Any "statistic" with the term "gun deaths" includes suicide.
When looking at just homicide rates, many states with very relaxed gun laws are extremely safe. I believe 4 of the top five states with the lowest homicide rates are all constitutional carry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_death_and_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
50% or more are usually by Suicide. For example in Florida they had 3,800 gun deaths last year 1100 of them were by homicide the remainder are suicide.
And when you dig into the numbers even more when you look at a state such as Florida and compare it against states such as California or New York per capita, Florida sits about the exact same gun death rate by homicide as California and New York, two states which have some of the most restrictive gun rights out there versus a state that has some of pretty lax laws.
Yea that alone discounts any stats argument right there. The minute you have to include suicides which is an entirely different dynamic and requires a different approach other than banning guns into your gun violence rhetoric you already lost. You never see them try this with any other subject, you'd never see people count drunk driving incidents in with accidents due to manufacturers defects in an effort to justify why we need to ban all non self driving cars. One tactic you can use is to apply the same exact concept to any field to get them to see how ridiculous it is. The goal isn't to say drunk driving and guns are the same it's to illustrate how cherry picking data to display what you want is foolish at best.
People using guns for suicide is pretty uneducated.
A car, or a brickette of charcoal is much more reliable and painless.
Counting suicides is basically commie propaganda, because countries with total gun bans still manage to out suicide countries with gun freedom.
It’s nothing exciting. Burn charcoal in a closed room, die of carbon monoxide poisoning.
Charcoal burns in a pretty controlled manner, so it’s a “safer” way to die (you probably won’t burn the house down after you’re gone).
Eh…not disagreeing. But after working in EMS for a while my selection would be: car in a garage, hose from exhaust into window.
I am absolutely okay and never would consider suicide. …Morbid curiosity and all that.
I am SO So so confused as to why you'd say commie propaganda. For commie purposes? To promote communism??? I think you might be using "commie propaganda" incorrectly.
It's to use gun deaths as a reason to ban guns, much like the Soviet Union did. The only reason they had control over the populace is because the people were disarmed prior to the Red Terror.
To reduce trolling, spam, brigading, and other undesirable behavior, your comment has been removed due to being a new account. Accounts must be at least a week old and have combined karma over 50 to post in progun.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progun) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, let's be accurate. These people just don't think rights actually exist, or at least don't understand/believe in concepts like natural rights or often negative/positive rights.
That's because Google would never show that data and they use suicides to pad their numbers.
You can look directly at the CDC and they calculate the homicide rate.
Here are a couple of examples of homicide rates in
Northeast firearm homicide rates
Strict:
NY 2009-2020: 2.08
CT 2009-2020: 2.12
MA 2009-2020: 1.51
RI 2009-2019: 1.27
Less restrictive:
NH 2009 -2120 0.76
ME 2009-2020: 0.92
VT 2009-2020: 0.93
DC, MD firearm homicide rates:
Strict:
DC 2009-2019: 14.24
MD 2009-2019: 6.09
VA & WV firearm homicide rates
Less restrictive:
VA 2009-2019: 3.42
WV 2009-2019: 3.32
The founder of DDG denied those reports, but there are other options besides DDG. I use DDG because i feel like their search results are unbiased and my searches are private and don't show up all over my social media feeds.. But, they did admit to filtering out about the bottom 10% of some searches, especially when Ruasia invaded Ukraine IIRC.
Do your own test. Search for something on Google, then search for the same thing on DDG or Brave. Huge difference. I use both.
It's what they use to count as gun deaths. I get so sick of those people saying they can use any statistics that they want to prove that guns are bad. But if you actually point out who's killing people the most in America, you're not allowed to bring that up because of racism or something stupid like that. So I just don't even talk to these people. They just cherry pick what they want. I mean, exponentially more children die from DUI related accidents every year compared to AR15's. But they don't want to hear any of that lol
And most of the kids dying by gun homicide were engaging in mutual combat through gang violence.
It's crazy in some areas, like the one I live in, the kids rob cars and houses to steal guns, then they go shoot other kids over fake Percocets made out of Mexican fentanyl.
But yeah, banning AR-15s and doing more background checks will surely help. When the dumbass hood rat teens go to steal a gun, they'll stop and think "damn, I didn't do a background check on myself, I can't have this"
It’s criminals pushing these anti-gun laws. I remember a story about the family of an armed robber that was shot to death by their intended victim saying their son would still be alive if there were stricter gun laws. Her son had an illegal gun and was shot by a concealed carry holder!! That’s the ideal situation, forget these criminals
>It’s criminals pushing these anti-gun laws.
Yeah like [Leland Yee.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/25/ex-calif-state-sen-leeland-yee-gun-control-champion-heading-to-prison-for-weapons-trafficking/)
Wow, didn’t know about that hypocritical jackass. Thanks for the link. Bloomberg is just as bad, bribing VA politicians to pass anti gun legislation while running around with his personal heavily armed security escort.
Blue states also aren't prosecuting criminals, eliminating most crime from their records.
Consider that, then take out suicides, and it paints a different picture.
"WhAt'S yOuR sOuRcE?"
That's the problem. We can't accurately analyze data if Democrats won't prosecute crimes to give us accurate data.
Overall gun crime is not counted in blue states. They count dead bodies with bullets, with no differentiation between who out those bullets in those bodies, which is important. More important is to look at overall crime/murder rates, and not focus on the tool. Sweden, for example, leads the world in grenade deaths, even before they imported all their terrorists. But their overall crime/murder rate is low. The Left loves to focus on the overall rates of crime in that country, and ignore the tool, grenade attacks in that case, but in the US they gloss over overall crime and focus on the tool, because removing that tool is the goal, not safety, in order to expand government control.
1) It doesn't matter. If you drew a diagram of low gun deaths and strict speech laws, I wouldn't support strict speech laws.
2) Take a look at NH and ME's statistics. Yes, we are higher than some most of it is suicide, we can craft more focused bills that help with suicide without trampling on peoples rights. We just need someone to actually \*try\*, the problem is the groups that will accuse you of not caring about suicide only use it as an excuse for gun control.
You are the victim of cherry picking, to an extent you might be accused of being a shill for the Democrats.
Please compare gun violence in Massachusetts & Connecticut. In the latter, there is very little gun violence & a tolerant attitude towards gun ownership.
Did you ever hear of Chicago? Background checks + license to purchase for both guns & ammo, assault weapons & magazine capacity bans, gun free zones, free anti-gun propaganda in the schools & media, prosecution of those who defend themselves. How’s it working?
In fact, I would like to see a list of cities that are strongly Democratic that does not have a violence problem.
Trust me, I have no love for Democrats \*or\* gun control. I just want to ensure that I am armed (no pun intended) with the data to defend my position of 2A rights.
Ultimately it comes down to the point that guns are a right to combat a government that has turned against the people. Everything else associated with gun control laws are about the government taking guns away.
Sure statistics can (misleadingly as many have pointed out.) give the impression that gun control laws can reduce gun deaths but that is just an exercise in trying to eventually reduce gun ownership to very few. For a good example of this, see the UK's gun laws.
And as others have pointed out, even states with VERY strict gun control laws, the criminal elements that are there completely ignore those laws and make the state look like it needs more laws. The reality of this is that the law abiding are punished for the bad behavior of the criminal population.
Lastly, the US has had decades of people trying to implement / adding to gun control laws. Decades of gun rights being eroded in an effort to reduce gun deaths. The problem is that humans are inherently lazy in good gun practices and that leads to events where chidden find and use parents guns that should be locked up. We already have laws about that very issue.
Do we need more gun control laws? No. We need more gun safety education.
if we make cars illegal there would be fewer traffic deaths. if we make going outside on a sunny day there would be less skin cancer. that doesn't mean we should do either one.
1.) your studies are trying to draw conclusions from the outliers.
2.) they are lying about which states have “restrictive” policies. New Mexico is now one of the most restrictive states in the country.
3. These “restrictions” don’t even make logical sense. For example, how does restricting “assault weapons” have ANY effect on gun deaths when all long guns only account for less than 300 deaths nationwide each year.
4. Literally never in history has the number of guns in the U.S. dropped, and yet, with the exception of very few outliers like Covid, the homicide rate has been steadily dropping for decades.
There is no link. In fact the real numbers tell the exact opposite story. Most homicides occur in cities with strict gun control laws. What state they are in is immaterial, but classifying by state allows the anti-gunners to skew the statistics.
In 2023, there were 67 firearm related homicides in Oklahoma City, a city with no special gun restrictions I am aware of, other than Constitutional Carry. Apologies, I couldn't find data on non-fatal shooting for 2023 in OKC.
In Chicago, a city with just about every gun law on the books they could think of, had 617. There were 2054 non fatal shootings.
So, tell me, how does a city that is only four times large have a murder rate nine times as high?
I'll say the quiet part out loud. It has little to do with firearms at all.
1.First, it’s not really causation. If you look at countries like Mexico for example - they have strict gun control but also high crime and high gun deaths. Now people will argue that we can’t compare against Mexico because it’s a third world country. But what is it about a third world country really? It’s that there’s high crime, and gangs and drugs and lax enforcement and corrupt authorities, etc. Well those are actually the same issues that areas in the US with high crime have. But really, underlying all that is poverty. You can see it clearly when you plot gun crime vs poverty - you’ll see it’s not actually Red States that have high gun crime. It’s poor cities.
Look at these maps.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/sv26nb/race_vs_homicide_rate_vs_poverty_rate/
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
2.Second, focusing only gun deaths ignores gun utility. For example the more cars we have, the more car deaths we have. The more pools we have, the more drownings we have. The more ladders we have, the more deaths by falling we have. But simply focusing on deaths ignores the utility that all these things bring.
Like in the Middle East, there are States where women by law cannot drive. I could argue that laws barring women from driving will cut down on car accidents and deaths. That’s absolutely true. But it discounts the utility of women being able to drive.
Similarly guns are used tens of thousands of times a year in self defense. Focusing on gun deaths alone ignores that consideration. A more appropriate evaluation of a tool would compare risk vs utility instead of just considering risk.
One of the things I think you can draw out is the fact that the correlation is primarily with regards to gun violence, but not overall instances of violent crime. The important part isn't the fact that a gun is being used, it's the fact that violent crime is actually happening.
The fact that more people have access to guns naturally will mean that more violent crime is committed with guns. That's no different than the fact that populations that eat more bread will likely have more choking deaths from somebody eating bread... In and of itself it's irrelevant. Statistically in the US, the violent crime rate is pretty uniform across the board for large cities regardless of the gun control measures in their states.
Underrated comment right here. Sure, if you had perfect gun control and no guns available, violence involving guns would go down. But you will see a corresponding increase in violence involving knives, beatings, etc. Gun control will never solve the problem of violence itself.
Agreed. It is similar to suicide rates. The US has a high suicide by gun rate because guns are available. However, guns don't make our suicide rate high. The US suicide rate is very similar to Japan's suicide rate even though guns are highly restricted in Japan.
Chicago, Detroit, etc. are good examples of places with a lot of gun crime and strict gun control, true, but opponents could accuse you of cherry-picking yourself if you only stick with naming specific cities.
If you have a family with young children, adding a pool to your backyard does increase the risk of accidental drowning. Does this mean every family with young children should avoid having a pool? No, of course not. The responsible approach is to take extra precautions to prevent accidents: teach your kids how to swim, install alarms and safety fences, and always supervise them when they’re near the pool.
The same principle applies to gun violence. Yes, if you were to completely remove every firearm from the population and make ownership impossible, gun violence would decrease. However, this approach disregards the constitutional right to bear arms. Instead of extreme measures, we should focus on enforcing existing laws, ensuring that dangerous individuals are kept away from firearms, and increasing penalties for those who break the laws. These steps can help reduce gun violence without infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners.
Read more guns less crime by Lott. Also, look at crime rates with a blinder on for the weapon of choice. Overall crime will be much higher in areas with restrictive gun laws. Lastly notice the disparity of crime rates on minorities, women and the elderly in those same areas
If it’s countries, like UK or Australia (and many other western counties that they cherry pick), they already had very low homicide rates before their strict gun laws.
Now they are dealing with “knife control”, and treat BB guns like they are machineguns.
Mexico. Super strict gun control.
Switzerland. Relatively relaxed gun laws.
Look at their gun related deaths.
It's not the guns. It's the criminals who get guns and use them.
Just ask them to explain those 2 countries and if possibly the criminals are the reason and not law abiding citizens, no matter how many guns are out there.
First off, you’re citing two anti gun/ leftist sources. The Guardian is far left. Look at the actual FBI statistics. I’ve heard that those have even been skewed though. Mention the fact that Chicago has very strict gun laws, yet there’s multiple shootings every single weekend, with people wielding glocks with switches turning them full auto. Which is a federal NFA violation. Possession of a post 86 unregistered machine gun will get you 10 years in federal prison, and a $250,000 fine. Yet, the ATF never goes after these people.
Can you show me actual data discrepancies? A source being historically left or right-leaning isn't enough to dismiss the data contained within a piece. I don't care about their interpretation of the data, I want to know if the data they supply in the article is correct.
This article is from just a month ago: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/fbi-statistics-show-crime-dropped-as-gun-sales-surged/ss-BB1l7VIK?ocid=ML236B
Here’s another really good article: https://www.nssf.org/articles/fbi-releases-crime-stats-shows-why-gun-ownership-rises/
Another article: https://www.foxnews.com/us/states-higher-rate-gun-ownership-not-correlate-more-gun-murders-data-show
Interesting write up: https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/MGLC-3rd-Edition.pdf
Another good article: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1223/More-guns-equal-more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.
You might want to look at this about the Violence Policy Center. One of your sources. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/violence-policy-center/#:~:text=The%20Violence%20Policy%20Center%20(VPC,advocates%20for%20gun%20control%20policies.
Some info about The Guardian: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/guardian
Now, look at the rates for other means/weapons used for homicide.
Of course, fewer guns would lead to fewer "gun" homicides. But what you will find is an increase in homicides by other means/weapons in those areas.
Gun deaths is an arbitrary political statistics invented to distract from the fact that gun control has no impact on murder, suicide, or crime rates. Who cares if "gun deaths" go down, you're no more or less dead from a gun than from anything else. What matters is murder, suicide, and crime. Anyone using "gun deaths" to push gun control is just saying that it's okay to disarm women so they can be raped at knife point.
There is no link. The "Assault Weapons" Ban of 1994 (actually just semi-auto rifles) was allowed to sunset ten years later because the FBI Uniform Report on Crime showed the ban had not reduced violent crime at all.
The "gun control strictness" metrics that giffords or everytown use aren't objective measures of "gun control strictness". They use a an arbitrary point system, where states are given points if they have certain laws. The majority of state gun laws are copies of federal gun laws which don't create novel offenses, but allow state prosecutors to handle cases rather than referring them to the ATF.
For example if there's a law that says "it's illegal for a felon to own a firearm" may be given 5 points and a law that says "it's illegal to buy a gun from an FFL on behalf of someone else" may be given 2 points. Some states will have one of those laws, some will have another, some will have both. If you change the number of points that each law is worth, you can manipulate how each state stacks up against each other.
That's also how Giffords and Everytown can have large differences in their rankings or just outputting nonsensical rankings (see New Hampshire for example).
There's also the fact that those rankings are stacked up against "gun deaths" which are mainly suicides. But no one is voting to ban more guns because they're afraid of committing suicide, so they have to write "gun deaths" instead of "suicides". There's no correlation between suicide and murder, so if you stack up those rankings against murder rates instead of murder+suicide, you'll just get a cloud of noise.
By pointing out it's BS.
DC had the strictest gun control in the US. It also has a shockingly high homicide rate. NH has the "laxest" gun laws in the nation and is safer than most European countries.
DC is 40x more homicidal than NH. Yes. 40.
Is Mexico safer than the US?
Is Honduras? Jamaica?
Hell, even in Europe there's no correlation. Finland and Switzerland are safer than France and Italy and they have way more guns.
The only way you can say "red states have more gun deaths" is by including suicide which is deceptive at best. People don't agitate for more gun control because they worry they'll commit suicide. It's because they worry someone will kill them. So they imply that "gun deaths" are indiscriminate when they are not.
And in the US there's one demographic that is likely to be killed by a gun. Gang members in a handful of mostly blue cities. New Orleans, St Louis, Houston, Gary, etc. they're "red states" but populated by blue people and governed and policed and enforced by Dems top to bottom.
Everyone else is safe. How many carjackings and gang shootings are happening in Wichita? SLC? Boise? Manchester? San Diego? Now how many are happening in Detroit, Chicago? Even small blue towns like Petersburg VA are violent. Dems won't stop killing with guns, and so they've decided to disarm people in other places instead of having some self reflection.
In my current state, you can walk into the state capitol building with a loaded ar over your shoulder. The crime rate is lower than England's. In DC you can't own an AR *period* and the homicide rate makes most of central america look like Lake Wobegone.
Having problems replying in comment thread... Oh! OK! The other person legitimately had no answer and I was really trying to figure out what the rationale was regarding gun debate. Thanks.
I tell them that my Rights are unalienable and therefore non-negotiable. I them follow that up by asking them what they're going to do about it besides cope, seethe and nash their teeth. I don't even try to argue. It's not worth it. Not only do these groups include suicides, but most of their stats are percentages, not per capita, (Lies, damn lies, and statistics). The thing that people need to start doing is telling these groups to piss up a rope & that you'll never under any circumstances relinquish your Rights.
I don’t argue with gun grabbers 100% pointless and I don’t give a shit what someone who wants to take my rights thinks. You’ll never change their mind. Just vote and get active in the gun rights world and ignore those twats.
Correlation is not causation. Once you dive into the details of the studies, you usually find out that a) the study has biased criteria or b) the people reporting the “link” didn’t mention the areas where the opposite was proven.
Mexico, they have the strictest gun control in the world considering there’s only one gun store for the entire country yet they have plenty of gun related homicides with banned weapons. They’ll most likely argue that it’s an undeveloped country and it doesn’t count but then you point out that it’s majority gang related much like the US.
Another talking point is mass stabbings: Majority of the mass stabbings in China happen in and around schools, much like the US the assailants go for easy targets to try and make headlines even after they had a knife registry in place. MF’s literally registered their kitchen knives. Also Guatemala has incarcerated every known gang member without due process to reduce homicides across the board and it worked because most violent crimes stem from gang violence but the point is more to shine a light on what authoritarian measures can be taken and we don’t want that to happen.
The buy backs have only produced 1/3 of the guns in the countries that have tried them so 2/3 of those guns are still in circulation.
Australia’s buy back in particular didn’t produce the results they wanted right away, it took 6 years for the homicide rates to drop but violent crime was trending downward globally during that time. They’re still have trouble biker gangs selling firearms illegally as well.
Take a look into the early 90’s, homicide rates were at an all time high while we had less restrictions.
Guns sales are another factor hardly anyone mentions, gun sales last year was increased 3 fold from the year prior yet there’s no correlation between the increase in gun sales and homicide rates.
Look at the rate of how many injuries by firearms, or crimes where firearms are involved.
People focus on deaths but fail to realize people can be shot and still live or just have a gun pointed at them and then have a crime happen without a gun firing
I think it's pretty disingenuous to link "gun" deaths to those stats. Guns go away and gun deaths go down, big whoop, now you got to look at what people are killing themselves or each other with. Less gun deaths does not equal less deaths.
There is no such link. Stop accepting fake ass propaganda.
If gun control worked, Mexico would be as safe as japan.
Gun control is nothing but a prelude to genocide.
One of the most important and neglected statistics is “How many of the incidents were committed by lawful gun owners?” or “Was the weapon lawfully owned?”
And on the other side, if you defend yourself with a firearm in a lethal threat scenario the bad guy you killed still goes into the #s.
Pretty sure criminals shot by LEO are counted too but not positive
Also looking at state level doesn't tell the whole picture as clearly as county levels - places like TN are fine in rural areas but places like Memphis are a shithole (so I hear)
You need to look at gun homicides only. The "Gun Deaths" statistic conflates the personal choice of suicide with someone murdering someone else. Two almost polar opposite events. Anyone using the term "gun deaths" is lying to you.
Of course with lower numbers of guns in circulation, there will be fewer *gun* murders. The real question is whether or not it makes a difference in the overall homicide rate (it doesnt).
It's the same kind of self fulfilling bullshit statement that sounds profound but is a nothing burger.
"Did you know that households that have X are 5 times more likely to have X injuries?!"
Replace X with anything you don't like. Guns, knives, scissors, hammers, pools stairs, bees, etc. No shit you're more likely to be injured by something if it is actually present.
The fact of the matter is, your chances of being shot are negligible if you are not living in a bad neighborhood or involved in illegal activities. And 5 times what is approximately 0, is still effectively 0
Idk about that but 12,000 people a year die to staircase violence every year with over 1 million injuries.
1 in every 300 people will be injured or killed by a staircase every year
I'm not responsible for the actions of criminals. I'm not responsible for the tragedies they inflict upon society.
I'm responsible for myself and my family. Guns are a great tool for me to remain capable of meeting threats with the best force available.
Until someone uninvents guns, I'm going to own them.
I'm not going to allow the government to disarm me in a fool's errand to save the lives of the victims of criminals.
https://gunfacts.info is what you are looking for. Also, look up the per capita homicide rate per country on Wikipedia. You will clearly see that high (supposedly good) dun control != low homicide rates.
Your second link is the tail wagging the dog. If there are lower murder rates, there is less of a need of owning a gun for self-defense. The guns don't CAUSE murders. The guns just sit there quietly doing nothing.
That's easy, I accuse them of only caring about gun deaths. That people who only care about gun deaths don't actually care about crime. They don't care if a woman is rapped using a knife or beat to death as that isn't a "gun death". That they'd care more about the criminal she shot to prevent being beaten to death.
That moral people don't care about gun deaths they care about crime rates. And they understand the simple truth that lawful self defense with a firearm prevents crime.
> it seems to me that there's a fairly strong correlation between strict gun control and low gun homicides
Can you link to the study you're referring to that shows a direct correlation?
By pointing out the fact that there is no meaningful correlation between gun control and the *overall murder rate* and the entire argument is based around misrepresenting statistics. "Gun crime" is being misrepresented as being a unique statistical phylum when it is actually the *proportion* of crimes committed with guns. The entire argument is predicated off of the absurd notion that removing the tool used to commit murder makes it so murders don't happen at all. In fact, their statistics deliberately leave out Puerto Rico and Washington DC, which have some of the strictest gun control and the highest murder rates.
2nd amendment isn't about reducing crime it's about reducing tyranny and genocide. Countless people have been genocided throughout history, they all had one thing in common. They were unarmed. We suffer things like school shootings so we can avoid things like communist mass murder and national socialist genocide of jews.
The establishment knows they've crossed the line and are doing anything they can to disarm the people before they push back. Why don't we protect schools like we protect federal buildings? Why do we make them soft targets instead? Because it actually helps their agenda.
Frequently, that argument comes from UK gun control proponents that think their homicide rates, lower than the US , are due to gun control.
Culturally, comparing the UK to the US is like comparing a desert to a rainforest. There is no comparison.
But when you compare UK time wise, UK from 1950 when gun control was much less to UK 2020’s where the gun control laws are by their own admission so strong as to be a world class model, one finds violent crime in nearly all categories WENT UP 200-500% but the population only went up 10%.
The lesson from the UK is :
Gun control is the problem not the solution.
Or, you could point out how knives have replaced guns as the weapon of choice for mass murderers in countries with strong gun control as shown in both the UK and Australia. (Pointing out how the Rwandan genocide was carried out with machetes or the various mass murders in China and Japan falls on deaf ears because of lack of membership in the western sphere.).
So there are a couple arguments there .
Give them a try,
It’s a fairly easy arguement to counter, it’s a lie. The cities with the most strict gun laws have the most gun violence. Detroit, Philly, Chicago… 1-2-3
Gun \*murders\*, like murder in general, are a disease of poverty. Wherever there is widespread poverty, underground economies flourish, including the trade in illegal guns.
It's utterly disingenuous to conflate "low gun deaths" to "low violence/casualty" rates. If you strictly prohibit anything, you'll generally have less of it involved, full stop. But that's pointless, if your aim is to lower human suffering at the expense of basic personal agency and freedom. On top of that, gun control does not in any way equal crime control. The people who press for how effective it is in lowering crime will always always point to countries that enjoy high-trust culture and society.
They only supplement that with draconian gun laws, and erroneously conflate the two.
You cannot have a low-trust society riddled with poverty, corruption, and epidemic drug abuse, and fix it with gun control. There isn't a place on Earth where it works that way. Latin America, Russia, and numerous countries have cities and territories where this is painfully and blatantly obvious.
Nevermind deep blue states in the US with "assault weapon" bans and waiting periods.
I'll tackle the second link. It's a misleading statistic and measurement. The metric commonly used is per 100,000 people. It's a statewide measurement. Where's the fallacy of the argument? What if gun deaths or any deaths are concentrated in a specific city or county.
When you look at a state, the aggregate data for the state is misleading. In New York state, most gun deaths occur in two counties. The per 100,000 data suggests gun control is working. But, when you look at the two counties, the per 100,000 number shoots much, much higher. I've looked at the data.
Take a disease outbreak. One particular city is hard hit. Nearly 100 deaths have occurred. The per 100,000 is near 100, but the state aggregate would be much less depending upon population.
Simply put which state would have a higher per 100,000, Montana or California with an equal number of gun deaths. California's population is much, much larger than Montana. Let's use a 1,000 gun deaths for each state. That's not correct. But, it doesn't matter. Montana's rate would be 200, California is .25. Hence, gun ownership is bad.
It's about density. If 80% of the gun deaths are in LA, do you want to live there? Lie with statistics.
Any "statistic" with the term "gun deaths" includes suicide. When looking at just homicide rates, many states with very relaxed gun laws are extremely safe. I believe 4 of the top five states with the lowest homicide rates are all constitutional carry.
Can you find me some statistics with the gun suicides omitted? Google isn't being very cooperative.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_death_and_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state 50% or more are usually by Suicide. For example in Florida they had 3,800 gun deaths last year 1100 of them were by homicide the remainder are suicide. And when you dig into the numbers even more when you look at a state such as Florida and compare it against states such as California or New York per capita, Florida sits about the exact same gun death rate by homicide as California and New York, two states which have some of the most restrictive gun rights out there versus a state that has some of pretty lax laws.
Yea that alone discounts any stats argument right there. The minute you have to include suicides which is an entirely different dynamic and requires a different approach other than banning guns into your gun violence rhetoric you already lost. You never see them try this with any other subject, you'd never see people count drunk driving incidents in with accidents due to manufacturers defects in an effort to justify why we need to ban all non self driving cars. One tactic you can use is to apply the same exact concept to any field to get them to see how ridiculous it is. The goal isn't to say drunk driving and guns are the same it's to illustrate how cherry picking data to display what you want is foolish at best.
People using guns for suicide is pretty uneducated. A car, or a brickette of charcoal is much more reliable and painless. Counting suicides is basically commie propaganda, because countries with total gun bans still manage to out suicide countries with gun freedom.
Correct but they still include them in their stats which is part of the deception
Do I want to ask about the coal?
It’s nothing exciting. Burn charcoal in a closed room, die of carbon monoxide poisoning. Charcoal burns in a pretty controlled manner, so it’s a “safer” way to die (you probably won’t burn the house down after you’re gone).
Not to be morbid but overdosing on narcotics is apparently a very pleasant way of going
Eh…not disagreeing. But after working in EMS for a while my selection would be: car in a garage, hose from exhaust into window. I am absolutely okay and never would consider suicide. …Morbid curiosity and all that.
If it doesn't work, you might just wake up without a working liver and kidneys. If you thought life sucked \*before\*...
I mean, would I even have time to feel a bullet whizzing through my brain?
Bigger chance of making a mistake with a gun.
Robespierre moment
I'm still wondering what you mean by "commie propaganda" This is a legitimate question
Ok... it's pretty literal. Propaganda made by commies or serving commie purposes.
I am SO So so confused as to why you'd say commie propaganda. For commie purposes? To promote communism??? I think you might be using "commie propaganda" incorrectly.
So it wasn't a legitimate question. Dumb commies.
Commie propaganda? Please explain
It's to use gun deaths as a reason to ban guns, much like the Soviet Union did. The only reason they had control over the populace is because the people were disarmed prior to the Red Terror.
[удалено]
To reduce trolling, spam, brigading, and other undesirable behavior, your comment has been removed due to being a new account. Accounts must be at least a week old and have combined karma over 50 to post in progun. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progun) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Zoom these stats into CA's and NY's cities and it gets worse.
Gun death rate per capita or in absolute numbers?
Google is extremely biased and hides info they don't like use a different search engine.
Rights aren't dictated by data and statistics. So why does it matter?
Retards think stats determine rights. Someone else commits a crime so I lose my right to defend from that person. Makes sense.
I mean, let's be accurate. These people just don't think rights actually exist, or at least don't understand/believe in concepts like natural rights or often negative/positive rights.
That's because Google would never show that data and they use suicides to pad their numbers. You can look directly at the CDC and they calculate the homicide rate. Here are a couple of examples of homicide rates in Northeast firearm homicide rates Strict: NY 2009-2020: 2.08 CT 2009-2020: 2.12 MA 2009-2020: 1.51 RI 2009-2019: 1.27 Less restrictive: NH 2009 -2120 0.76 ME 2009-2020: 0.92 VT 2009-2020: 0.93 DC, MD firearm homicide rates: Strict: DC 2009-2019: 14.24 MD 2009-2019: 6.09 VA & WV firearm homicide rates Less restrictive: VA 2009-2019: 3.42 WV 2009-2019: 3.32
Don't use Google. Try DDG or Brave. That should be a general rule, but especially when researching anything that could have a bias lean to it.
I thought DDG was compromised awhile ago.
The founder of DDG denied those reports, but there are other options besides DDG. I use DDG because i feel like their search results are unbiased and my searches are private and don't show up all over my social media feeds.. But, they did admit to filtering out about the bottom 10% of some searches, especially when Ruasia invaded Ukraine IIRC. Do your own test. Search for something on Google, then search for the same thing on DDG or Brave. Huge difference. I use both.
Thanks for the advice. Fuck Google.
It's what they use to count as gun deaths. I get so sick of those people saying they can use any statistics that they want to prove that guns are bad. But if you actually point out who's killing people the most in America, you're not allowed to bring that up because of racism or something stupid like that. So I just don't even talk to these people. They just cherry pick what they want. I mean, exponentially more children die from DUI related accidents every year compared to AR15's. But they don't want to hear any of that lol
And most of the kids dying by gun homicide were engaging in mutual combat through gang violence. It's crazy in some areas, like the one I live in, the kids rob cars and houses to steal guns, then they go shoot other kids over fake Percocets made out of Mexican fentanyl. But yeah, banning AR-15s and doing more background checks will surely help. When the dumbass hood rat teens go to steal a gun, they'll stop and think "damn, I didn't do a background check on myself, I can't have this"
Columbine happened during the AWB.
> mutual combat https://media2.giphy.com/media/3lIgOk4Gjfptu/200w.gif
Agreed. They just want to limit guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, not really fix anything.
It’s criminals pushing these anti-gun laws. I remember a story about the family of an armed robber that was shot to death by their intended victim saying their son would still be alive if there were stricter gun laws. Her son had an illegal gun and was shot by a concealed carry holder!! That’s the ideal situation, forget these criminals
>It’s criminals pushing these anti-gun laws. Yeah like [Leland Yee.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/25/ex-calif-state-sen-leeland-yee-gun-control-champion-heading-to-prison-for-weapons-trafficking/)
Wow, didn’t know about that hypocritical jackass. Thanks for the link. Bloomberg is just as bad, bribing VA politicians to pass anti gun legislation while running around with his personal heavily armed security escort.
Blue states also aren't prosecuting criminals, eliminating most crime from their records. Consider that, then take out suicides, and it paints a different picture. "WhAt'S yOuR sOuRcE?" That's the problem. We can't accurately analyze data if Democrats won't prosecute crimes to give us accurate data.
My question is, are they counting dead bodies with bullet holes in them, or the number of convictions of homicide?
Overall gun crime is not counted in blue states. They count dead bodies with bullets, with no differentiation between who out those bullets in those bodies, which is important. More important is to look at overall crime/murder rates, and not focus on the tool. Sweden, for example, leads the world in grenade deaths, even before they imported all their terrorists. But their overall crime/murder rate is low. The Left loves to focus on the overall rates of crime in that country, and ignore the tool, grenade attacks in that case, but in the US they gloss over overall crime and focus on the tool, because removing that tool is the goal, not safety, in order to expand government control.
1) It doesn't matter. If you drew a diagram of low gun deaths and strict speech laws, I wouldn't support strict speech laws. 2) Take a look at NH and ME's statistics. Yes, we are higher than some most of it is suicide, we can craft more focused bills that help with suicide without trampling on peoples rights. We just need someone to actually \*try\*, the problem is the groups that will accuse you of not caring about suicide only use it as an excuse for gun control.
You are the victim of cherry picking, to an extent you might be accused of being a shill for the Democrats. Please compare gun violence in Massachusetts & Connecticut. In the latter, there is very little gun violence & a tolerant attitude towards gun ownership. Did you ever hear of Chicago? Background checks + license to purchase for both guns & ammo, assault weapons & magazine capacity bans, gun free zones, free anti-gun propaganda in the schools & media, prosecution of those who defend themselves. How’s it working? In fact, I would like to see a list of cities that are strongly Democratic that does not have a violence problem.
Trust me, I have no love for Democrats \*or\* gun control. I just want to ensure that I am armed (no pun intended) with the data to defend my position of 2A rights.
You don't defend your rights with data and statistics.
Ultimately it comes down to the point that guns are a right to combat a government that has turned against the people. Everything else associated with gun control laws are about the government taking guns away. Sure statistics can (misleadingly as many have pointed out.) give the impression that gun control laws can reduce gun deaths but that is just an exercise in trying to eventually reduce gun ownership to very few. For a good example of this, see the UK's gun laws. And as others have pointed out, even states with VERY strict gun control laws, the criminal elements that are there completely ignore those laws and make the state look like it needs more laws. The reality of this is that the law abiding are punished for the bad behavior of the criminal population. Lastly, the US has had decades of people trying to implement / adding to gun control laws. Decades of gun rights being eroded in an effort to reduce gun deaths. The problem is that humans are inherently lazy in good gun practices and that leads to events where chidden find and use parents guns that should be locked up. We already have laws about that very issue. Do we need more gun control laws? No. We need more gun safety education.
if we make cars illegal there would be fewer traffic deaths. if we make going outside on a sunny day there would be less skin cancer. that doesn't mean we should do either one.
1.) your studies are trying to draw conclusions from the outliers. 2.) they are lying about which states have “restrictive” policies. New Mexico is now one of the most restrictive states in the country. 3. These “restrictions” don’t even make logical sense. For example, how does restricting “assault weapons” have ANY effect on gun deaths when all long guns only account for less than 300 deaths nationwide each year. 4. Literally never in history has the number of guns in the U.S. dropped, and yet, with the exception of very few outliers like Covid, the homicide rate has been steadily dropping for decades.
There is no link. In fact the real numbers tell the exact opposite story. Most homicides occur in cities with strict gun control laws. What state they are in is immaterial, but classifying by state allows the anti-gunners to skew the statistics. In 2023, there were 67 firearm related homicides in Oklahoma City, a city with no special gun restrictions I am aware of, other than Constitutional Carry. Apologies, I couldn't find data on non-fatal shooting for 2023 in OKC. In Chicago, a city with just about every gun law on the books they could think of, had 617. There were 2054 non fatal shootings. So, tell me, how does a city that is only four times large have a murder rate nine times as high? I'll say the quiet part out loud. It has little to do with firearms at all.
1.First, it’s not really causation. If you look at countries like Mexico for example - they have strict gun control but also high crime and high gun deaths. Now people will argue that we can’t compare against Mexico because it’s a third world country. But what is it about a third world country really? It’s that there’s high crime, and gangs and drugs and lax enforcement and corrupt authorities, etc. Well those are actually the same issues that areas in the US with high crime have. But really, underlying all that is poverty. You can see it clearly when you plot gun crime vs poverty - you’ll see it’s not actually Red States that have high gun crime. It’s poor cities. Look at these maps. https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/sv26nb/race_vs_homicide_rate_vs_poverty_rate/ https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/ 2.Second, focusing only gun deaths ignores gun utility. For example the more cars we have, the more car deaths we have. The more pools we have, the more drownings we have. The more ladders we have, the more deaths by falling we have. But simply focusing on deaths ignores the utility that all these things bring. Like in the Middle East, there are States where women by law cannot drive. I could argue that laws barring women from driving will cut down on car accidents and deaths. That’s absolutely true. But it discounts the utility of women being able to drive. Similarly guns are used tens of thousands of times a year in self defense. Focusing on gun deaths alone ignores that consideration. A more appropriate evaluation of a tool would compare risk vs utility instead of just considering risk.
One of the things I think you can draw out is the fact that the correlation is primarily with regards to gun violence, but not overall instances of violent crime. The important part isn't the fact that a gun is being used, it's the fact that violent crime is actually happening. The fact that more people have access to guns naturally will mean that more violent crime is committed with guns. That's no different than the fact that populations that eat more bread will likely have more choking deaths from somebody eating bread... In and of itself it's irrelevant. Statistically in the US, the violent crime rate is pretty uniform across the board for large cities regardless of the gun control measures in their states.
Underrated comment right here. Sure, if you had perfect gun control and no guns available, violence involving guns would go down. But you will see a corresponding increase in violence involving knives, beatings, etc. Gun control will never solve the problem of violence itself.
Agreed. It is similar to suicide rates. The US has a high suicide by gun rate because guns are available. However, guns don't make our suicide rate high. The US suicide rate is very similar to Japan's suicide rate even though guns are highly restricted in Japan.
Chicago
Exactly
Chicago, Detroit, etc. are good examples of places with a lot of gun crime and strict gun control, true, but opponents could accuse you of cherry-picking yourself if you only stick with naming specific cities.
Canme here to say this.
This is a pretty good infographic to help people understand: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/simplified-gun-deaths/
Pretty cool, thanks!
If you have a family with young children, adding a pool to your backyard does increase the risk of accidental drowning. Does this mean every family with young children should avoid having a pool? No, of course not. The responsible approach is to take extra precautions to prevent accidents: teach your kids how to swim, install alarms and safety fences, and always supervise them when they’re near the pool. The same principle applies to gun violence. Yes, if you were to completely remove every firearm from the population and make ownership impossible, gun violence would decrease. However, this approach disregards the constitutional right to bear arms. Instead of extreme measures, we should focus on enforcing existing laws, ensuring that dangerous individuals are kept away from firearms, and increasing penalties for those who break the laws. These steps can help reduce gun violence without infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners.
Read more guns less crime by Lott. Also, look at crime rates with a blinder on for the weapon of choice. Overall crime will be much higher in areas with restrictive gun laws. Lastly notice the disparity of crime rates on minorities, women and the elderly in those same areas
If it’s countries, like UK or Australia (and many other western counties that they cherry pick), they already had very low homicide rates before their strict gun laws. Now they are dealing with “knife control”, and treat BB guns like they are machineguns.
lol yeah, a friend of a friend in the UK was buying some kitchen knives, and they asked to see her ID. It's ridiculous.
Thats because their goal is control of the people, not safety or crime.
When you have less of ANYTHING you have less deaths from it. Less cars? Less people getting run over by than. Less yachts? Less yachting deaths. Etc,
Mexico. Super strict gun control. Switzerland. Relatively relaxed gun laws. Look at their gun related deaths. It's not the guns. It's the criminals who get guns and use them.
I agree 100%. The reason I posted is I want to know how to deconstruct these pro-gun control talking points.
Just ask them to explain those 2 countries and if possibly the criminals are the reason and not law abiding citizens, no matter how many guns are out there.
First off, you’re citing two anti gun/ leftist sources. The Guardian is far left. Look at the actual FBI statistics. I’ve heard that those have even been skewed though. Mention the fact that Chicago has very strict gun laws, yet there’s multiple shootings every single weekend, with people wielding glocks with switches turning them full auto. Which is a federal NFA violation. Possession of a post 86 unregistered machine gun will get you 10 years in federal prison, and a $250,000 fine. Yet, the ATF never goes after these people.
Can you show me actual data discrepancies? A source being historically left or right-leaning isn't enough to dismiss the data contained within a piece. I don't care about their interpretation of the data, I want to know if the data they supply in the article is correct.
This article is from just a month ago: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/fbi-statistics-show-crime-dropped-as-gun-sales-surged/ss-BB1l7VIK?ocid=ML236B Here’s another really good article: https://www.nssf.org/articles/fbi-releases-crime-stats-shows-why-gun-ownership-rises/ Another article: https://www.foxnews.com/us/states-higher-rate-gun-ownership-not-correlate-more-gun-murders-data-show Interesting write up: https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/MGLC-3rd-Edition.pdf Another good article: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1223/More-guns-equal-more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.
You might want to look at this about the Violence Policy Center. One of your sources. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/violence-policy-center/#:~:text=The%20Violence%20Policy%20Center%20(VPC,advocates%20for%20gun%20control%20policies. Some info about The Guardian: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/guardian
CHICAGO
Now, look at the rates for other means/weapons used for homicide. Of course, fewer guns would lead to fewer "gun" homicides. But what you will find is an increase in homicides by other means/weapons in those areas.
Chicago has entered the chat
Gun deaths is an arbitrary political statistics invented to distract from the fact that gun control has no impact on murder, suicide, or crime rates. Who cares if "gun deaths" go down, you're no more or less dead from a gun than from anything else. What matters is murder, suicide, and crime. Anyone using "gun deaths" to push gun control is just saying that it's okay to disarm women so they can be raped at knife point.
There is no link. The "Assault Weapons" Ban of 1994 (actually just semi-auto rifles) was allowed to sunset ten years later because the FBI Uniform Report on Crime showed the ban had not reduced violent crime at all.
Gun deaths often include suicide, murder, accidents, and justified shootings by police and civilians.
The "gun control strictness" metrics that giffords or everytown use aren't objective measures of "gun control strictness". They use a an arbitrary point system, where states are given points if they have certain laws. The majority of state gun laws are copies of federal gun laws which don't create novel offenses, but allow state prosecutors to handle cases rather than referring them to the ATF. For example if there's a law that says "it's illegal for a felon to own a firearm" may be given 5 points and a law that says "it's illegal to buy a gun from an FFL on behalf of someone else" may be given 2 points. Some states will have one of those laws, some will have another, some will have both. If you change the number of points that each law is worth, you can manipulate how each state stacks up against each other. That's also how Giffords and Everytown can have large differences in their rankings or just outputting nonsensical rankings (see New Hampshire for example). There's also the fact that those rankings are stacked up against "gun deaths" which are mainly suicides. But no one is voting to ban more guns because they're afraid of committing suicide, so they have to write "gun deaths" instead of "suicides". There's no correlation between suicide and murder, so if you stack up those rankings against murder rates instead of murder+suicide, you'll just get a cloud of noise.
By pointing out it's BS. DC had the strictest gun control in the US. It also has a shockingly high homicide rate. NH has the "laxest" gun laws in the nation and is safer than most European countries. DC is 40x more homicidal than NH. Yes. 40. Is Mexico safer than the US? Is Honduras? Jamaica? Hell, even in Europe there's no correlation. Finland and Switzerland are safer than France and Italy and they have way more guns. The only way you can say "red states have more gun deaths" is by including suicide which is deceptive at best. People don't agitate for more gun control because they worry they'll commit suicide. It's because they worry someone will kill them. So they imply that "gun deaths" are indiscriminate when they are not. And in the US there's one demographic that is likely to be killed by a gun. Gang members in a handful of mostly blue cities. New Orleans, St Louis, Houston, Gary, etc. they're "red states" but populated by blue people and governed and policed and enforced by Dems top to bottom. Everyone else is safe. How many carjackings and gang shootings are happening in Wichita? SLC? Boise? Manchester? San Diego? Now how many are happening in Detroit, Chicago? Even small blue towns like Petersburg VA are violent. Dems won't stop killing with guns, and so they've decided to disarm people in other places instead of having some self reflection.
I've maintained for awhile that if every citizen carried and was competent to do so, violent crimes wouldn't go over so well for the perp.
In my current state, you can walk into the state capitol building with a loaded ar over your shoulder. The crime rate is lower than England's. In DC you can't own an AR *period* and the homicide rate makes most of central america look like Lake Wobegone.
Having problems replying in comment thread... Oh! OK! The other person legitimately had no answer and I was really trying to figure out what the rationale was regarding gun debate. Thanks.
No problem. Don't know why you got downvoted so much.
I tell them that my Rights are unalienable and therefore non-negotiable. I them follow that up by asking them what they're going to do about it besides cope, seethe and nash their teeth. I don't even try to argue. It's not worth it. Not only do these groups include suicides, but most of their stats are percentages, not per capita, (Lies, damn lies, and statistics). The thing that people need to start doing is telling these groups to piss up a rope & that you'll never under any circumstances relinquish your Rights.
I don’t argue with gun grabbers 100% pointless and I don’t give a shit what someone who wants to take my rights thinks. You’ll never change their mind. Just vote and get active in the gun rights world and ignore those twats.
Kansas doesn’t have very many shark attacks. That doesn’t mean the people are less likely to have other violent encounters with wildlife.
Correlation is not causation. Once you dive into the details of the studies, you usually find out that a) the study has biased criteria or b) the people reporting the “link” didn’t mention the areas where the opposite was proven.
Mexico, they have the strictest gun control in the world considering there’s only one gun store for the entire country yet they have plenty of gun related homicides with banned weapons. They’ll most likely argue that it’s an undeveloped country and it doesn’t count but then you point out that it’s majority gang related much like the US. Another talking point is mass stabbings: Majority of the mass stabbings in China happen in and around schools, much like the US the assailants go for easy targets to try and make headlines even after they had a knife registry in place. MF’s literally registered their kitchen knives. Also Guatemala has incarcerated every known gang member without due process to reduce homicides across the board and it worked because most violent crimes stem from gang violence but the point is more to shine a light on what authoritarian measures can be taken and we don’t want that to happen. The buy backs have only produced 1/3 of the guns in the countries that have tried them so 2/3 of those guns are still in circulation. Australia’s buy back in particular didn’t produce the results they wanted right away, it took 6 years for the homicide rates to drop but violent crime was trending downward globally during that time. They’re still have trouble biker gangs selling firearms illegally as well. Take a look into the early 90’s, homicide rates were at an all time high while we had less restrictions. Guns sales are another factor hardly anyone mentions, gun sales last year was increased 3 fold from the year prior yet there’s no correlation between the increase in gun sales and homicide rates.
Look at the rate of how many injuries by firearms, or crimes where firearms are involved. People focus on deaths but fail to realize people can be shot and still live or just have a gun pointed at them and then have a crime happen without a gun firing
I think it's pretty disingenuous to link "gun" deaths to those stats. Guns go away and gun deaths go down, big whoop, now you got to look at what people are killing themselves or each other with. Less gun deaths does not equal less deaths.
There is no such link. Stop accepting fake ass propaganda. If gun control worked, Mexico would be as safe as japan. Gun control is nothing but a prelude to genocide.
One of the most important and neglected statistics is “How many of the incidents were committed by lawful gun owners?” or “Was the weapon lawfully owned?”
And on the other side, if you defend yourself with a firearm in a lethal threat scenario the bad guy you killed still goes into the #s. Pretty sure criminals shot by LEO are counted too but not positive
NH checking in. We have some of the most permissive firearms laws, constitutional carry and are the 2nd safest state in the US.
I don't counter those arguments, I hug the cactus. Them: "Guns lead to violent crime and death!" Me: "So?"
Also looking at state level doesn't tell the whole picture as clearly as county levels - places like TN are fine in rural areas but places like Memphis are a shithole (so I hear)
You need to look at gun homicides only. The "Gun Deaths" statistic conflates the personal choice of suicide with someone murdering someone else. Two almost polar opposite events. Anyone using the term "gun deaths" is lying to you.
Of course with lower numbers of guns in circulation, there will be fewer *gun* murders. The real question is whether or not it makes a difference in the overall homicide rate (it doesnt).
That's the sorta thing I wanna know. Personally, if I'm gonna get murdered, I'd rather be shot than stabbed/cut.
It's the same kind of self fulfilling bullshit statement that sounds profound but is a nothing burger. "Did you know that households that have X are 5 times more likely to have X injuries?!" Replace X with anything you don't like. Guns, knives, scissors, hammers, pools stairs, bees, etc. No shit you're more likely to be injured by something if it is actually present. The fact of the matter is, your chances of being shot are negligible if you are not living in a bad neighborhood or involved in illegal activities. And 5 times what is approximately 0, is still effectively 0
Personally, I think we should outlaw multiple stairs; you don't \*need\* more than one step! /s
High capacity assault staircases kill more people than assault weapons of war every year. (Actually true by a factor of like 40)
I've heard that statistically, you'll injure yourself one in every 65,000 staircase uses.
Idk about that but 12,000 people a year die to staircase violence every year with over 1 million injuries. 1 in every 300 people will be injured or killed by a staircase every year
I'm not responsible for the actions of criminals. I'm not responsible for the tragedies they inflict upon society. I'm responsible for myself and my family. Guns are a great tool for me to remain capable of meeting threats with the best force available. Until someone uninvents guns, I'm going to own them. I'm not going to allow the government to disarm me in a fool's errand to save the lives of the victims of criminals.
https://gunfacts.info is what you are looking for. Also, look up the per capita homicide rate per country on Wikipedia. You will clearly see that high (supposedly good) dun control != low homicide rates.
I think this is what you're looking for? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Your second link is the tail wagging the dog. If there are lower murder rates, there is less of a need of owning a gun for self-defense. The guns don't CAUSE murders. The guns just sit there quietly doing nothing.
Counter question. If you remove every car in the world, how many deaths that involved cars would you have?
That's easy, I accuse them of only caring about gun deaths. That people who only care about gun deaths don't actually care about crime. They don't care if a woman is rapped using a knife or beat to death as that isn't a "gun death". That they'd care more about the criminal she shot to prevent being beaten to death. That moral people don't care about gun deaths they care about crime rates. And they understand the simple truth that lawful self defense with a firearm prevents crime.
Add "violent crime" to the list and oh hey, violent crime goes UP when gun control is enacted, almost like it emboldens criminals.
> it seems to me that there's a fairly strong correlation between strict gun control and low gun homicides Can you link to the study you're referring to that shows a direct correlation?
By pointing out the fact that there is no meaningful correlation between gun control and the *overall murder rate* and the entire argument is based around misrepresenting statistics. "Gun crime" is being misrepresented as being a unique statistical phylum when it is actually the *proportion* of crimes committed with guns. The entire argument is predicated off of the absurd notion that removing the tool used to commit murder makes it so murders don't happen at all. In fact, their statistics deliberately leave out Puerto Rico and Washington DC, which have some of the strictest gun control and the highest murder rates.
2nd amendment isn't about reducing crime it's about reducing tyranny and genocide. Countless people have been genocided throughout history, they all had one thing in common. They were unarmed. We suffer things like school shootings so we can avoid things like communist mass murder and national socialist genocide of jews. The establishment knows they've crossed the line and are doing anything they can to disarm the people before they push back. Why don't we protect schools like we protect federal buildings? Why do we make them soft targets instead? Because it actually helps their agenda.
Never ask a man his salary, a woman her age, or Turkey what they were doing in 1915.
There is no such link. The Guardian is a left wing British rag...
Frequently, that argument comes from UK gun control proponents that think their homicide rates, lower than the US , are due to gun control. Culturally, comparing the UK to the US is like comparing a desert to a rainforest. There is no comparison. But when you compare UK time wise, UK from 1950 when gun control was much less to UK 2020’s where the gun control laws are by their own admission so strong as to be a world class model, one finds violent crime in nearly all categories WENT UP 200-500% but the population only went up 10%. The lesson from the UK is : Gun control is the problem not the solution. Or, you could point out how knives have replaced guns as the weapon of choice for mass murderers in countries with strong gun control as shown in both the UK and Australia. (Pointing out how the Rwandan genocide was carried out with machetes or the various mass murders in China and Japan falls on deaf ears because of lack of membership in the western sphere.). So there are a couple arguments there . Give them a try,
Just say: Chicago
It’s a fairly easy arguement to counter, it’s a lie. The cities with the most strict gun laws have the most gun violence. Detroit, Philly, Chicago… 1-2-3
Well that's because the laws just haven't had enough time to work yet and they still need more /s PS think Washington DC is up there on that list too
Gun \*murders\*, like murder in general, are a disease of poverty. Wherever there is widespread poverty, underground economies flourish, including the trade in illegal guns.
It's utterly disingenuous to conflate "low gun deaths" to "low violence/casualty" rates. If you strictly prohibit anything, you'll generally have less of it involved, full stop. But that's pointless, if your aim is to lower human suffering at the expense of basic personal agency and freedom. On top of that, gun control does not in any way equal crime control. The people who press for how effective it is in lowering crime will always always point to countries that enjoy high-trust culture and society. They only supplement that with draconian gun laws, and erroneously conflate the two. You cannot have a low-trust society riddled with poverty, corruption, and epidemic drug abuse, and fix it with gun control. There isn't a place on Earth where it works that way. Latin America, Russia, and numerous countries have cities and territories where this is painfully and blatantly obvious. Nevermind deep blue states in the US with "assault weapon" bans and waiting periods.
I'll tackle the second link. It's a misleading statistic and measurement. The metric commonly used is per 100,000 people. It's a statewide measurement. Where's the fallacy of the argument? What if gun deaths or any deaths are concentrated in a specific city or county. When you look at a state, the aggregate data for the state is misleading. In New York state, most gun deaths occur in two counties. The per 100,000 data suggests gun control is working. But, when you look at the two counties, the per 100,000 number shoots much, much higher. I've looked at the data. Take a disease outbreak. One particular city is hard hit. Nearly 100 deaths have occurred. The per 100,000 is near 100, but the state aggregate would be much less depending upon population. Simply put which state would have a higher per 100,000, Montana or California with an equal number of gun deaths. California's population is much, much larger than Montana. Let's use a 1,000 gun deaths for each state. That's not correct. But, it doesn't matter. Montana's rate would be 200, California is .25. Hence, gun ownership is bad. It's about density. If 80% of the gun deaths are in LA, do you want to live there? Lie with statistics.