"The Geography of U.S. Gun Violence"

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]
...not those places with the lowest levels of gun violence, since their laws are nearly the same as the places with the highest levels of gun violence, and we can't have that".

Where did you get the idea that New Hampshire and Maine have the lowest levels of gun violence, anyway? Wikipedia puts New Hampshire at 14th and Maine at 17th (lowest). Those two states (easily!) have the highest level of gun violence in New England.

Big bad New York puts them both to shame. Of course, it must be the lax gun laws there.

:RollingEyesSmiley5:
Sorry - I meant lowest level of violence (specifically homicides)...see - I fell into the same trap as yourself - only mentioning gun violence vice a more holistic view. Looking at the overall homicide rate should be what to be concerned with.

[Lemon Drop]

"I'm just curious, though, why both yourself and pdq seem to be advocating for a one-size-fits-all approach, when this would be in conflict with what the OP is pointing out."

Did you read the entire linked article? I linked to it in my first post.

They are not saying we don't need federal gun control laws. In fact, they show why we DO need it. Political and cultural forces in some regions make those regions resistant to passing legislation that we know would reduce violence there.

Also your conclusion above is wrong looking at states overall.

States with more gun safety legislation have lower gun homicide rates.

[SDGuy]

Lemon Drop wrote:
"I'm just curious, though, why both yourself and pdq seem to be advocating for a one-size-fits-all approach, when this would be in conflict with what the OP is pointing out."

Did you read the entire linked article? I linked to it in my first post.

They are not saying we don't need federal gun control laws. In fact, they show why we DO need it. Political and cultural forces in some regions make those regions resistant to passing legislation that we know would reduce violence there.

Also your conclusion above is wrong looking at states overall.

States with more gun safety legislation have lower gun homicide rates.

I suspect we are in overwhelming agreement on many parts of this; I've stated MANY times on multiple threads what I believe the Federal Government could (and should) do in this area - but the majority of posters here seem to be content with posting soundbites along the lines of "just ban all guns" or "we should do the things we know that need to be done" (without explaining what, exactly, those things are). Then there's the ever-present posting of discount ads for various semi-automatic firearms that pop-up.

As for the original source article cited in the OP (thank you for linking to it!), even its conclusion states that "With such sharp regional differences, it is unlikely the United States will ever reach a federation-wide consensus on gun control... it’s conceivable that political supermajority could coalesce that could find agreement on measures that could have a marginal effect, like banning high-capacity magazines or creating truly universal background checks."
This is in-line with what I've been advocating.

I don't know what your (or pdq's) stances are exactly; it seems very hard to pin folks on here down to provide specifics on what, exactly, they are proponents of.

[Lemon Drop]

I've said on here many times what I have advocated for as a gun responsibility advocate for the past 30 years.
Not a complete list. And I've already heard the 2A crowd responses to all of these, so unless there is something new I won't respond.

Ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines
Universal background checks for all gun sales
Age 21 to purchase
Waiting periods, licensing, training requirements
No "constitutional carry"
No ghost guns
Emergency protection orders
Safe storage
Liability for gun manufacturers
Liability for adult gun owners when children use their weapon

[SDGuy]

Lemon Drop wrote:
I've said on here many times what I have advocated for as a gun responsibility advocate for the past 30 years.
Not a complete list. And I've already heard the 2A crowd responses to all of these, so unless there is something new I won't respond.

Ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines
Universal background checks for all gun sales
Age 21 to purchase
Waiting periods, licensing, training requirements
No "constitutional carry"
No ghost guns
Emergency protection orders
Safe storage
Liability for gun manufacturers
Liability for adult gun owners when children use their weapon

As I thought - we agree on the vast majority of points (11/13, possibly 12/13 depending on the details, by my count); however - getting politicians to do ANY of them, I think, is a challenge in today's environment; the extremes have taken over...the pendulum will eventually swing back, but I suspect nothing will be done in the meantime...and it will get much worse than it already is (why I think so would be a long topic for another thread).

[pdq]

How about we follow Australia’s example (that massively decreased gun deaths in their country)?

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
How about we follow Australia’s example (that massively decreased gun deaths in their country)?

I'm feeling a bit of déjà vu

[pdq]

You’ve asked for specifics; I’ve given them; you reject them out of hand.

We don’t have to live this way. Other peer countries (not just Australia) have faced the very same problems as us, and made changes that improved things.

You and others seem very invested in saying it’s impossible, because we’re different. I disagree.

[SDGuy]

pdq wrote:
You’ve asked for specifics; I’ve given them; you reject them out of hand.

We don’t have to live this way. Other peer countries (not just Australia) have faced the very same problems as us, and made changes that improved things.

You and others seem very invested in saying it’s impossible, because we’re different. I disagree.

"You’ve asked for specifics; I’ve given them"
What, exactly, are you proposing?
I asked that of another poster who had no problem listing out their thoughts - but you seem to be unwilling to state what, exactly, your beliefs are.

[pdq]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=pdq]
You’ve asked for specifics; I’ve given them; you reject them out of hand.

We don’t have to live this way. Other peer countries (not just Australia) have faced the very same problems as us, and made changes that improved things.

You and others seem very invested in saying it’s impossible, because we’re different. I disagree.

"You’ve asked for specifics; I’ve given them"
What, exactly, are you proposing?
I asked that of another poster who had no problem listing out their thoughts - but you seem to be unwilling to state what, exactly, your beliefs are.
https://forums.macresource.com/read.php?...sg-2831836