Yeah but the thing is that itâs kind of demeaning to even argue this point, itâs like arguing with a child. More guns = more gun killings, less guns = less gun killings. This is self-evident but even this will not be accepted by these nuts. Whatabout 9/11, etc will be the default response.
4 Likes
Like some comedian said but in a funnier way
One shoe bomb attempt and shoes off at airports
1 Like
The right wing nut jobs (RWNJs) are constantly moaning about âthought controlâ and yet are now calling for compulsory brain scans.
Hmmmm.
âWe care about mental health thoughâ
The state with the ten strongest gun laws according to their Brady score in 2014. Beside that Iâve placed their ranking in deaths by firearm per 100,000 people in 2013. (I used 2013 and 2014 numbers as they were easily accessible on tâinternet).
So ranked by strictest gun laws, with 1 being strictest, state name, rank by gun deaths per population lowest to highest.
- California. 9
- Connecticut. 4
- Massachusetts. 2
- New Jersey. 6
- New York. 3
- Hawaii. 1
- Maryland. 15
- Rhode Island. 5
- Delaware. 20
- Illinois. 11
So of the states with the ten strictest gun laws, 7 feature in the bottom ten by gun deaths per population. And Illinois is just one outside it.
States in the bottom ten of deaths by state but not in the ten strictest by Brady law,
- Minnessota. 8
- Iowa. 10
- New Hampshire. 7
So 10/10 of the lowest deaths are in states with the top 15 strictest gun laws. All ten states with the strictest gun laws feature in the bottom 20 by deaths.
Now ten laxest gun law states.
50. Arizona. 37
49. Alaska. 50
48. Wyoming. 46
47. Louisiana. 49
46. Montana. 45
45. Arkansas. 44
44. Virginia. 18
43. Kentucky. 35
42. Florida. 31
41. Nevada. 36
So 5 of the states with laxest gun laws are in the bottom ten for gun deaths per population.
Of the ten in bottom by deaths, but not in the bottom by Brady ranking.
38 Mississippi. 47.
36 New Mexico. 41.
35 Alabama. 48
33 Oklahoma. 43.
27 Tennessee. 42.
So 9/10 of the highest deaths are in states with the bottom twenty strictest gun laws. All are in the bottom 25. Virginia is an outlier the other way, with an unusually low death rate for its low levels of gun control.
Now Iâm no fancy big city statistician but maybe stricter gun laws might just result in lower deaths per 100,000 of population.
15 Likes
This Shooting Isnât About Gun Control We Refuse To Pass, Itâs About Access To Mental Health Care Weâre Continuing To Gut
Paul Ryan
As our nation struggles to come to grips with the horrible tragedy in Las Vegas, itâs only natural for people to search for an explanation of how an atrocity like this could have happened and to call on their elected officials to take measures to prevent such terrible bloodshed from occurring again in the future. Unfortunately, however, weâve seen enough of these incidents to know that some people will rush to blame firearms for this carnage and will demand that Congress enact sweeping gun restrictions, engaging in misguided efforts that completely miss the underlying reasons behind the violence weâre seeing.
The simple truth is, mass shootings like this arenât about gun control we refuse to pass. Theyâre about access to mental health care that we will continue to gut.
You can already hear the calls from the left. In the aftermath of this mass murder, millions of people are once again pushing for an assault weapons ban that I wonât allow lawmakers to give even a moment of consideration, let alone bring to a vote. If these folks actually examined the realities of the issue, they would see that the real culprit in these incidents is, and always has been, our countryâs inadequate mental healthcare system that leaves troubled, potentially violent individuals without the support they need, and which my colleagues and I have spent most of our careers seeking, often successfully, to defund.
The reason we have tragedies like this is because of how our healthcare system that I am dead set on undermining fails to serve Americans in desperate need of psychological treatment. Not because of a lack of gun ownership regulations, the slightest toughening of which will never even receive a single second of debate on the floor of the House on my watch.
Case in point, Iâve seen commentators cite the GOP bill to loosen restrictions on silencers that is currently making its way through Congress as contributing to an environment where these shootings will continue to occur, an erroneous line of reasoning that completely ignores how our partyâs many active attempts to repeal Obamacare would make it significantly harder, if not impossible, for millions of unwell individuals to visit mental health specialists and receive the treatment necessary to keep their erratic behavior in check.
If we as a nation are really serious about preventing future tragedies, we shouldnât focus on regulating so-called gun sale loopholes and outlawing high-capacity magazines, the very mention of which will elicit an overwhelming and immediate nullifying response should it be breathed on the floor of the House. Instead, we need to pay attention to the fact that many people with treatable mental illnesses struggle to afford medication or therapy, and then work around the clock to ensure that their meager options only dwindle further and become more expensive. That is where we need to be focused as a nation.
If weâre going to get anywhere, we must see this problem for what it truly is: a nationwide mental health crisis that my policies have allowed to metastasize and that I am working continuously to exacerbate. Not some issue of who can and canât buy guns, all legislation about which I, along with the powerful resources of supportive lobbyists, have suppressed with exceptional efficiency.
Because as easy as it is to blame this unconscionable loss of human life on background check laws designed to maximize the profits of the gun industry at the expense of public safety, the real fault lies with healthcare legislation designed to maximize insurance industry profits at the expense of public safety.
Remember, itâs not guns weâve deliberately removed all barriers to owning that kill people. Itâs people to whom we continually deny basic care that kill people.
Yeah but what about 9/11?
They went so mental after 9/11 a fella canât even bring a bottle of water through airport security.
1 Like
3 Likes
Port Arthur massacre and its consequences[edit]
Main article: Port Arthur massacre (Australia)
The Port Arthur massacre in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia. 35 people were killed and 23 wounded when the gunman opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two semi-automatic rifles. This mass killing horrified the Australian public.
The massacre occurred six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in Scotland.[9]
The Port Arthur perpetrator said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence.[14]
Prime Minister John Howard took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence[15] and convinced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws. The proposals included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a system of licensing and ownership controls.
The Howard Government held a series of public meetings to explain the proposed changes. In the first meeting, Howard wore a bullet-resistant vest, which was visible under his jacket. Many shooters were critical of this.[16][17][18] Some firearm owners applied to join the Liberal Party in an attempt to influence the government, but the party barred them from membership.[19][20] A court action by 500 shooters seeking admission to membership eventually failed in the Supreme Court of South Australia.[21]
The Australian Constitution requires just compensation be given for property taken over, so the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.[22] The government bought back and destroyed over 1 million firearms.[23]
Following the National Agreement on Firearms, the number of deaths by firearms in Australia, initially declined slowly. Overall homicides immediately after saw a decrease of less than one per 100,000 persons. Over the medium term homicide by firearm dropped from 1/200,000 to 1/670,000.[24]
Between 2010-2014, gun related homicides across all of Australia had dropped to 30-40 per year. Firearms in 2014 were used in less than 15% of homicides, less than 0.1% of sexual assaults, less than 6% of kidnapping/abductions and 8% of robberies.[25]
Since the 1996 legislation the risk of dying by gunshots was reduced by 50% in the following years and stayed on that lower level since then.
The rate of gun related suicide was greatly reduced as well.[23] In 2010, a study reported a 59% decrease in firearm homicides in Australia between 1995 and 2006 (0.37 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006).[26] They also reported that the non-firearm homicides fell by the same rate. The decreasing rate for homicide with a firearm was a continuation of a pre-existing decline prior to the 1996 reforms, and several analyses of these trends have been conducted and claimed that the reforms have had a statistically insignificant effect on homicide rates with a firearm .[27]
Suicides by firearm were already declining; however they fell significantly after controls, dropping around 50% in two years.[28] Overall suicide rates remained steady until a slight drop in 2003, followed by stable rates since then.[24]
Measuring the effects of firearms laws in Australia[edit]
Measures and trends in social problems related to firearms[edit]
Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[40]
In 2014, 35 people were victims of firearms homicide,[41] compared to 98 people in 1996.[42]
Suicide deaths using firearms more than halved over the ten years, from 389 deaths in 1995, to 147 deaths in 2005.[43] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[44]
The number of guns stolen has fallen from an average 4,195 per year from 1994 to 2000 to 1,526 in 2006â2007. Long guns are more often stolen opportunistically in home burglaries, but few homes have handguns and a substantial proportion of stolen handguns are taken from security firms and other businesses; only a tiny proportion, 0.06% of licensed firearms, are stolen in a given year. Only a small proportion of those firearms are recovered. Approximately 3% of these stolen weapons are later connected to an actual crime or found in the possession of a person charged with a serious offence.[45]
1 Like
1 Like
I suppose the big difference is that attempting similar would cause a civil war in the US, which probably wouldnât have the same effect on the amount of lives saved.
1 Like
Yes but thatâs because Yanks are insane.
Indeed. Thatâs why we need to scan their brains.
6 Likes
Iâll probably post this again at some stage in the good journalism thread, but wade in, and marvel at gun records in America.
1 Like
There are only 2 stories about this on the front of the indo online.
Paris/Nice/London etc. appear to have gotten far more coverage in fairness.
On a separate point a quare many of them yanks are as thick as shit. The right to bear arms indeed.
Ahh here now⌠many of the muslim attacks over the past couple of years were attributed to men with mental health issues, trying to deflect from islam as any factor. A convenient islamisist apologist tactic also. Donât be completey disingenuous.
Fine piece of work young man, but sadly if I were your professor you would get an F.
I am sure you have heard the expression correlation does not equal causation, so in this instance one needs to dig a little deeper to get at the truth. A truth that will of course result in hysterical screaming from the usual sources and charges of racism.
You simply cannot look at murder rates in the US (the great majority of murders are gun related) and try and make any sense of them without considering race, as the vast majority of murder victims are killed by people of their own race, people tend to kill who they know. Those are statistics per 100,000; white: 2.5, hispanic 5.3 and black 19.1. The reality is that hispanics are twice as likely to kill each other as white people and black people almost eight times as likely. In rough numbers blacks commit 50% of the murders in the US while representing just over 10% of the population.
Your homework for tonight is to redo your analysis with the racial demographics of each state included. I understand itâs a bit more taxing than the simplistic argument you put forward, but youâre a smart lad and Iâm confident you can pull up your grade.
Deaths by firearm in the US versus other developed countries is also a little misleading for another reason, you really need to be looking at murder rates. The majority of deaths by firearm in the US are suicides, as in the US thatâs the preferred method of suicide. Regardless of the availability of guns, suicide rates are no higher in the US than other developed countries, the US is about the same as the average of western Europe.
4 Likes