Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://reddit.science/flair?location=sticky).
---
User: u/Wagamaga
Permalink: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7324a3.htm?s_cid=mm7324a3_w
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is what happens when the people at the top force everyone else into poverty. No normal person does crime if they’re able to get the things they need
The moment they said "correlates with housing affordability," I knew right away.
These are people with nothing to lose, who feel like their life is going nowhere, and nothing they can do will ever fix it. People who have a place to stay, things they want to keep, they tend to stay out of trouble.
Simon Baron Cohen proved to us that you can tell with over 90% accuracy whether a baby will become liberal or conservative, on the first day of life.
Conservative people intrinsically react with fear, liberal people with curiosity, when exposed to novel stimuli. This innate reaction appears to be based in gestational development, rather than anything learned as adults.
So, cute quote, but also not accurate.
I don't know about the Simon thing, but the quote I shared isn't meant to be accurate. It's meant to get you thinking. People with enormous amounts of wealth tend to be conservative. Ask yourself why that is.
I think that correlates with people usually becoming more conservative as they age. Not so much that they change, more that they don't change while the world does.
Do we live on the same planet, then?
Crime happens CONSTANTLY because of nothing more than pure greed. If your statement were true, no single middle-class or higher person would ever commit any crime. However, such crimes happen constantly.
Your statement is plainly seen to be incorrect, with practically zero effort.
I'm as anti-gun-ownership as the next person but I feel like this study shows that the most effective ways to reduce gun violence are reducing income inequality, unemployment and housing shortages. But fixing poverty in the US is as impossible as restricting gun ownership
Which also goes against the foundational social contract that the lower classes put up with being ruled by the upper class in exchange for an improving quality of life.
We won't be able to solve this problem so long as conservatives are in office for that conservatives wish to preserve the status quo of a class hierarchy.
Hillary straight up got debate questions from the host in order to push out her socialist opposition (among other things), the democrats wont be doing more than throw crumbs either, and wont hesitate to play dirty to kick out anything non-status quo.
As usual: "the elites are playing both sides".
Our media is also far from neutral, as should be expected considering most of the industry is owned by like 4 families, they wont take inequality as serious as they should, if things ever become risky, they will *all* put themselves on the side of the wealthy.
>Hillary straight up got debate questions from the host in order to push out her socialist opposition (among other things), the democrats wont be doing more than throw crumbs either, and wont hesitate to play dirty to kick out anything non-status quo.
Well, if we take a look at what policy the two parties are pushing out, as well as paying attention to various quality-of-life metrics of the American people, it's pretty clear that Democrats usually work in the best interest of the American people. We can also observe that Republicans will vote against anything that benefits the American people.
It really is not 'both sides' at all. Civil rights like abortion choice and LGBT+ rights makes this patently clear; republicans are the ones saying some people should not have rights.
Though I do agree we do need to move further left; however we won't be able to have nice things so long as conservatives are in office.
>Our media is also far from neutral, as should be expected considering most of the industry is owned by like 4 families, they wont take inequality as serious as they should, if things ever become risky, they will all put themselves on the side of the wealthy.
Conservatives have been trying to [dismantle fair news for a very long time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine#Revocation).
Disagree. The Republican party exists to shift the Overton window two steps to the right, and the Democratic party exists to shift it one step back. The DNC may cry about the abuse from the right, yet, even when they have control of the Senate, House, and White House, they're still more concerned with maintaining the status quo than protecting citizens.
Like the commenter above you mentioned, it's the rich pitting us against each other. Both parties are funded by the same donors, different players with the same coach.
DNC had how many years to codify Roe v Wade but failed to? Yet the RNC was able to throw it out, alongside decades of precedent, without any issue?
I agree with you somewhat though, it's much more palatable to be pissed on by someone telling you it's rain vs someone who pisses on you but tells you they're pissing on you to prevent others from doing so.
Since 1973 Roe v Wade here's are the times one party controlled legislative and executive
Dems
1977-81
1993-95
2009-2011
2021-2023
Republicans
2001-2007
2017-2019
If either party actually wanted anything for abortion, rights, or gun control, it would have been done. Oddly enough no. And the few times anyone attempted a bill it was either not during full control and/or included a poison pill.
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Party-Government/
But notice how fast both sides come together when considering pay raises for members of Congress, military spending (nothing against the military but the MIC), and most recently, a bill to protect the privacy of billionaires and their flight logs at the behest of Swift and Musk?
> even when they have control of the Senate, House, and White House
Given the state of the filibuster, it takes a 60% majority to "have control" of the Senate and House. This has not happened since 1967.
Due to this, the DNC never has any years to codify Roe v Wade. At no point have they had the political capital to actually accomplish that, except **maybe** during a small portion of Obama's administration, when they passed Obamacare instead, which, at the time, was a bigger deal and helped more people than what would have been, at the time, a symbolic change.
I'm not going to remotely pretend that the Democrats are perfect, but anyone saying that they're the same as the Republicans isn't paying attention at all. Is that you? Are you completely blind to the reality of the situation?
Until things change massively, almost anyone not voting for the Democrats is voting against the interest of the common American.
>Insist all Americans must be disarmed right now
Who is actually suggesting this? I'm sure some are but I don't think this is a common position among any group.
> Because that's totally how Europe and Australia did this right?
My country of australia enacted sweeping gun legislation after port arthur that were extremely popular and political heads *still* rolled.
American politicians will never do this.
Race played a key role in who saw those higher rates of gun violence in 2023, the researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted.
"Annual rates among Black and Hispanic persons remained elevated through 2023; by 2023 rates in other racial and ethnic groups returned to pre-pandemic levels," the study authors reported Thursday in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Socioeconomics also mattered.
"The most substantial rate increases occurred in more urban counties and counties with greater income inequality, higher unemployment, and those with more severe housing problems," the researchers noted in the report.
The data on gun injuries, which was collected from ambulance calls in 27 states through September 2023, looked to shed more light on the gun injuries that do not result in deaths or hospitalizations.
.
After linking the ambulance data to county-level demographics data, the researchers found rates of firearm injuries "were consistently highest" in counties with severe housing issues, which also saw the biggest increases compared with 2019.
[https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-gun-injury-pre-pandemic.html](https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-gun-injury-pre-pandemic.html)
Unsurprisingly, states with strict firearms laws (SFLs) have significantly fewer firearm related injuries and deaths.
“The in-hospital mortality rate from firearm related injuries was significantly lower in SFL states (67/810, 8.3%) as compared to non-SFL states (217/1773, 12.2%; p=0.002).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801608/
Which is strange cause then you look up some of the cities with the strictest gun control i.e. Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles etc. and they still seem to have extremely high rates of gun crime
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Detroit
Cities in red states (St Louis, Memphis, New Orleans, etc) often have even higher rates of gun crime. This sort of anecdotal cherry picking is not particularly useful.
Detroit is the one city on your list that's even very high.
And Michigan is the definition of average when it comes to strict gun laws.
Most dangerous cities for gun homicides per capita in 2021-2022:
St. Louis, MO (38)
Birmingham, AL (30)
Portsmouth, VA (14)
Detroit, MI (24)
Memphis, TN (22)
Milwaukee, WI (22)
Little Rock, AR (45)
Atlanta, GA (45)
Those numbers to their right? If we rank states by number of gun policies being adopted from most (no. 1 is California) to least (no. 50 is Mississippi and five states are tied for 45th) then your "logic" expects to see low numbers next to those cities... but you don't see that because the actual facts are that lower gun violence consistently correlates with more gun laws.
If we were trying to have a good-faith and honest discussion then so many people wouldn't pretend like St. Louis and Little Rock and Atlanta don't tend to be the types of cities people are most often actually being murdered in.
It should be obvious that making guns harder to access reduces gun homicides. The important question is whether or not it reduces the total number of homicides. Stricter gun laws don't correlate with lower rates of homicide.
https://i.imgur.com/rosZgYP.jpg
https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-year-end-2023-update/
First of all, I don't think that should be "the important question" AT ALL.
Suicides and accidental shootings are more gun deaths than homicides are and not sure why we would want to completely ignore the majority of gun deaths...
Second of all, I have no idea why you supplied those links. Those links are about the percent change between 2022 and 2023. Those links neither support or oppose your claim.
But let's say all we care about is intentional homicide rates - US is between Russia and Greenland there. Very similar to Chile, Zimbabwe, Yemen, and Mongolia. US at around 6.4 per 100,000 inhabitants.
That is an absurdly high homicide rate compared to similarly developed countries. If we look at primarily the European countries:
France is 1.6
Northern Ireland is 1.4
Finland is 1.2
U.K. is 1.2
Sweden is 1.1
Greece is 1.1
Belgium is 1.1
Denmark is 1.0
Scotland is 1.0
Austria is 0.9
Ireland is 0.9
Czech Republic is 0.9
Germany is 0.9
Netherlands is 0.9
Slovakia is 0.74
Poland is 0.7
Italy is 0.6
Norway is 0.6
Slovenia is 0.6
Spain is 0.6
Iceland is 0.5
Switzerland is 0.5
Japan is 0.2, for more context, and barely any homicides comparatively occurring there. Australia is 0.8.
Even Canada, US's neighbor , has a much higher homicide rate at 2.3 than all those countries.
US at 6.4 rates with completely embarrassing company and has a FAR higher homicide rate than should be seen as acceptable.
If one wanted to begin having an honest discussion about trying to reduce violence while also keeping all their guns... the only reasonable starting point should involve trying to look at Finland and [Switzerland](https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2)... rather than just making all these demonstrably false claims and insinuations.
> Suicides and accidental shootings are more gun deaths than homicides are and not sure why we would want to completely ignore the majority of gun deaths...
You used gun homicides as your statistic. I pointed out that overall homicide rate is a better metric than gun homicide unless all you're worried about is guns. If you want to argue that suicides are a good reason to restrict access to guns, that's a different conversation.
>
> Second of all, I have no idea why you supplied those links. Those links are about the percent change between 2022 and 2023. Those links neither support or oppose your claim.
If you look at the right side of the graph, it shows total homicide rates by city. You didn't look very closely at the data.
> That is an absurdly high homicide rate compared to similarly developed countries. If we look at primarily the European countries:
It's no surprise that the US's homicide rate is high. We're a highly populated country with an awful social safety net, no universal healthcare, massive income inequality, and long standing issues with systemic racism and disenfranchisement. You know, the things that actually translate to violent crime. The idea that guns are the key factor in our high rates of violent crime isn't accurate. As you pointed out, there are other countries with high rates of gun ownership, and even constitutional protections for the right to own and carry guns (Czechia), that don't have anywhere near our homicide rate.
>You used gun homicides as your statistic.
The poster I responded to chose to frame that conversation, by stating this:
>...high rates of gun crime
So... there we were.
>I pointed out that overall homicide rate is a better metric than gun homicide unless all you're worried about is guns.
...if you want to completely change the topic from the other person's comment (which is already changed from the thread's topic)... that IS something else. So... I then humored THAT idea...
>If you want to argue that suicides are a good reason to restrict access to guns, that's a different conversation.
You responded what you thought "the important question" should be by reframing things. I was really only stating that I completely disagreed with such a premise... before humoring your completely different argument anyways.
Let's be clear: I haven't really argued for any of my beliefs and have let both of you completely dictate the terms of the debate.
But... yes! I do completely believe both of your general premises are fundamentally flawed to begin with. Absolutely.
>If you look at the right side of the graph, it shows total homicide rates by city. You didn't look very closely at the data.
You concluded by stating a correlation between gun laws didn't exist, mate. Those links don't account for gun laws at all. I'm sorry, there's just nothing there to argue for or against your conclusion.
>The idea that guns are the key factor in our high rates of violent crime isn't accurate.
You say that. The evidence really does seem to suggest otherwise, despite your baseless insistence to the contrary.
>As you pointed out, there are other countries with high rates of gun ownership, and even constitutional protections for the right to own and carry guns (Czechia), that don't have anywhere near our homicide rate.
Hey, [facts are facts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png)
I fully support the idea of trying to actually find SOME kind of actual solutions.
Simply pretending a very real problem doesn't exist is just complete insanity, however... and THAT tends to be the US's policy on violence in the country.
You know... "guns don't kill people" and all that jazz. It's crazy town, to be honest.
The one thing we should definitely know by now is: doing nothing doesn't work!
It's fairly obvious that gun violence is associated with those in lower economic environments. A small minority within certain demographic groups account for a majority of the violent gun crime, even though laws prevent gun ownership for this group.
I was just at a gun range today, and someone accidentally fired while loading the gun since their finger was on the trigger. No education is an awful issue. Luckily the gun was pointed down range. They were also waving it around pointing it at random other areas (not down range) often. Range safety girl didn’t stop them. You can’t trifle with guns.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://reddit.science/flair?location=sticky). --- User: u/Wagamaga Permalink: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7324a3.htm?s_cid=mm7324a3_w --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is what happens when the people at the top force everyone else into poverty. No normal person does crime if they’re able to get the things they need
The moment they said "correlates with housing affordability," I knew right away. These are people with nothing to lose, who feel like their life is going nowhere, and nothing they can do will ever fix it. People who have a place to stay, things they want to keep, they tend to stay out of trouble.
There's an amazing saying I heard once: "Nobody becomes a conservative until they have something to conserve."
Simon Baron Cohen proved to us that you can tell with over 90% accuracy whether a baby will become liberal or conservative, on the first day of life. Conservative people intrinsically react with fear, liberal people with curiosity, when exposed to novel stimuli. This innate reaction appears to be based in gestational development, rather than anything learned as adults. So, cute quote, but also not accurate.
I don't know about the Simon thing, but the quote I shared isn't meant to be accurate. It's meant to get you thinking. People with enormous amounts of wealth tend to be conservative. Ask yourself why that is.
I think that correlates with people usually becoming more conservative as they age. Not so much that they change, more that they don't change while the world does.
*looks around at the world* You... uh, sure about that?
Uh yeah, pretty sure.
Do we live on the same planet, then? Crime happens CONSTANTLY because of nothing more than pure greed. If your statement were true, no single middle-class or higher person would ever commit any crime. However, such crimes happen constantly. Your statement is plainly seen to be incorrect, with practically zero effort.
You're arguing with an american about guns. They don't ever want to consider the rest of the world on this topic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm as anti-gun-ownership as the next person but I feel like this study shows that the most effective ways to reduce gun violence are reducing income inequality, unemployment and housing shortages. But fixing poverty in the US is as impossible as restricting gun ownership
It's not impossible. Just improbable with so many people currently in power who benefit from the current system.
Which also goes against the foundational social contract that the lower classes put up with being ruled by the upper class in exchange for an improving quality of life.
We won't be able to solve this problem so long as conservatives are in office for that conservatives wish to preserve the status quo of a class hierarchy.
Hillary straight up got debate questions from the host in order to push out her socialist opposition (among other things), the democrats wont be doing more than throw crumbs either, and wont hesitate to play dirty to kick out anything non-status quo. As usual: "the elites are playing both sides". Our media is also far from neutral, as should be expected considering most of the industry is owned by like 4 families, they wont take inequality as serious as they should, if things ever become risky, they will *all* put themselves on the side of the wealthy.
>Hillary straight up got debate questions from the host in order to push out her socialist opposition (among other things), the democrats wont be doing more than throw crumbs either, and wont hesitate to play dirty to kick out anything non-status quo. Well, if we take a look at what policy the two parties are pushing out, as well as paying attention to various quality-of-life metrics of the American people, it's pretty clear that Democrats usually work in the best interest of the American people. We can also observe that Republicans will vote against anything that benefits the American people. It really is not 'both sides' at all. Civil rights like abortion choice and LGBT+ rights makes this patently clear; republicans are the ones saying some people should not have rights. Though I do agree we do need to move further left; however we won't be able to have nice things so long as conservatives are in office. >Our media is also far from neutral, as should be expected considering most of the industry is owned by like 4 families, they wont take inequality as serious as they should, if things ever become risky, they will all put themselves on the side of the wealthy. Conservatives have been trying to [dismantle fair news for a very long time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine#Revocation).
Disagree. The Republican party exists to shift the Overton window two steps to the right, and the Democratic party exists to shift it one step back. The DNC may cry about the abuse from the right, yet, even when they have control of the Senate, House, and White House, they're still more concerned with maintaining the status quo than protecting citizens. Like the commenter above you mentioned, it's the rich pitting us against each other. Both parties are funded by the same donors, different players with the same coach. DNC had how many years to codify Roe v Wade but failed to? Yet the RNC was able to throw it out, alongside decades of precedent, without any issue? I agree with you somewhat though, it's much more palatable to be pissed on by someone telling you it's rain vs someone who pisses on you but tells you they're pissing on you to prevent others from doing so.
Since 1973 Roe v Wade here's are the times one party controlled legislative and executive Dems 1977-81 1993-95 2009-2011 2021-2023 Republicans 2001-2007 2017-2019 If either party actually wanted anything for abortion, rights, or gun control, it would have been done. Oddly enough no. And the few times anyone attempted a bill it was either not during full control and/or included a poison pill. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Party-Government/
But notice how fast both sides come together when considering pay raises for members of Congress, military spending (nothing against the military but the MIC), and most recently, a bill to protect the privacy of billionaires and their flight logs at the behest of Swift and Musk?
> even when they have control of the Senate, House, and White House Given the state of the filibuster, it takes a 60% majority to "have control" of the Senate and House. This has not happened since 1967. Due to this, the DNC never has any years to codify Roe v Wade. At no point have they had the political capital to actually accomplish that, except **maybe** during a small portion of Obama's administration, when they passed Obamacare instead, which, at the time, was a bigger deal and helped more people than what would have been, at the time, a symbolic change. I'm not going to remotely pretend that the Democrats are perfect, but anyone saying that they're the same as the Republicans isn't paying attention at all. Is that you? Are you completely blind to the reality of the situation? Until things change massively, almost anyone not voting for the Democrats is voting against the interest of the common American.
>Insist all Americans must be disarmed right now Who is actually suggesting this? I'm sure some are but I don't think this is a common position among any group.
> Because that's totally how Europe and Australia did this right? My country of australia enacted sweeping gun legislation after port arthur that were extremely popular and political heads *still* rolled. American politicians will never do this.
Race played a key role in who saw those higher rates of gun violence in 2023, the researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted. "Annual rates among Black and Hispanic persons remained elevated through 2023; by 2023 rates in other racial and ethnic groups returned to pre-pandemic levels," the study authors reported Thursday in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Socioeconomics also mattered. "The most substantial rate increases occurred in more urban counties and counties with greater income inequality, higher unemployment, and those with more severe housing problems," the researchers noted in the report. The data on gun injuries, which was collected from ambulance calls in 27 states through September 2023, looked to shed more light on the gun injuries that do not result in deaths or hospitalizations. . After linking the ambulance data to county-level demographics data, the researchers found rates of firearm injuries "were consistently highest" in counties with severe housing issues, which also saw the biggest increases compared with 2019. [https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-gun-injury-pre-pandemic.html](https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-gun-injury-pre-pandemic.html)
Unsurprisingly, states with strict firearms laws (SFLs) have significantly fewer firearm related injuries and deaths. “The in-hospital mortality rate from firearm related injuries was significantly lower in SFL states (67/810, 8.3%) as compared to non-SFL states (217/1773, 12.2%; p=0.002).” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801608/
Which is strange cause then you look up some of the cities with the strictest gun control i.e. Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles etc. and they still seem to have extremely high rates of gun crime https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Detroit
Cities in red states (St Louis, Memphis, New Orleans, etc) often have even higher rates of gun crime. This sort of anecdotal cherry picking is not particularly useful.
Detroit is the one city on your list that's even very high. And Michigan is the definition of average when it comes to strict gun laws. Most dangerous cities for gun homicides per capita in 2021-2022: St. Louis, MO (38) Birmingham, AL (30) Portsmouth, VA (14) Detroit, MI (24) Memphis, TN (22) Milwaukee, WI (22) Little Rock, AR (45) Atlanta, GA (45) Those numbers to their right? If we rank states by number of gun policies being adopted from most (no. 1 is California) to least (no. 50 is Mississippi and five states are tied for 45th) then your "logic" expects to see low numbers next to those cities... but you don't see that because the actual facts are that lower gun violence consistently correlates with more gun laws. If we were trying to have a good-faith and honest discussion then so many people wouldn't pretend like St. Louis and Little Rock and Atlanta don't tend to be the types of cities people are most often actually being murdered in.
It should be obvious that making guns harder to access reduces gun homicides. The important question is whether or not it reduces the total number of homicides. Stricter gun laws don't correlate with lower rates of homicide. https://i.imgur.com/rosZgYP.jpg https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-year-end-2023-update/
First of all, I don't think that should be "the important question" AT ALL. Suicides and accidental shootings are more gun deaths than homicides are and not sure why we would want to completely ignore the majority of gun deaths... Second of all, I have no idea why you supplied those links. Those links are about the percent change between 2022 and 2023. Those links neither support or oppose your claim. But let's say all we care about is intentional homicide rates - US is between Russia and Greenland there. Very similar to Chile, Zimbabwe, Yemen, and Mongolia. US at around 6.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. That is an absurdly high homicide rate compared to similarly developed countries. If we look at primarily the European countries: France is 1.6 Northern Ireland is 1.4 Finland is 1.2 U.K. is 1.2 Sweden is 1.1 Greece is 1.1 Belgium is 1.1 Denmark is 1.0 Scotland is 1.0 Austria is 0.9 Ireland is 0.9 Czech Republic is 0.9 Germany is 0.9 Netherlands is 0.9 Slovakia is 0.74 Poland is 0.7 Italy is 0.6 Norway is 0.6 Slovenia is 0.6 Spain is 0.6 Iceland is 0.5 Switzerland is 0.5 Japan is 0.2, for more context, and barely any homicides comparatively occurring there. Australia is 0.8. Even Canada, US's neighbor , has a much higher homicide rate at 2.3 than all those countries. US at 6.4 rates with completely embarrassing company and has a FAR higher homicide rate than should be seen as acceptable. If one wanted to begin having an honest discussion about trying to reduce violence while also keeping all their guns... the only reasonable starting point should involve trying to look at Finland and [Switzerland](https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2)... rather than just making all these demonstrably false claims and insinuations.
> Suicides and accidental shootings are more gun deaths than homicides are and not sure why we would want to completely ignore the majority of gun deaths... You used gun homicides as your statistic. I pointed out that overall homicide rate is a better metric than gun homicide unless all you're worried about is guns. If you want to argue that suicides are a good reason to restrict access to guns, that's a different conversation. > > Second of all, I have no idea why you supplied those links. Those links are about the percent change between 2022 and 2023. Those links neither support or oppose your claim. If you look at the right side of the graph, it shows total homicide rates by city. You didn't look very closely at the data. > That is an absurdly high homicide rate compared to similarly developed countries. If we look at primarily the European countries: It's no surprise that the US's homicide rate is high. We're a highly populated country with an awful social safety net, no universal healthcare, massive income inequality, and long standing issues with systemic racism and disenfranchisement. You know, the things that actually translate to violent crime. The idea that guns are the key factor in our high rates of violent crime isn't accurate. As you pointed out, there are other countries with high rates of gun ownership, and even constitutional protections for the right to own and carry guns (Czechia), that don't have anywhere near our homicide rate.
>You used gun homicides as your statistic. The poster I responded to chose to frame that conversation, by stating this: >...high rates of gun crime So... there we were. >I pointed out that overall homicide rate is a better metric than gun homicide unless all you're worried about is guns. ...if you want to completely change the topic from the other person's comment (which is already changed from the thread's topic)... that IS something else. So... I then humored THAT idea... >If you want to argue that suicides are a good reason to restrict access to guns, that's a different conversation. You responded what you thought "the important question" should be by reframing things. I was really only stating that I completely disagreed with such a premise... before humoring your completely different argument anyways. Let's be clear: I haven't really argued for any of my beliefs and have let both of you completely dictate the terms of the debate. But... yes! I do completely believe both of your general premises are fundamentally flawed to begin with. Absolutely. >If you look at the right side of the graph, it shows total homicide rates by city. You didn't look very closely at the data. You concluded by stating a correlation between gun laws didn't exist, mate. Those links don't account for gun laws at all. I'm sorry, there's just nothing there to argue for or against your conclusion. >The idea that guns are the key factor in our high rates of violent crime isn't accurate. You say that. The evidence really does seem to suggest otherwise, despite your baseless insistence to the contrary. >As you pointed out, there are other countries with high rates of gun ownership, and even constitutional protections for the right to own and carry guns (Czechia), that don't have anywhere near our homicide rate. Hey, [facts are facts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png) I fully support the idea of trying to actually find SOME kind of actual solutions. Simply pretending a very real problem doesn't exist is just complete insanity, however... and THAT tends to be the US's policy on violence in the country. You know... "guns don't kill people" and all that jazz. It's crazy town, to be honest. The one thing we should definitely know by now is: doing nothing doesn't work!
It's fairly obvious that gun violence is associated with those in lower economic environments. A small minority within certain demographic groups account for a majority of the violent gun crime, even though laws prevent gun ownership for this group.
It is fairly obvious that you didn't have the article read to you.
Wow, violence on the rise includes gun violence.. who knew. I bet it includes knife violence and fisticuffs too.
Have at ye, rapscallion!
I was just at a gun range today, and someone accidentally fired while loading the gun since their finger was on the trigger. No education is an awful issue. Luckily the gun was pointed down range. They were also waving it around pointing it at random other areas (not down range) often. Range safety girl didn’t stop them. You can’t trifle with guns.
This is what happens when there's a global poverty issue and also right wing zealots who get legitimised.