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

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 ...:dunno:

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.

.

I'm just looking at the numbers...making some hypotheses...asking for opinions.

I'm not trying to solve any problems.
 
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?

The rifles were purchased in Belgium.
 
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.

As I have mentioned ... There are all kinds of factors that come into play.
While not at the bottom of the list ... Texas has less restrictions on firearms than several states listed above it.

How could that be ...
It could be that a lot of Texans own firearms and it is easier to assume anyone is carrying.
It could also be the fact Texas is very aggressive in pursuing the death penalty in capital murder cases ... :thup:

.
 
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.

In the "Wild West" almost everyone carried a gun and the murder rate was very low, despite what we have seen from Hollywood. A well-armed society is a polite society.
 
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......
Idiot...

it ended here at 59 (so far) because the shooter killed himself. Not because civilians were armed.
 
Last edited:
Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.


Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.


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.
Think again. We have a real problem with minority gang violence in Alaska.
 
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.

One thing to note...

While the absolute number of gun deaths in Chicago is high,
the per capita rate is less than New Orleans, St. Louis, Detroit, and Baltimore.


And Oakland, Kansas City, Cincinnati, and Cleveland.


And Atlanta, Philadelphia, Memphis, and Buffalo


And Washington, Stockton, Miami, and Milwaukee.


And Pittsburgh.
 
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.

You do not have a basic understanding of statistics. People in wide open spaces don't shoot each other.

I'll bet you will find those statistics are driven by the metropolitan areas in those states.

In my state, one third of the states population lives in ONE city. That city and the next two largest probably account for 90% or more of the murders by firearms or any other method for that matter.
 
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?

But prior to the gun restriction, I would have just walked up and shot you and took your bling.

Why don't I do that now?
 
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.

You do not have a basic understanding of statistics. People in wide open spaces don't shoot each other.

I'll bet you will find those statistics are driven by the metropolitan areas in those states.

In my state, one third of the states population lives in ONE city. That city and the next two largest probably account for 90% or more of the murders by firearms or any other method for that matter.


Louisville, Lexington, and... ? I'm trying to figure out what the third city would be. Covington? Bowling Green with all the terrorist attacks? Owensboro?
 
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.

In the "Wild West" almost everyone carried a gun and the murder rate was very low, despite what we have seen from Hollywood. A well-armed society is a polite society.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
icon_rolleyes.gif
Nobody really knows just how wild it was. Records were not well kept. Some have tried to estimate but estimates from different sources contradict each other because records are sparse.
 
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.

You do not have a basic understanding of statistics. People in wide open spaces don't shoot each other.

I'll bet you will find those statistics are driven by the metropolitan areas in those states.

In my state, one third of the states population lives in ONE city. That city and the next two largest probably account for 90% or more of the murders by firearms or any other method for that matter.
Same here. Almost two thirds of the state's population lives in one city. The remaining population that would amount to two thirds live in two other cities. One third of the population lives in outlying villages. In our largest city, most firearm attacks are perpetrated by minority gangs against each other or occur in major population areas (Anchorage, Fairbanks, or Juneau). Unfortunately, way too many firearms related injuries do occur in villages, where safety education is lax or non-existent and accidental firearm deaths occur too frequently.
 
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.

You do not have a basic understanding of statistics. People in wide open spaces don't shoot each other.

I'll bet you will find those statistics are driven by the metropolitan areas in those states.

In my state, one third of the states population lives in ONE city. That city and the next two largest probably account for 90% or more of the murders by firearms or any other method for that matter.

You may be right. I don't have the city by city stat breakdown.

And you may be right about your other hypotheses to explain why some states have lower firearm death rates than others.

But, one of the first things that jumps out at me when I look at the list, from highest death rate to lowest death rate, it seem to correlate with the gun ownership rate (not sure how accurate this is since there is no database of gun ownership, but the numbers don't seem so far off).

gun-ownership.jpg


With this data, one might jump to the conclusion that if there are more guns available, the rate of firearm related deaths increases.
 
And they can be made into machine guns off the internet by any idiot... Great job GOP!

The difference between a machine gun and an assault rifle isn't something you can buy off the internet ... :thup:

.

I've seen parts for both on the black market. What does the GOP have to do with this? I'm confused. You think the black market doesn't exist in any country where the GOP isn't a political party? Are people this bonkers?
 
No one ever says we should ban cars or trucks after all the car and truck attacks.
Probably because no one designed cars as weapons.
Irrelevant. They are used as weapons and are the instruments of many, many thousands of deaths. They should be banned. we need to protect the people!!
I think its really relevant. Besides killing something what else can you use a gun for? Now apply that same question to a car.
 
And they can be made into machine guns off the internet by any idiot... Great job GOP!

The difference between a machine gun and an assault rifle isn't something you can buy off the internet ... :thup:

.

I've seen parts for both on the black market. What does the GOP have to do with this? I'm confused. You think the black market doesn't exist in any country where the GOP isn't a political party? Are people this bonkers?
The GOP is bought and paid for by the NRA big oil big health big Pharma you name it
 
No one ever says we should ban cars or trucks after all the car and truck attacks.
Probably because no one designed cars as weapons.
Irrelevant. They are used as weapons and are the instruments of many, many thousands of deaths. They should be banned. we need to protect the people!!
I think its really relevant. Besides killing something what else can you use a gun for? Now apply that same question to a car.
For recreational fun!

Heres a "bump stock" in action. It looks fun as hell and its totally legal because, you are technically pulling the trigger one time per shot.



Unfortunately thats what this shooter used, so i think he might have ruined it for everyone. These will probably be banned soon.
 

Forum List

Back
Top