05-07-2023, 12:53 PM
pdq wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]
[quote=pdq]
[quote=SDGuy]
remember - people are only dead if they are shot; no need to look at something like the overall homicide rate - those numbers are meaningless...
Not sure what your point is - the top seven states in homicide rate are red states that are racing to eliminate whatever gun laws they still have.
I just don't see the point in posting something that is along the lines of "look - I've discovered that Gun Deaths happen where Guns exist"; it's like saying "I noticed that drownings occur where water exists", or "Did you ever notice that drunk drivers are more prevalent where cars exist, than where cars don't exist?"
It’s just correlation. Some say correlation does not prove causation, but in reality, scientists examine (and test) correlation to establish risk (and causation) all the time. It’s how we discovered that high blood cholesterol and smoking increase your risk for heart attacks, for instance.
More guns and easy availability increase the risk of gun deaths and homicides. It’s not rocket science, and we should do something about it. In my view, reducing the availability and number of guns is the most practical option.
"More guns
That's the one change I'd make to your premise; New Hampshire has the lowest homicide rate in the Nation, by far at 0.90/100K. The next closest State (Maine) has nearly double the rate at 1.60/100K. Both of those rates are nearly rounding errors when compared to the highest homicide rates in this country, yet for their gun laws, they both receive "F" grades from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
If one were to judge the States' Laws based on actual outcome, both New Hampshire and Maine would be held up as shining examples that the rest should follow.
It is far more than just the availability of firearms which affects things (which loops back to the OP - there are vast regional/cultural differences which have an outsized effect on gun violence).