The Correlation Between State Gun Laws and Homicide Rates

We have about 4-5 X as many murders as the Europeans. They have hardly any at all in Japan. Most of these things traced along income levels. Now compared to poor and developing countries where the rule of law is very weak and people are fighting for survival, we are way better, but if you look at our peers we're the worst.

 

Need data.

 

My response before you provide that data is as follows:

Baltimore ain't richer than Europe.


ETA: at least West Baltimore isn't.

[video=youtube;bAQv6KTfQow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAQv6KTfQow[/video]

 

The U.K has more violent crime than us we just have a higher murder rate. Also pretty much all of our high crime areas are little isolated areas in cities. If you remove those, we're basically at Europe levels with a much more diverse population

 

Because they're more violent. We have a lower level of violent crime but with slightly higher murder rate.

 

How many Central American gangs are there in Europe? I don't know. How many inner-city youth go around killing each other over drug territory? What is the rate of single parent households? I don't know the answers to any of these questions. I don't like being compared to Europe either. Have you seen their houses, cars, and work schedules?

 

The Cato Institute is a joke. They messed up where the author is. There is no Denver University. That dude is on my campus, the University of Denver. His entire position is funded by the NRA. I am sure that doesn't matter to you.

 

Does it matter that a lot of studies and experts will find support for who is paying them?

 

This is a political lobby, though. If PETA funded a guy who put out a paper about animal cognition and sentience, I bet you'd question it.

 

Yeah, but I feel the same way about paid studies either way, for my opinion or against my opinion.

 

Does it matter?

At what point are you saying I shouldnt protect myself or my family?

 

I think you should totally protect yourself in your family. I'm not convinced that is possible with LESS restrictions. I think your family will be in MORE danger. Twisting a position to "you don't think I should be able to protect myself or my family" is disingenuous.

 

Im convinced that it should be my decision how I go about doing that. Your opinion (along with any other) is irrelevant to me, just as mine should be to you. If you feel you are more safe without it that should be your choice, not mine.

 

California had in place every law that Obama wants to implement at the national level and it still did basically nothing to stop it. Mostly the measures asked for is about feelings and would do little to nothing to change anything

 

Another person's opinion becomes relevant to me when their crazy son gets the gun stored under the bed out and shoots up a school. For example. Then their "opinion" that they don't need to lock up their firearms or at least keep them the hell away from their known-to-be-disturbed family member becomes a violent manifestation. It's no different to me than the "opinion" that people shouldn't drink and drive. Someone can disagree, doesn't change the problem.

 

The point is that if you don't have those laws in place nationally, they can't possibly be effective. Cases in point: Chicago, DC, 80's NYC. You can ban guns in Chicago, it means ****-all if all they have to do is drive 10 minutes out of the city and 10 minutes back to bring one in for a gang battle. Not that I'm calling for banning guns, mind you.

 

Gun laws aren't going to change the violence in those places no matter what because they'll just be imported to protect their black markets.

The war on drugs drives pretty much all of our gun violence.

 

I thought it was DU.

 

And the university of Colorado is CU, Oklahoma is OU... Many schools west of the Mississippi have the abbreviations switched.

 

Well that's ridiculous.