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

[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)?

How do you explain the fact that sine the 1990s we went from 200 million guns to 600 million guns in 2017 and 4.7 million people carrying guns to over 16.3 million people carrying guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%.....our violent crime rate went down 72%....so no matter how you slice it, normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate......

The main driver........criminal control policies in the various cities. That is the difference, not normal people carrying guns.

Do you have a link for those stats?

 

[2aguy]

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

The guns the Las Vegas shooter used were illegal. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Was the Las Vegas shooter stopped by an armed citizen?

The guns the Las Vegas shooter used were illegal.

that yet remains to be seen

Yeap and they are a Social Democracy, drink more wine than we do per capita and have a 35 hour work week. Your point? If you want to be like France be like the rest of the Middle East and move there.

Hilarious .gif BTW...that shit makes me laugh every time I see it.

My point is that I'm comparing France to the US just like the OP is comparing France to the US.

Your point?

I am comparing the ease of gaining weaponry in a banned state versus the ease of gaining weaponry in an open state. We can easily by example provided at the Bataclan that when people WANT weapons they are certainly readily available. If you would like a little more education on radical Islam and their immense gun caches in Europe the information is readily available.
Post Bataclan they seized thousands of firearms...some in Mosques. Banning guns really bans nothing.

But it does cut down on the murder rate.

You can also see it in the states.

Firearm death rate per 100,000:
Alaska 19.59
Louisiana 19.15
Alabama 17.79
Mississippi 17.55
Wyoming 17.51
Montana 16.94
Arkansas 16.93
Oklahoma 16.41
Tennessee 15.86
New Mexico 15.63
South Carolina 15.60
West Virginia 15.10
Missouri 14.56
Arizona 14.20
Nevada 14.16
Kentucky 14.15
Idaho 14.08
Indiana 13.04
Georgia 12.63
Florida 12.49
North Carolina 12.42
Michigan 12.03
Maine 11.89
North Dakota 11.89
Oregon 11.76
Colorado 11.75
Utah 11.69
Kansas 11.44
Pennsylvania 11.36
Ohio 11.14
Delaware 10.80
Texas 10.50
Virginia 10.46
Vermont 10.37
Wisconsin 9.93
Maryland 9.75
South Dakota 9.47
Washington 9.07
Nebraska 8.99
Illinois 8.67
Iowa 8.19
California 7.89
Minnesota 7.88
New Hampshire 7.03
New Jersey 5.69
Rhode Island 5.33
Connecticut 4.48
New York 4.39
Massachusetts 3.18
Hawaii 2.71

Wrong....nice try.......many of those stats are not murder, they include suicide.....since Alaska has a high suicide rate, and Wyoming has a high gun ownership rate but low gun crime rate.....nice try though.

I labeled my list "firearm deaths".

But there are fewer firearm deaths in states with fewer firearms and more firearm deaths in states with more firearms.

Why is that?

There are more drownings in states with more pools and lakes...why is that?

 

[Lewdog]

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

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

So more 'people' managed to go on the rampage with weapons even though they were banned.
How does this help your 'case'?

First off, the weapons in the France incident were purchased in Belgium. They were able to cross country borders without a visa per the Schengen Agreement.

The OP tried to make the assertion that less people died in the U.S. because we can in fact buy rifles legally here. That's not true because the attacker wasn't stopped by a citizen who had legally purchased a rifle.

Yeah...thanks for making my point...France banned guns and the terrorists still got them...and murdered more people at their concert than this guy did.......

No dip shit. That isn't my point...my point is that banning guns doesn't stop criminals from getting them......they ban all those rifles....a complete ban....and they got actual, fully automatic rifles, many of them...over and over again, attack after attack........

Hey dumbass, a ban in France and the U.S. aren't the same. Because of the Schengen agreement (Feel free to look it up) the European Union pretty much have open borders. So that is part of the reason the gun ban doesn't work in France, because people can simply travel to another country that doesn't have a gun ban and bring them back to France. Why doesn't that correlate to the U.S.? Because the U.S. has border check points that are stricter. The shooters in France got their guns from BELGIUM. It's no different than why the ban on guns fails in Chicago. People in Chicago can just drive to Indiana and buy guns... and bring them back to Chicago if they want to commit a crime.

 

[2aguy]

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)?

How do you explain the fact that sine the 1990s we went from 200 million guns to 600 million guns in 2017 and 4.7 million people carrying guns to over 16.3 million people carrying guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%.....our violent crime rate went down 72%....so no matter how you slice it, normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate......

The main driver........criminal control policies in the various cities. That is the difference, not normal people carrying guns.

Do you have a link for those stats?

I will post them when I have easier access to my data...

 

[boedicca]

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)?

How do you explain the fact that sine the 1990s we went from 200 million guns to 600 million guns in 2017 and 4.7 million people carrying guns to over 16.3 million people carrying guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%.....our violent crime rate went down 72%....so no matter how you slice it, normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate......

The main driver........criminal control policies in the various cities. That is the difference, not normal people carrying guns.

That's really unfair of you, using Math and Logic to respond to the poor widdle dweeb.

 

[xotoxi]

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.

And those stats in those states are for suicide...not murder....

Those stats are "firearm deaths", which includes suicide, murder, manslaughter, hunting accidents, and toddlers blowing their friend's face off at a playdate.

 

[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)?

How do you explain the fact that sine the 1990s we went from 200 million guns to 600 million guns in 2017 and 4.7 million people carrying guns to over 16.3 million people carrying guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%.....our violent crime rate went down 72%....so no matter how you slice it, normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate......

The main driver........criminal control policies in the various cities. That is the difference, not normal people carrying guns.

Do you have a link for those stats?

I will post them when I have easier access to my data...

Thank you.

 

[xotoxi]

That's really unfair of you, using Math and Logic to respond to the poor widdle dweeb.

Why are you being a fuckbucket?

 

[2aguy]

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)?

How do you explain the fact that sine the 1990s we went from 200 million guns to 600 million guns in 2017 and 4.7 million people carrying guns to over 16.3 million people carrying guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%.....our violent crime rate went down 72%....so no matter how you slice it, normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate......

The main driver........criminal control policies in the various cities. That is the difference, not normal people carrying guns.

Do you have a link for those stats?

I will post them when I have easier access to my data...

Thank you.

Here you go......

Analysis | Obama’s claim that ‘states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths’

In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference.

Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.

Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.


******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?

Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down. New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.

According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis. Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.





****************



The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review


Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.

But that is of course not at all what it means
.
In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing.


This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.

And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.

Read more at: The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate

 

[boedicca]

That's really unfair of you, using Math and Logic to respond to the poor widdle dweeb.

Why are you being a fuckbucket?

Why are you being obtuse? It's not your normal mode.

And by way of disclaimer, I feel horrible today: LV, Tom Petty and stomach flu, so apologies if I was a tad harsh.

 

[2aguy]

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.

And those stats in those states are for suicide...not murder....

Those stats are "firearm deaths", which includes suicide, murder, manslaughter, hunting accidents, and toddlers blowing their friend's face off at a playdate.

Yep....but that is how they lie with the stats. Most of the anti gunners who use those stats will talk about "gun murder" and then list those stats, failing to mention that they are no longer just talking about gun murder, but are now including suicide.....because without suicide, Wyoming, and other rural states with high gun ownership, don't have high gun crime rates...they do have high gun suicide rates....

And suicide doesn't count, since for the last two years, the non gun suicide rate was higher than the gun suicide rate...and we don't even rank in the top 10 for suicide rates compared to Europe...

and then you have this....

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide



There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.

Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.

 

[2aguy]

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)?

How do you explain the fact that sine the 1990s we went from 200 million guns to 600 million guns in 2017 and 4.7 million people carrying guns to over 16.3 million people carrying guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%.....our violent crime rate went down 72%....so no matter how you slice it, normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate......

The main driver........criminal control policies in the various cities. That is the difference, not normal people carrying guns.

Do you have a link for those stats?

This is a telling point from the link I posted for you...

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicidesin 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added).

These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides.

Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

 

[xotoxi]

That's really unfair of you, using Math and Logic to respond to the poor widdle dweeb.

Why are you being a fuckbucket?

Why are you being obtuse? It's not your normal mode.

And by way of disclaimer, I feel horrible today: LV, Tom Petty and stomach flu, so apologies if I was a tad harsh.

I forgive. But I would say that I'm not being obtuse. I'm just proposing some stats for discussion.

 

[boedicca]

That's really unfair of you, using Math and Logic to respond to the poor widdle dweeb.

Why are you being a fuckbucket?

Why are you being obtuse? It's not your normal mode.

And by way of disclaimer, I feel horrible today: LV, Tom Petty and stomach flu, so apologies if I was a tad harsh.

I forgive. But I would say that I'm not being obtuse. I'm just proposing some stats for discussion.

Lies, damned lies, and....

 

[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)?

How do you explain the fact that sine the 1990s we went from 200 million guns to 600 million guns in 2017 and 4.7 million people carrying guns to over 16.3 million people carrying guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%.....our violent crime rate went down 72%....so no matter how you slice it, normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate......

The main driver........criminal control policies in the various cities. That is the difference, not normal people carrying guns.

Do you have a link for those stats?

I will post them when I have easier access to my data...

Thank you.

Here you go......

Analysis | Obama’s claim that ‘states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths’

In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference.

Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.

Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.


******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?

Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down. New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.

According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis. Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.





****************



The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review


Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.

But that is of course not at all what it means
.
In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing.


This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.

And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.

Read more at: The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate

Interesting. Thank you for the information.

I guess the debate should not be about guns, but should be about access to mental health resources.

 

[2aguy]

How do you explain the fact that sine the 1990s we went from 200 million guns to 600 million guns in 2017 and 4.7 million people carrying guns to over 16.3 million people carrying guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%.....our violent crime rate went down 72%....so no matter how you slice it, normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate......

The main driver........criminal control policies in the various cities. That is the difference, not normal people carrying guns.

Do you have a link for those stats?

I will post them when I have easier access to my data...

Thank you.

Here you go......

Analysis | Obama’s claim that ‘states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths’

In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference.

Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.

Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.


******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?

Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down. New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.

According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis. Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.





****************



The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review


Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.

But that is of course not at all what it means
.
In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing.


This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.

And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.

Read more at: The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate

Interesting. Thank you for the information.

I guess the debate should not be about guns, but should be about access to mental health resources.

The real issue, at the heart....single teenage mothers. Most of the gun crime in the country is concentrated in our inner cities, mainly gang violence and other criminals shooting other criminals.....of the 9,616 gun murders in 2015, from the FBI homicide table 8, 70-80% of those are criminals shooting other criminals.......and single teenage mothers trying to raise young males has created violent criminals who are willing to kill for little to no reason.

For mass public shooters, the mental health issue is a big one...and solving that won't be easy, but focusing on gun contro, or more accurately, taking guns from normal, law abiding people, isn't going to get that done.

 

[Faun]

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)?

How do you explain the fact that sine the 1990s we went from 200 million guns to 600 million guns in 2017 and 4.7 million people carrying guns to over 16.3 million people carrying guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%.....our violent crime rate went down 72%....so no matter how you slice it, normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate......

The main driver........criminal control policies in the various cities. That is the difference, not normal people carrying guns.

Talk about a disconnect between cause and causation.

Why would anyone expect gun crimes to increase because gun sales increase? Crime rates are in relation to the number of criminals, not the number of guns they own. If a person has no gun and commits a crime, that’s zero gun crimes by them. If that same criminal has a gun and uses it to commit a crime with it, that’s 1 gun crime. If that same criminal has 25 guns and commits a crime with them — it’s still counts as 1 gun crime. Gun crimes don’t increase just because criminals get more guns.

 

[Faun]

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....

The guns the Las Vegas shooter used were illegal. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Was the Las Vegas shooter stopped by an armed citizen?

No....but other mass shooters have been stopped...so you have no argument.

OTHER MASS shooters aren't what you put in the OP.

Wow...you are slow........the point is that in France...these rifles are completely banned....and they still got them...lots of them and used them to murder even more people ......when they are completely banned....

Your attempt to side track that truth is stupid..........

And by the way...the Texas Tower shooter in the 1960s...was pinned down by civilian students with their rifles before the police arrived...moron.

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000:

France ... 0.2
U.S. ........ 3.6

How U.S. gun deaths compare to other countries

 

[Moonglow]

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 guess their killing skills are not a exceptional as the people in the US...

 

[2aguy]

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

The guns the Las Vegas shooter used were illegal. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Was the Las Vegas shooter stopped by an armed citizen?

No....but other mass shooters have been stopped...so you have no argument.

OTHER MASS shooters aren't what you put in the OP.

Wow...you are slow........the point is that in France...these rifles are completely banned....and they still got them...lots of them and used them to murder even more people ......when they are completely banned....

Your attempt to side track that truth is stupid..........

And by the way...the Texas Tower shooter in the 1960s...was pinned down by civilian students with their rifles before the police arrived...moron.

Firearm homicide rate:

France ... 0.2
U.S. ........ 3.6

How U.S. gun deaths compare to other countries

They have all the guns they want...their criminals don't use them to commit murder. If you would like to trade our gangs for theirs...go ahead. That way we get a lower crime rate and keep our guns....

French gunman's arsenal spotlights illegal arms trade


As France asks itself whether it could have done more to prevent Islamist gunman Mohamed Merah shooting dead seven people in a killing spree that shook the nation, there is one question that refuses to go away: how did he obtain so many guns.

The size and nature of the arsenal amassed by Merah - who stockpiled at least eight guns including a Kalashnikov assault rifle and an Uzi machine pistol - has focused attention on the easy availability of illegal weapons in France and their growing use in ultra-violent crimes.

As an angry online reader of the daily Le Figaro newspaper put it: "How was he able to buy all these guns, like one buys yoghurts, when he was under the surveillance of the DCRI (the French intelligence agency)?"


====================
Paris attacks highlight France's gun control problems

But in recent years a black market has proliferated. The number of illegal weapons has risen at a rapid rate – double-digit percentages – for several years, according to the National Observatory for Delinquency, a body created in 2003.

“In Marseille and the surrounding area almost all the score settling is carried out using weapons used in wars,” a police spokesman told Reuters after the Toulouse attacks, adding that Kalashnikovs were the weapon of choice: “If you don’t have a ‘Kalash’ you’re a bit of a loser.”

============================
Paris attacks highlight France's gun control problems

The arsenal of weapons deployed by the eight attackers who terrorised Paris on Friday night underlined France’s gun control problems and raised the spectre of further attacks.

The country has extremely strict weapons laws, but Europe’s open borders and growing trade in illegal weapons means assault rifles are relatively easy to come by on the black market.



-------------=================
France’s real gun problem

Despite these strict laws, France seems to be awash with guns. The guns used in high-profile terror attacks are really just the tip of the iceberg. In 2012, French authorities estimated that there were around 30,000 guns illegally in the country, many likely used by gangs for criminal activities. Of those guns, around 4,000 were likely to be "war weapons," Le Figaro reported, referring to items such as the Kalashnikov AK-variant rifles and Uzis. Statistics from the National Observatory for Delinquency, a government body created in 2003, suggest that the number of guns in France has grown by double digits every year.
----------------------
How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Guns

France became particularly worried about the trafficking of illegal guns in 2012, increasing fines and jail terms for those involved in the trafficking and possession of them. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said in Septemberthat police have seized nearly 6,000 weapons from criminal groups each year since 2013, 1,200 of which were military assault weapons. And in the three weeks following the Nov. 13 attacks, Cazeneuve said French police seized 334 weapons, 34 of them military-grade.

Several officials and experts tell TIME they’ve seen a noticeable climb in both the numbers and the types of illicit weapons crossing borders over the past few years. Rather than pistols and small guns, there has been a spike in demand for military-grade assault weapons. This reflects a very different kind of criminality: petty criminals and drug dealers tend to want small pistols that they can conceal; terrorists want AK-47s that can do maximum damage.

“For something like the Paris attacks, you don’t need hundreds of thousands of weapons. You just need enough to create havoc,” says Zverzhanovski. “The gun market operates on a very basic supply and demand system. Since about 2011, there has definitely been a significant increase of illicit weapons going from southeast Europe towards different parts of the E.U.” Crucially, it’s not truckloads or planeloads of weapons coming in. It’s much more a case of “micro-trafficking”—a few pieces being brought in by individuals—making it much more difficult to track.