2 ms·

None of this data includes accidents, or other effects like a more armed populace means a more armed police force and the every escalation of violence that enta

None of this data includes accidents, or other effects like a more armed populace means a more armed police force and the every escalation of violence that entails. The real comparison is not among states with pours borders, but from the US to other western nations with outright bans. Chicago for example is in a strict gun law state but is right next to Indian with lax laws. There is no border enforcement at the state level so it seams dubious that the Illinois laws have any effect. Our rate is about 3.8 times the rate of the UK and its hard to see at a macro level what other than the ubiquity of firearms is the difference.

brbsix 11y ago
Statisticians have frequently noted the difficulty in making such comparisons. Many European countries are much more homogeneous than the U.S. Also, you mentioned the porous borders between states reducing the effectiveness of said gun legislation. We have a fairly porous border with Mexico. Mexico currently has more drugs and people than firearms, but there's no reason we couldn't see a marked increase of arms smuggling into the U.S. in the event of stricter gun laws. In many ways it is more straightforward to manufacture firearms than meth, for example.
dawnbreez 11y ago
Accidents are not the same as intentional homicides, and should not be treated as such. You do have a point re: arms races between the police and the rest of the country, but I'd argue that letting the police up the ante is a mistake. It's better for both sides to be armed equally, as this discourages officers from abusing their power (and vice versa). As for lumping states together, there's a reason you don't do that, and it's codified in something called the Scientific Method. If you want to measure the effects of a certain well on iklness, you must count the users of that well separately from users of other wells, even if the wells are right next to each other. If you lump two wells together, then you don't know which well actually caused the illness.
- sabarn01 11y ago
  Well only one kid was murdered in my high school but 3 died from accidents. We worry and track automobile accidents so why not gun accidents its all part of the picture. My point is that the measure should be how far a city is from a state with lax laws not just which state it is in.
  - dawnbreez 11y ago
    I would argue that banning firearms is a highly inefficient way to deal with firearms accidents. Accidents are a direct result of ignorance. You tell newly-licemsed firearms owners that 3 times as many kids die in firearms accidents as thdy do in shootings, and they will (hopefully) keep an eye on their kids. As for how far a city is from a state with lax laws: Wouldn't the laws in the city itself have an effect as well? Some citizens follow the law, after all. One of the major arguments for free access to weaponry in general is that those who rob and kill and rape are usually willing to risk extended jail time in exchange for being able to use a gun to keep others from fighting back. The thing about threatening someone with a weapon is this: if they have a weapon, or a random bystander has a weapon and decides to interfere, then instead of forcing someone to cooperate, you've made the situation more dangerous for yourself (and everyone else).

brbsix 11y ago

Statisticians have frequently noted the difficulty in making such comparisons. Many European countries are much more homogeneous than the U.S. Also, you mentioned the porous borders between states reducing the effectiveness of said gun legislation. We have a fairly porous border with Mexico. Mexico currently has more drugs and people than firearms, but there's no reason we couldn't see a marked increase of arms smuggling into the U.S. in the event of stricter gun laws. In many ways it is more straightforward to manufacture firearms than meth, for example.

dawnbreez 11y ago

Accidents are not the same as intentional homicides, and should not be treated as such. You do have a point re: arms races between the police and the rest of the country, but I'd argue that letting the police up the ante is a mistake. It's better for both sides to be armed equally, as this discourages officers from abusing their power (and vice versa). As for lumping states together, there's a reason you don't do that, and it's codified in something called the Scientific Method. If you want to measure the effects of a certain well on iklness, you must count the users of that well separately from users of other wells, even if the wells are right next to each other. If you lump two wells together, then you don't know which well actually caused the illness.

sabarn01 11y ago
Well only one kid was murdered in my high school but 3 died from accidents. We worry and track automobile accidents so why not gun accidents its all part of the picture. My point is that the measure should be how far a city is from a state with lax laws not just which state it is in.
- dawnbreez 11y ago
  I would argue that banning firearms is a highly inefficient way to deal with firearms accidents. Accidents are a direct result of ignorance. You tell newly-licemsed firearms owners that 3 times as many kids die in firearms accidents as thdy do in shootings, and they will (hopefully) keep an eye on their kids. As for how far a city is from a state with lax laws: Wouldn't the laws in the city itself have an effect as well? Some citizens follow the law, after all. One of the major arguments for free access to weaponry in general is that those who rob and kill and rape are usually willing to risk extended jail time in exchange for being able to use a gun to keep others from fighting back. The thing about threatening someone with a weapon is this: if they have a weapon, or a random bystander has a weapon and decides to interfere, then instead of forcing someone to cooperate, you've made the situation more dangerous for yourself (and everyone else).