|
Post by PamIsMe on Jan 11, 2016 23:39:42 GMT -6
www.aol.com/article/2016/01/10/these-are-the-states-with-the-most-gun-violence/21295045/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl18|sec3_lnk3&pLid=-1829196135States with the most gun violence After the recent mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, President Barack Obama made a statement from the White House, rattling off the names of other communities where similar gun violence has occurred. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Navy Yard, Isla Vista, Charleston and now Roseburg – all have become familiar touchstones in America's complex relationship with guns, violence and regulations. As he has done previously, Obama asserted that the Roseburg shootings meant Congress and state governments need to reexamine laws that deal with gun safety and background checks. Using data from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign, InsideGov looked at how gun laws differ by state. The two groups, which both advocate for more effective gun laws, rate states on a scale of 0 to 100 according to how stringent their firearm laws are, with 0 being not strict and 100 being the strictest. As the above map shows, East Coast states tend to have higher scores when it comes to gun laws. Of the top six states with the highest scores for strictness of gun laws, five are along the northeastern part of the country: Connecticut (84), New Jersey (82.5), Maryland (80.5), New York (79.5) and Massachusetts (74.5). But the highest overall mark goes to California, which clocks in at a score of 89. According to the Law Center, California requires all firearm sales go through a licensed dealer, and people purchasing a gun undergo background checks, a safety certificate process and a written test. The state also limits people from buying more than one handgun per month and keeps records of gun sales. On the other end of the spectrum, the four states with the lowest scores are Arizona (6), Alaska (7), Wyoming (9) and South Dakota (9.5). Three states – Kansas, Mississippi and Vermont – tie for fifth place, with a score of 10. On its page detailing Arizona's gun regulations, the Law Center states that Arizona doesn't require dealers to have a state license or limit the number of purchases made at one time. The state also allows people to carry a concealed gun in public without a license and allows people to purchase or transfer assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles or large ammunition magazines. But do more gun laws necessarily mean fewer gun deaths? Obama asserted as much during his press conference, saying: "We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens, and criminals will still get their guns, is not borne out by the evidence." Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, InsideGov mapped out gun deaths by state, per 100,000 people. The fives states with the most gun deaths per 100,000 people are Alaska (19.6), Louisiana (19.2), Alabama (17.8), Mississippi (17.6) and Wyoming (17.5). Three of those five states – Alaska, Mississippi and Wyoming – are also among the states with the most lax gun laws. The five states with the fewest number of gun deaths per 100,000 people are Hawaii (2.7), Massachusetts (3.2), New York (4.4), Connecticut (4.5) and Rhode Island (5.3). Of those five states, two are also at the top of the list when it comes to strictness of gun laws: New York and Connecticut. When connecting the two data sets into one graph, a pattern seems to develop – and that pattern seems to support Obama's claim that stricter gun laws mean fewer gun-related deaths. In the above graph, points that are higher up along the Y axis indicate more gun deaths, and points further to the right along the X axis indicate stricter gun laws. The data confirms that, on the whole, stricter gun laws do result in fewer gun deaths. But some cases run counter to the overall trend. Take California, for example, which sports the highest gun law score at 89. The Golden State has 7.9 deaths per 100,000 – the eighth-lowest in the country. But when consulting an L.A. Times list of the deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., the most instances occurred in California. Nine mass shootings have taken place in California since 1984 (Texas comes in second, with four occurrences). Although California is among the largest and most populated states, the total number of mass shootings there is an outlier. For example, California's population is almost two times that of Florida, but Florida has been the site of only one mass shooting in the last 34 years. While an overall look at the data suggests that stricter gun laws mean fewer gun-related deaths, exceptions like the number of mass shootings in California are important to note. Perhaps more than anything, the California exception shows just how complicated a topic this is for Americans – and shows why finding consensus on appropriate gun legislation continues to be a challenge.
|
|
RShaw
Demoman...
Posts: 147
|
Post by RShaw on Jan 12, 2016 15:33:59 GMT -6
A great thesis to promote a liberal agenda. Trouble is those numbers reported by CDC also include self-inflicted. Suicides are almost twice the number of homicides. Using Alaska as an example, suicide is ranked number 6 in the leading cause of death.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Jan 12, 2016 16:14:51 GMT -6
It clearly states gun violence. If one wants to kill themselves, it makes it a lot more convenient if there is a gun readily available. The worst part to me is that the United States has the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm related death among industrialized countries. No one seems to ever talk about that.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 12, 2016 16:59:33 GMT -6
why is trying to reduce the number of innocents killed by guns, not only an agenda, but a liberal agenda?
should that be everyones "agenda"?
|
|
RShaw
Demoman...
Posts: 147
|
Post by RShaw on Jan 12, 2016 19:25:24 GMT -6
Saving lives is everyone's agenda, but imposing stricter and stricter gun laws won't help. If you were the King for a day, what law could you pass that would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have occured?
It is the means used to tell me I don't know what is best for me. Such as the figures posted by Pam that tell a story, but certainly not the whole story. Twisting the facts to prevent a case. Such as....
Footholds are cruel in Colorado... banned Cage traps are cruel in California....banned An internet video caused the attack in Benghazi....a lie No classified emails on my server.....a lie And my personal favorite...you can keep your doctor and health insurance..... I have lost both and saw a 65% increase in premiums
I am not closed-minded. When I read Pam's statistics, I was shocked and somewhat set on my heels. How could this be? So I started to dig. Not to prove her wrong, but instead to see if my thinking was tainted. However, I discovered the numbers were all true. Not just the whole truth.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 13, 2016 8:18:20 GMT -6
why do we have speed laws? or any traffic laws? the good guys, will drive safely. the bad guys won't.
so we developed laws to increase safety- yet traffic laws are broken countless times every day, and tickets are issued by the 100s.
do we then say- well, the bad guys still break the laws, so why have them?
these new gun regulations don't reduce my rights one iota- well, unless I was buying my guns from a guy that says "psst..hey buddy, want to buy a heater?"
they don't make it harder to buy guns, they don't come and take my guns.
as far as-
Footholds are cruel in Colorado... banned Cage traps are cruel in California....banned An internet video caused the attack in Benghazi....a lie No classified emails on my server.....a lie And my personal favorite...you can keep your doctor and health insurance..... I have lost both and saw a 65% increase in premiums really want to go down the road of who lies most?
weapons of mass destruction ring a bell?
or stop planned parenthood from funding abortions with federal money?
or better yet-
trickle down works?
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Jan 13, 2016 9:18:03 GMT -6
Reducing the number of self inflicted gun deaths may well be attributed to our poor mental health programs and our gun purchase laws. A better mental health system and background checks may filter out some suicidal persons. To me that would be a good thing. Self inflicted deaths impact many others in many ways, so lessening the opportunities for those deaths would be better for our society in my opinion. We are going to always have the arguments about whole or half truths and argue the facts. What we are leading to is due to lack of trust in each other is the winner take all politically method and demographics over the next generations don't favor hunters, trappers or gun owners for that matter.
Bryce
|
|
RShaw
Demoman...
Posts: 147
|
Post by RShaw on Jan 13, 2016 12:50:01 GMT -6
You are right. They all lie. I simply listed a few that were fresh on my mind and had affected me directly or indirectly.
Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. The first 10 days of this year, there have been over 100 shootings leaving 19 dead and 101 wounded. The police spokesperson lays most of the blame on gang related violence which is driven by social media and petty disputes. He calls for even more restrictions on guns from state and federal governments. At the risk of sounding racist, I lay the blame on a culture that places no value on human life.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 13, 2016 14:01:24 GMT -6
^^ agreed
yes, poverty makes life cheap
but lets take that further than just the streets of Chicago-
that culture is much broader than that- from presidential candidates that want to "make the sand glow" to policemen killing unarmed civilians at an alarming rate......
I understand the slippery slope debate and have used it many times- what I guess upsets me, is that these orders really change nothing about how law abiding citizens purchase guns- and does much for mental health, and the cry has been extra agents to aid in time requirements- so not really much here that causes any concern for law abiding gun owners-
and it just might do some good- because mental health issues are (or must be to keep MY sanity) the root casue of gun shootings beyond the ordinary ones over love, revenge or money.
btw- just cause its so stupid- I have to quote from memory Penn on El Choppo- "hes not like other drug lords killing people here and there- he only kills people when it inters with business or makes him money"
|
|
RShaw
Demoman...
Posts: 147
|
Post by RShaw on Jan 13, 2016 15:09:33 GMT -6
I agree with slightly longer time requirements and especially with the mental health aspect. However, in the back of my mind I keep hearing that little voice saying they are chipping away a little at a time.
I would be a little concerned about my well being if I was Penn.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Jan 13, 2016 17:05:16 GMT -6
It amazes me that we spend many valuable resources keeping items such as drugs, tobacco, cars and even videos from criminals or illegal gathering of these items yet we turn a blind eye to criminals firearms or stealing them. I am assuming that our fire arm manufactures are up and up and not illegally getting fire arms to criminals but in the marketing and distribution some one is and we don't seem to acknowledge that until we have mass deaths or situations. For me as a law abiding citizen and a legal gun owner with I would not have a problem with stiffer background checks and longer waiting periods either. What is a week or month to someone with a plan? With all the different rules, laws and regulations stated in the first post this is not much of a federal issue in many ways already. We can make some changes at the base or let the demographics over time remove even more of our rights.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Jan 14, 2016 1:22:29 GMT -6
"If you were the King for a day, what law could you pass that would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have occured?"
If I were Queen for a day I would do a couple things, along with strengthening background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases. Since I've read that notoriety seems to be a motive for many mass shootings (they seem to happen in clusters) I would pass a law that would make it illegal to ever publish the names or background information on any mass shooter and instead put the sole focus on the victims and their families.
I would also pour money into mental health care and make it legal again for families (with a Doctor's recommendation) to have a family member committed for 90 days, against their will if need be, for observation and mental health care. Of course we'd have to also have money for facilities to place them in since we've closed 90% of them down. Institutions don't have to be like the old stereotypes, but locked down facilities would help. I read this: In 1955 there was one psychiatric bed for every 300 Americans. In 2005 there was one psychiatric bed for every 3,000 Americans. Also 20% or more of inmates are deemed mentally ill. Prison is NOT the answer.
I would also beef up education in inner cities and add more gang specialized police units to at least try to break them up.
Then, I'd build a big wall along the southern border to stop gun runners from bringing in illegal guns and make Mexico pay for it. LOL
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by bobbrennan1 on Jan 15, 2016 6:23:19 GMT -6
In my opinion schools improving schools in bad areas is throwing money down the toilet until you change the culture the people there have the wrong values you can't force feed education you would be better off allowing the students who choose to take education seriously to attend another school out of that area. It is very difficult to improve yourself when surrounded by people who have no morals. The number of troubled will increase if you don't separate at a young age the ones who truly want an education just as a hound hunter would never allow his dogs to run with a dog that runs deer you can't allow children to run with the troubled or yours will be rite there with them. That is why in my opinion there is more violence now it is because we don't shun the pieces of crap we want to help them as a society and in return they infect every thing around them and then we talk about spending more money on them when in those areas they don't care about better schools they are the ones who destroyed them in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 15, 2016 8:23:35 GMT -6
yeah- lets just keep them all in poverty until they show they deserve food and other privileges. We want to help them as a "society", but just like the GOP wanting to increase mental health care, but all the while vetoing funding for it- that sounds like BS! its obvious you don't want to help "them" at all- good God- withhold school money until they better their morals? oh wait- like Mexicans, all people of color or less economic standing that the "moral police"- they all are criminals and people of low values and morals?
people living in poverty didn't throw the country into the biggest Recession since the Great Depression-
people in poverty didn't lead us into the quagmire of VN or Iraq
people in poverty don't circumvent tax laws
and you talk about morals? You talk about values?
|
|
|
Post by bobbrennan1 on Jan 15, 2016 16:31:34 GMT -6
Please re read my post nothing said about not funding schools or most things you mention! Oh wait there is a man named Paul Tudor jones who has a school that I believe is in the Bronx by please check it out I believe it is great and don't assume you know any thing about my beliefs. Should I assume that you are a religious man because you said good god?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 15, 2016 16:43:32 GMT -6
really?
improving schools in bad areas is throwing money down the toilet
go ahead- spin that to you approve funding inner city schools-
as far as values, your post dripped with your distain of "their" morals and "values"
you set yourself up as a judge, not I
|
|
|
Post by bobbrennan1 on Jan 15, 2016 19:28:29 GMT -6
I do believe it is throwing it away but with every govt. program there is a certain percentage of waste I didn't say cut funding but certain people will destroy things. My statement was to allow those who want to to go to other schools. You also assumed I am a racist that I am against people of color because you assume that inner city schools are all black or Hispanic I guess you forgot there are whites in those schools as well.by the way did you check out the school I mentioned that Paul Tudor jones started? He is one of those so called evil rich guys, check him out you will honestly be impressed with his works! One more things poor people don't circumvent taxes because if they are poor they don't pay taxes. And yes values matter to me morals as well and blaming others for our personal problems doesn't sit well with me.
|
|
|
Post by bobbrennan1 on Jan 15, 2016 19:32:22 GMT -6
I have to drive I'll be back later
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Jan 16, 2016 18:56:05 GMT -6
What in your opinion are the bad areas where money is wasted? If it is all the large metro areas then you are saying that half of the population is not worth spending public dollars on to become educated and that 150 million plus or minus 30 million are not ever going to have the morals to be true Americans. You may be correct in some aspects but if you feel education is a poor investment that is where you and I differ. Right now in the 22 largest metro areas of the USA 80% or 250 million of our citizens live. I guess I can see your pessimistic attitude if you believe those 250 million are not suitable for public expenditure. I would bet that 75 % of our armed forces and service persons come from these areas. I guess they are just chopped liver as well.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by bobbrennan1 on Jan 16, 2016 20:43:21 GMT -6
I never said education was a poor investment, my point is there are some students and parents who want to learn but because of their situation in life whatever race they are stuck in schools where they aren't able to reach their goals due to other students unruly behavior and teachers that are subpar. I also believe it is very difficult to get a teacher to go to the schools that are some times dangerous or lack funding. But teaching students that have no parental interest in school and the student also has no interest is quite a challenge to teach so yes you have to fund those schools but any thing is only as good as the people participating/faculty ,parents or students. So money is wasted because there is a lower success rate in those type of schools as far as graduation rates or the level of the students education. I did not say don't fund I said allow students to be seperated by their own choice to attend a better school where if they have the discepline and interest they an get a better education. Don't let students that are a problem detract from the education of others. The school I referenced earlier in the Bronx ny expects commitment from the parents and students and the majority of those under privleged kids will go on to be successful!
|
|