3 ms·

Huh? I don't know if you've realized this, but California is the most populous state. If you want to make your analysis more relevant (and less totally idioti

Huh? I don't know if you've realized this, but California is the most populous state. If you want to make your analysis more relevant (and less totally idiotic) you need to look at the rate per capita.

Alupis 11y ago
California doesn't fare much better even with per capita rates. The notions stands, reducing legal gun ownership has little effect on reducing gun related homicides. Gun related suicides are the real problem (~20,000 out of the total ~30,000 annual USA gun related deaths). Nobody is focusing on that issue.
- HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
  Your premise is only applicable to US states. It is not applicable to nation-states which demonstrate considerable effect in reducing gun-related homicides. Even more so when discounting individual lone-wolf attacks of a terrorist nature (Brevik, Norway). I could post sources but they are beyond dispute at this stage. (United Kingdom, Japan, Australia and most of the Western world). Evidence is also lent by the nation-states with lax gun control legislation which dominate the league table of gun-related homicides, of which, the USA is one.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  The idea that 20,000 deaths per year is a "real problem" while 10,000 per year is not is disingenuous at best. If the US had the same amount of gun violence in a day that the UK experiences in a year, it would be worldwide news.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]