10 states highest gun-related deaths

[NinaS]

yet, you that different when Frey ask..................

Say that in English, please.

 

[Dawg]

Say that in English, please.

yet, you thought different when Frey ask

I'll play the Iphone defense as other do...............

 

[Arkady]

I see suicides as their choice; it's not my place to second guess their decision. As for the rest, I'll bet the majority of folks who end up with GSWs were doing something criminal, or criminally stupid. Fvck 'em

I believe I've only personally known two people who died of gunshot wounds. Neither had any criminal record and neither was doing anything criminally stupid. One was working as a receptionist at a women's health clinic when a "pro-life" activist walked in and started shooting. The other was a woman who made the "mistake" of walking into her own backyard wearing white mittens during deer hunting season and was gunned down by a trigger-happy hunter. Those events color my understanding of the issue.

 

[Arkady]

So what?

So, when you dig into the numbers, you'll see a strong suggestion that our loose gun laws are contributing to our high murder rates, and also likely elevating our suicide rates and accidental death rates. We should consider those likelihoods when deciding what to do with those laws. We can choose to keep them unchanged, if we value what we're getting out of loose gun ownership above the likely cost. But we ought to be honest with ourselves about what that likely cost is, rather than pretending it's a win-win.

 

[Arkady]

Saggy pants seem to cause many people to go out to murder and/or get murdered...

Should they should be banned nationwide?

What evidence do you see for that? Recall that the "saggy pants" phenomenon first was popularized in the mid-1990s, and spread after that. And recall that murder rates have dropped almost every year since 1991. Maybe saggy pants are contributing to the fall of murder and should be encouraged.

 

[Max R.]

I would be interested to see someone do some research and find out what percentage of the people who receive gunshot wounds in this country are actually innocents. By that I mean, how many of the people who get shot are not people involved in a criminal lifestyle? What percentage? That would be an interesting study.

Agreed. I'm sure the data is there. What not clear is how many of those "homicides" are murder as opposed to lawful shootings.

The FBI stats are clear:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls
In 2013 8,454 murders were by firearm.

The OP link states in 2013 homicides "11,208 were caused by gun violence". Ergo, 11,208 - 8,454 = 2,754 homicides were not murder.

 

[Max R.]

So, when you dig into the numbers, you'll see a strong suggestion that our loose gun laws are contributing to our high murder rates, and also likely elevating our suicide rates and accidental death rates. We should consider those likelihoods when deciding what to do with those laws. We can choose to keep them unchanged, if we value what we're getting out of loose gun ownership above the likely cost. But we ought to be honest with ourselves about what that likely cost is, rather than pretending it's a win-win.

Disagreed. Banning guns will not cure depression nor gang violence in the 'hood. The problems in our culture won't be solved by banning books, flags nor guns.

A recent poll shows most agree with me: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/30/usa-today-suffolk-poll-confederate-flag-gun-control/29500975/
By 56%-40%, Americans say tighter gun-control laws wouldn't prevent more mass shootings. By 4-1, 76%-18%, they say easier access to guns wouldn't prevent them. And by 5-1, 78%-15%, they see little chance Congress will pass gun legislation in the foreseeable future.

The poll of 1,000 adults, taken by landline and cellphone from Thursday through Monday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

"It doesn't make any difference if you have strict gun control or don't have it," says Frank Ziebarth, 64, of Whitewater, Wis., who was among those polled. "The bad guys are going to get hold of one. That's been going on forever and I don't think that's going to change."

Christine Thomas, 52, of Napa, Calif., disagrees. "Gun control laws need to be re-evaluated; they need to be enforced," she said in a follow-up interview. "I don't think it's a hopeless cause."

For most Americans, though, the debate seems to be done. By 52%-43%, those surveyed say they don't want gun control to be a significant subject in the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

[Dawg]

So, when you dig into the numbers, you'll see a strong suggestion that our loose gun laws are contributing to our high murder rates, and also likely elevating our suicide rates and accidental death rates. We should consider those likelihoods when deciding what to do with those laws. We can choose to keep them unchanged, if we value what we're getting out of loose gun ownership above the likely cost. But we ought to be honest with ourselves about what that likely cost is, rather than pretending it's a win-win.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

"loose gun laws"
states/cities with strongest have highest murder rates
other progressive liberals will buy your rotten fish, no informed Americans will.

 

[Arkady]

Disagreed. Banning guns will not cure depression nor gang violence in the 'hood.

That's a non-sequitur. If you're going to start a reply with "disagreed" you should then explain why you disagree with what was posted in the item you were replying to, rather than expressing your disagreement with a notion that was never mentioned in that post. I've never heard ANYONE suggesting that banning guns would cure depression or gang violence, so that's a pointless straw man.

 

[resident_evil]

So, when you dig into the numbers, you'll see a strong suggestion that our loose gun laws are contributing to our high murder rates, and also likely elevating our suicide rates and accidental death rates. We should consider those likelihoods when deciding what to do with those laws. We can choose to keep them unchanged, if we value what we're getting out of loose gun ownership above the likely cost. But we ought to be honest with ourselves about what that likely cost is, rather than pretending it's a win-win.

Who cares?

I want my gun rights because I don't trust you at all. If it worries you, declare demonstrably violent gangs terrorists and treat them like terrorists. And fund a study to determine if serotonin uptake inhibitors are the core problem with lone mass shooters. And stop illegal immigration.

Otherwise you're planning to take us all to hell because we aren't giving up anything.

 

[Max R.]

suicide by gun = gun-related death.

Correct. It's the only way for the anti-gun mob to fluff up their numbers.

Do you think those suicides would never have happened if you banned all guns?

 

[Max R.]

That's a non-sequitur. If you're going to start a reply with "disagreed" you should then explain why you disagree with what was posted in the item you were replying to, rather than expressing your disagreement with a notion that was never mentioned in that post. I've never heard ANYONE suggesting that banning guns would cure depression or gang violence, so that's a pointless straw man.

I did.

"you'll see a strong suggestion that our loose gun laws are contributing to our high murder rates".

You could ban guns completely and that won't stop gang-bangers nor suicides. Even if Obama pass his gun ban, it wouldn't have stopped Roof from his murderous rampage.

 

[Arkady]

Who cares?

Lots of us care. If you don't, and see those extra deaths as well worth it for whatever you get out of clinging to your guns, that's fine. We can allow the democratic process to work out where we set the rules. I just want us to be clear-headed about the probabilities, rather than deceiving ourselves into thinking that we're getting something for nothing. Our loose gun laws come at a big sociological cost. We just have to decide whether we think it's worth it.

 

[Arkady]

I did.

"you'll see a strong suggestion that our loose gun laws are contributing to our high murder rates".

You could ban guns completely and that won't stop gang-bangers nor suicides.

I've acknowledge that even if we banned guns completely there'd still be suicides and gang bangers. Its just that there'd be fewer suicides and gang bangers would murder fewer people.

 

[resident_evil]

Lots of us care. If you don't, and see those extra deaths as well worth it for whatever you get out of clinging to your guns, that's fine. We can allow the democratic process to work out where we set the rules. I just want us to be clear-headed about the probabilities, rather than deceiving ourselves into thinking that we're getting something for nothing. Our loose gun laws come at a big sociological cost. We just have to decide whether we think it's worth it.

Lies. You don't care. If you did you'd work on the following:

I want my gun rights because I don't trust you at all. If it worries you, declare demonstrably violent gangs terrorists and treat them like terrorists. And fund a study to determine if serotonin uptake inhibitors are the core problem with lone mass shooters. And stop illegal immigration.

Otherwise you're planning to take us all to hell because we aren't giving up anything.

 

[resident_evil]

I've acknowledge that even if we banned guns completely there'd still be suicides and gang bangers. Its just that there'd be fewer suicides and gang bangers would murder fewer people.

So what. The gains aren't worth the loss. Democide - look it up.

 

[Max R.]

I've acknowledge that even if we banned guns completely there'd still be suicides and gang bangers. Its just that there'd be fewer suicides and gang bangers would murder fewer people.

Is that worth shredding the Constitution? Why not focus on helping the suicidal and putting the criminals behind bars instead of disarming lawful citizens?

 

[JuliefromOhio]

The most recent data I found, from Pew Research, in 2010, said that the firearm death rate was 10.3/100k, of which 3.6/100k were homicides, 6.3/100k were suicides, and 0.4/100k were miscellaneous (accidents, police shootings, and unknown causes). So, if suicides were innocents, then at least 61% of gun deaths were innocents. Some portion of the remaining ones were innocents, too, though it depends on how you define things (for example, would you just be ruling out the victims that had felony convictions, or what?) The only numbers I could find on that were from Milwaukee, where 77% of homicide victims had a prior arrest (not necessarily gun homicide -- a similar study in Philadephia had the number at 67%). But that could include something like GW Bush's arrest for drunk driving when he was younger -- would that qualify as a "criminal lifestyle"? Assuming you mean to capture just harder-core crooks in your question, let's guesstimate around 50% for the two non-suicide categories. So, 1.8/100k homicides of innocents plus 0.2 miscellaneous innocents, plus 6.3 suicides. That would bring the total to around 80% that share of people being killed by guns being innocents.

thanks for doing the calculations and worth repeating:

That would bring the total to around 80% that share of people being killed by guns being innocents.

 

[oicu812]

some areas dont have enough gun related deaths....

its a give and take situation...

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Correct. It's the only way for the anti-gun mob to fluff up their numbers.

Do you think those suicides would never have happened if you banned all guns?

no one has ever talked about banning all guns so you can put that bit of paranoia to bed.

think of all those white guys in those top ten states offing themselves. all those repub/con votes going up in gunsmoke.