States with stricter regulations on firearms see lower rate of shooting deaths

It's Getting Harder To Deny That Strong Laws Have An Effect On Gun Violence

More on this article here.

Keeping in mind that firearm deaths include suicide, accidental discharge... I thought the study is a pretty interesting response to the suggestion that "those who want to kill will simply find other/illegal means to get the weapons they desire". While that may be true, it appears much more frequently in states that use the argument to refrain from any sort of regulatory means at all.

How would one then explain the "more guns = less crime" suggestion, given these statistics?

 

OK..... An anti gun group (Law center to prevent gun violence or better known as smartgunlaws.org) puts together a grading system that supposedly proves their overt agenda.
They rate states that have some of the most murderous cities in them.... Baltimore, Chicago, DC, with grades of B or better.
They rate states with some of the lowest gun murder stats ... Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota North Dakota as an F grade.

Does this make any sense what so ever?

Lets try using an unbiased source... The FBI. Look at the gun murder stats in the second column. Your source has no credibility.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u..._20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

 

Because your statistics single out 'gun crime' and discount any positive effect that guns have on violent crime over all. And, your source is impeachable. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report is a good place to find real data.

 

Most gun deaths are from suicide, which is not affected by gun laws -- presuming it is legal for you to buy a gun, regardless of the gun control in your state/town, you can always get a gun to kill yourself. This skews the data here to violate any conclusion you might wan to draw regarding gun laws and gun deaths.

As for deaths from violent crime....
Down >55% since 1993, while the number of guns has gone up by the scores of millions.
More guns definitely has not let to more crime, more murder, more death.

 

That is basically game set and match. OP your thread is deemed refuted.

 

Thread ownage.

 

Well, yes. The grades are for the amount of gun control... A- being the most, F being the least.

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence uses fbi.gov for a number of their studies. It's right in the provided link, upon further analysis.

Some of the most densely populated areas in the United States are statistical hotbeds for suicide, yet states that rank F in gun control (with the exception of Colorado & West Virginia) overshadow said areas in highest suicide rates per 100,000 residents. Whether it's homicide or suicide, the goal should be to keep weapons away from the mentally disturbed.

Less deaths and more guns since 1993 does not negate the core finding this study examines, which is the relationship of gun control to gun violence. Also:

 

So the grades mean nothing as it pertains to gun homicides, except that some of the A rated states have the most gun murders, and vice versa.

Since gun laws can't thwart legal gun owners from suicide, give us your solution. There are roughly the same amount of suicides with guns, as there are non gun related suicides.

The core findings as have already been pointed out, is that the states with the most gun control have the most homicides with guns. You are wrongly calling suicide, gun violence. Gun violence is when there is a perpetrator and a victim.

 

Here we go 'round the gun control bush.
Precisely as always, the antis present their lies but phrase them to appear true.
Just as predictably, the pro gunners present the pure unadulterated truth, which invariably falls on deaf ears.
And 'round and 'round we go....

 

Strongest gun laws and the highest rate of gun deaths? DC

 

As I said: presuming it is legal for you to buy a gun, regardless of the gun control in your state/town, you can always get a gun to kill yourself.
How do you propose, keeping due process in mind, that we "keep weapons away from the 'mentally disturbed'"?

It does, however, negate any credibility for the argument that more guns = more violence.
As for stronger v weaker gun control laws and the related violence...
Why does VT, with no state-level gun control have an exceptionally tiny rate of gun crime, while CA, with the toughest gun control laws, have among the highest in the nation?

 

The states mean nothing. Drill down on the cities and what do you find. Democrats and Democrat Party cities lead gun violence, no matter what state you're in. Just another silly and misguided liberal play on statistics.

 

Read the actual study particularly how they graded the states.

The grades are NOT based on gun crime alone. States are graded based on their laws. States were penalized for having any "pro-gun" law such as stand your ground laws, concealed carry, state pre-emption laws. States were given points for having "gun control" laws such as high capacity magazine bans, universal background checks, registries.

It does not matter if the laws are effective or not, doing what the gun control lobby (and Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a gun banner mouthpiece) wants gets a good grade.

In other words, its all rigged so that the more gun control a state has, the higher the grade.

That's why California gets an A-, Illinois get a B+, and are 2 of the worst states for crime.

 

"A new study finds that states with stricter regulations on firearms see a lower rate of shooting deaths....

"The 2015 Gun Law State Scorecard, which the nonprofit Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence published Wednesday, finds that states with stricter regulations on guns see lower rates of gun deaths, while states with weaker gun laws see higher rates of this sort of violence....

"Further research has shown that while the U.S. has a disproportionately high murder rate in the developed world, other nations see rates of non-lethal violence that are somewhat close, suggesting that our problem is in part due to the pervasiveness of guns. This flies in the face of the pro-gun argument that people who want to kill will simply find another way to do so, even if they can't get a firearm."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/state-gun-law-grades_5673118ae4b0648fe302a1a2

Guns increase the fatality rate of violent crime. You are more likely to survive an assault if your attacker is not armed with a gun. You are more likely to die from a gunshot wound than a wound inflicted by a knife according to research published in medical journals. Thus the US has a higher homicide rate than other developed nations but not necessarily a higher violent crime rate in general. Thomas Jefferson identified the right to life as a fundamental right in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)- a right that I think is more important than gun ownership. If removing one million guns from circulation would save only one life it would be worth it. One life is certainly of more worth than one million guns. Supreme Court Justice Breyer explains:

"Chicago says that their gun law has saved hundreds, including -- and they have statistics -- lots of women in domestic cases. When you have the First Amendment, or some of the other amendments, there is always a big area where it's free speech versus a whole lot of things, but not often free speech versus life. When it's free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life."

 

actually its getting harder to deny that the purpose of Democrat politicians who push gun control is to harass lawful gun ownership.

those outcome based studies have been debunked time and time again and Chicago and DC permanently destroy any claim that gun control in the USA saves lives

plus most of the nonsense the Democrat party leaders push don't even apply to criminals

such as banning some types of firearms
magazine limits
waiting periods
how many guns you can buy at a time
how many guns you can own

NONE of that applies to criminals

Like it or not-all of the schemes the Democrat party leadership pushes are unconstitutional on the federal level

BTW you are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you are armed with a firearm than if you are not

that's why just about every professional (i was for 30 years) who deals with criminals carries a firearm

 

This thread is a duplicate of this thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/437223-states-stricter-regulations-firearms-see-lower-rate-shooting-deaths.html
Same junk journalism quoted in the OP. One of these threads has to go.

 

This is not how you show cause and effect in policy. The best way to show cause and effect in policy would be to look at a jurisdiction and similar jurisdictions before a gun control measure is passed in some but not all of them, and then see how the the violence rates diverge in the years after the policy is put into place, attempting to control for any other confounding factors.

There's no legit reason to restrict it to only incidents involving guns, since we care about whether people are murdered not how. There's also no legit reason to lump suicide and homicide together, because they're not similar phenomenon at all. You will likely find that gun control laws affect suicide success rates but not real crimes like murder. The reason is that the effect of gun control on murder is a total wash. Gun control limits impulsive murders/suicides, but it also disproportionately disarms law-abiding citizens making it easier for violent criminals to operate.

 

The U.S. murder rate is at historic lows. It's the lowest it's been since we started recording it in 1960. This is despite the loosening of many gun laws and easier concealed carry laws. It doesn't seem that more guns = more crime.

 

This is true. More guns = LESS violent crime. Demonstrably.

 

Simply put you can make statistics say whatever you want depending on how you manipulate the numbers ! Check with the Clinton's they are masters at it .

 

I think the real issue is that its getting harder to deny that gun banners are getting more and more desperate as the public realizes the anti gun agenda is not ANTI CRIME But anti NRA and anti lawful gun owner.

 

Yes. Which makes this all rather worthless.

"The gun control debate often plays out in monolithic fashion in this country," WaPo writes, adding that "the traditional understanding is that there's one overarching problem — gun violence — that can be addressed by a more or less uniform set of solutions: better background checks, improved technology, etc."

~ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-how-blacks-and-whites-get-killed-by-guns/

"one shortcoming of this approach is that it elides over the sometimes drastic differences in how different populations experience gun violence and gun ownership in their lives."

There's a marked difference between how African Americans and whites are killed by firearms. More specifically, "among whites, 77 percent of gun deaths are suicides. But among black Americans, 82 percent of gun deaths are homicides."



And



We have very problems is different areas and situations like that do not lend themselves to broad national action, they need tailored local action. Further, all the "solutions" being offered nationally, are failing miserably in the violent cities where they have been in place for many years.

This is why the nation, alarmed at domestic terrorism, is rejecting the "solutions" that only work to make sure the victims are more thoroughly disarmed.

"Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?"

Oppose - 54%

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

 

Please compare CA with VT and get back with us.

 

The state of California has experienced twenty five mass shootings over the course of this year alone.

 

The reason suicude are a (*)(*)(*)(*) statistic for pushing gun control is our national suicide average is far below gun control countries like Japan, France, Belgium, etc. in fact our suicide rate is about on par with England and Australia.