Don't believe your lying eyes (Enco)

[UnseenParticipant]

This myth of gun ownership improving public safety would only make headway in a country already primed to believe that your gun makes you safer. In fact, there is a clear correlation between lax gun control and higher homicide rates vs. areas with stricter control over firearms. Obviously, the bad guys are not scared.

The following are excerpts from Fact Sheet: Weak Gun Laws Are Driving Increases in Violent Crime

The numbers at the end of some sentences refer to the extensive footnotes you’ll find at the end of the qu0ted article. This piece is plenty long enough without including those.

States that received an “F” grade based on the strength of their gun laws—according to the latest scorecard from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence—saw the highest homicide rates:1

States with “F” grades saw 25 percent higher homicide rates than states with “C” or “D” grades.2

States with “F” grades saw 61 percent higher homicide rates than states with “A” or “B” grades—states with the strongest gun laws.3

The states with the highest firearm mortality rates are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Wyoming.4 These states all received an “F” grade for their weak gun laws.5
Children and teenagers are most vulnerable in states with weaker gun laws: In 2020, the 10 states with the highest rates of gun deaths among children and teenagers ages 1–19 were Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkansas, Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and Alabama.6 All of these states received an “F” grade for their weak gun laws.
Reports also suggest that rates of nonfatal gunshot injuries sustained during assaults are higher in states with weaker gun laws: In 2017, the most recent year with available data across all states, states that received an “F” grade had a rate of nonfatal gunshot injuries that was 22 percent higher than states with “C” or “D” grades and 59 percent higher than states with “A” or “B” grades.7

Missouri’s repeal of its handgun law led to an increase in gun homicide rates

In 2007, Missouri repealed its permit-to-purchase (PTP) law, which required all handgun purchasers to have a valid license that they could obtain only after passing a background check.

A 2020 study concluded that the law’s repeal was associated with a 47 percent increase in gun homicide rates and a 23 percent increase in gun suicide rates.8

The number of guns sold in Missouri that were later recovered in connection with criminal investigations in the neighboring states of Iowa and Illinois rose by 37 percent following the repeal of the PTP law.9

From 2007 to 2016, Missouri’s overall gun-related child death rate was the sixth-highest in the nation—62 percent higher than the national rate.10 Specifically, during the same period, the child gun homicide rate in Missouri was the third-highest in the nation.11

Iowa has seen a dramatic increase in gun violence after weakening its state gun laws

Iowa saw the largest drop in Giffords’ 2021 annual state scorecard rankings, dropping from a “C” in 2020 to an “F” in 2021 after repealing two crucial gun safety measures: requirements for permits to purchase firearms and for permits to carry concealed firearms in public places.12

State Sen. Jason Schultz (R) sponsored the bill eliminating state permit requirements and argued that weakening the gun laws would reduce crime: “More guns equal less crime and ladies and gentlemen when all the good guys are armed the bad guys live a short, dangerous, brutish life,” Schultz said on the Iowa Senate floor.13

In 2018, the Center for American Progress and Progress Iowa warned that efforts by the Iowa Legislature to pass dangerous legislation weakening existing gun laws, including then-existing permitting requirements, would lead to increased violence.14

In 2019, Iowa was ranked 43rd in gun violence across the country, with 9.1 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people—25 percent lower than the national average.15

Gun homicides increased 23.5 percent in Iowa between 2019 and 2020:Nonfatal shootings increased by 11.7 percent, from 204 in 2019 to 228 in 2020.

In 2021, nonfatal shootings increased by another 7.5 percent, to 245.16
Gun violence is the most common cause of homicide in Iowa, with firearms responsible for 73 percent of homicides from 2016 to 2020.17

Mississippi has the weakest gun laws and the highest firearm death rate in the country

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mississippi has the highest firearm mortality rate in the country, at 28.6 per 100,000 people.18

Giffords claims “Mississippi has the weakest gun laws in the country,”19 and Everytown for Gun Safety ranks the state at 50th in the country for having the worst gun laws.20

In 2020, Mississippi had the highest rate of crime gun exports in the country because gun traffickers and individuals legally prohibited from purchasing firearms are traveling from states with stronger gun laws to Mississippi to take advantage of its weak gun laws.21

And there’s more!

The article goes on to show that lax gun laws result in more dead cops,places with lax gun laws are more likely to foster mass shootings, places that limit the size of magazines experience 38 percent fewer fatalities and 77 percent fewer nonfatal injuries.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

So do Vermont and New Hampshire now.

Vermont has had no laws restricting open or concealed carry for decades and New Hampshire repeal it’s requirements for concealed carry as well. They are still paradises compared against States that impose these restrictions.

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Unseen, So do Vermont and New Hampshire now. Vermont has had no laws restricting open or concealed carry for decades and New Hampshire repeal it’s requirements for concealed carry as well. They are still paradises compared against States that impose these restrictions.

I didn’t impose a “no exceptions” rule. Sure, there are (rare) contraexamples, but the proponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the states with weak gun control tend to be more dangerous places when it comes to gun deaths.

Why do red states tend to have more gun deaths and why does loosening gun restriction tend to result in higher rates of gun death?

[DavisModerator]

Being able to “open carry” is small fish in terms of gun control. Vermont has numerous gun control laws include age restrictions, some licensing, background checks and ability to seize guns. People who advocate for gun control laws do not necessarily say all guns should be banned. It is simply putting reasonable limits on an extremely dangerous object. To have less regulation over a potential weapon of killing someone from a distance than that of driving or even smoking is f***ing absurd. Gun control should be uncontroversial.

[RichRaelianParticipant]

Hi! My eyes don’t lie.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

I didn’t impose a “no exceptions” rule. Sure, there are (rare) contraexamples, but the proponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the states with weak gun control tend to be more dangerous places when it comes to gun deaths.

Sounds like goalpost-shifting to me. You asserted as Gospel that a State deregulating and de-restricting firearms would mean an increase in firearms homicides. I gave you not just one, but two non-confirming instances, one of which was non-confirming for decades prior to the present.

Obviously, there are many other factors involved in the rates of crime and many other crimes besides gun crimes. To focus solely on gun crimes and gun control is reductionistic and to uphold gun control against all evidence to the contrary is Dogmatism, not scientific, evidence-based Criminology.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

Age restrictions, background checks, and licensing are Federally-imposed, not Vermont State-imposed, and statutes authorizing seizures of weapons are directed against the arrested, not the Citizenry at large.

The Federal restrictions are imposed on all States, so if they alone were effective against firearms crimes, the effect would be uniform throughout the United States.

[DavisModerator]

Then I guess I read Vermont’s laws incorrectly because it seems like they raised the age, required background checks beyond federal laws and enacted a whole slew of new laws on gun control Enco.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/chapter/13/085

Seems like a shit ton of gun control to me beyond federal legislation. What do I know…I’m not a gun expert. Just know they are extremely dangerous tools that should be regulated, and that the overwhelming majority of people don’t buy your libertarian extremism and want these controls.

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Unseen, So do Vermont and New Hampshire now. Vermont has had no laws restricting open or concealed carry for decades and New Hampshire repeal it’s requirements for concealed carry as well. They are still paradises compared against States that impose these restrictions.

They would be paradisal with or without guns due to the prosperous nature of their residents and the lack of metropolitan areas and the problems associated with the same.

Surely you can point to where loosening gun laws reduced gun deaths. Oh, that’s right: The article refuted that silly claim.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

Re-reading them, you may the right about the added age restrictions and background checks, plus bans on switch-blades, brass knuckles, and “zip guns” have been around for decades in many jurisdictions.

Still, this doesn’t indicate when the added restrictions passed, what prompted them, or whether they had any desired effect.

I know for a fact that a knife doesn’t need a spring action to flip open quickly, just a very well-lubed blade rivet and/or a finger notch on the back of the blade, and gloves can always have metal-plated inserts or pockets, so laws against switch-blades and brass knuckles are feckless.

And, of course, none of these laws in Vermont or New Hampshire begin to match the Draconian laws of Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, California, or any of the States mentioned in Unseen’s article.

[DavisModerator]

I am gratified Enco you are somewhat capable of conceding a point. I don’t know Enco, I don’t know enough about US states to comment on any of this. I wouldn’t want to live in a place that doesn’t have gun control and I wouldn’t want to live in a place where the majority prefer it. It is entirely sensible to put reasonable controls on extremely dangerous weapons. Background checks, age restrictions, mandatory training, gun safes, mental health checks and licensing are all utterly extremely reasonable.

I understand you might find this is not the case with your extremist libertarian ideology, fortunately few people agree. If people in some states want to have lax gun control and all of the many issues that come with it (including wanton gun accidents and suicides, not to name injuries and deaths), so be it. I’m glad I don’t live there.

• This reply was modified 11 months, 3 weeks ago by  Davis.

[—Participant]

Davis wrote:

If people in some states want to have lax gun control and all of the many issues that come with it (including wanton gun accidents and suicides, not to name injuries and deaths), so be it. I’m glad I don’t live there.

Although, within the context of the United States it becomes an unfortunate situation. You can choose to live in a state with stricter firearm regulations, but if neighbouring states are lax, then through trafficking and straw purchasing, their policies become your problem—a problem to which there is no immediate or obvious solution without working on a national level. Even across national borders it can be difficult to cut off the flow of trafficked weapons.

[UnseenParticipant]

Gun-huggers love to bring up knives as though they are on a par with guns. Well, sure, there are many ways to kill someone if one wants to try. Theoretically, you could beat someone to death with a sack full of ice cubes or take off your belt and strangle them.

Knives are a more serious threat, of course, but they force the user to get up close and personal (death by throwing knife is not a “thing”). And as for mass killing, it takes a gun to do it satisfactorily because, you see, the killers get off on the terror in the eyes of their victims. So poison, which can kill many people, doesn’t fulfill that wish.

If Enco or some other NRA self-defense guru were to go into a classroom full of children with a knife wanting to hopefully end every one of their precious lives, sure he could kill some, but while doing so some would escape because he’d have to chase his victims down allowing the remining ones to get the hell away.

That’s why guns are the gun-hugger’s preferred tool for mass killings. Knives come in a distant second, third, or fourth (in regard to clubs, bats, or cudgels and bare hands, of course). And of course, if you’re a gun-hugger, you’d want to use a gun…well, just because.

The Las Vegas massacre (and future ones like it, no doubt) could only have been accomplished with a rapid-shooting high-capacity GUN.

[UnseenParticipant]

@Enco

Here’s a question you should have an answer to.

If one were to grant (and solely for the sake of discussion) that having a gun increases people’s personal safety but significantly decreases safety of the general public—which seems to be the case based on the stats in the article I cited—which is the more precious value, personal safety or a safer society?

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

I am gratified Enco you are somewhat capable of conceding a point. I don’t know Enco, I don’t know enough about US states to comment on any of this. I wouldn’t want to live in a place that doesn’t have gun control and I wouldn’t want to live in a place where the majority prefer it. It is entirely sensible to put reasonable controls on extremely dangerous weapons. Background checks, age restrictions, mandatory training, gun safes, mental health checks and licensing are all utterly extremely reasonable.

I understand you might find this is not the case with your extremist libertarian ideology, fortunately few people agree. If people in some states want to have lax gun control and all of the many issues that come with it (including wanton gun accidents and suicides, not to name injuries and deaths), so be it. I’m glad I don’t live there.

Again, it is not my intention to try and change minds on this subject. Whether or not people own firearms and where they wish to live is their choice. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of the arguments for gun control and pointing out that the problems you mention aren’t caused by lack of gun control nor are they solved by gun control.

And if respecting Life, Liberty, and Property, leaving peaceful people alone, and insisting on being left in peace is an “extremist” position, than somebody has a serious problem, and it is not those live and let live.

[Author]

Posts