3 ms·

California's surrounded by 49 other states, most of which have no such restrictions, and does not have any border controls with any of them. The formula of acc

by vkou 4y ago

California's surrounded by 49 other states, most of which have no such restrictions, and does not have any border controls with any of them. The formula of access changes substantially when you don't have opportunities for jurisdictional arbitrage. Criminals don't sit in a pentagram and magick weapons up out of thin air, they source them (legally and otherwise) from legitimate owners. A few of them are also legitimate owners, who choose to use them for crime.

idiotsecant 4y ago
It would seem, then, that those surrounding states should have even higher per-capita mass shooting rates than California, given they have a higher concentration of those sorts of weapons. They don't. In fact the states surrounding California are substantially lower. It seems apparent that this strategy is both misguided and ineffective.
- vkou 4y ago
  You played a sleight-of-hand, by conflating mass shootings with gun homicides in general. I'm talking about both, with a bigger emphasis on homicides overall. California is #44 for gun homicide rates, and is significantly lower both on this metric, and on gun ownership than than its immediate neighbours. Speaking of firearm homicide rates, #1, #2, and #3 are Mississippi, Wyoming, and Louisiana, [1] all of which have gun ownership rates that are double-to-triple that of Cali. 'Immediate neighbour' isn't a relevant term to this. There are no border checkpoints anywhere between the lower 48. Practically speaking, access to firearms is set by the availability of firearms in the most permissible state. Illegal guns don't appear into existence on their own, they start life as legally purchased guns, that are then sold to criminals, or are stolen by them. This is especially prevalent on the East Coast, where 3/4 guns used in New Jersey and New York crimes come from out of state. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/...
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    I'm not the one playing sleight of hand here, this whole comment chain is talking about mass shootings. You're moving the goalposts to a subject nobody but you is talking about.

by vkou 4y ago

idiotsecant 4y ago

It would seem, then, that those surrounding states should have even higher per-capita mass shooting rates than California, given they have a higher concentration of those sorts of weapons. They don't. In fact the states surrounding California are substantially lower. It seems apparent that this strategy is both misguided and ineffective.

vkou 4y ago
You played a sleight-of-hand, by conflating mass shootings with gun homicides in general. I'm talking about both, with a bigger emphasis on homicides overall. California is #44 for gun homicide rates, and is significantly lower both on this metric, and on gun ownership than than its immediate neighbours. Speaking of firearm homicide rates, #1, #2, and #3 are Mississippi, Wyoming, and Louisiana, [1] all of which have gun ownership rates that are double-to-triple that of Cali. 'Immediate neighbour' isn't a relevant term to this. There are no border checkpoints anywhere between the lower 48. Practically speaking, access to firearms is set by the availability of firearms in the most permissible state. Illegal guns don't appear into existence on their own, they start life as legally purchased guns, that are then sold to criminals, or are stolen by them. This is especially prevalent on the East Coast, where 3/4 guns used in New Jersey and New York crimes come from out of state. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/...
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  I'm not the one playing sleight of hand here, this whole comment chain is talking about mass shootings. You're moving the goalposts to a subject nobody but you is talking about.