Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:16 pm
They may have strict gun laws but they have a high prevalence of guns because they are both surrounded by states with lax gun laws and so guns can flow into Baltimore and DC and other cities like Chicago almost unrestricted. Cities alone can't regulate gun prevalence, it requires more of a regional and national effort. And there are many states and jurisdictions that actively work in the opposite direction.
DC functions like a state, and Maryland is a state. Both have strict gun laws.
California is a gigantic state and can certainly regular guns. Yet the homicide rate there is higher than Kansas.
So the question remains - why do places like DC or California with strict gun laws have more homicides than a place like Kansas, which does not? Kansas didn't have any metros in the top ten list of places with the most homicides.
Problem is, that they can only regulate the legal ones. I can't recall when the perpetrator of a homicide in Baltimore had a "wear and Carry" permit. Many of the guns are assembled from parts of many guns, or homemade "ghost guns." We have typically had over 300 homicu=ides/year. They are happy to see in in the mid 250s.
The current leadership in the general assembly just last year put in a new gun crime prevention law, restricting the purchase of common long guns (Non assault rifle long guns) to people over 21, was 18. Problem is, no one can remember the last time one of these was used in a crime in Baltimore.
In those charts, states with lax gun laws have low homicide rates and states with strict gun laws have high homicide rates. Do you have an explanation for that?
Which means that while the murder rates are identical, Kansas has vastly higher rates of gun suicides and accidental gun deaths due to its more lax gun laws and gun culture.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 10:48 pm
In those charts, states with lax gun laws have low homicide rates and states with strict gun laws have high homicide rates. Do you have an explanation for that?
Again, simply not true. Here are the homicide rates by state
And if you look at total gun deaths and not just homicides, the disparity is even more stark
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
And these are the 10 states with the highest gun mortality rates. All but New Mexico have very lax gun laws.
(Both Nebraska and New Mexico are in the middle of the pack when it comes to the strictness of their gun laws, neither the most strict nor most lenient ends on the spectrum).
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
It’s not the homicide rates that scare me. Dead people aren’t a threat. It’s the murderers that are dangerous. And I feel safer when I am 20 miles from/within one, than if I am within 20 blocks of 4 of them. For instance.
I use the same rational with other threats. Create space from the threat. So far, I’ve not felt threatened at all by mass shooters even though I live in the most mass shooter populated country on earth. Why? Because I have so far had plenty of miles between myself and the shooters.
I don’t fear a Grizzly attack either, because I live so far from Grizzly bears.
I’d rather not live on a cul de sac (this is not to say that I want to die in a dead end) neighborhood that is filled with a dozen murderers, even if that exact neighborhood has a marginally better homicide rate.
RZehr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:13 pm
It’s not the homicide rates that scare me. Dead people aren’t a threat. It’s the murderers that are dangerous. And I feel safer when I am 20 miles from/within one, than if I am within 20 blocks of 4 of them. For instance.
I use the same rational with other threats. Create space from the threat. So far, I’ve not felt threatened at all by mass shooters even though I live in the most mass shooter populated country on earth. Why? Because I have so far had plenty of miles between myself and the shooters.
I don’t fear a Grizzly attack either, because I live so far from Grizzly bears.
I’d rather not live on a cul de sac (this is not to say that I want to die in a dead end) neighborhood that is filled with a dozen murderers, even if that exact neighborhood has a marginally better homicide rate.
You sure you are that far away from murderers?
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
RZehr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:13 pm
It’s not the homicide rates that scare me. Dead people aren’t a threat. It’s the murderers that are dangerous. And I feel safer when I am 20 miles from/within one, than if I am within 20 blocks of 4 of them. For instance.
I use the same rational with other threats. Create space from the threat. So far, I’ve not felt threatened at all by mass shooters even though I live in the most mass shooter populated country on earth. Why? Because I have so far had plenty of miles between myself and the shooters.
I don’t fear a Grizzly attack either, because I live so far from Grizzly bears.
I’d rather not live on a cul de sac (this is not to say that I want to die in a dead end) neighborhood that is filled with a dozen murderers, even if that exact neighborhood has a marginally better homicide rate.
You sure you are that far away from murderers?
Seems like it to me. How many murderers are there around me? I know almost every neighbor within a couple mile radius of me. I don’t think they’ve killed many people recently.
Again, that map shows rates, not murderers. I’d rather be in a community that has one murderer running around killing 10 people, than the same community with 10 murderers killing one person apiece.
Find me a map that shows the murderer density per square mile.
