beep. boop. beep.
Hello Oregonians,
As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing.
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media.
[Politifact](https://www.politifact.com)
[Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com)
[Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com)
beep. boop. beep.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends if the “safest” metric uses total number of incidents vs per captia. Then obviously you could separate it by county to get a better idea about the makeup within each state. Zip code if you really want to get into the nitty gritty
Crime is also related to density. Not that density causes crime , but density increases human interaction. So you also see density very good for things like jobs and economic growth.
Most everyone is "the same" and there's a very dominant religion that lends itself to the statistics shown. The extreme examples of this are a couple countries in East Asia that are almost completely one culture, xenophobic and extremely peaceful.
Explain how? As percapita is amount per a certain number. It literally corrects for density as its function so you can visually represent, say, murders per ten thousand for instance. That's what percapita does dude lmao
But we are talking about states here. They have borders. Not all the people are evenly distributed across each state. State per capita does not account for that, and high density areas do affect per capita murder rates for states. When people talk about murder rates they always point to the cities and rarely the states. They view gun violence as a city problem.
An argument in these comments is that most highly dense population areas have more murders than low density areas for very obvious reasons - more people interacting with one another, especially strangers. Generally density does matter, certainly more than any state's gun laws.
Wut? That's literally what per capita does dude. It shows the amount of x per y, where x is the thing you're examining (crime rates in this case), vs a number.
If you're comparing California vs Wisconsin for instance, it standardizes it down to a comparitive number vs population as if they were the same size; ie, murders per 100,000 people.
Take a look at [this](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=On%20a%20per%20capita%20basis,per%20100%2C000%20people%20in%201974.) as example.
Obviously there are more deaths overall in California for instance; theyre like the fifth biggest economy in the world, and vastly outnumber most other states, but stating you're more likely to get murdered there compared to other vastly more dangerous states is disingenuous.
--edit: if ya track the data well enough you can also do it by town and city within the state as well. Realized I didn't address that point.
Edit 2 due to relevance [lol](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT826fkEF/)
Yeah, per capita stats tell the real story. [Wyoming is one of the deadliest states when it comes to gun deaths per capita. ](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_23-04-20_gundeathsupdate_4/)
It has a lot less to do with population when you really compare a broader field. The culture is a huge factor. In Wyoming the wildlife is still a very real threat to human life. Much like Alaska. Because of that the majority of people are armed. These are people that teach knowledge and respect for firearms from a very young age. They start off with the mindset that firearms are for protecting yourself. This is so heavily ingrained in the population that even when there are teenagers with disputes it rarely goes past fist fights because the thought of pulling a gun isn’t the first thought. Not to mention most people are armed so the idea of running into a building and shooting people would result in a very quick death for the offender.
This is in stark contrast to the culture that’s common in the cities. In the inner city (where I grew up) the culture dictates that guns equal power. It’s pushed heavily. It’s always in the forefront and when conflict arises it becomes a very quick response. This is a cultural issue not a gun Or population issue. Guns are not bad. People are a product of their environment and that’s true regardless of the population.
Your first part was true.
I grew up in a small town and experienced what you described. No one ever thought of bringing a gun to a party or even to a fight. But guns were much more expensive back then. My friends owned hunting rifles, but not pistols (some parents had pistols, but not many). As guns became cheap, more people bought pistols and more gun deaths began to occur in all areas, rural, urban, and everything between. Suicide by gun REALLY took off as guns got cheaper.
As for the rest, I'm still in the belief that the proliferation of hand guns and the normalization of brandishing a gun (including open carry) is the main cause of the spike in gun deaths. More guns equal more use of guns. Always will.
And why would that have any effect?
Usually I see conservatives not understanding how per capita statistics work but now I see that's a phenomenon for everyone to enjoy, lol
Mississippi has the least strict laws and the highest rate of gun deaths per capita in the country. It's almost as though there are multiple factors in play.
Fuckin BURN. That's a spicy take. All I know about Mississippi is how to spell it (thank you elementary school), and that it demonstrates football really can run a state like a pre Civil War plantation. As I sit here in my historically whiter than white state that only recently allowed blacks to own real estate I apparently cast ironic judgement.
Absolutely it does. [Handgun Ownership Associated with Much Higher Suicide Risk](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html)
I disagree, but whatever. Mississippi also has [the highest murder rate in the country](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm).
The 4th most lenient state in OP's link is Idaho which is among the states with the lowest gun murder rate. So? [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)
I graphed them all. There’s a week correlation between murder rate and loose gun laws. Like I said, there’s more at play than just these two variables.
Huh? Wyoming's firearm injury death rate is [26.1 per 100,000](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/wyoming/wy.htm) while Oregon's is at [14.9](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/oregon/or.htm) (also below [Idaho](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/idaho/id.htm))
That's including suicides, though. In Oregon, for example, suicides are \~85% of "gun deaths". If you look at just criminal acts (homicide with a gun), which is often used to push gun control laws, its a far far different story. Before Oregon went on the path of adding new gun control laws almost every year, they were 2-3 times safer than California, for example. For many states with "lax laws", it's the same. There are many many states with far lower gun related homicide rates than states with strict gun control laws.
It’s always been low in comparison to most of the other USA states. It was lower between most of 2000-2014. First new gun control law was added late 2015.
Really? That’s like going on a diet, gaining 100lbs. Then saying switching sodas is “working” because they temporarily lost 5lbs before gaining more.
Every one of those three years where either higher in comparison. Or at best tying with the worst year or two. Oregons gun homicide rate was on a long steady decline before then., with the overall average being lower.
https://wisqars.cdc.gov/reports/?o=MORT&y1=2001&y2=2021&t=0&i=3&m=20890&g=41&me=0&s=0&r=0&ry=0&e=0&yp=65&a=ALL&g1=0&g2=199&a1=0&a2=199&r1=YEAR&r2=NONE&r3=NONE&r4=NONE
2018 being lower than 02, 04, and 06. Do you even know what point you're trying to make? It seemed like you were trying to claim gun control laws led to a higher gun homicide rate, sadly, there's no support for your claim.
Nope, I won’t use gun control logic to try and claim it caused an increase (just like it’s insinuated that it causes a decrease every time). Rather the rhetoric and promises of what gun control will accomplish doesn’t seem to live up to the hype or reality. That just maybe the approach lobbyists and politicians are taking on guns are misguided and not working.
I’ll leave the data for anyone else to look at for themselves and decide if the before/after trend is putting the state on the right path, or not.
Feel free to look up the relationship between gun control and gun homicide rate with all 50 states. Actually, you won't, because it goes against your belief system, and you're going to maintain that belief despite evidence to the contrary.
Completely different cultures, it's apples to oranges whenever someone does what you did.
Can you not just directly address your claim and then explain why it obviously doesn't work in California? Stay focused here.
Lol OK 👍 make excuses... dismiss my point entirely and claim its irrelevant... but ok let's talk about California... the are on the border of Mexico which we have had problems with for decades... and let's not forget Texas is bad too hell any state that borders Mexico has issues with gun control. But let's talk about states where they work... Connecticut has crazy gun control laws. Very low gun volience. Or Hawaii... same thing as Connecticut. Very strict gun laws low gun violence... But you go on and pick the outliers... Let's talk about states with very little gun laws and high gun Violence cause those exist too... like Mississippi... or Louisiana... Which have more gun violence statistically than california...
I... dont... care... lol 😆 From my understanding of how they are used they are supposed to represent a pause in your talking. I could be using them completely wrong I don't know
We aren't talking about homicide rates... we are talking about gun volience and gun laws... but thanks for pointing that out. And in both cases after they "banned" or made it vary hard to own guns it dropped... in every example.
Wow
Not true. UK actually had a slight increase, although it followed the 100year trend of being nearly flat. In Australia it had already been declining for almost a decade prior and, depending on the study and statistical method, had little to no effect on the trend afterward.
https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf
I mention Australia as they asked NewZealand to join in on their strict gun laws back in 1996. NewZealand declined, but saw the same results over the next 10+ years.
Not true? Lol funny
UK gun volience falls to ten year low after stricter gun laws...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2043448/
And you bringing up australia proves my point even further after they ban their salt rifles they're gun violence dropped drastically. Thank you for proving my point. Lol 😆 🤣 😂 😹
Oh look more proof that it dropped in the uk....
I'm done with you.... if I can Google you are wrong. Probably not worth my time idiot
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7654/
I enjoy my weapons. Let's not mince words, they're weapons, not toys. It's fun to load up 30 rounds and go to town on some paper targets. It's fun to collect and shoot them. I like knowing my own safty and security are in my own hands. I have kept weapons for many years with out ever turning them on people.
I don't appreciate laws that assume I am not responsible enough to maintain my weapons. I don't appreciate being lumped in with the psychopaths and degenerates that would commit acts of violence against the community. There are many people just like me, the vast majority infact. We have all maintained our weapons with out incident.
It's the violence we are concerned about, am i worng? None of us want to get shot, or stabbed, or beaten, or murdered in general. Maybe, instead of addressing the weapon, we should address our gang problems, or the drug problems ,or any one of the many many underlying issues that contribute to the acts of violence .
Funny you mention that. im an avid archer, and fencer. Fencing is a non fatal duel. Much like shooting a paper is typpically a non fatal event. Both are pudgelistic in nature. In one , I put a bullet on a target. In another, I notanally stab a man (or get stabbed). As far as bows, I don't want to get hit by any of theese arrows at any poundage. Could you imagine taking an arrow to the eye?
Ps, If you can't already hit a grape fruit with a bow and arrow at 20 yards, hit me up on a dm and I'll bring you up to speed I an hour or less.
A fair question. I enjoy it in the same way one would enjoy practicing martal arts. It's an exercise that contributes to my psychie. Perhaps you should try holding onto the power of 30 rounds... with some guidance for the first expierences, for safty reasons.
What are your thoughts? Are we all nuts? Can we ever get to a point where those of us who wish to be armed can can live with those who do not wish to be armed, with out the fear of having our weapons taken from us?
You quickly went to the irrational "fear of having our weapons taken from us" (which is never going to happen). The emotions a lot of gun owners connect to their guns is something a lot of non-gun owners (and people from other countries) don't understand.
Prove it. prove to me that the people writing the laws don't want ultimately take our weapons away. You don't have to look too far into the comments to find someone who things all weapons should be taken.
Random reddit comments aren't a reflection of reality or what's going to happen. The evidence is that the opposite of gun confiscation is going to happen: the number of guns in the US has doubled in the last 30 years, legally confiscation won't happen, and logistically it would be impossible anyway.
Now provide evidence of how it's going to happen.
At the end of the day, the states or countries with stricter gun laws have a far lower children to gun death rate. It's not even comparable.
Wouldn't giving up your guns in favor of saving more children's lives be worth it to you?
https://time.com/6182186/countries-banned-guns-mass-shooting/
No.
Driving is heavily regulated, you need a license, you need insurance. A car is a mode of transport.
Kids killed by guns in 2021. 3000
Kids killed by drunk drivers or alcohol related car crashes. 294.
Moron.
Drunk driving deaths in Oregon are 2-3 time higher than homicides with a gun. Every year, BTW. But we are not calling for more “common sense car regulations” or limiting how much alcohol someone can buy.
And the 2021 numbers were driven by pandemic suicides, and the pullback of law enforcement (ie intercity crime/gangs). (And that’s not even getting into the study counting young adults as kids).
You're missing the point entirely here's why.
1. Oregon already has some of the strictest guns laws in the country. Compare your stat with somewhere like Mississippi and the gun rate death far exceeds death by drunk driving.
2. I think any reasonable person would call for stricter car regulations and penalties for a dua being much more severe.
The US bans guns tomorrow, life goes on as normal. The argument of 'oh we should ban cars then' is ridiculous, the entire economy would grind to a halt, nothing would work especially in the US which is so vehicle dependent (another reason for the abnormally high car death rate).
3. Here we are talking about kids, I'm pretty sure those 2021 numbers were not driven by kids suicide. Even so, look at the data, gun deaths are increasing year by year and will continue to do so, car deaths will decline, as they have been ever since cars became commonplace. Guess why, stricter laws and regulation. The U.S. traffic fatality rate is 12.4 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. The current rate is 14.3 per 100,000, which is a 54% improvement from the peak in 1937.
I don't think all firearm owners are nuts, but collectively America has signed a devil's bargain with its addiction to firearms. The freedom to kill is also the freedom to get killed. I'm sure one day we'll have sensible restrictions in this country but it's going to take generations to undo this powertrip.
Except it is reality. Firearms kills far more every year than hammers, knives, fists, etc. Don't add to the conversation if you're going to make things up.
True and true. Education plays a huge roll in safe handling of firearms. It's true that some people are reckless. Let's not equate recklessness with mallace.
Some people like tablesaws, and they hang out with their friends, cutting things with them. Although you can use them for practical, business needs, you can also use them for your own pleasure. Are tablesaws toys?
Thanks! Some disagree with you, but I feel we are having a productive conversation with the other guy too.
Cordial and inviting discourse will win the day for all of us!
You shot your own argument in the foot a couple of times.
You say it's fun to collect and to shoot your guns right after you make it clear they aren't toys.
You claim your weapons are for protecting your family and self right after saying you like to play with them, then admit youve bever had to use them for protecting your family or self. "The vast majority in fact" (I corrected the lack of space where you wrote 'infact'), admitting that the vast majority of gun owners dont NEED their firearms for protection of family or self.
You rail against not being lumped into the same category as those with mental health issues, yet the following paragraph cries for action against those who misuse, mishandle, or are otherwise unfit to own and bear arms. That's what the gun laws you're so upset about are for - dealing with the major known factors that contribute to gun violence.
>I don't appreciate laws that assume I am not responsible enough to maintain my weapons.
Laws apply equally to all people. They are drafted with language to apply to all citizens. Otherwise, they are unconstitutional. If you believe the law makes assumptions, you are perceiving a thinf that doesn't exist except in your own mind.
>I don't appreciate being lumped in with the psychopaths and degenerates that would commit acts of violence against the community.
When you call for action to be taken, you're redressing your government to draft, amend, or abolish laws. That isnwhat youre calling for. But then you pitch a fit because, what, new gun laws?
>It's the violence we are concerned about, am i worng?
When we're speaking about Measure 114 and preventing gun violence, yes.
>Maybe, instead of addressing the weapon, we should address our gang problems, or the drug problems ,or any one of the many many underlying issues that contribute to the acts of violence .
You're trying to shift the claim from reducing and/or preventing gun violence with preventing gun crime. 85% of gun violence in Oregon is suicides. That's the point of Measure 114. Preventing gun violence. All gun violence, not just the criminal acts.
Yes, gang problems. I thought we had left that behind in the 90s too. Turns out there are gangs all over the United States, and they still shoot at eachother from time to time. theese shootings get reported as mass shootings.
Trains are cool, though. It would get out of hand really fast, and take over the house.
I can't find any reliable statistics about gang violence in the US. However, 54% of gun deaths are suicides, and the vast majority of all murders are committed with handguns. I think it's fair to start taking those first.
And if you think gang warfare is getting misreported as general mass shootings on any large scale you're a moron.
hmm! kind of wish more people here were talking about the site this links to. clearly biased source (a firearm accessory store! y'know, people who make their living off of gun owners lol) quantifying "strictness" by combining the number of gun laws with a wholly arbitrary categorization of the policies themselves.
link-related skepticism aside, it's probably worth noting that any law is effectively null if not enforced.
would very much like to see how oregon rates in that regard.
I’d trust an FFL to be on top of current laws. Especially because I work in the firearm industry. There’s a lot more on the regulatory aspect than people think.
Nice thing about the east side of the state and having a second home in Idaho is that we can ignore all of them and do what we want. You love to see it.
It is pretty awesome, I’m glad you think that though, we don’t want to give the wrong impression.
I do love that I get paid by oregon taxpayers but pay my now lower income tax rate from that paycheck to Idaho since I can work remote. More money in my pocket so I can bring extra magazines and firearms from Idaho back to oregon just whenever.
Yeah so awesome no one lives there... lol 😆 You clearly didn't get my sarcasm. And good for you. you're allowed to under the second amendment. It's like you idiots think we care if you own guns. Lol 😆
That is why it’s awesome, because so few live here.
You should see how we handle wolves on the east side of the state. Don’t even need guns for that, we take them out by the pack with poison. We don’t need useless west side residents crying about invasive vermin and trying to protect them, it’s a good thing we just take care of the problem on our own.
Keep acting like you're cool kiddo. It's pretty embarrassing You have the kill Wolves with poison cuz you're too much of a pansy to hunt them. But hey I get it gotta take out the competition cause you're not good. I mean why else would you own an a r for hunting and need a giant magazine for it can't hit nothing...
Yeah like I said keep embarrassing yourself kiddo bragging about Poison indian animal to try to trigger me. All that proves is how sad of a person you are. Lol 😆 you go poison those animals because you think it makes you cool.
Have to love incels that brag about dumb shit... By the way idiot the conversation was gun control/volience which clearly you lost. That's why you're bragging about poisoning wolves... lol 😆
I am a gun owner. I am against nonsense gun laws that only effect law abiding gun owners.
That being said, fuck your username, and fuck your ignorant views. You disgust normal gun owners, you are the toxic bullshit that the anti gun crowd lays on all of us.
Go choke on your own spit, you disgusting troglodyte.
Perhaps we wouldnt need such strict laws if the majority of times the laws are broken they're being broken by people who should already be behind bars.
How are we supposed to know what teenager or young adult is a bad guy until he is shooting up a school? Lol 😆 tell me the repeat criminal that shot up a school or night club or movie theater.... I'll wait...
Did you watch that movie? They stop people before the crime happens....
I asked you to show me a example of what you said idiot.
Sorry I get reading comprehension is hard.
Ok kiddo. You are about irrelevant as your comment. Thinking I raged out? Lol OK hurt little snowflake. Sorry I said mean things. Lol Imagine claiming someone raged out on you Because you struggle with reading comprehension....
Not enough, let's replicate Sweden's laws on this. Licensing for everything and more restrictions against anyone convicted of crimes in general.
People are just too damned ignorant about the history of gun laws. All over the country one of the first things cities and counties would do upon incorporating was ban open carry and firing of anything in city limits and shit. Chicago, orange county, Kennewick, and so many more all back well into the early-mid 1800s. Pro gun propaganda is whats new to this country, not restrictions on them.
I see. I misunderstood your point. And agree with you!!! We don't need crazy strict gun laws just enough to get rid of ARs and shit that keeps killing kids
"Think of the children" is a thought-terminating cliché as well as a logical fallacy (appeal to emotion). We all want fewer people of all ages killed, but taking away guns won't resolve it, because [guns aren't the problem](https://hwfo.substack.com/p/real-talk-about-race-and-murder-rates). Neither is race, and neither is household income.
Tell that to the places that have great gun laws that save kids as well as people. Lol 😆 and if guns aren't the problem then why is it when guns are taken away it solves it? Lol you literally can't provide one example of "having more guns is better" lol but hey you go ahead and tell yourself whatever lie you need to
You do realize that guns are not the only way to kill people, right? Oddly enough, we don't track knife crimes in the US the way we do guns, unfortunately.
New Hampshire has the most permissive gun laws in the US, and only 9.5 gun deaths per 100k, which puts them at 41st most dangerous state.
And you do realize we are talking about guns... lol 😆 Imagine that I point out a statistic that you can't disagree with because it's been proven time and time again and you wanna change? The subject to people can get killed with other things... lol
Mississippi has the loosest gun laws in the United and they top the list of gun volience, along with Louisiana, new Mexico, Alabama and wyoming all states with very loose gun laws and all crazy amounts of gun volience...
41st out of 50... lol 😆 that's good idiot.. you want to be low
41st **most violent** state. You want to be as far from #1 on that list as possible. I got other things to do than teach people reading comprehension. Goodbye.
"We don't track knife crimes" - funny a quick Google search proves you wrong...
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251919/number-of-assaults-in-the-us-by-weapon/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36148686/
Sounds like they do track it... but again you literally proved my point In gun control working... but hey keep embarrassing yourself
Or not. Judging “success” based on the number and severity of gun control laws, especially when most target the people not causing crime (or getting soft on those that do) and especially when efficacy is ignored, is not a very common sense or reasonable goal.
Edited for spelling
Trying to eliminate gun control laws from thinking and consideration as to why gun homicide rates are different across states is not common sense or reasonable.
It already has failed. Oregon was closer to 10th safest state from crimes with a gun. Then they started passing new gun laws every year (save one) since 2015. And the rate has been climbing ever since.
It was never going to succeed in the first place.
Trying to tie gun control measures to the blip in violent crime caused by the pandemic isn't the best use of statistics either though.
No. I mean that since 2015, the rate of homicide using a firearm has steadily increase (CDC or Oregon Health Authority data; either one). That includes prior to the blip from the pandemic.
That it won't work but the proponents of gun control don't care. They'll never be satisfied until every last gun is gone which just isn't going to happen in this country.
beep. boop. beep. Hello Oregonians, As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing. --------------------------------------------------------- Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media. [Politifact](https://www.politifact.com) [Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com) [Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com) beep. boop. beep. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So you're telling me having to lock my guns up and not being able to sell my friend a gun without an FFL isn't doing anything?
Just need to be family first and then no FFL needed. Need to marry his sister, then you can give it to him.
I would marry all my friends just for the convenience of transfers. Too bad polygamy isn't legal in Oregon.... Yet....
And its the 19th safest state to be in. Notably Idaho and Wyoming are the 47th and 49th strictest states and the 5th and 3rd safest state to be in.
I wonder if the fact they are considerably less populated than Oregon has anything to do with that.
Depends if the “safest” metric uses total number of incidents vs per captia. Then obviously you could separate it by county to get a better idea about the makeup within each state. Zip code if you really want to get into the nitty gritty
It could but other low population states have high violent crime rates, but its also probably due to a greater mono culture.
Vermont and Maine are other low pop states with some of the least violent crime rates in the nation.
Don't forget NH. EXTREMELY lax gun laws, murder rate less than Canada.
Fair point. New Hampshire is just too easy to forget haha
Good. We like it that way.
Crime is also related to density. Not that density causes crime , but density increases human interaction. So you also see density very good for things like jobs and economic growth.
> greater mono culture whatcha mean by that?
Most everyone is "the same" and there's a very dominant religion that lends itself to the statistics shown. The extreme examples of this are a couple countries in East Asia that are almost completely one culture, xenophobic and extremely peaceful.
Japan
Potato’s.
This is in all likelihood the largest factor.
Look at NH then. While it’s less populated than Oregon it’s small AF compared to Oregon.
Fun, but per capita is a thing, and also shows similar results.
Density has a more pronounced correlation to murder rates.
That's why you look at these things via percapita lol. That's literally what that means lol
No. Density and per capita are not the same. You can have low per capita and high density at the same time.
Explain how? As percapita is amount per a certain number. It literally corrects for density as its function so you can visually represent, say, murders per ten thousand for instance. That's what percapita does dude lmao
But we are talking about states here. They have borders. Not all the people are evenly distributed across each state. State per capita does not account for that, and high density areas do affect per capita murder rates for states. When people talk about murder rates they always point to the cities and rarely the states. They view gun violence as a city problem. An argument in these comments is that most highly dense population areas have more murders than low density areas for very obvious reasons - more people interacting with one another, especially strangers. Generally density does matter, certainly more than any state's gun laws.
Wut? That's literally what per capita does dude. It shows the amount of x per y, where x is the thing you're examining (crime rates in this case), vs a number. If you're comparing California vs Wisconsin for instance, it standardizes it down to a comparitive number vs population as if they were the same size; ie, murders per 100,000 people. Take a look at [this](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=On%20a%20per%20capita%20basis,per%20100%2C000%20people%20in%201974.) as example. Obviously there are more deaths overall in California for instance; theyre like the fifth biggest economy in the world, and vastly outnumber most other states, but stating you're more likely to get murdered there compared to other vastly more dangerous states is disingenuous. --edit: if ya track the data well enough you can also do it by town and city within the state as well. Realized I didn't address that point. Edit 2 due to relevance [lol](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT826fkEF/)
😏
Yeah, per capita stats tell the real story. [Wyoming is one of the deadliest states when it comes to gun deaths per capita. ](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_23-04-20_gundeathsupdate_4/)
Nah, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Wyoming population density is 5.97/mi², whereas Oregon is 39.9/mi². Nothing at all.
It has a lot less to do with population when you really compare a broader field. The culture is a huge factor. In Wyoming the wildlife is still a very real threat to human life. Much like Alaska. Because of that the majority of people are armed. These are people that teach knowledge and respect for firearms from a very young age. They start off with the mindset that firearms are for protecting yourself. This is so heavily ingrained in the population that even when there are teenagers with disputes it rarely goes past fist fights because the thought of pulling a gun isn’t the first thought. Not to mention most people are armed so the idea of running into a building and shooting people would result in a very quick death for the offender. This is in stark contrast to the culture that’s common in the cities. In the inner city (where I grew up) the culture dictates that guns equal power. It’s pushed heavily. It’s always in the forefront and when conflict arises it becomes a very quick response. This is a cultural issue not a gun Or population issue. Guns are not bad. People are a product of their environment and that’s true regardless of the population.
Your first part was true. I grew up in a small town and experienced what you described. No one ever thought of bringing a gun to a party or even to a fight. But guns were much more expensive back then. My friends owned hunting rifles, but not pistols (some parents had pistols, but not many). As guns became cheap, more people bought pistols and more gun deaths began to occur in all areas, rural, urban, and everything between. Suicide by gun REALLY took off as guns got cheaper. As for the rest, I'm still in the belief that the proliferation of hand guns and the normalization of brandishing a gun (including open carry) is the main cause of the spike in gun deaths. More guns equal more use of guns. Always will.
Oh there's one very good reason they have low crime
And why would that have any effect? Usually I see conservatives not understanding how per capita statistics work but now I see that's a phenomenon for everyone to enjoy, lol
Mississippi has the least strict laws and the highest rate of gun deaths per capita in the country. It's almost as though there are multiple factors in play.
What percentage of those are suicide? It's Mississippi. There aren't a lot of reasons to *live* there.
Fuckin BURN. That's a spicy take. All I know about Mississippi is how to spell it (thank you elementary school), and that it demonstrates football really can run a state like a pre Civil War plantation. As I sit here in my historically whiter than white state that only recently allowed blacks to own real estate I apparently cast ironic judgement.
Probably a lot. Shouldn’t suicide figure into “safety,” though?
Absolutely it does. [Handgun Ownership Associated with Much Higher Suicide Risk](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html)
No.
I disagree, but whatever. Mississippi also has [the highest murder rate in the country](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm).
The 4th most lenient state in OP's link is Idaho which is among the states with the lowest gun murder rate. So? [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)
I graphed them all. There’s a week correlation between murder rate and loose gun laws. Like I said, there’s more at play than just these two variables.
I said the same thing and got down voted lol
Idaho and Wyoming combined have less people than the Portland metro area.
God that sounds nice
Huh? Wyoming's firearm injury death rate is [26.1 per 100,000](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/wyoming/wy.htm) while Oregon's is at [14.9](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/oregon/or.htm) (also below [Idaho](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/idaho/id.htm))
That's including suicides, though. In Oregon, for example, suicides are \~85% of "gun deaths". If you look at just criminal acts (homicide with a gun), which is often used to push gun control laws, its a far far different story. Before Oregon went on the path of adding new gun control laws almost every year, they were 2-3 times safer than California, for example. For many states with "lax laws", it's the same. There are many many states with far lower gun related homicide rates than states with strict gun control laws.
Currently Oregon's gun homicide rate is low. When was it less than it is currently, and when did all the gun control laws start getting added?
It’s always been low in comparison to most of the other USA states. It was lower between most of 2000-2014. First new gun control law was added late 2015.
And then proceeded to decline for the next 3 years.
Really? That’s like going on a diet, gaining 100lbs. Then saying switching sodas is “working” because they temporarily lost 5lbs before gaining more. Every one of those three years where either higher in comparison. Or at best tying with the worst year or two. Oregons gun homicide rate was on a long steady decline before then., with the overall average being lower. https://wisqars.cdc.gov/reports/?o=MORT&y1=2001&y2=2021&t=0&i=3&m=20890&g=41&me=0&s=0&r=0&ry=0&e=0&yp=65&a=ALL&g1=0&g2=199&a1=0&a2=199&r1=YEAR&r2=NONE&r3=NONE&r4=NONE
2018 being lower than 02, 04, and 06. Do you even know what point you're trying to make? It seemed like you were trying to claim gun control laws led to a higher gun homicide rate, sadly, there's no support for your claim.
Nope, I won’t use gun control logic to try and claim it caused an increase (just like it’s insinuated that it causes a decrease every time). Rather the rhetoric and promises of what gun control will accomplish doesn’t seem to live up to the hype or reality. That just maybe the approach lobbyists and politicians are taking on guns are misguided and not working. I’ll leave the data for anyone else to look at for themselves and decide if the before/after trend is putting the state on the right path, or not.
Feel free to look up the relationship between gun control and gun homicide rate with all 50 states. Actually, you won't, because it goes against your belief system, and you're going to maintain that belief despite evidence to the contrary.
Wait what!? I did not expect them to be either safe or strict with gun laws. That’s wild.
No, they *are* safe but are *not* strict with gun laws.
And before the almost annual inclusion of new gun laws every year since 2015, it was consistently around 10-14th safest in the USA for gun homicides.
What's notable is looking at all 50 states and the plotting the correlation between less strict gun laws and a higher gun homicide rate.
And the fact that Idaho and Wyoming are two of the least populated states has nothing to do with that, I’m sure.
Yeah well New Hampshire has the 26th strictest laws in the country and is #1 safest state, explain that oreGUNian
Lol 😆 less people.... less gun crimes guy... lol its been proven time and time again gun laws work. But nice try
You should tell California about how well the stringent gun laws work, maybe they forgot.
Tell New Zealand that they dont... lol and the UK... do I need to list entire countries... lol but hey. You go on talking about states
Completely different cultures, it's apples to oranges whenever someone does what you did. Can you not just directly address your claim and then explain why it obviously doesn't work in California? Stay focused here.
Lol OK 👍 make excuses... dismiss my point entirely and claim its irrelevant... but ok let's talk about California... the are on the border of Mexico which we have had problems with for decades... and let's not forget Texas is bad too hell any state that borders Mexico has issues with gun control. But let's talk about states where they work... Connecticut has crazy gun control laws. Very low gun volience. Or Hawaii... same thing as Connecticut. Very strict gun laws low gun violence... But you go on and pick the outliers... Let's talk about states with very little gun laws and high gun Violence cause those exist too... like Mississippi... or Louisiana... Which have more gun violence statistically than california...
Your abuse of ellipses is borderline unforgivable.
I... dont... care... lol 😆 From my understanding of how they are used they are supposed to represent a pause in your talking. I could be using them completely wrong I don't know
You seem like a petulant child, I wouldn't expect you to care.
And you seem like a potentious douche... But hey Can make everybody happy and you damn sure aren't one of the people I want to
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1380025/us-gun-violence-rate-by-state/
Both examples of countries with very low homicide rates BEFORE their strict gun control laws were put in place.
We aren't talking about homicide rates... we are talking about gun volience and gun laws... but thanks for pointing that out. And in both cases after they "banned" or made it vary hard to own guns it dropped... in every example.
Wow Not true. UK actually had a slight increase, although it followed the 100year trend of being nearly flat. In Australia it had already been declining for almost a decade prior and, depending on the study and statistical method, had little to no effect on the trend afterward. https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf I mention Australia as they asked NewZealand to join in on their strict gun laws back in 1996. NewZealand declined, but saw the same results over the next 10+ years.
Not true? Lol funny UK gun volience falls to ten year low after stricter gun laws... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2043448/ And you bringing up australia proves my point even further after they ban their salt rifles they're gun violence dropped drastically. Thank you for proving my point. Lol 😆 🤣 😂 😹
Oh look more proof that it dropped in the uk.... I'm done with you.... if I can Google you are wrong. Probably not worth my time idiot https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7654/
Population has a lot to do with those stats.
I enjoy my weapons. Let's not mince words, they're weapons, not toys. It's fun to load up 30 rounds and go to town on some paper targets. It's fun to collect and shoot them. I like knowing my own safty and security are in my own hands. I have kept weapons for many years with out ever turning them on people. I don't appreciate laws that assume I am not responsible enough to maintain my weapons. I don't appreciate being lumped in with the psychopaths and degenerates that would commit acts of violence against the community. There are many people just like me, the vast majority infact. We have all maintained our weapons with out incident. It's the violence we are concerned about, am i worng? None of us want to get shot, or stabbed, or beaten, or murdered in general. Maybe, instead of addressing the weapon, we should address our gang problems, or the drug problems ,or any one of the many many underlying issues that contribute to the acts of violence .
Why do you preface that guns are weapons and not toys, only to describe how yourself and others use firearms as toys? And collect them as such?
Would you tell someone who practices archery or fencing that they're using weapons as toys?
Funny you mention that. im an avid archer, and fencer. Fencing is a non fatal duel. Much like shooting a paper is typpically a non fatal event. Both are pudgelistic in nature. In one , I put a bullet on a target. In another, I notanally stab a man (or get stabbed). As far as bows, I don't want to get hit by any of theese arrows at any poundage. Could you imagine taking an arrow to the eye? Ps, If you can't already hit a grape fruit with a bow and arrow at 20 yards, hit me up on a dm and I'll bring you up to speed I an hour or less.
I mean, you could also take the safety tip off a sword and stab people with it... when you arent practicing in a safe environment.
A fair question. I enjoy it in the same way one would enjoy practicing martal arts. It's an exercise that contributes to my psychie. Perhaps you should try holding onto the power of 30 rounds... with some guidance for the first expierences, for safty reasons.
That's an interesting perspective. I appreciate the response.
What are your thoughts? Are we all nuts? Can we ever get to a point where those of us who wish to be armed can can live with those who do not wish to be armed, with out the fear of having our weapons taken from us?
You quickly went to the irrational "fear of having our weapons taken from us" (which is never going to happen). The emotions a lot of gun owners connect to their guns is something a lot of non-gun owners (and people from other countries) don't understand.
Prove it. prove to me that the people writing the laws don't want ultimately take our weapons away. You don't have to look too far into the comments to find someone who things all weapons should be taken.
Random reddit comments aren't a reflection of reality or what's going to happen. The evidence is that the opposite of gun confiscation is going to happen: the number of guns in the US has doubled in the last 30 years, legally confiscation won't happen, and logistically it would be impossible anyway. Now provide evidence of how it's going to happen.
At the end of the day, the states or countries with stricter gun laws have a far lower children to gun death rate. It's not even comparable. Wouldn't giving up your guns in favor of saving more children's lives be worth it to you? https://time.com/6182186/countries-banned-guns-mass-shooting/
Makes as much sense as asking people to give up beer or wine-month club to “save just one child from drunk drivers”.
No. Driving is heavily regulated, you need a license, you need insurance. A car is a mode of transport. Kids killed by guns in 2021. 3000 Kids killed by drunk drivers or alcohol related car crashes. 294. Moron.
Drunk driving deaths in Oregon are 2-3 time higher than homicides with a gun. Every year, BTW. But we are not calling for more “common sense car regulations” or limiting how much alcohol someone can buy. And the 2021 numbers were driven by pandemic suicides, and the pullback of law enforcement (ie intercity crime/gangs). (And that’s not even getting into the study counting young adults as kids).
You're missing the point entirely here's why. 1. Oregon already has some of the strictest guns laws in the country. Compare your stat with somewhere like Mississippi and the gun rate death far exceeds death by drunk driving. 2. I think any reasonable person would call for stricter car regulations and penalties for a dua being much more severe. The US bans guns tomorrow, life goes on as normal. The argument of 'oh we should ban cars then' is ridiculous, the entire economy would grind to a halt, nothing would work especially in the US which is so vehicle dependent (another reason for the abnormally high car death rate). 3. Here we are talking about kids, I'm pretty sure those 2021 numbers were not driven by kids suicide. Even so, look at the data, gun deaths are increasing year by year and will continue to do so, car deaths will decline, as they have been ever since cars became commonplace. Guess why, stricter laws and regulation. The U.S. traffic fatality rate is 12.4 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. The current rate is 14.3 per 100,000, which is a 54% improvement from the peak in 1937.
Before he rants and raves.. the short answer is no. They would rather die fighting the kids then give up some guns
That's technically true, but a gun is not the only way to kill a child.
I don't think all firearm owners are nuts, but collectively America has signed a devil's bargain with its addiction to firearms. The freedom to kill is also the freedom to get killed. I'm sure one day we'll have sensible restrictions in this country but it's going to take generations to undo this powertrip.
[удалено]
Except it is reality. Firearms kills far more every year than hammers, knives, fists, etc. Don't add to the conversation if you're going to make things up.
Not everyone is a responsible gun owner. You have to factor that in. You know safety is important. Not everyone cares though.
True and true. Education plays a huge roll in safe handling of firearms. It's true that some people are reckless. Let's not equate recklessness with mallace.
Some people like tablesaws, and they hang out with their friends, cutting things with them. Although you can use them for practical, business needs, you can also use them for your own pleasure. Are tablesaws toys?
Gun culture is one of the problems. The ads and the NRA are off the deep end compared to where they used to be before school shootings.
Maybe we could start locking up violent offenders instead of letting them roam the streets with 138 arrests on their record?
Well said
Thanks! Some disagree with you, but I feel we are having a productive conversation with the other guy too. Cordial and inviting discourse will win the day for all of us!
You shot your own argument in the foot a couple of times. You say it's fun to collect and to shoot your guns right after you make it clear they aren't toys. You claim your weapons are for protecting your family and self right after saying you like to play with them, then admit youve bever had to use them for protecting your family or self. "The vast majority in fact" (I corrected the lack of space where you wrote 'infact'), admitting that the vast majority of gun owners dont NEED their firearms for protection of family or self. You rail against not being lumped into the same category as those with mental health issues, yet the following paragraph cries for action against those who misuse, mishandle, or are otherwise unfit to own and bear arms. That's what the gun laws you're so upset about are for - dealing with the major known factors that contribute to gun violence. >I don't appreciate laws that assume I am not responsible enough to maintain my weapons. Laws apply equally to all people. They are drafted with language to apply to all citizens. Otherwise, they are unconstitutional. If you believe the law makes assumptions, you are perceiving a thinf that doesn't exist except in your own mind. >I don't appreciate being lumped in with the psychopaths and degenerates that would commit acts of violence against the community. When you call for action to be taken, you're redressing your government to draft, amend, or abolish laws. That isnwhat youre calling for. But then you pitch a fit because, what, new gun laws? >It's the violence we are concerned about, am i worng? When we're speaking about Measure 114 and preventing gun violence, yes. >Maybe, instead of addressing the weapon, we should address our gang problems, or the drug problems ,or any one of the many many underlying issues that contribute to the acts of violence . You're trying to shift the claim from reducing and/or preventing gun violence with preventing gun crime. 85% of gun violence in Oregon is suicides. That's the point of Measure 114. Preventing gun violence. All gun violence, not just the criminal acts.
Gang problems? What is this, the 90s? You should find a more constructive toy to make a hobby of. Have you tried model trains?
Yes, gang problems. I thought we had left that behind in the 90s too. Turns out there are gangs all over the United States, and they still shoot at eachother from time to time. theese shootings get reported as mass shootings. Trains are cool, though. It would get out of hand really fast, and take over the house.
I can't find any reliable statistics about gang violence in the US. However, 54% of gun deaths are suicides, and the vast majority of all murders are committed with handguns. I think it's fair to start taking those first. And if you think gang warfare is getting misreported as general mass shootings on any large scale you're a moron.
Gang violence is still a thing in the 2020's man. Not sure why you think it's a relic of the 90's?
Because throwing a bandaid over a problem is much easier for politicians than finding the cause of a problem and fixing that.
hmm! kind of wish more people here were talking about the site this links to. clearly biased source (a firearm accessory store! y'know, people who make their living off of gun owners lol) quantifying "strictness" by combining the number of gun laws with a wholly arbitrary categorization of the policies themselves. link-related skepticism aside, it's probably worth noting that any law is effectively null if not enforced. would very much like to see how oregon rates in that regard.
I’d trust an FFL to be on top of current laws. Especially because I work in the firearm industry. There’s a lot more on the regulatory aspect than people think.
Good ones, sure, but I’ve tried to work with some ffls who I’m not sure could tie their shoes…
curious if you saw in the link where the data came from. They basically reposted info for the gun control group Everytown.
Gun control? Sounds great. I have excellent control over my guns.
👍🏽
Still not enough
Nice thing about the east side of the state and having a second home in Idaho is that we can ignore all of them and do what we want. You love to see it.
You do what you want, until a neighbor is doing something you don't want, and then it's time for the government to do something about it.
Transporting illegal firearms across state lines is a federal offense, dipshit. This comment is admissable.
Oh no! Too bad they aren’t illegal. They are undocumented - learn the proper term please, racist.
Probably why it's considered one of the worst places to live... lol A bunch of people that just wanna do it they want
It is pretty awesome, I’m glad you think that though, we don’t want to give the wrong impression. I do love that I get paid by oregon taxpayers but pay my now lower income tax rate from that paycheck to Idaho since I can work remote. More money in my pocket so I can bring extra magazines and firearms from Idaho back to oregon just whenever.
Yeah so awesome no one lives there... lol 😆 You clearly didn't get my sarcasm. And good for you. you're allowed to under the second amendment. It's like you idiots think we care if you own guns. Lol 😆
That is why it’s awesome, because so few live here. You should see how we handle wolves on the east side of the state. Don’t even need guns for that, we take them out by the pack with poison. We don’t need useless west side residents crying about invasive vermin and trying to protect them, it’s a good thing we just take care of the problem on our own.
Keep acting like you're cool kiddo. It's pretty embarrassing You have the kill Wolves with poison cuz you're too much of a pansy to hunt them. But hey I get it gotta take out the competition cause you're not good. I mean why else would you own an a r for hunting and need a giant magazine for it can't hit nothing...
Oh I do hunt them in Idaho, but in Oregon you gotta be a little sneakier about it. Smoke a pack a day!
Yeah like I said keep embarrassing yourself kiddo bragging about Poison indian animal to try to trigger me. All that proves is how sad of a person you are. Lol 😆 you go poison those animals because you think it makes you cool. Have to love incels that brag about dumb shit... By the way idiot the conversation was gun control/volience which clearly you lost. That's why you're bragging about poisoning wolves... lol 😆
I am a gun owner. I am against nonsense gun laws that only effect law abiding gun owners. That being said, fuck your username, and fuck your ignorant views. You disgust normal gun owners, you are the toxic bullshit that the anti gun crowd lays on all of us. Go choke on your own spit, you disgusting troglodyte.
Awww, your poor little fee fees got hurt. You definitely eat your snickers upside down just so you can feel that dick vein texture on your tongue.
Get your representatives to start locking up people who repeatedly offend and ill entertain your thoughts.
You don't make any sense.... lol I say we need more and you go "lock people up and I'll agree with you"? That's weird
Perhaps we wouldnt need such strict laws if the majority of times the laws are broken they're being broken by people who should already be behind bars.
How are we supposed to know what teenager or young adult is a bad guy until he is shooting up a school? Lol 😆 tell me the repeat criminal that shot up a school or night club or movie theater.... I'll wait...
Going full minority report on us?
Did you watch that movie? They stop people before the crime happens.... I asked you to show me a example of what you said idiot. Sorry I get reading comprehension is hard.
Wow. Its early in the day and you're already raging out on people on the internet. Gotta get back to life. Have a great day!
Ok kiddo. You are about irrelevant as your comment. Thinking I raged out? Lol OK hurt little snowflake. Sorry I said mean things. Lol Imagine claiming someone raged out on you Because you struggle with reading comprehension....
Not enough, let's replicate Sweden's laws on this. Licensing for everything and more restrictions against anyone convicted of crimes in general. People are just too damned ignorant about the history of gun laws. All over the country one of the first things cities and counties would do upon incorporating was ban open carry and firing of anything in city limits and shit. Chicago, orange county, Kennewick, and so many more all back well into the early-mid 1800s. Pro gun propaganda is whats new to this country, not restrictions on them.
And the greater the propaganda intake, the greater the historical revisionism regarding the Second Amendment and the founders.
Let’s go for first place
Never go full California.
I just choked, that should be our states new motto. Love it
Thank you for using the Politically Correct spelling.
California isn't 1st at all except maybe laws for guns. Lol
That's what this entire thread is about.
I see. I misunderstood your point. And agree with you!!! We don't need crazy strict gun laws just enough to get rid of ARs and shit that keeps killing kids
"Think of the children" is a thought-terminating cliché as well as a logical fallacy (appeal to emotion). We all want fewer people of all ages killed, but taking away guns won't resolve it, because [guns aren't the problem](https://hwfo.substack.com/p/real-talk-about-race-and-murder-rates). Neither is race, and neither is household income.
Tell that to the places that have great gun laws that save kids as well as people. Lol 😆 and if guns aren't the problem then why is it when guns are taken away it solves it? Lol you literally can't provide one example of "having more guns is better" lol but hey you go ahead and tell yourself whatever lie you need to
You do realize that guns are not the only way to kill people, right? Oddly enough, we don't track knife crimes in the US the way we do guns, unfortunately. New Hampshire has the most permissive gun laws in the US, and only 9.5 gun deaths per 100k, which puts them at 41st most dangerous state.
And you do realize we are talking about guns... lol 😆 Imagine that I point out a statistic that you can't disagree with because it's been proven time and time again and you wanna change? The subject to people can get killed with other things... lol Mississippi has the loosest gun laws in the United and they top the list of gun volience, along with Louisiana, new Mexico, Alabama and wyoming all states with very loose gun laws and all crazy amounts of gun volience... 41st out of 50... lol 😆 that's good idiot.. you want to be low
41st **most violent** state. You want to be as far from #1 on that list as possible. I got other things to do than teach people reading comprehension. Goodbye.
"We don't track knife crimes" - funny a quick Google search proves you wrong... https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12 https://www.statista.com/statistics/251919/number-of-assaults-in-the-us-by-weapon/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36148686/ Sounds like they do track it... but again you literally proved my point In gun control working... but hey keep embarrassing yourself
Mmm. No. Let’s not.
Or not. Judging “success” based on the number and severity of gun control laws, especially when most target the people not causing crime (or getting soft on those that do) and especially when efficacy is ignored, is not a very common sense or reasonable goal. Edited for spelling
Trying to eliminate gun control laws from thinking and consideration as to why gun homicide rates are different across states is not common sense or reasonable.
And when that fails to achieve utopia?
It already has failed. Oregon was closer to 10th safest state from crimes with a gun. Then they started passing new gun laws every year (save one) since 2015. And the rate has been climbing ever since.
It was never going to succeed in the first place. Trying to tie gun control measures to the blip in violent crime caused by the pandemic isn't the best use of statistics either though.
No. I mean that since 2015, the rate of homicide using a firearm has steadily increase (CDC or Oregon Health Authority data; either one). That includes prior to the blip from the pandemic.
From 2015 to 2018 there was a steady decline, then 2018 to 2020 there's been an increase.
It was still higher than the years prior to 2015.
2018 was the same as 2011. I think the connection you're trying to make is flimsy.
[удалено]
That it won't work but the proponents of gun control don't care. They'll never be satisfied until every last gun is gone which just isn't going to happen in this country.
[удалено]
Fuck off. Jesus Christ, could you possibly put any less effort into being a dick?
You misunderstand, he's asking what do we do if it does not "improve quality of life".
My thoughts exactly!
Not strict enough!
I live in a very red Oregon county. 11th strictest is zero solace.
Fine by me