Religious gun nut kills Batman moviegoers

[hadespussercats]

Look at the column for homicide rates per 100,000 and the gun homicide rate per hundred thousand. In many of the states with the lowest rates, guns are freely available. States like California are very high in per capital gun violence, but have strict laws. States like North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming, Iowa, and all across the midwest have freely available guns and their gun homicides are much lower. Places like Maine, New Hampshire, etc. -- they have lax gun laws and have among the lowest homicide (gun and otherwise) rates in the world.

Because there's no one around to shoot.

[Warren Dew]

Looks like the guy was high when he did it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -mind.html

[Coito ergo sum]

Look at the column for homicide rates per 100,000 and the gun homicide rate per hundred thousand. In many of the states with the lowest rates, guns are freely available. States like California are very high in per capital gun violence, but have strict laws. States like North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming, Iowa, and all across the midwest have freely available guns and their gun homicides are much lower. Places like Maine, New Hampshire, etc. -- they have lax gun laws and have among the lowest homicide (gun and otherwise) rates in the world.

Because there's no one around to shoot.

"Per capita" takes into account population differences.

If it's the density of populations that is the issue, then well, we have a different causative factor. People in high densities shoot each other more often per capita, apparently.

[Warren Dew]

I'm hoping, personally, that the gun control lobby in this country will reflect on the recent string of Supreme Court rulings coming down on the pro-gun side of the aisle, and refocus their efforts. Stop trying to ban certain kinds of extra scary evil bad guns, and instead focus on how we make a positive effort to reduce the number of people hurt and killed in a way that doesn't take away guns from people who haven't done anything wrong.

That would be nice, but unlikely. For example, the UN arms treaty currently under negotiation could provide a back door mechanism simply to suppress gun ownership, and to get rereview by the Supreme Court after the composition of that court changes.

[mozg]

Hey mozg - cool your jets a bit. Mai seems to be making a genuine effort to understand the pro-gun side of the argument here, so why not embrace that and explain it to someone who is admittedly not well-versed in the mechanics and operation of firearms?

Maybe I am somewhat hasty to go on the defensive regarding this, probably owing to a long history of negative statements regarding firearms, firearm owners, and my own mental state. If someone is geniuinely interested in factual information here, I'll be glad to share what I know.

I've brought many a first time shooter to the range with me, and I've found that every one of them has found guns less and less scary the more they actually understand them. I don't take mai's posts as quoted by you as an attack on gun ownership, but rather as a genuine attempt to understand something that she had clearly stated she doesn't. Embrace that shit, work with it, it's good stuff.

I've taught a lot of novices. It's a lot of fun seeing their sense of accomplishment when they start breaking balloons with a .22 and they start getting interested in the skill of it all.

Ten years ago, I learned how to use the hubby's glock, and since then I go out with him once in a while to the shooting range when he takes his gun for it's yearly testing to make sure it's in good working order. (he's a responsible gun owner)

I shoot my daily carry gun at least twice a month to keep in practice of my marksmanship and handling. A good practice session is 300 rounds before I start to get hand/arm fatigue. The other guns I shoot less frequently. Probably every six to eight weeks I take them to the range.

I'm hoping, personally, that the gun control lobby in this country will reflect on the recent string of Supreme Court rulings coming down on the pro-gun side of the aisle, and refocus their efforts. Stop trying to ban certain kinds of extra scary evil bad guns, and instead focus on how we make a positive effort to reduce the number of people hurt and killed in a way that doesn't take away guns from people who haven't done anything wrong. Working out the kinks in the federal background check system that is already in place is one thing that would help. Stricter enforcement of laws regarding unlawful firearm ownership would help as well.

I think the 'War on Drugs' is something that needs to be re-examined. A lot of violent crime directly surrounds the trafficking of drugs, and this is also a factor in the existence of and violence between various gangs. Taking a serious look at violent crime, who's committing it, and why it's being committed is a lot more important to the issue than simply blaming firearms.

The vast majority of violent crime, including shootings, is happening in relation to illegal drugs, gangs and other organized crime.

[hadespussercats]

Look at the column for homicide rates per 100,000 and the gun homicide rate per hundred thousand. In many of the states with the lowest rates, guns are freely available. States like California are very high in per capital gun violence, but have strict laws. States like North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming, Iowa, and all across the midwest have freely available guns and their gun homicides are much lower. Places like Maine, New Hampshire, etc. -- they have lax gun laws and have among the lowest homicide (gun and otherwise) rates in the world.

Because there's no one around to shoot.

"Per capita" takes into account population differences.

If it's the density of populations that is the issue, then well, we have a different causative factor. People in high densities shoot each other more often per capita, apparently.

I suppose if everyone in NH and ME who had guns were snipers, things might even out.

[Coito ergo sum]

Look at the column for homicide rates per 100,000 and the gun homicide rate per hundred thousand. In many of the states with the lowest rates, guns are freely available. States like California are very high in per capital gun violence, but have strict laws. States like North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming, Iowa, and all across the midwest have freely available guns and their gun homicides are much lower. Places like Maine, New Hampshire, etc. -- they have lax gun laws and have among the lowest homicide (gun and otherwise) rates in the world.

Because there's no one around to shoot.

"Per capita" takes into account population differences.

If it's the density of populations that is the issue, then well, we have a different causative factor. People in high densities shoot each other more often per capita, apparently.

I suppose if everyone in NH and ME who had guns were snipers, things might even out.

I think, perhaps, if they were gang members or hoodlums, things might even out. Statistically, that is where gun homicides happen, for the most part.

The reason folks in Maine don't shoot each other as much is because they don't attack each other as much.

[mistermack]

What a load of shit.
It's obvious why places like California have more gun deaths. It's because they have big cities with a big drugs industry, they have lots of recent immigrants, and they have organised and self-perpetuating gangs.
You don't get that sort of thing in Wyoming. It's nothing to do with the gun laws.

What a stupid connection to contrive at.

I notice this guy had done a stint of "counselling" just like Zimmerman did.
Perhaps they should be looking at the the gun murder rates for the states that encourage counselling.
You know it makes sense.

[Wumbologist]

What a load of shit.
It's obvious why places like California have more gun deaths. It's because they have big cities with a big drugs industry, they have lots of recent immigrants, and they have organised and self-perpetuating gangs.
You don't get that sort of thing in Wyoming. It's nothing to do with the gun laws.

I'm glad you and I can agree on this, mistermack. Big US cities have high homicide rates because of drug trafficking and organized, self-perpetuating gang activity, and it's nothing to do with the gun laws. I never thought you and I would see eye to eye here.

[mistermack]

What a load of shit.
It's obvious why places like California have more gun deaths. It's because they have big cities with a big drugs industry, they have lots of recent immigrants, and they have organised and self-perpetuating gangs.
You don't get that sort of thing in Wyoming. It's nothing to do with the gun laws.

I'm glad you and I can agree on this, mistermack. Big US cities have high homicide rates because of drug trafficking and organized, self-perpetuating gang activity, and it's nothing to do with the gun laws. I never thought you and I would see eye to eye here.

How could gun laws possibly have an effect in a country awash with guns? The criminals can get as many as they want, and ammunition is available mail order.
Anybody who wants a gun has no problem. So a state with tighter gun-laws has no chance of making any difference.

It needs to be sorted out nationwide. And it would take decades. And it won't happen without a REAL tragedy. Not these piffling mini tragedies.

[Wumbologist]

What a load of shit.
It's obvious why places like California have more gun deaths. It's because they have big cities with a big drugs industry, they have lots of recent immigrants, and they have organised and self-perpetuating gangs.
You don't get that sort of thing in Wyoming. It's nothing to do with the gun laws.

I'm glad you and I can agree on this, mistermack. Big US cities have high homicide rates because of drug trafficking and organized, self-perpetuating gang activity, and it's nothing to do with the gun laws. I never thought you and I would see eye to eye here.

How could gun laws possibly have an effect in a country awash with guns? The criminals can get as many as they want, and ammunition is available mail order.
Anybody who wants a gun has no problem. So a state with tighter gun-laws has no chance of making any difference.

It needs to be sorted out nationwide. And it would take decades. And it won't happen without a REAL tragedy. Not these piffling mini tragedies.

Right. The gangs won't keep killing each other over drugs that are illegal if we make guns also illegal so that they can't get their hands on them, just like the illegal drugs they can't get their hands on and kill each other over.

[Coito ergo sum]

The drug dealers don't use legal guns now. They use illegal ones, so they can ditch them and they won't be traceable by paper trail back to them. If they got CCW permits and handgun permits, they would pretty much be caught dead to rights when they used the gun in a crime...

[mistermack]

Right. The gangs won't keep killing each other over drugs that are illegal if we make guns also illegal so that they can't get their hands on them, just like the illegal drugs they can't get their hands on and kill each other over.

Right. It's never been done, has it? No country has ever successfully restricted gun ownership. According to your logic.
But wait, MOST countries can do it. Especially the civilised ones.
America must be a special case then. Other countries can reduce gun crime and gun ownership.

But, not the land of John Wayne, and Clint Eastwood. That's because a lot of americans never actually become mentally adult.

[JimC]

Question, per capita is the number of murders by guns in the U.S. higher or lower than other countries with equivalent laws on guns?

If yes then surely it is something wrong with some part of American society that causes so many rather than the fact they have access to guns, no?
If no, then it's just the tool that people use to murder and thus the gun control argument is irrelevant, yes?

Is the gun control issue not just a red herring? Is the real issue much deeper or is there no real issue at all?

Just wondering.

I doubt that there are any other countries with equivalent gun laws...

(not counting countries with constant anarchy or low-level warfare)

I think an honest position for an American supporter of your current gun laws would be this:

"We accept that the wide availability of guns will inevitably lead to a murder rate much higher than other societies, and more frequent gun massacres by lunatics, but we consider this a reasonable price to pay for maintaining our freedom to bear arms"

[Warren Dew]

What a load of shit.
It's obvious why places like California have more gun deaths. It's because they have big cities with a big drugs industry, they have lots of recent immigrants, and they have organised and self-perpetuating gangs.
You don't get that sort of thing in Wyoming. It's nothing to do with the gun laws.

I'm glad you and I can agree on this, mistermack. Big US cities have high homicide rates because of drug trafficking and organized, self-perpetuating gang activity, and it's nothing to do with the gun laws. I never thought you and I would see eye to eye here.

How could gun laws possibly have an effect in a country awash with guns? The criminals can get as many as they want, and ammunition is available mail order.
Anybody who wants a gun has no problem. So a state with tighter gun-laws has no chance of making any difference.

It needs to be sorted out nationwide. And it would take decades. And it won't happen without a REAL tragedy. Not these piffling mini tragedies.

Massachusetts has a much lower gun murder rate than California, despite a higher population density and near identical gun laws. Clearly something else is at work besides gun laws and population density.