California had significantly stricter gun laws than Alabama back in 2010. I can't find any more recent numbers because no one that rights articles about gun control wants to separate homicide rates from suicide rates. That wouldn't fit their agenda.
Here's What A Criminology Professor Learned By Studying Every Mass Shooting Since 1966
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
,
That's what I thought. These laws wouldn't have prevented one mass shooting. They close a tiny loophole of legitimate private sales, gifts or intrafamily transfers. The guy selling guns out of the trunk of his Chrysler 3000 in the hood is already violating a host of laws.
The red flag laws are arguably well-intentioned but that doesn't make them immune from criticism. They have serious due process problems and could easily lead to serious abuse. The right to own a firearm is Constitutionally granted to each American, just like freedom of the press or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. It is not some privilege the government can take away on an ex parte claim. If the situation is so dire that a couple of days to give notice will pose a threat, then the police need to intervene immediately. They don't need a red flag order to do that if there is a legitimate threat.
That's what I thought. These laws wouldn't have prevented one mass shooting. They close a tiny loophole of legitimate private sales, gifts or intrafamily transfers. The guy selling guns out of the trunk of his Chrysler 3000 in the hood is already violating a host of laws.
The red flag laws are arguably well-intentioned but that doesn't make them immune from criticism. They have serious due process problems and could easily lead to serious abuse. The right to own a firearm is Constitutionally granted to each American, just like freedom of the press or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. It is not some privilege the government can take away on an ex parte claim. If the situation is so dire that a couple of days to give notice will pose a threat, then the police need to intervene immediately. They don't need a red flag order to do that if there is a legitimate threat.
he may not know what "per capita" means. In any case, it is nearly impossible to have a reasonble dialog with these folks because their reasoning borders on the absurd.
Well here are my numbers:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
And here’s a study using fbi and DOJ numbers:
http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
The right to own a gun is not granted to Americans not in good standing with the law or have shown they pose a threat.
Scalia laid it all out. Whether or not you or I like it there are parameters set by two scotus decisions Scalia wrote.
Talking to you right wingers is becoming like talking to idiot ten year olds. You guys have lost all sense of the law and common sense.
The overall gun death rates are easy to find. The gun homicide rates are much harder to find.
The BU article is interesting. I agree with a lot of what he wrote. We need a better background check system in place. I don't have a problem with red flag laws in basic theory. If someone threatens to kill someone else, they should lose access to firearms. But only whenever there's hard evidence that something like that has occurred. They shouldn't lose access based off unfounded accusations.
The one area I disagree with him on is taking away the right to own a firearm after a violent misdemeanor. You can be charged with a violent misdemeanor for pushing someone else. It seems a little drastic to take away a constitutional right based off something as minor as that. A violent felony is a different story though.
In many states domestic violence is a violent misdemeanor. Domestic violence, which would be assault if it was done to someone you’re not married to, often precedes marital murder.
Considering the fact that CA and Minnesota have the same rate of mortality and Minnesota has next to no gun laws (you can even walk into a restaurant with your rifle legally) I would say this completely disproves that gun laws have any effect.
I would love for someone to do a study that factors in more points than just number of guns vs gun laws. Maybe like demographics(age,sex,race), drug use, type of drug use, alcohol use, income, religion, political affiliation, ect.
If we're willing to try to pinpoint a common denominator honestly, then we can discuss laws.
Youre looking at the wrong demographics for propensity toward gun violence. Education attainment and income level is much more indicative than anything else.
Secondly, other countries have poverty, drug use, etc and some at much higher levels than we do in the US but nowhere near the gun deaths.
I definitely would like to add education to that study, but it can't be the only factor. But drug abuse is higher in the US than in any other country. In fact in the US, deaths from drug abuse are nearly 3x higher than the next highest country. That's why we need a comprehensive (preferably worldwide) study. Unfortunately, people only want to fund studies that push their bias.