuous claptrap that it is.
Pfft. There was no try about it. The map I linked both measures in the metric that the OP uses in his/her claim, AND disproves his/her claim, although in fairness, you helped make my point.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)(which seems to be stem from the original article) the point of the chart was gun deaths per thousand, correlated with a given state's gun laws. So imo you are cleverly defeating a classic straw man. You remind me of the right-wingers who point to an overwhelmingly red map (based on counties' votes) as proof that the country is conservative, despite the fact that those huge red areas are places where nobody lives.
So, nice try.
beevul
(12,194 posts)The States With The Most Gun Laws do not see the fewest gun related deaths, in fact, the generally see the most - in spite of their gun laws.
Logical
(22,457 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)nothing matters. Nothing makes a difference.
Too many folks addicted to their guns, and perfectly willing to wake up each day complicit to murder.
They are willing to accept thousands of deaths.
USA.
patsimp
(915 posts)let me guess their argument -
if you remove the people who were actually killed by guns, then no one was killed by guns.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,082 posts)patsimp
(915 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)A better correlation between suicide (which is what this chart primarily is) and states isn't gun law but standard of living.
States with poor economic prospects figure prominently at the bottom of the list. That they also feature Republican government and therefore the gun laws you'd expect from Republicans. Gun laws are a secondary correlate to republican government and resultant shitty standards of living.
RKBA is a prominent feature in Washington's constitution. But Democratic governance and a good economy is a prominent feature of the state too.
I don't have a problem with gun control in principle, but
a) I've not yet seen a specific proposal which would reduce the incidents about which we're in such outrage.
b) It is demonstrably an electoral loser.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)my pro gun brother hates MN because of their Strict Gun laws. if I look at that IA is stricter other than the waiting period I believe it stems from the fact MN doesn't recognize IA's concealed weapons permit. well apply up there too States rights. = Conservatives
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Lunabell
(5,920 posts)Scared for my state.
Cosmic Dancer
(70 posts)all that matters is what Faux News tells them to think.