States with the lowest murder rates: NH ME VT ID UT States with the highest murder rates: MS LA AL MO AR All 10 states lave little to no gun control laws; only LA requires a permit to carry a concealed firearm If stronger gun control laws = fewer murders, why is there such disparity on the murder rates for these states? https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/murder-rate-by-state
I think we need to repeal the second amendment, but i don't think the statistic you cite is as simple as gun laws. I think there are plenty of other factors, including poverty rates, and others than also factor into the murder rates.
The federal government will collapse before the 2nd is repealed. Wait... Demographics play a greater role in murder rates - and by extension, violent crime - than gun control laws? Do tell.
I didn't say i think it would happen, only what i thought should happen. Nothing is as simple as one factor.
Since you agree there is a lot more to murder / violent crime rates than gun control laws, why do you want to repeal the 2nd?
It's not really my intention, but I already know how these discussions end up, so i decided to just save us some time, since i don't care what you think i think.
If we simply recognized that the total number of murders in CA leads the nation, regardless of the population, folks would change their tune here. Comparing the total number of murders in CA to MS is stupid, makes no difference to the number of folks being murdered. It's a propensity issue that we mask actual crime with because it "looks better" for deeply blue states like CA, IL, NY etc that are dangerous because of stupid policy of democrats who create the crime because of their idiocy and wokeness.
I'm not sure inter-regional comparisons are especially useful. Alabama and Maine are very different places in a host of ways and it would be hard to tell what's attributable to gun control and what's attributable to some other factor. A better approach would be to look for states/cities/counties with similar cultures an economic conditions and compare those. Looking just at the old "Deep South" (GA, AL, MS, LA, SC, NC, TN), it looks like there is at least some correlation between gun control and murder rates. The top three states for murder (LA, MS, AL) are also have the lowest gun law rankings of that set. I wouldn't call it conclusive evidence of anything, but it's a better than throwing the South, New England, and the Mid-West all into the same pot at once. It might also be useful to check out check out "gun deaths" and "suicides" by state too, rather than just homocide. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/suicide-rates-by-state
Wait... "Some other factor9s)" play a greater role in murder rates - and by extension, violent crime - than gun control laws? Do tell. Gun control laws have little to no effect on suicides, as, at their best, they can only affect people who do not already have a gun, cannot legally get a gun, and will not kill themselves w/o a gun.. As such, there's nothing useful to be gained by adding suicide rates/deaths to murder rates/deaths
Off the cuff, I suspect murder rates correlate most closely with poverty. That's a remarkably big assumption to put forward without any evidence. I disagree. Gun control measures that make it more difficult for someone to immediately access a gun in a moment of deep depression/despair (i.e. mandatory waiting periods and requiring guns to be locked away at home) certainly seem like they should reduce suicide rates by removing access to what are effectively instant, easy, potentially painless, kill-yourself buttons. A quick glance at the list of states by suicide rate certainly seems to suggest a correlation between stricter gun control and lower suicides (though, as before, I'd want to see more specific analysis before I'd call it convincing). https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state
If the person already has a gun, this won't affect him - he has a gun. If he wants to die, he'll use it. If the person can legally get a gun, this won't affect him - he can get a gun. If he wants to die, he'll get one and use it. If the person is willing to kill himself another way, this won't affect him - he can jump in front of a train. And.... a legal requirement to secure your firearms violates the constitution.
why does Japan have a higher rate of suicides? what is the demographic data most associated with suicide in the USA? Do red states have more of that demographic?
You seem to have me confused with a search engine or encyclopedia. Needless to say, I am not repository of all those statistics, nor an expert on Japanese culture and society. If you'd like to share this information, I'd be most curious to see it and learn your thoughts.
it was a rhetorical question to show that suicide rates and gun ownership are not really related. and constitutional rights should never be abrogated based on how many people want to kill themselves.
Perhaps it is the temperature in the same way that rape trends tend to follow outside air temps. IDK.
Then surely policies changes which result in fewer gun owners would affect this, yes? Perhaps, but the longer it takes to acquire a gun the more opportunities someone has to change their mind and seek or receive help. Removing someone's ability to impulsively end their life with the pull of a trigger is not nothing. I think that should be fairly obvious. He can (if there are trains around), but hardly anyone ever does. Firearms are the #1 means of committing suicide for a reason. They make it easy. Decreasing suicides isn't about making it IMPOSSIBLE for someone to kill themselves, it's about discouraging them from doing so and maximizing their opportunities to get help. But all this is speculation. How about actual data? The fact is that states with higher rates of gun ownership and few gun laws have higher rates of suicide (both suicide by firearm and suicide generally) https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/ https://www.kff.org/other/issue-bri...-to-guns-have-more-suicide-deaths-by-firearm/ I also disagree with that interpretation. But regardless of either of our personal opinions, there ARE in fact laws requiring fire arms to be secured in multiple states and DC. And it seems noteworthy to me that these persist without being ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, whose opinion actually matters. E.G. Here's the DC statute: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2507.02
And yet they are if you start comparing states within the same country... As I noted above, states with higher rates of gun ownership and few gun laws have higher rates of suicide (both suicide by firearm and suicide generally) https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/ https://www.kff.org/other/issue-bri...-to-guns-have-more-suicide-deaths-by-firearm/ Cherry picking Japan, a nation very different from ours and with an ancient history and culture of lauding "honorable suicide," as your point of comparison seems a tad disingenuous.
In the same way policies which result in fewer automobiles would affect the number of automobile deaths Fact remains: if someone -already has a gun, gun control laws will not affect him killing himself. People choose guns because they are nearly a sure thing - they have committed ti killing themselves. I think that should be fairly obvious ~ 50% of suicides are committed with a firearm, in some years, less. Thus, many, if not most, people choose some other means. As no one knows how many guns there are in the 43+ states that do not require gun registration, there's no way to determine the rate of gun ownership in those states. Thus, whatever rates are used to make the conclusion, above, are invalid, and in doing so, render said conclusion unsound. You can disagree with it all you want - it remains a fact. DCs law was struck in 2008. Not sure about other states, but given the USSC ruling , its hard to see how they survive. [/quote] (a) It shall be the policy of the District of Columbia that each registrant should keep any firearm in his or her possession unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock, gun safe, locked box, or other secure device. (b) No person shall store or keep any firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person: A is not a legal requirement; B applies only when minors are involved. And, given the 2008 ruling , B will be struck, for the same reason as it was in 2008 - the fact there may be a minor involved in no way diminishes the argument: Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
can you prove that gun ownership rates is responsible for that? or is it because states that value gun ownership tend to have more retirees, more veterans and more white Males
