The Correlation Between State Gun Laws and Homicide Rates

It won't hurt any object but it may hurt our freedoms. I bet the same correlation could be made with a lot of objects.

 

By "objects," you mean tools specifically designed to exhibit lethal force? Like what? Swords? I doubt it. What makes this such a difficult issue is that it is fairly unique.

 

Knifes and other blunt objects would be my guess. The majority of homicides are tied directly to the black market for the demand of illegal drugs.

If you remove certain hot spots that are major players in the drug war, you have an extremely low number that would be driven by crimes of passion. Gun laws have become less restrictive over last decades and crime has lowered to all time low levels including violent crime and thief.

 

That's one level of analysis.

Gun laws in the South and in red states have become more lax, and gun deaths have gone up while crime overall has gone down. Gun laws in blue states have gotten tougher, and crime overall has gone down. It ain't the gun laws lowering crime.

 

Gun deaths is different than gun violence though. If you want to address the elephant in the room with the drug war, I'm all for it. However most new gun law restrictions is just emotional reactions to events that would do little to nothing to stop them.

 

If you want to ignore international examples that run counter to your emotion-fueled opinion on how effective legislation will be, I don't see what the point of this exchange is.

 

What would be your suggestions?

 

Gotten tougher is a joke. Same people can and do still get the same guns.

 

Already posted them. Many times.

Step 1 is bringing back the mental health care system that was destroyed by Reagan.

Step 2 is connecting that system to the police, so that when people are reported as being unsafe or suspicious, they can be evaluated by professionals and even held for observation. Keep in mind that many of these mass shooters had been reported as suspicious in the months leading up to the incidents. There just isn't anything a police force can do about a crazy person who hasn't committed a crime.

Step 3 is giving large tax breaks/incentives on gun safes, and aggressively prosecuting gun owners who allow their weapons to fall in the wrong hands.

I'd like to at least look at standardizing background check requirements and closing loopholes. I'd like to open up eligibility for federal funding on these issues so we can get good data.

I'm not closed to the possibility of particular restrictions either, but I would think we could all agree on some low-hanging fruit like above first and see how things go. I am adamantly opposed to doing nothing due to lack of concrete information on possible impacts of strategies, especially when the lack of information is partly due to the gun lobby preventing gathering that information.

 

That's the irony. All the crying about gun laws, and just about anybody who really wants one can still legally obtain one just about anywhere. We're arguing about "convenience," which is pathetic.

 

All very reasonable. 1 and 2 would be huge. I don't necessarily believe that these steps or any measure will get rid of these mass shootings entirely, but it would help prevent them, plus these are things that should be done anyway.

 

I want the federal government deciding who is "sane" enough for a gun like I want a bad case of the clap.

Disclaimer: I've never actually had the clap, but from what I gather, it's unpleasant.

 

"The government" bogeyman. Everywhere you want him to be.

 

A most reasonable violation of civil liberties, and de facto detention.

I say both of you are nuts. Please submit yourselves to the nearest quack for evaluation.

 

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

"That's the way it was written" is not an argument. We don't allow many types of weapons to be owned at all, making sure we do everything we can reasonably do to keep guns out of the hands of the insane is a reasonable goal that preserves liberty for potential victims more than it erodes liberty for those inconvenienced.

 

Detention for evaluation is in no way reasonable or civilized. It completely goes against the idea of innocence, and presumes that all are guilty, first.

It allows for and encourages the equivalence of a witch hunt, and is an abuse of power.

 

Is being mentally unwell a crime? You can't be "guilty" of being sick.

You're wildly speculating about it being an abuse of power based on nothing.

 

And I say you're nuts. Please go do your eval. Failure to do so may result in a SWAT team kicking in your door, shooting your dog, and then forcing the eval.

 

May I ask for your psychiatric qualifications? None? Okay then.

Notice how you made up the SWAT and shooting of the dog. Doesn't have to be like that at all.

 

See, Thomas Jefferson left "progression of the mind" open to interpretation, but he was quite clear on what he saw as abuse of government power.

"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."