France banned all rifles...130 dead in attack on Rock Concert, here...58 killed

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

France was worse and demonstrated that gun bans do not work....

But the fact that the US has 10.5 deaths per 100,000 people compared to France's 2.83 per 100,000 means absolutely nothing.

As was posted earlier in another thread, take out the minority gang violence and where do we rank? Right about with France and their laws are more strict.

Show me the stats.

Looking at the breakdown of the firearm deaths per state, some of the states with the highest death rates (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana) don't have much minority gang violence.

The data you cited was from 2015. In 2015, the major city in my state had homicides due to gun deaths triple over the previous year. Now what could possibly lead to that much of an increase? Gang violence?

We have a winner!

How do you explain the higher death rate in all of the states that have less gun restriction (like Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and a lower death rate in states that have more gun restriction (like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)?

Larger populations in a more confined area in MA, RI and HI. Also, higher incomes in that there are not too many poor people in those states either due to the high cost of living.

 

[ChrisL]

There are always going to be lunatics. Banning guns won't stop them.

 

[Old Rocks]

To compare two approaches to gun control.....

France banned all rifles....military rifles are banned, as are self defense rifles with magazines, the semi auto rifles we have here....

At their concert attack...130 were killed...

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

Here....58......

You are such a lying asshole. The semi-auto we have here is what Paddock used. Of course, he made the easy modifications so that they would fire full auto.

 

[ChrisL]

Allowing the government to restrict us, assuming we are all prone to be criminals, and punish us when we have committed NO crimes because of the actions of some lunatics is just WRONG.

 

[BlackSand]

How do you explain the higher death rate in all of the states that have less gun restriction (like Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and a lower death rate in states that have more gun restriction (like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)?

Let me try this again ... "Duh, New Orleans" .

.

 

[xotoxi]

But the fact that the US has 10.5 deaths per 100,000 people compared to France's 2.83 per 100,000 means absolutely nothing.

As was posted earlier in another thread, take out the minority gang violence and where do we rank? Right about with France and their laws are more strict.

Show me the stats.

Looking at the breakdown of the firearm deaths per state, some of the states with the highest death rates (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana) don't have much minority gang violence.

The data you cited was from 2015. In 2015, the major city in my state had homicides due to gun deaths triple over the previous year. Now what could possibly lead to that much of an increase? Gang violence?

We have a winner!

How do you explain the higher death rate in all of the states that have less gun restriction (like Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and a lower death rate in states that have more gun restriction (like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)?

Larger populations in a more confined area in MA, RI and HI. Also, higher incomes in that there are not too many poor people in those states either due to the high cost of living.

Why would larger populations in more confined areas lead to LESS gun violence?

Why are New York and California in the bottom 10? They must not have much gang violence.

 

[xotoxi]

How do you explain the higher death rate in all of the states that have less gun restriction (like Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and a lower death rate in states that have more gun restriction (like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)?

Let me try this again ... "Duh, New Orleans" .

.

Okay. But that doesn't explain Alaska and Mississippi.

What about Los Angeles and New York City? Their states are low rate of firearm death.

 

[xotoxi]

Allowing the government to restrict us, assuming we are all prone to be criminals, and punish us when we have committed NO crimes because of the actions of some lunatics is just WRONG.

I'm not personally advocating for that.

I'm just trying to understand how some people think that there is less gun violence in places where there are more guns.

 

[ChrisL]

As was posted earlier in another thread, take out the minority gang violence and where do we rank? Right about with France and their laws are more strict.

Show me the stats.

Looking at the breakdown of the firearm deaths per state, some of the states with the highest death rates (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana) don't have much minority gang violence.

The data you cited was from 2015. In 2015, the major city in my state had homicides due to gun deaths triple over the previous year. Now what could possibly lead to that much of an increase? Gang violence?

We have a winner!

How do you explain the higher death rate in all of the states that have less gun restriction (like Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and a lower death rate in states that have more gun restriction (like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)?

Larger populations in a more confined area in MA, RI and HI. Also, higher incomes in that there are not too many poor people in those states either due to the high cost of living.

Why would larger populations in more confined areas lead to LESS gun violence?

Why are New York and California in the bottom 10? They must not have much gang violence.

That all depends on which cities you are looking at. Gun violence in Los Angeles has been steadily climbing for years, as has gang membership. Criminals are still going to get their guns. The only people your gun control laws affect are law abiding people.

 

[Lewdog]

"The gunman who unleashed hundreds of rounds of gunfire on a crowd of concertgoers in Las Vegas had two "bump-stocks" that could have converted semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic ones, officials said."

Gunman had 'bump-stock' device that could speed fire

 

[ChrisL]

Allowing the government to restrict us, assuming we are all prone to be criminals, and punish us when we have committed NO crimes because of the actions of some lunatics is just WRONG.

I'm not personally advocating for that.

I'm just trying to understand how some people think that there is less gun violence in places where there are more guns.

Violent crime decreased in Chicago after the hand gun ban was lifted.

 

[xotoxi]

Show me the stats.

Looking at the breakdown of the firearm deaths per state, some of the states with the highest death rates (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana) don't have much minority gang violence.

The data you cited was from 2015. In 2015, the major city in my state had homicides due to gun deaths triple over the previous year. Now what could possibly lead to that much of an increase? Gang violence?

We have a winner!

How do you explain the higher death rate in all of the states that have less gun restriction (like Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and a lower death rate in states that have more gun restriction (like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)?

Larger populations in a more confined area in MA, RI and HI. Also, higher incomes in that there are not too many poor people in those states either due to the high cost of living.

Why would larger populations in more confined areas lead to LESS gun violence?

Why are New York and California in the bottom 10? They must not have much gang violence.

That all depends on which cities you are looking at. Gun violence in Los Angeles has been steadily climbing for years, as has gang membership. Criminals are still going to get their guns. The only people your gun control laws affect are law abiding people.

I don't have the data for individual cities. I'm looking at the states.

 

[xotoxi]

Allowing the government to restrict us, assuming we are all prone to be criminals, and punish us when we have committed NO crimes because of the actions of some lunatics is just WRONG.

I'm not personally advocating for that.

I'm just trying to understand how some people think that there is less gun violence in places where there are more guns.

Violent crime decreased in Chicago after the hand gun ban was lifted.

Why?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

As was posted earlier in another thread, take out the minority gang violence and where do we rank? Right about with France and their laws are more strict.

Show me the stats.

Looking at the breakdown of the firearm deaths per state, some of the states with the highest death rates (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana) don't have much minority gang violence.

The data you cited was from 2015. In 2015, the major city in my state had homicides due to gun deaths triple over the previous year. Now what could possibly lead to that much of an increase? Gang violence?

We have a winner!

How do you explain the higher death rate in all of the states that have less gun restriction (like Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and a lower death rate in states that have more gun restriction (like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)?

Larger populations in a more confined area in MA, RI and HI. Also, higher incomes in that there are not too many poor people in those states either due to the high cost of living.

Why would larger populations in more confined areas lead to LESS gun violence?

Why are New York and California in the bottom 10? They must not have much gang violence.

They also have extensive rural areas with large populations that are not prone to murder sprees, which offsets the inner city gang numbers. In upstate NY it is too damn cold in the winter to even bother going out to kill someone.

 

[ChrisL]

Allowing the government to restrict us, assuming we are all prone to be criminals, and punish us when we have committed NO crimes because of the actions of some lunatics is just WRONG.

I'm not personally advocating for that.

I'm just trying to understand how some people think that there is less gun violence in places where there are more guns.

Violent crime decreased in Chicago after the hand gun ban was lifted.

Why?

Occupational hazards.

 

[BlackSand]

Okay. But that doesn't explain Alaska and Mississippi.

What about Los Angeles and New York City? Their states are low rate of firearm death.

Might want to ask someone from Mississippi or Alaska ... I am sure they would know more than I do ...

Guessing you know something without considering all the contributing factors you may or may not be aware of ... Is never a good plan of action.
It also sometimes leads to poorly designed legislation that results in making problems worse instead of better.
I just happened to know about the disparity in Louisiana and the fact it was centered on activity in New Orleans because I had questions similar to yours.
You ask the right people the right questions and you come up with better answers.

You want to see something interesting ... Go to the United Nation's site and view countries in regards to gun restrictions and murder rates.
When you identify which countries are the worst and why ... It may be enlightening.

.

 

[xotoxi]

Show me the stats.

Looking at the breakdown of the firearm deaths per state, some of the states with the highest death rates (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana) don't have much minority gang violence.

The data you cited was from 2015. In 2015, the major city in my state had homicides due to gun deaths triple over the previous year. Now what could possibly lead to that much of an increase? Gang violence?

We have a winner!

How do you explain the higher death rate in all of the states that have less gun restriction (like Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and a lower death rate in states that have more gun restriction (like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)?

Larger populations in a more confined area in MA, RI and HI. Also, higher incomes in that there are not too many poor people in those states either due to the high cost of living.

Why would larger populations in more confined areas lead to LESS gun violence?

Why are New York and California in the bottom 10? They must not have much gang violence.

They also have extensive rural areas with large populations that are not prone to murder sprees, which offsets the inner city gang numbers. In upstate NY it is too damn cold in the winter to even bother going out to kill someone.

Wait a minute.

Before you said that larger population in more confined areas lead to less violence in MA, RI, and HI.

And now extensive rural areas with large populations decrease the rate or firearm death in NY and CA.

So, increased firearm death occurs in states with very small populations of people living in extensive rural area, such as Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Alabama, Mississippi.

What is with those people? They have so much space to themselves, yet they have to shoot others.

 

[ChrisL]

Chicago's pointless handgun ban


In the years following its ban, Washington did not generate a decline in gun murders. In fact, the number of killings rose by 156 percent — at a time when murders nationally increased by just 32 percent. For a while, the city vied regularly for the title of murder capital of America.

Chicago followed a similar course. In the decade after it outlawed handguns, murders jumped by 41 percent, compared with an 18 percent rise in the entire United States.

One problem is that the bans didn't actually have any discernible effect on the availability of guns to people with felonious intent. As with drugs and hookers, when there is a demand for guns, there will always be a supply.

Who places the highest value on owning a firearm? Criminals. Who is least likely to fear being prosecuted for violating the law? Criminals. Who is most likely to have access to illicit dealers? You guessed it.

If we were starting out in a country with zero guns, it might be possible to keep such weapons away from bad guys. But that's not this country, which has more than 200 million firearms in private hands and a large, perpetual supply of legal handguns.

Only a tiny percentage of those weapons has to be diverted to the underground trade for crooks to acquire all the firepower they need. While gun bans greatly impede the law-abiding, they pose only a trivial inconvenience to the lawless.

 

[MikeK]

To compare two approaches to gun control.....

France banned all rifles....military rifles are banned, as are self defense rifles with magazines, the semi auto rifles we have here....

At their concert attack...130 were killed...

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

Here....58......

I know this doesn't fit your argument, but it wasn't a lone attacker in France.

But the number of shooters doesn't soften his argument, which is the ineffectiveness of repressive gun laws. Even if there were 130 shooters using single-shot rifles, the point is that all rifles are banned in France -- and what good did it do?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Allowing the government to restrict us, assuming we are all prone to be criminals, and punish us when we have committed NO crimes because of the actions of some lunatics is just WRONG.

I'm not personally advocating for that.

I'm just trying to understand how some people think that there is less gun violence in places where there are more guns.

Violent crime decreased in Chicago after the hand gun ban was lifted.

Why?

Let's say you are going to mug someone. You have two choices: a woman or a man walking alone.

Which one will you rob? Easy! The woman, right? She's scared, and easy to overpower instead of shooting her if she won't give up her purse.

Now, decide which of them is carrying a gun for self-protection.

Which one are you going to target now?

If you choose the housewife, you just attempted to rob my wife who proceeds to ventilate you numerous times while you stand there with an incredulous look on your face because she carries a gun and knows how to use it.

If you choose the man, you just attempted to rob me, and as a reward you will receive expertly aimed 40 caliber rounds to your center mass and cranium. The last thing that goes through your mind before you die is a bullet.

That just made your choices a little harder now didn't it?

Kind of makes you want to go and get a job, huh?