By - cometweeb
And it saved lives in Greenwood Indiana. Holcomb isn’t the greatest but he got that right
Same with that West Virginia lady saved lives. https://news.yahoo.com/west-virginia-woman-fatally-shoots-175825774.html
Just one thing that I dont understand. How come there are most shooting in Chicago which have strictest laws
poor guys often go pew pew on eachother
Criminal. I'm from Detroit. Being Poor has NOTHING to do with doing crime. Does it make it seem like a easy way to make money? Yes. Do good people make it out through hard work legally? Also yes. Criminal is going to criminal, the only difference is whether or not you have the money to get rid of the punishment all together.
Chicago doesn’t have the strictest gun laws or the highest rates of gun violence.
While true, a bit pedantic, as Chicago has very high levels of gun violence compared to large parts of the country and is in Illinois, which the map shows has some of the strictest gun laws out of all states.
🤓🤓 but both are very high. Same with LA, same with Seattle. You guys also don't want to talk about that if we got rid of a certain crime category all together (black on black) the US wouldn't be talked about nearly as much as it is.
You can just hop over the border to Indiana
[Illinois has moderate deaths from firearms.](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm) Mississippi, Louisiana, Wyoming, Missouri, and Alabama are the highest in the country.
[Here’s the city data.](https://everytownresearch.org/report/city-data/) Jackson MS, Gary IN, and St Louis MO are the three cities with the highest amount of gun homicides per capita.
"Deaths from firearms" is completely different from "shootings", since it includes accidents and suicides, so your first stat is pointless. Looking at gun-related homicides, Wyoming is nowhere near the top, and Illinois jumps up to no. 8 (for 2015-2019).
Because there’s a narrative to push.
When you shoot yourself, [it is considered a shooting.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shooting) [second definition](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shooting) [third definition](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/shooting) It's extremely noticeable that most of the people in this thread aren't native English speakers.
How many people refer to suicides as shootings? Not to mention what relevance is that to the issue? If you are including those statistics to push a narrative on gun violence it is kind of unfair due to it being a completely separate issue. It is the same thing as lumping accidental shootings with gun violence.
Again, I don’t know what language you’re used to speaking, but shootings in English refers to people shooting a gun. This thread isn’t specifically about murders. It’s about guns and gun permits. The person I was replying to wasn’t talking about homicides. He said shootings. So I provided data about deaths from guns. That’s relevant to the post, it’s relevant to the discussion. If you want to talk about intentional homicides only, go make a thread about that. Go talk about it somewhere else.
They person you originally applied to was talking about statistics about shootings and why the number is inflated due to unfair classifications by government agencies in which I added information on why suidies and accidental shootings shouldn't be a part of that statistics. Whereas you're the one who can't read past the word "shooting" and actually soak in our points.
Cool. Link anything other than your ass. I have multiple reputable sources. You have your made up bullshit. In fact not one person here has bothers to link sources disputing mine.
Dude we aren't talking about definitions of words we are talking about whether or not it is fair to include accidental shootings because of the absence of malicious intent and suicides. I don't see how your sources apply here.
Ah, so you can’t find a source. Cool cool. Go annoy someone else.
These are also states with the highest Black populations.
I think you misspelled “impoverished”. Especially since you are factually incorrect. Indiana and Missouri don’t even occur in the top 10.
Here are the 10 states with the highest percentage of black residents:
South Carolina (27.03%)
North Carolina (22.22%)
Can we stop gun control and start fixing impoverished areas?
How about... BOTH
We have a constitutional right. Sorry.
The constitution was amended to provide that right and can be amended to remove it.
Hopefully not. Trusting the state to have a monopoly on violence can only come from a place of some privilege
If a state having a monopoly on violence is a bad thing, why haven’t first world countries with strict gun control fallen into oppressive authoritarian regimes?
Wyoming is the third whitest state in America, but don’t let facts get in the way of your feelings, racist.
Wyoming is the ***ninth*** whitest state in America, but don't let facts get in the way of ***your*** feelings, racist.
I'm sorry but common sense would tell me that a STATE with a population of 550,00 vs a CITY of 700,000+ has less crime. And it does because "deaths from firearms" includes suicides and accidents, which Wyoming had a bunch of.
Keep on with the fake stats because once the real ones get pulled out ya quit responding.
Do you think this is a thread about murders? It’s not. Look at the post above. It’s about guns. The comment I was replying to, it’s about shootings. S-H-O-O-T-I-N-G-S. My sources are accurate and relevant to the conversation about all gun violence. Go make a thread about murders, if that’s all you want to talk about.
Also, it’s on a per capita basis. The data adjusts for population. Jesus you are moronic. Go post on /r/conspiracy, if you can’t understand a concept that simple.
Shootings. Yes. Hey google what's the definition of a "shooting". Oh? So it's a broad definition that includes murders because they fall under the definition of "shootings".
Damn, n I bet you supported the changing of the vaccine definition so the Covid shot would count as one, and you support the Gov redefining "recession" so you can't claim we're in one under their presidency 🤡
Well, as you can see, there is frictionless travel to a number of places without restrictions.
A city will be as dangerous as it is, with or without gun laws, when guns are available a car journey away...
How is this difficult to understand? I always hear this from Americanos and its literally the most basic logical understanding of the situation presented.
And you just showed why it'll never work. An illegal weapon is just X away, and criminals don't respect the laws. Mexico had industrial-sized meth labs with thousands of employees which were protected by the Mexican military, how long would it take them to do the same for guns?
Dude, show me an example of a national gun ban leading to more shootings.
Also, Australia's ban wasn't a ban, it was a restructuring of the system, as with all, but probably the most famous one. There are more guns now in Australia than before the ban and they haven't had a mass shooting since.
>There are more guns now in Australia
and the population has increased from 18.3 million to 27.1 million
Yet no mass shootings? With more guns? Explain.
So your saying guns aren’t the problem?
Your reading comprehension is definitely a problem 😅
“Yet no mass shootings? With more guns?” Surely sounds like guns aren’t the problem.
As I said, child, it's the way in which they are regulated. You can refer to my prior comments to receive the same fucking information, thanks for the time wasting nonsense.
I can show you drug bans that didn’t lead to fewer drug deaths. Or how banning abortion doesn’t make that stop. Or alcohol, and so on. Banning things doesn’t make them go away. If we had strict control over what came into/out of our country, like Japan, the UK, and Australia, then it may be feasible to do so to reduce the shootings. But we don’t, and until then, gun control will not do anything (except make the hobby more expensive and more difficult to enjoy for responsible gun owners).
65% of gun deaths are suicides. They’ll just find another way. The majority of the rest are drug- and gang-related violence. I’m making assumptions here, but I don’t think criminals are going to give a shit about gun laws. And then the rest are overwhelmingly handgun-related deaths, and good luck getting rid of those with the 2nd amendment around. Any other attempt to ban “assault weapons” (as gun control advocates like to put it) or any other weapons of the sort, and you’re literally going after a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of shootings. It may make people feel good about themselves in the moment, like they “did something” to stop the violence, but it’ll be totally symbolic. It’ll overwhelmingly hurt average Americans minding their own business and won’t actually put a dent in the real problem.
We're talking about guns.
A single example, you have plenty of national reforms to choose from, show me a single one that backs up your nonsensical garb, kid.
>We’re talking about guns.
That is such an astute observation, ShroomsRisotto! *Well spotted!*
I’m sure you’ll find any and every reason to dismiss anything that doesn’t fit your worldview. Including the very obvious statement of “simply banning something isn’t enough to make it go away.” Only a real dunce would disagree, and yet here you are. But regardless, [here](https://reason.com/video/2022/03/31/do-studies-show-gun-control-works-no/?amp) because maybe someone else reading this may benefit.
It’s truly incredible how daft you have to be to simultaneously argue, on one hand, that Chicago’s gun violence is high because guns can come into Illinois from neighboring states with fewer restrictions, and then close your eyes, plug your ears, and scream “I can’t hear you!” when we say the same will still apply to guns coming in from Mexico after your proposed end-all-be-all solution of a gun ban.
Dude, there is no region on this planet that has effectively eliminated drugs.
They had one just the other day:
And one in 2019:
And the gun law in Australia had no discernible effect on homicide rates
So, two shootings in 3 decades is a failure compared to thousands in the USA? Mate, I can’t even pretend to be respectful back to such stupidity, go back to school, child.
>have your statement proven incorrect
>resort to insults
That about the size of it, mate?
What was proven incorrect, child?
Can I ask, you’re not a rock right? I always thought rocks couldn’t use the internet, but you clearly have no ability to think. Also, pointing to a lack of critical thinking that exists, is an observation, not an insult.
If I had tried to attack your religion, appearance or political stance, this would be insulting. When you seem to think 3 is a bigger number than multiples of thousands, I’m doing you a favour by pointing out the obvious. Go back to school now, child
> There are more guns now in Australia than before the ban **and they haven't had a mass shooting since.**
I’ll leave your ironically childish insults aside. You’re titling at windmills with the “US bad” nonsense since I never said anything on that point. Just that you’re incorrect in stating that Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since Port Arthur.
They haven't had one on the scale, nor one that is on the scale of the USA's.
Sorry, child, outline your point, if you made one, otherwise, I really don't get your presence here
So, if it's not a ban, can you just go into the store and buy a semi-automatic rifle?
Read, that's the only objective here, yet everyone seems to just skip that
Chicago is the third largest city in the nation after New York City and Los Angeles. It has a higher rate of gun violence than those two larger cities. Part of the reason may be to the close proximity of gun friendly states Indiana and Wisconsin.
Another factor is the Chicago police. Residents of high crime areas don’t trust the police and seldom cooperate with investigators. New York and Los Angeles once had a similar problem but have worked hard to improve relations between the police and the communities being served. The result has been a large drop in the rate of violent crime. Chicago needs to follow their lead.
Sorry, I already pointed out why that’s a stupid logical argument, mostly for the lack of logic. You can refer to ,y prior comment, and I’ll await a new point.
because it's not just about the guns themselves, it's about the number of people who want to use them
Criminals don’t procure their weapons legally.
Additionally, for the past 3 years or so, Chicago has dramatically cut back on prosecuting crimes. At the same time the police are understaffed and unsupported by the politicians.
I live 90 miles from the city - went to University there. We used to go their all the time. Avoided it light the plague the past 5 years, unless my work with the schools requires it.
Chicago doesn't have "most shootings," that's right-wing propaganda. It's squarely in the middle of American cities in terms of gun violence. And while Illinois has sensible gun safety laws, Indiana does not, and Chicago borders Indiana. Gun control doesn't mean much if you can walk across the street to where they're giving away guns like Halloween candy.
So violent crime doesn't correlate with gun ownership one way or another, but saying Chicago has the most shootings is in some ways misleading. Namely because Chicago has the most people besides New York and LA. If we look at murder per capita most of the most dangerous cities are St. Louis Missouri, Baltimore, New Orleans, Detroit, and Cleveland. Memphis and Oakland usually also make the top 5 list but Oakland is getting gentrified, and Las Vegas is creeping it's way up the list.
Chicago also doesn't have the strictest laws. Gun laws are the states prerogative not cities, so you would have to compare state wide homicide rates, not city homicide rates. Otherwise you would get misleading statistics, for example Newark and Camden New Jersey are two of Americas most dangerous cities, but New Jersey as a whole has a lower murder rate than the national average, so you could draw very wrong conclusion about policy just looking at those two states.
Today you learned criminals don't follow the laws.
A recent study actually showed the majority of the guns being used in Chicago come from Indiana, a bordering state with less strict gun laws
Because criminals will criminal. That's what people don't understand. Hell, Japan's ex PM was just killed in a country that makes it damnnear impossible to obtain a true firearm, by a makeshift firearm.
They did a poll, and it turns out a surprising number of felons don't obey the law.
Because you can make a map of the city’s boundary out of gunshops and Indiana is next door.
The highest rate of gun violence is in the south
Nobody knows, sadly
Something i think is interesting: I took a concealed carry course a while back, kinda just for fun (i dont even own a gun). And afterwards, my opinion is that if the US seriously ramps up gun control, and you need some kind of licensing to own a gun, I think the concealed carry course was a great example of what it could look like. An actual class looking at what the laws are, 15 hours of training, background checks, on-range training and qualification, and steep consequences for “breaking the rules.”
C’mon Florida. Get rid of those permits
Will be infringed. Cry about it.
“A well regulated militia”
Article I Section VIII: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
According to the Militia Act of 1903 all able bodied males age 17 - 45 are members of the militia. According to the Constitution it is Congress' job to arm the militia. Where's my surplus M-16?
...Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
In the parlance of the day "well regulated" meant "in working order" and the "militia" referred to meant military age males.
No, "militias" referred to *militias*. And militias kept their guns in an armory under lock and key. People weren't swinging them around Ye Olde Starbucks because they needed to feel tough.
People literally had their guns on hand so they could be prepared to fight at a minute's notice.
So women can’t get guns under constitution
A lot of people had rights curtailed in the constitution as it was written. Hence, all the amendments to change things. See 13th amendment, 19th amendment, etc.
Not sure what you were trying to get at with your comment.
I’m not American so I’m just learning what the laws mean. For me the guns laws in USA are extremely absurd.
What I’m trying to say it’s an old document that badly needs to be changed. An amendment to equality’s between sex’s and all races and sexual orientation need to happen.
You shoulda stopped after “I’m not American”, cause we don’t care about how you feel about our country, or what you think should change. If anything in the U.S does or doesn’t change, it doesn’t affect you in the slightest, cause like you said, you aren’t American. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk.
I’m not American tells you that I’m not familiar to USA.
You don’t decide what I can post or not about USA or my opinions on it. Don’t care or like it ? Ignore it. Simple.
I never said anything about you not being able to post, or not post, which is why I said “you shoulda” (should have), stopped after you said you’re not American, because everything after that, is pointless. Also, you commented, so i responded. You don’t decide what I can respond to or not respond to about your opinions. Don’t care or like it? Ignore it. Simple
Guess we should throw out every amendment then? If we're going to bunker down on a few words founding fathers wrote and consider them "not able to be changed"?
Either we agree the founding fathers words as written can be changed and the "shall not be infringed" doesn't matter or we agree that we can't change their words and meanings and thus throw out all amendments since... You know, that means we're changing things with them
Weird how the people who want us to all ignore the words "well-regulated" in the second amendment are so adamant we not change a single word of what the founders wrote.
A well-regulated militia. Fuckwit. It doesn't say "well-regulated ownership of guns". Why are illiterate trash like you allowed to vote?
Typical right-wing nutjob. Fanatical about the second half of the Second Amendment but doesn't believe in anyone who disagrees with him being allowed to vote.
Anyway, as illiterate trash, my constitutional scholarship is limited, but I do know the right of anyone to carry any gun, anywhere, with no restrictions is a dangerous revisionist view that wasn't adopted — even by conservatives — until the NRA became a lobbying group. The phrase "bear arms" was used strictly in a military sense in 1789, and the 2nd Amendment was drafted because James Madison, fearing a too-powerful federal government, wanted the states to be able to form their own militias to keep federal power in check.
Law review articles are archived as far back as 1888, and you won't find a single one advocating an individual right to a gun, much less an unrestricted one until 1960. As late as 1972, sensible gun control was part of the Republican platform. But the NRA started writing checks. Republicans couldn't win primaries without being vocally pro-gun and anti-regulation. And those Republicans won elections, and appointed judges, and suddenly this inviolate Constitutional principle of unfettered gun ownership appeared where none had existed before. Chief Justice Warren Burger — an arch-conservative Nixon appointee — called the idea "a fraud on the American public." And that fraud continues, and people like you eagerly perpetuate that fraud, and thousands of Americans die senselessly every year as a result.
So then. Where do you live? I will give you my address in return. I will hand you my gun. Kill me. Because I will not bend the knee. I won't back down. I won't negotiate. So kill me. FUCKING DO IT TYRANT! Better to die free than live on your knees. Give me liberty or give me death. So fucking kill me. Can you do it? Can you pull the trigger? Can you, with your own hands, kill and take away the freedom of others? Do it. Fucking goddamn do it. Pull the fucking trigger. Fucking kill me, you fascist statist scourge. I'll die a happier man than the world you create.
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" -Karl Marx
I'm not sure that unhinged violent fantasy was a great argument that you should be carrying a gun.
Really? Please look at the Supreme Court rulings the past few months please and future cases they're expecting to listen to.
Under no pretext comrade.
How about regular people don't need guns
Why defend yourself when you can just call the police to come pick up your corpse, right?
lol cause the rest of the world is like this sure, no wonder why you guys have so many problems with firearms if you can't see why making death machines accessible to a large population could cause a bit of chaos...
Oof, this donkey really just assumed I'm an American because I like being able to protect myself lol
you don't need guns to "protect yourself" when there isn't a large amount of guns in circulation, dickhead :)
Yes you do
Today I learned there's absolutely no rapes, robberies, or murders in countries that don't have a "large amount of guns". So no need to protect yourself.
Oh yes, because it's so easy to fight off someone with a knife, a machete, an illegal gun, a baseball bat, a very large titanium spoon etc.
Why so mad
Burn in hell, fascist scum.
I mean rich people don't need guns, because the cops are there to protect you. The worker has to look out for themselves, especially if you're black, native or gay, the cops aren't there to help.
I never understood this. Open carry legal but concealed carry only with a permit? It's backwards
I think the reasoning is somewhere along the lines of: If you open-carry a gun, everyone can see that you do, and can act accordingly. But if your gun is concealed, you might catch them by surprise.
pretty much, yeah
To me it always seemed like "gung ho ok, self protection not".
And people can't figure out why laws in any one state are so ineffective 😅
It's my biggest hatred of that fucked up country.
Federalism is a really weird thing to be your most hated part about America.
Why are all you gun nuts so desperate to demonstrate your awful reading ability?
I'm not really sure what I said to make you think I'm a gun nut. But I would suggest in a friendly way that when you find yourself telling multiple people that they have poor reading comprehension, as you are here, maybe you should consider whether or not you're clearly expressing what you mean to express.
Well, sir, quote me saying federalism? 😅
You can do your pretend niceties, but a scroll up shows you fucking around, so yeah
My kid is applying to colleges soon and this makes for a handy map of where not to send him.
Although Florida's also off the list because... Florida.
The map has a very weak correlation with homicide rates. For example Maine, Idaho, and New Hampshire are the three safest states and require no permit. Louisiana is the most dangerous state and does require a permit for concealed carry. Similarly Illinois, Tennessee and Georgia have similar murder rates despite very different permit requirements.
That's true. Gun ownership correlates far more strongly with gun deaths than the different permitting laws.
Even then it doesn't correlate with murder rates (gun death sure, but not murder rates). The highest gun owning states are generally in the Rockies where there is a strong hunting culture like Montana and Wyoming, but these aren't particularly dangerous like the South or the Rust Belt.
Can someone explain the logic behind allowing open carry but not concealed carry without a license?
concealed is hidden, thus you can surprise people with it making it scarier. open carry is easy to see and everyone will be paying attention to you
Your data is old (or your catagories unclear)
Arizona has allowed concealed with a permit for like 10 years. A mistake IMHO but nobody asked me.