DouglasR
Well-known member
My comment would have been more well suited for pm.
Sorry for the derailment.
I had no idea Sweden had gone to hell though.
Illinois gun ban ruled "constitutional".
- Thread starter Dave N
- Start date
- Status
Sorry for the derailment.
I had no idea Sweden had gone to hell though.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
I'm not interested until Rick Beato lionizes him . . . but I'm happy for the guy if he irritates Buzz & crew
BigHornRam
Well-known member
It's pretty much been hell since Abba stop performing there.My comment would have been more well suited for pm.
Sorry for the derailment.
I had no idea Sweden had gone to hell though.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I was told the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
I have a feeling that SCOTUS is going to say in Rahimi that even the bad guys get guns.
No, this ruling isnāt helpful and puts LE at risk. We agree on that.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Nah, crickets . . .
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Poke 'Em
Well-known member
Poke 'Em
Well-known member
No evidence Hitler actually said this, but again, why let facts interfere when you can create rage against the libtards?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Brah everyone knows Germany didnāt win the war because of their strict ESG policies.
If Hitler hadnāt shut down Krupp for not having enough diversity on their board we would all be speaking German.
trackerbacker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2023
- Messages
- 464
Wouldn't red states have more guns, therefore more gun deaths? And wouldn't larger population states have less per 100k than smaller states?Devil advocate
It's interesting to look at it this way:
Would that lead one to surmise that areas ran by one party have more gun violence than another?
Or would one surmise, apolitically, that cities have more shootings than rural areas?
If we looked deeper, do more gun shootings persist in areas or within social classes that do not have nuclear families?
If you want to look at gun violence, go where most are afraid. It's a social/culture issue, not a regulatory issue.
----
You can not and will not legislate morality, and double outlawing something doesn't change it, and criminals don't tend to follow laws as is, so....
Much like how the war on drugs, poverty, terror, etc etc etc has always turned out worse for the "beneficiary" of said war.
This is the one instance I agree with climate change. Our climate and environment are changing. parents are friends to kids rather than being a moral compass or....gasp...a parent.. kids watch filth while glued to Digital heroin. No one OR everyone is punished the same. There's little personal responsibility left. And nuclear families are on the downturn. Match that to many of today's false beliefs (not religious, but entitled issues), yoyoing economy, class warfare and feigned protected classes, you wind up with what we have, and what we have will get worse.
Until the mother and father raise their children, it's a lost cause. Until we hold people responsible, it's a lost cause. While we let the inmates run the prison, it's a lost cause. While we legislate based on the 1%ers, both the rich and the ones who outpace the DSM, it's a lost cause.
The 2A is fine, but like the 1A, is constantly under attack. Freedom is never the issue, except for those afraid of others freedoms. Neither one need adjusting unless back to what it meant, sorry @wllm but individuals smarter than you and i once said something about comforts vs freedoms, and the issue is not how short the 4473 is, or how instantaneously some states allow you to retain a right. But if it makes you feel better than saying what needs said, so be it.
Society needs adjusting. Not the COTUS or BoR.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
99.9% of statistics are spun for narrative spear point maintenance.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Huh? The whole point of per capita is to normalize the stat for population differences.
We have discussed this stat. 1) it includes suicide which skews to Red states. 2) change to āviolent gun crimesā and you get tend to areas with higher population density, and hence high gun density, but it could be a red or blue state. Takeaway is that criminals are political. Google search will show what I mean.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Red v. Blue isn't really a good way to think about it because those political boundaries are contrived.
Guns, Laws, Population are some of the largest variables... though there are lots more, such as laws of neighboring states, poverty rates, etc that also play a huge role.
But to question, it's not absolute gun deaths as a city of 16M is going to have more deaths than a town of 500. It's the rate of deaths, per capita deaths that's relevant and it's per capita deaths versus gun laws.
You have to people to have deaths, and you have to have guns to have gun deaths.
One would surmise that cities would have more total shootings than rural areas, that's just always going to be true. Let's say 10% of MA residents have guns and 50% of WY residents have guns (just making up numbers), that means there are roughly 2x more guns in MA than WY.
I think you would agree it would be misleading to make a choropleth map based on number of total guns in a state and equate it with strength of the 2A, because it's reflecting population differences rather than legal differences.
That's essentially the reverse of what your describing in your first quote.
Anyway
The question is will the rate be higher.
I think the other thing that's important is to recognize that 1. No law is going to have an absolute effect it will reduce or mitigate but it's not going to completely end a practice. What's relevant is did X law reduce the thing it was attempting to reduce. 2. You have to look at projected rate not absolute rate, if something is trending up for decades and then a law is put in place and it plateaus that is a reduction, not doing nothing, as you're looking at where it would probably have been without a law versus with a law.
These nuances aren't sexy and political marketing likes A causes B to sell their team so all the nuance gets lost.
The 2A wasn't really litigate or considered until pretty recently.
All US presidents have had what would now be considered a "radical Anti-2A view" because of how fast this topic has changed in the discourse.
ARs becoming legal, Heller, Bruen, etc. is all super recent.
My point is that no I'm not talking about the 2A as it existed for guys in 3 corner hats, I'm talking about what it meant for the generation that served in WWII/Korea. The gangster era led to the banning of lots of guns/suppressors, I think the greaser era? lead to all the switch blade laws in this country, and I think Regan dealing with crime in CA + Black Panthers + getting shot led in part to the Assault weapon ban.
So historically conservatives and liberals used weapon laws to crack down on violent crime, the recent departure from that is what's new.
Anyway not saying good or bad on either side, just pointing out the context and hoping that people see past political rhetoric.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Gun deaths per 1000 is a different stat than than gun violence. Small population states like Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska unfortunately have high suicide rates, mostly using guns. Other states have a lot of suicides, but drugs are the main method. So correct that the narrative is being spun to promote an agenda.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Nope, Montana has a higher drug suicide and firearm suicide rate than MA.
more_cowbell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2023
- Messages
- 912
The City of Portland Oregon has an online tracker of "shooting incidents".
In Jan 2020 the number was 49. By June 2020 when defund the police was in fashion, it had skyrocketed to 126. The chart shows that since June 2020, shooting incident numbers have remained elevated. People are losing their minds. And with fewer LE on the city streets, "people" (criminals?) are more inclined to do "bad" things. Like engage in shootings -- at people, not tree stumps or rocks out in a national forest like a truck full of 22 year olds do after three too many keystone lights and a bottle of Fireball.
And this is only Portland. In Seattle apparently fatal shootings are up, so the PD is creating a new task force (presumably not previously disbanded in 2020).
From that article: "Over the past few years, there has been a notable increase in the rate of gun violence in the U.S., accelerated by the pandemic, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, lead researcher at the Firearm Injury & Policy Research Program within the University of Washington School of Medicine, told Axios. While some thought that the spikes in the rates of gun violence seen since 2020 would be temporary, "we now know that was not the case," he said."
Law abiding people see what's going on around them, including seeing on local news that 911 calls don't result in LE immediately showing up to save the day, and therefore become first time gun purchasers (this relates to some earlier thoughts in this thread on new gun owners).
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Not sure your point. Crime has generally gone up since covid? Yep. There is a shortage of people to fill LEO opening (and pretty much every job, so letās not write it off to danger or some made-up anti-police sentiment)? Yep. There is crime in cities? Yep. None of these things is news. I think you are building a narrative with a unique selection of places. The same story could be told just about nationwide. There is nothing political about it. We made guns very easy to obtain since about 1776 and criminals use guns to wield power. Taking guns from criminals
is dangerous and hard. Send me my Nobel prize money.
more_cowbell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2023
- Messages
- 912
Earlier in this or another related thread there was discussion of whether anyone could or should purchase a gun (and if they did then there are āmore gunsā out there in society, which some inferred is bad). [Edit to say the Portland and Seattle are of a certain political persuasion. Iāve not researched red state cities, however.]Not sure your point. Crime has generally gone up since covid? Yep. There is a shortage of people to fill LEO opening (and pretty much every job, so letās not write it off to danger or some made-up anti-police sentiment)? Yep. There is crime in cities? Yep. None of these things is news. I think you are building a narrative with a unique selection of places. The same story could be told just about nationwide. There is nothing political about it. We made guns very easy to obtain since about 1776 and criminals use guns to wield power. Taking guns from criminals
is dangerous and hard. Send me my Nobel prize money.
Donāt know about you but Iām getting tired of news stories featuring some felon criminal getting arrested again and police noting he had a firearm.
Then theyāre back out on the street in no time because of one political partyās decision to go easy on career criminals. Laws on the books need to be enforced and criminals need to be in jail, instead of blasting away like a coked up Yosemite Sam.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
There is your bias again. I donāt think anyone is deciding to go easy on criminals. Iām going to go out on a limb and predict that violent criminals donāt vote much and catering to them isnāt exactly a winning strategy. I think it is far more complicated than you want to believe. I would also guess White collar criminals have a higher voting %.
duckhunt
Well-known member
Starks in Prairieduchien is my favorite.
- Status
Similar threads
