Oldskeptic wrote:

Alan C wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

laklak wrote:Well, you might need that, but I certainly don't. I'm quite happy to keep and bear. Invalidating the 2nd for individuals would reverse over a century of SCOTUS rulings, which is not something they like to do, nor with the current composition of the court something they are likely to do. Regulate, yes. Ban "assault weapons", possibly. Deny individuals the right to keep and bear arms - not a snowball's chance in hell.

It doesn't though.

Bolt action firearms and the like are not cause for much concern as they are not used frequently for crime. No one is saying they cannot have a gun, but the nonsense that they need urban paramilitary firearms due to the 2nd is not true.

Everytime there is a mass shooting people throw the statistics that knives and clubs kill more than the AR-15 per year. Sure. That is statistically true, but the AR-15 is the gun of choice for these mass shooters. Why? Because it is simple to use, is impersonal, and can do a lot of devastation quickly.

Chemically made bombs are more often than not duds in the planning. Knife attacks can be lived through and are not quite as effective. If these other methods were so easy as well to the AR-15 why choose the expensive gun and ammo route?

Furthermore, it was not over a century of SCOTUS rulings that would be overturned but only several decades worth. Big difference.

Wouldn't have been so easy to kill 17 schoolkids with a knife I'd imagine or the 58 in Vegas.

Ted Bundy killed at least 30 people with clubs and knives. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 using gardening supplies.

Ted buddy didn’t kill them all at once, did he? McVeigh’s action resulted in regulation of those supplies. Debunking this shit is way too fucking easy, but the people using these arguments are too fucking stupid to be intellectually consistent with the parallel to guns.

See, the above post was okay. Until the pretty obvious violation of the FUA.

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Alan C wrote:

Wouldn't have been so easy to kill 17 schoolkids with a knife I'd imagine or the 58 in Vegas.

Ted Bundy killed at least 30 people with clubs and knives. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 using gardening supplies.

Ted buddy didn’t kill them all at once, did he?

I didn't say he did, but I fail to see what that has to do with it. Background checks and bans aren't going to stop the possibly 1000s of murders like him that kill many more people of all kinds than school attacks.

Willie71 wrote:McVeigh’s action resulted in regulation of those supplies.

As far as I can tell anyone can buy nitromethane by the gallon and aren't required to let Home Land Security know about it unless you have more than 400 lb of the stuff. Ammonium nitrate is available for a couple hundred dollars a ton.

Willie71 wrote: Debunking this shit is way too fucking easy,...

How would you know?

Willie71 wrote:...but the people using these arguments are too fucking stupid to be intellectually consistent with the parallel to guns.

The parallel is number of deaths and who and what are responsible. I think that the why is far more important than the how or how quickly the murders were committed.

willhud9 wrote:See, the above post was okay. Until the pretty obvious violation of the FUA.

The last part is all he ever has. Kinda like Trump whenever someone reports something he doesn't like. Personal insults and worn out sound bytes.

zoon wrote:Please explain where to find the assertion that the UK authorities have been faking data, or link to the relevant site.

The issue was brought up by Byron in the old thread I mentioned, which might be the thread I linked to.

According to Wikipedia here, the intentional homicide rate for the UK is 0.92 per year per 100,000 inhabitants, while the intentional homicide rate for the US is 4.88 per year per 100,000 inhabitants.

Deflecting, eh? Violent crime rates in any country are orders of magnitude higher than murder rates, and follow different patterns. Murder rates in the US are vastly inflated by heavily gun controlled cities like Chicago and DC where the rates are upwards of 20 per year per 100,000 inhabitants. Meanwhile, New Hampshire, has the lowest murder rate of any state, and also has some of the most permissive gun laws.

Murder rates in the US are vastly inflated by heavily gun controlled cities like Chicago and DC where the rates are upwards of 20 per year per 100,000 inhabitants. Meanwhile, New Hampshire, has the lowest murder rate of any state, and also h7as some of the most permissive gun laws.

So murder rates in busy cities are high, in a country where criminals have easy access to guns, despite the in-city laws.Wonder why they have strict gun control, in a country that is normally against that, perhaps the evidence was overwhelming that not controlling it would be far worse?

New Hampshire is what, a quiet country lifestyle area? No matter what the laws in an area like that the murder rate will be low.

zulumoose wrote:
New Hampshire is what, a quiet country lifestyle area? No matter what the laws in an area like that the murder rate will be low.

Exactly, and that's why those clamoring for umbrella regulation don't understand what they're up against, which is jurisdictions. There simply isn't any motivation to override the precedent of letting local jurisdictions do what they think they need to do. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between statist and federal approaches. There's just no impulse in the US to institute statist programs for anything short of screening passengers for airline flights that travel (so obviously) between states. I agree that this is a bit of a trap, not least because of the excellent interstate highway system that allows transport of firearms all over the fucking place, at least by individuals.

Ironically, large urban centers are too overloaded bureaucratically to put that kind of thing high on the priority list. All the moral uproar abroad is not really enough to move anything up the priority list. The push is going to have to come from the locals.

zulumoose wrote:

Murder rates in the US are vastly inflated by heavily gun controlled cities like Chicago and DC where the rates are upwards of 20 per year per 100,000 inhabitants. Meanwhile, New Hampshire, has the lowest murder rate of any state, and also h7as some of the most permissive gun laws.

So murder rates in busy cities are high, in a country where criminals have easy access to guns, despite the in-city laws.Wonder why they have strict gun control, in a country that is normally against that, perhaps the evidence was overwhelming that not controlling it would be far worse?

New Hampshire is what, a quiet country lifestyle area? No matter what the laws in an area like that the murder rate will be low.

New Hampshire is not particularly rural. The likeliest reason for low murder rates in New Hampshire is high ethnic uniformity.

New Hampshire ranks as the 13th most heavily armed state, beating Texas (18th) and my own state Florida (30th), despite our nickname "The Gunshine State". It's 27th in population density, at 148 / sq. mi., 57 / sq. km. So middle of the road in terms of population density and rather high in gun ownership. They have among the most liberal gun laws in the country, no age restrictions, no weapons restrictions, no license for open or concealed carry, no purchase licenses, and no registration.

They're also the only state that does not require wearing seat belts. Live Free or Die!

Their live free or die motto is kinda bullshit. The cops are pretty rabid. At least if you have a Massachusetts plate, they are.
NH's 2 most urban cities, Nashua and Manchester, are fairly diverse with plenty of minorities and immigrants.

zulumoose wrote:

Murder rates in the US are vastly inflated by heavily gun controlled cities like Chicago and DC where the rates are upwards of 20 per year per 100,000 inhabitants. Meanwhile, New Hampshire, has the lowest murder rate of any state, and also h7as some of the most permissive gun laws.

So murder rates in busy cities are high, in a country where criminals have easy access to guns, despite the in-city laws.Wonder why they have strict gun control, in a country that is normally against that, perhaps the evidence was overwhelming that not controlling it would be far worse?

New Hampshire is what, a quiet country lifestyle area? No matter what the laws in an area like that the murder rate will be low.

Puerto Rico is what, a big giant gun factory?

The axis aren't labelled so I'm having difficulty reading that scattergram. Help?

Oh right; so number of homocides is on the verticle and per 1000s is on the horizontal....seems convuloted and I smell a rat circa statistical misrepresentation/agenda driven camouflage.

It's the vertical axis that is annual homicides per 100,000 population. I have no clue what the horizontal axis is so I'm ignoring it.

The high murder rate in Puerto Rico must be because it's so much easier to transport guns over oceans than by road, same as Chicago, right?

The x axis seems to be some sort of wealth or income measure.

Also, NH not particularly rural? It ranks 40th in a list of states by urban population as a % of total population, and its cities rate 50th out of 50 when ranked by density.

More important than racial uniformity, it also has high wealth uniformity, being both generally prosperous, and having the lowest poverty rate of all states (and Puerto Rico way out the other end of that list, while we're discussing their homicide rate).

There's no denying that NH is a rural state when viewed as a whole, but 7% of it's land is urban, which is not nearly the lowest percentage in the country. That's 14th highest. In New England, Maine and Vermont have a much lower percentage of urban land, and in Maine's case, much more land too. OT but 38% of Maine's population lives on just 360 square miles.

Southern NH up to Manchester is pretty well-developed, especially on it's southern border.

Warren Dew wrote:It's the vertical axis that is annual homicides per 100,000 population. I have no clue what the horizontal axis is so I'm ignoring it.

The high murder rate in Puerto Rico must be because it's so much easier to transport guns over oceans than by road, same as Chicago, right?

No, but I'm guessing poverty has something to do with it. Also warmer places in general have higher murder rates.
It's yet another sign that the people of Puerto Rico get the shaft so hard. They can't even vote for Dotard presidents. They should be a state, or independent.

The_Piper wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:It's the vertical axis that is annual homicides per 100,000 population. I have no clue what the horizontal axis is so I'm ignoring it.

The high murder rate in Puerto Rico must be because it's so much easier to transport guns over oceans than by road, same as Chicago, right?

No, but I'm guessing poverty has something to do with it. Also warmer places in general have higher murder rates.
It's yet another sign that the people of Puerto Rico get the shaft so hard. They can't even vote for Dotard presidents. They should be a state, or independent.

The x axis is GDP per capita and is used as an indicator of being a developed country along with a stable democracy. It's a response to this -


- by gun control advocates, Kevin Quealy and Margot Sanger-Katz, who only used gun deaths and "rich Western" countries for comparison to the US.

If it was color coded for gun restrictions and gun ownership it would be highly informative and very easy to see that gun laws, restrictions, and level of availability have little if any influence on murder rates.

Case in point: Puerto Rico has among the strictest permit processes and enforcement in the US, one of the highest murder rates, the highest murder rate by gun, and their gun ownership rate is comparable to California, Oregon, Washington state, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Puerto Rico has also had the worst economy with a poverty rate of 50% and an unemployment rate traditionally 3 times that of the US average.

Puerto Rico has a higher GDP per capita than South Korea??!!

Keep It Real wrote:Puerto Rico has a higher GDP per capita than South Korea??!!

According to the world bank, yes by a little. According to the CIA fact book South Korea is a bit higher.