0
normiss

Is America finally ready to talk about guns?

Recommended Posts

Hooknswoop

Quote

Interesting perspective regarding what?



Guns.

Derek V



there are several million articles out there - what does this one address?
What point of view are they describing?
What is their argument?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend


That gives a pretty nice concise list of the details. I highlighted the important parts below:

1. Louisiana
Louisiana residents also struggle with high poverty rates and poor educational attainment. Nearly one in five people in the state lived below the poverty line in 2012, the third highest rate nationally.

2. Mississippi
Like many of the states with the most gun deaths, state residents frequently struggle with poverty. Mississippi led the nation with a poverty rate of 24.2% in 2012, and it trailed behind most states in other factors such as access to basic necessities, health care, and household income.

3. Alaska
Most of these fatalities, however, were not homicides. The gun-related homicide rate was exceptionally low in Alaska...

...Socioeconomically, Alaska was an exception.


4. Wyoming
Wyoming reported just 96 firearms deaths, among the fewest of any state in the U.S. However, Wyoming is also the nation’s least populous state, with just over 567,000 residents.

5. Oklahoma
Like the majority of the states with high gun-related fatality rates, Oklahoma residents are also relatively poor.

6. Montana
Montana’s high suicide rate may be due in part to extremely low population density. According to the American Psychological Association, suicide rates tend to be higher in rural areas for a variety of factors, including “greater access to firearms, high rates of drug and alcohol use and few health-care providers and emergency medical facilities.”

7. Arkansas
Arkansas also shares an exceptionally high poverty rate with the majority of states with high numbers of gun deaths. Nearly 20% of residents lived below the poverty line

8. Alabama
Like a majority of states with the most gun violence, Alabama struggles with high poverty. In 2012, 19% of residents lived below the poverty line

9. New Mexico
Poor socioeconomic conditions may partly explain the higher crime rates. More than one in five New Mexico residents lived in poverty

10. South Carolina
Poverty rate: 18.3% (9th highest)

Given that the list was compiled from CDC data, I'm not surprised to see that poverty seems to be the common theme here with the exception of Alaska, Montana and Wyoming. Those states made the cut primarily because of their lower populations and suicide that tends to be more prevalent in suburban/rural areas vs urban homicide in more poverty stricken areas.
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend


There were a couple other things that I wanted to "discuss" but I left them out so the point in my previous post wouldn't be overshadowed.


The Bias of the Article


Again, I think the actual list was objective and well written. It's interesting how the writers of 247wallst had no problem writing their own comments as long as they were supported by CDC data, however when publishing opinions that weren't supported by the CDC, they turned to some guy from one of the most bias think tanks in the country to add a liberal spin and attack conservatives and red states with less stringent gun laws - as if that's the real problem.


Misleading State Crime Rates

Obviously, understanding crime rates helps us to determine the problem, identify problematic areas and address the issue - however, I think comparing state rates is somewhat pointless and detracts from the real issues behind gun violence since it's not spread evenly throughout the state. It's much more practical to compare cities.

For example, let's take New Mexico and Colorado. The majority of gun homicides in those states are in Albuquerque and Denver. Both have similar demographics, populations and gun homicide rates, but because New Mexico has half the population of Colorado, these stats are amplified and place it on some top 10 list giving the impression that NM is way more dangerous than CO - which isn't true.

If you're in New Mexico outside of Albuquerque, you're probably just as safe as if you were outside of Denver - likewise, there is about the same amount of risk if you were inside either of those cities.

Now - if we take a closer look at the numbers, we can see that Albuquerque has a slightly lower population with a slightly higher rate of gun related homicides than Denver. Given CDC data, we can say that this is probably attributed to a slightly higher poverty rate in Albuquerque along with a lower ratio of police per 10,000 people.

You wouldn't be able to determine that if you were looking at this on a state level, which is why I think people like you are still hellbent on meaningless gun controls laws to fix the problem even tho the CDC has already stated that there is no evidence to suggest that they will.
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would challenge you to equate shooting 100 people vs. shooting them with a case of beer.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

Or running them over with a truck?

Further gun control laws are not going to be effective. The assault weapon ban demonstrated this. The background check and magazine limit laws here in CO demonstrate this.

A law's effectiveness is based on many factors;

Is it highly enforced or not enforced?

High penalty for getting caught, or minimal penalty?

What is the reward if you get away with breaking the law?

Bill Von said that drunk driving decreased dramatically from education, enforcement, and stiff penalties.

High chance of getting caught. Stiff penalty for when you do get caught. That would really offset a lot of the potential reward side of the column. Throw in some education.....

Why not apply the same recipe to guns? Wouldn't it work there as well? Law abiding gun owners are not affected and rates of gun-related homicides go down. Win-Win.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop

Quote

I would challenge you to equate shooting 100 people vs. shooting them with a case of beer.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

Or running them over with a truck?

Further gun control laws are not going to be effective. The assault weapon ban demonstrated this. The background check and magazine limit laws here in CO demonstrate this.

A law's effectiveness is based on many factors;

Is it highly enforced or not enforced?

High penalty for getting caught, or minimal penalty?

What is the reward if you get away with breaking the law?

Bill Von said that drunk driving decreased dramatically from education, enforcement, and stiff penalties.

High chance of getting caught. Stiff penalty for when you do get caught. That would really offset a lot of the potential reward side of the column. Throw in some education.....

Why not apply the same recipe to guns? Wouldn't it work there as well? Law abiding gun owners are not affected and rates of gun-related homicides go down. Win-Win.

Derek V



Sounds to me like the age old argument that the death penalty doesn't deer crime - while in other cases - high penalties do - strange that . . . That a high penalty works for some common and often omitted crime, but not for others is interesting.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Sounds to me like the age old argument that the death penalty doesn't deer crime - while in other
>cases - high penalties do - strange that . . .

Not so strange. Many criminals fear life in prison as much as, if not more than, execution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlespeed

***

Quote

I would challenge you to equate shooting 100 people vs. shooting them with a case of beer.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

Or running them over with a truck?

Further gun control laws are not going to be effective. The assault weapon ban demonstrated this. The background check and magazine limit laws here in CO demonstrate this.

A law's effectiveness is based on many factors;

Is it highly enforced or not enforced?

High penalty for getting caught, or minimal penalty?

What is the reward if you get away with breaking the law?

Bill Von said that drunk driving decreased dramatically from education, enforcement, and stiff penalties.

High chance of getting caught. Stiff penalty for when you do get caught. That would really offset a lot of the potential reward side of the column. Throw in some education.....

Why not apply the same recipe to guns? Wouldn't it work there as well? Law abiding gun owners are not affected and rates of gun-related homicides go down. Win-Win.

Derek V



Sounds to me like the age old argument that the death penalty doesn't deer crime - while in other cases - high penalties do - strange that . . . That a high penalty works for some common and often omitted crime, but not for others is interesting.

Data show that the argument is correct, whether or not you think it strange.

Trumpiness (TM) is believing what you feel to be true despite no factual basis for the belief, and not caring.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Sounds to me like the age old argument that the death penalty doesn't deer crime - while in other
>cases - high penalties do - strange that . . .

Not so strange. Many criminals fear life in prison as much as, if not more than, execution.



Yet they'll still spend as much as 25 to 30 years on death row before finally getting executed. Some die before its carried out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

While some still have been executed while innocent.



And many more went unpunished that should have been.

It's not a perfect system.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By saying "innocent until proven guilty" we are declaring that is the better outcome, to let a guilty person go than to incarcerate, and even more, execute, an innocent one. It's part of our rulebook.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999

By saying "innocent until proven guilty" we are declaring that is the better outcome, to let a guilty person go than to incarcerate, and even more, execute, an innocent one. It's part of our rulebook.

Wendy P.



Wendy
How many innocents, that you say have been executed, can YOU name?

And who's rule book are you speaking of?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999

By saying "innocent until proven guilty" we are declaring that is the better outcome, to let a guilty person go than to incarcerate, and even more, execute, an innocent one. It's part of our rulebook.

Wendy P.



I agree with the premise - just not really the outcome.

BUT . . . One simply can't have it both ways.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999

By saying "innocent until proven guilty" we are declaring that is the better outcome, to let a guilty person go than to incarcerate, and even more, execute, an innocent one. It's part of our rulebook.

Wendy P.



Should Hillary Clinton be summarily executed? Or merely imprisoned without trial? These are the two options coming from Cleveland this week.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***By saying "innocent until proven guilty" we are declaring that is the better outcome, to let a guilty person go than to incarcerate, and even more, execute, an innocent one. It's part of our rulebook.

Wendy P.



Should Hillary Clinton be summarily executed? Or merely imprisoned without trial? These are the two options coming from Cleveland this week.

No - but she should stop buying her accusers.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0