Page 4 of 8
Re: The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 9:42 pm
by Judas Maccabeus
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 7:24 pm
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.
Re: The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 10:19 pm
by HondurasKeiser
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 5:35 pm
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 5:11 pm
In the GPT list, it doesn't correlate with density, but it sure does correlate with something else.
Prevalence of guns and lax gun laws.
States that have more lax gun laws have higher rates of gun violence. There is very direct correlation.
Is that always true or just in isolated cases like Mississippi and Arizona?
Re: The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 10:45 pm
by Ken
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 10:19 pm
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 5:35 pm
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 5:11 pm
In the GPT list, it doesn't correlate with density, but it sure does correlate with something else.
Prevalence of guns and lax gun laws.
States that have more lax gun laws have higher rates of gun violence. There is very direct correlation.
Is that always true or just in isolated cases like Mississippi and Arizona?
When it comes to complicated social causes and effects, nothing is ALWAYS true.
But there is definitely a statistically significant relationship:
A very recent report from last week:
Gun Safety Policies Save Lives
https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/
From 2022:
Weak Gun Laws Are Driving Increases in Violent Crime: States that have recently weakened their gun laws are seeing increases in violent crime https://www.americanprogress.org/articl ... ent-crime/
And 2019:
Higher rates of mass shootings in US states with more relaxed gun control laws https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/hi ... trol-laws/
Re: The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 10:48 pm
by Josh
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?
Re: The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 10:51 pm
by Ken
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 7:24 pmCalifornia is a gigantic state and can certainly regular guns. Yet the homicide rate there is higher than Kansas.
Did you just make that up? Because it is false.
According to the CDC, California and Kansas have the same homicide rate of 6.4/100,000 in 2021, the most recent year for which full statistics are available.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... micide.htm
While Kansas has DOUBLE the rate of overall gun deaths than California: 17.3/100,000 compared to California's 9/100,000
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... irearm.htm
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.
Re: The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 10:54 pm
by Ken
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
Re: The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:09 pm
by Ken
These are 10 states with the lowest gun mortality rates. All but Nebraska have tough gun laws:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... irearm.htm
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).
Re: The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:13 pm
by 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.
Re: The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:27 pm
by Ken
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?
Re: The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:29 pm
by RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:27 pm
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.