US Gun Deaths Hit Record High of Nearly 49,000 in 2021

[Aristides]

The 10  states with the highest per capita gun deaths are:

Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee in that order.

All red states except New Mexico.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Lanza killed 26 people at Sandy Hook and his primary weapon was an AR-15. He fired 154 rounds in less than 5 minutes. He could not have killed 26 people in less than 5 minutes with a knife or baseball bat..

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel killed 86 people and badly injured 434 more. He did it in 5 minutes.  He burned less than 2 litres of fuel.  He could not have killed 86 people in 5 minutes with a gun.

I win

And it was a dumb argument.  Who cares how fast people die. The Polytechniqe shooter spent well over half an hour - so does that make it better? That kid that stabbed 5 people to death with a kitchen knife at a party in alberta did it in about 2 minutes - so.. what does that mean?  If  a serial killer wipes out 300 women and children in a few months or years - are we suddenly fine with that?

In china a guy stabbed over thirty school kids. He didn't kill most of them because he was making a point, but he sure could have.  So yes - you absolutely can kill that many with a knife.  As i recall it took him more like 20 mins to so i guess somehow that makes it better?

Once again - your position is not supported by the facts, the science or logic.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Correlation is basically if one number goes up.. does the other. Number of guns owned/purchased is up. Why?

 

Exactly - Beacuse a) the number of people is increasing and therefore even if the guns to person ratio doesn't change the number of guns goes up and b) -  most owners have more than one gun and enjoy buying new ones for the pleasure of shooting something different.  i have about 30 guns left in my possession.

At one point in my life i had one gun.   So the number has increased and yet the likelyhood of violence didn't change in the slightest. Which i take to be your point and you're absolutely correct.

Quote

You do not exactly throw it away like you do an empty bag of chips and go to the gas station and get a new one.

No, you keep it and continue to enjoy shooting it along with the new guns you bought.

Quote

the point is that basing one's argument on this correlation shows a short sighted view of statistics and gun deaths. 

Precisely. The presence of guns is not an indicator or factor in the amount of violence there will be.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel killed 86 people and badly injured 434 more. He did it in 5 minutes.  He burned less than 2 litres of fuel.  He could not have killed 86 people in 5 minutes with a gun.

I win

And it was a dumb argument.  Who cares how fast people die. The Polytechniqe shooter spent well over half an hour - so does that make it better? That kid that stabbed 5 people to death with a kitchen knife at a party in alberta did it in about 2 minutes - so.. what does that mean?  If  a serial killer wipes out 300 women and children in a few months or years - are we suddenly fine with that?

In china a guy stabbed over thirty school kids. He didn't kill most of them because he was making a point, but he sure could have.  So yes - you absolutely can kill that many with a knife.  As i recall it took him more like 20 mins to so i guess somehow that makes it better?

Once again - your position is not supported by the facts, the science or logic.

How often does that happen compared to school shootings. It's unfortunate that the death's of 20 six year olds at Sandy Hook isn't enough to make an impression on you. That the 207 dead and 385 wounded in US school shootings since 2010 isn't enough to make an impression on you. That the American Dream has come down to having your kid have to go to school in a fortress protected by armed guards isn't enough to make an impression on you.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The 10  states with the highest per capita gun deaths are:

Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee in that order.

All red states except New Mexico.

Well first off we know you're deliberately being dishonest when you say "gun deaths'. This has been explained. Only psychopaths who don't care about people dying  talk about 'dun deaths'.  Either the number of deaths is up or not - if people in other states prefer stabbing that's still a problem.

So very clearly you don't give a damn about how many people die.  You care about hating guns.  It's your only concern.  You have nothing to bring to the table.

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well first off we know you're deliberately being dishonest when you say "gun deaths'. This has been explained. Only psychopaths who don't care about people dying  talk about 'dun deaths'.  Either the number of deaths is up or not - if people in other states prefer stabbing that's still a problem.

So very clearly you don't give a damn about how many people die.  You care about hating guns.  It's your only concern.  You have nothing to bring to the table.

I don't hate guns at all. I think Canadian gun laws were a good compromise before Trudeau started messing with them. Justifying the insanity that goes on south of the border is just callous as hell.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

How often does that happen compared to school shootings.

Who cares? It's mass killings and it's easy to do. The guy couldn't get a gun - so he got a truck.  Do you think other people could get a truck?

And fact is the vast majority of shootings involve a small number of victims.  Its pretty rare to see large numbers of casulaties but we've seen it several times with vehicles, planes, fire, bombs, and knives.  Sooooo - it just doesnt' matter.

IF bad guys decide to kill and they don't have a gun, you think they can get firebombs, planes and knives etc?  I do.

If you weren't a sociopathic hoplophobe fixated on an object you irrationally hate you'd realize the gun makes no difference.  it's the person. And there's plenty of tools for them to use and lots of cases where they did.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Exactly - Beacuse a) the number of people is increasing and therefore even if the guns to person ratio doesn't change the number of guns goes up and b) -  most owners have more than one gun and enjoy buying new ones for the pleasure of shooting something different.  i have about 30 guns left in my possession.

At one point in my life i had one gun.   So the number has increased and yet the likelyhood of violence didn't change in the slightest. Which i take to be your point and you're absolutely correct.

No, you keep it and continue to enjoy shooting it along with the new guns you bought.

Precisely. The presence of guns is not an indicator or factor in the amount of violence there will be.

Gun ownership is not like car ownership where you subtract the past and add the new. Cars after a while are simply too pricey to repair. The number of guns legally or illegally purchased (as of yet) is a steadily increasing number. So there we have the first number... always positive. Now we need the second number, gun deaths, to be positive. As population goes up, so does the number of murders.. most of which are done by way of guns. Therefore, even if murders do not increase in a given year.. the number of gun deaths will remain steady or be positive. 

Why does someone actually kill someone with a gun? While I have not done it myself.. my theory is that they do not it solely because they have access to one (either in person or can go buy it). Maybe they have poor impulse control, are sociopathic, too self absorbed to think that they can't ever be wrong, etc. If we were going to analyze this from a statistical viewpoint.. we need to bring in more variables and maybe try flipping the equation.. putting gun ownership as the dependent variable or y. If you do not know.. most models are set up as such

Y (dependent variable or result) = B (statistical constant or lowest point possible) + ax (x being the variable and a being the weight) + bz + ... 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Aristides said:

I don't hate guns at all

You very clearly not only hate them but have an irrational phobia about them.  Otherwise you would look at the facts honestly. Instead you post nonsense that very celarly isn't rational or supported by facts.

You're like a flat earther for weapons

Gun laws can mostly reduce accidents. that's largely it.  A handful of criminal denial laws have benefits, but even that is somewhat limited.  Red flag style laws are affective but they usually stop the person from killing with anything and that's why they're effective - they're focused on the person not the tool.

 

[impartialobserver]

heads up.. i do not own a single gun. Might in the future but none yet. If my neighbors own one or 1.178... I do not care. I have no reason to think that after 14 years.. they will turn violent against me when the previous 14 * 365 days have been remarkably boring. 

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You very clearly not only hate them but have an irrational phobia about them.  Otherwise you would look at the facts honestly. Instead you post nonsense that very celarly isn't rational or supported by facts.

You're like a flat earther for weapons

Gun laws can mostly reduce accidents. that's largely it.  A handful of criminal denial laws have benefits, but even that is somewhat limited.  Red flag style laws are affective but they usually stop the person from killing with anything and that's why they're effective - they're focused on the person not the tool.

 

The facts are easy to see. The US has the highest firearms death rate and firearms  homicide rate of any developed country. It also has the most firearms and the laxest firearms laws in the developed world. It also has the highest incarceration rate in the world so enforcement isn't an issue either.

How many states have red flag laws and what do they use for data? Even federal background checks are just window dressing. They depend on data provided by states, only apply to dealers and if they aren't completed in 48 hours the gun gets sold anyway. It's all bullshit window dressing to avoid doing anything real about preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands.

It's ironic that you call me a flat earther.

[Rebound]

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You very clearly not only hate them but have an irrational phobia about them.  Otherwise you would look at the facts honestly. Instead you post nonsense that very celarly isn't rational or supported by facts.

You're like a flat earther for weapons

Gun laws can mostly reduce accidents. that's largely it.  A handful of criminal denial laws have benefits, but even that is somewhat limited.  Red flag style laws are affective but they usually stop the person from killing with anything and that's why they're effective - they're focused on the person not the tool.

 

Not true.

Most criminals aren’t multimillion dollar crime syndicates.  Such enormous enterprises will be able to get guns no matter what, but most crime is performed by small time criminals and they have no money and getting an AR-15 should be very difficult and prohibitively expensive for them.  

[Aristides]

Only 15 states have red flag laws and all except two are blue.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Why does someone actually kill someone with a gun?

Very few people want to 'kill with a gun', if any.  They want to kill.  The tool they choose will vary depending on WHY they want to kill as a rule, which frequently dictates the tool they use.

For example - the vast vast vast majority of gun incidents in the us are criminal on criminal using a pistol.  Criminals like ot carry pistols because it makes them look tough and they are concerned their enemy will have one and they want equal 'firepower' for combat.

Take away the criminals and you eliminate something like 3/4 of the "Gun Killings".

So - of the remainder, probably most just want to kill someone for various reasons and that is the most convenient tool at hand.  If you don't have one you use the next most handy tool.

And that leaves the crazies - and they like guns because if you commit a gun mass murder you're on tv for weeks! Shoot up a school full of kids and they'll still be talking to you for a decade!!! Blow away a church full of people with an AR and you're all people will talk about for ages.

If another method got you the big news time that's what they'd use.

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

The facts are easy to see.

They are easy to see -  the whole america has the most guns/murders thing has been debunked. Ive shot down every single one of your other arguments with facts as well.

Yet you persist.  You ARE a flat earther.  Your position is not supported by facts, logic or reason.

Follow the science man.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Not true.

 

Very true.

Quote

Most criminals aren’t multimillion dollar crime syndicates.  Such enormous enterprises will be able to get guns no matter what, but most crime is performed by small time criminals and they have no money and getting an AR-15 should be very difficult and prohibitively expensive for them.  

Utterly false.

Even the smallest of small time criminals can afford to buy a gun and an ar is not exoensive for them at all.  They prefer pistols tho, and handguns are by far and away the biggest homicide tool in the states including all other guns, ar's or other.

But even an ar would be an easy aqusition for a bad guy in the states.  But wait!!1 -  Still feeling the pinch from inflation? Can't afford to buy your own gun? Don't have the time to grind off the serial number?

No problem - you can RENT a crime gun!!!  Yep - in canada there's criminals who will RENT you a gun to go snuff out your rival or raid that grow op. And best of all it's been used in crimes before so it makes tracking it brutally hard for the cops!

Sorry - every bad guy can afford a gun.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

The 10  states with the highest per capita gun deaths are:

Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee in that order.

All red states except New Mexico.

gun deaths are what liars and con men talk about.

You still haven't explained why vermont, with a VERY high gun ownership and very relaxed laws, has less homicides that new york.

See? You can't discuss the facts - you just ignore the facts and go right back to spouting lies that you know are untrue or extremely misleading. That's what an irrational fear does to you.

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Only 15 states have red flag laws and all except two are blue.

Of course - with the dems focused on guns and refusing to talk about anything else nobody addresses it.  And the laws that exist are completely inadequate.

As long as the dems and the loonie left insist on making this about lies and virtue signalling in their irrational hatred of firearms, nothing is going to change.

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

gun deaths are what liars and con men talk about.

You still haven't explained why vermont, with a VERY high gun ownership and very relaxed laws, has less homicides that new york.

See? You can't discuss the facts - you just ignore the facts and go right back to spouting lies that you know are untrue or extremely misleading. That's what an irrational fear does to you.

You don't think gun deaths are about people who were killed with firearms? How odd.

 

Per capita firearms deaths per 100K population Vermont 9.3. New York 3.9.

Maybe stop ignoring facts yourself.

Edited July 20, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

You don't think gun deaths are about people who were killed with firearms? How odd.

You don't think that people who are killed by something other than a gun matter? How odd.

 

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You don't think that people who are killed by something other than a gun matter? How odd.

 

Well you  obviously don't give a crap about those who are. At least not enough to do anything about it.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

As long as the dems and the loonie left insist on making this about lies and virtue signalling in their irrational hatred of firearms, nothing is going to change.

Oh, so according to you, red flag laws are great and work but are on only virtue signalling when they are used in blue states. You really are pathetic. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Oh, so according to you, red flag laws are great and work but are on only virtue signalling when they are used in blue states. You really are pathetic. 

And that's an excellent example of you lying to try to promote your position.  And you call other people pathetic? Tell that to your psychiatrist, he could probably use the laugh. Of course i never said any such thing.

Out of 52 states 15 have those laws and they're all pretty weak.

So - why don't they ALL have those laws? Why isn't that something we're pushing for? Why isn't THAT the discussion when there's a shooting?

Because the loonie left doesnt' want to discuss those laws.  They don't want a solution that doesn't involve banning guns.  They want to virtue signal.

If they actually gave a shite that would be the call EVERY TIME there was an incident but it isn't. So - a tiny number have it and it's kind of weak.

Congratulations - your virtue signalling is making you look really good while you let people die.

Edited July 20, 2023 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Well you  obviously don't give a crap about those who are. At least not enough to do anything about it.

you must be talking to a mirror again.  You're the one who pretends they don't exist.  I said it was important -but you insist the only deaths worth considering are 'gun deaths'.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And that's an excellent example of you lying to try to promote your position.  And you call other people pathetic? Tell that to your psychiatrist, he could probably use the laugh. Of course i never said any such thing.

Out of 52 states 15 have those laws and they're all pretty weak.

So - why don't they ALL have those laws? Why isn't that something we're pushing for? Why isn't THAT the discussion when there's a shooting?

Because the loonie left doesnt' want to discuss those laws.  They don't want a solution that doesn't involve banning guns.  They want to virtue signal.

If they actually gave a shite that would be the call EVERY TIME there was an incident but it isn't. So - a tiny number have it and it's kind of weak.

Congratulations - your virtue signalling is making you look really good while you let people die.

I'm not trying to promote anything. You said red flag laws are important to prevent guns getting into the wrong hands. I agree but when I pointed out that only 15 states had them and all but two were blue, all of a sudden they are virtue signalling, Make up your effing mind.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

I'm not trying to promote anything. You said red flag laws are important to prevent guns getting into the wrong hands. I agree

 

Well of course you're trying to promote something.  Who are you trying to kid,

And actually i didn't say red flag laws are good for preventing guns getting into the wrong people's hands, what I actually said is that red flag laws are good for stopping people from using all kinds of tools to kill people so they're much more effective than just worrying about guns.

Done properly red flag laws identify people at risk of doing something violent which could involve guns but could also involve any kind of improvised weapon such as firebombs, knives or cars.  And that tends to make them more effective than worrying about any one tool.

Quote

but when I pointed out that only 15 states had them and all but two were blue, all of a sudden they are virtue signalling, Make up your effing mind.

No, that's also not what i said. How conveniently you misinterpret my words to fit your agenda

What i said is that BECAUSE THE LEFT REFUSES TO PROMOTE red flag laws (other than to occasionally suggest them IF they lead to gun bans for people)  and BECAUSE THE LEFT PREFERS VIRTUE SIGNALLING ABOUT HOW EVIL GUNS ARE - as a result we only get 15 states with any and most are weak.

IF the left was serious about the deaths, then when an incident like sandy hook or most of the others happens we'd be hearing from the left all about how we need to look at better red flag laws, better laws regarding manditory mental health treatments and so on. Which would include but not be focused only on restricting access to firearms.

But we dont.  We hear "ar's need to be banned because (bunch of fake reasons that don't stand up to facts or logic).   Also republicans hate children especially their own!

And lo and behold - the problems continue.

[Aristides]

Connecticut is one of the states with a red flag law. It was brought in after Sandy Hook.

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Aristides