3 ms·

> Age-adjusted rates of firearm homicide are highest in Washington, DC and lowest in New Hampshire. Washington DC having some of the strictest (if not the most

> Age-adjusted rates of firearm homicide are highest in Washington, DC and lowest in New Hampshire. Washington DC having some of the strictest (if not the most strict) gun laws in the nation, and New Hampshire being a gun rights haven smack dab in the middle of a bunch of states with harsh gun laws. With permitless carry. Almost like the denser the population, the less regard people have for each others' lives. Also, I will never understand the argument of "people meet unfortunate demises, thus the rest of us forfeit our right to defend ourselves with the most effective means." It's not something that's debatable to me. Death is an unfortunate reality, and it will never be fixed, no matter how many layers of authoritarian bloat you pile onto it. Let's work on fixing our moral decay instead.

nullindividual 3y ago
I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. This either means reactionary measures are ineffective, or they're being policed ineffectively, or there is some other societal/cultural issue at play that doesn't exist in NH. > Almost like the denser the population, the less regard people have for each others' lives. This is why as a socialist I live in the middle of (R)edneck country.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  > I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. It sounds like I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you. That's fine, I'm just giving context :P I think the causal arrow goes the other way. People raised in rural areas encounter firearms far more often - and in different contexts - than people raised in urban areas. When the only times you see firearms are on the hips of law enforcement or in the hands of criminals, it's reasonable that you will develop a very different view of them. In other words, I believe that on a statistical level support for gun control is proportional to the population density where people spend their early lives. I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. > This is why as a socialist I live in the middle of (R)edneck country. I spent about a decade as an Anarcho-Capitalist in socialist country. It was... an experience, that's for sure. It reinforced my belief that the people are far more apt to compromise and understand opposing views when they spend time face-to-face with people who disagree with them.
  - timeon 3y ago
    > I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. On the other hand, the fact that almost anyone can have gun encourages police brutality. Because they need to expect anyone could be armed so they act accordingly. Also it is far easier to obtain gun illegally for violent criminals, when occurrence of guns in population is high.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    > I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. In this story, who gets to play the US and who gets to play the USSR? Cause I want to be on the side that outspends the other on firearms. Unlike those wussy nations who don't have gun violence.
TMWNN 3y ago
>Almost like the denser the population, the less regard people have for each others' lives. The problem with this is that Louisiana, Mississippi, and other rural states follow DC on the list. New Hampshire is no more or no less densely populated than those states. The best single way to identify a US state's placement on the list is to look at the percentage of blacks in the population <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Black_population_as_a_percentage_of_the_total_population_by_U.S._region_and_state_(1790%E2%80%932020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...>, then by urbanity. It's not a 1:1 correlation—nothing is—but it's pretty close.

nullindividual 3y ago

I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. This either means reactionary measures are ineffective, or they're being policed ineffectively, or there is some other societal/cultural issue at play that doesn't exist in NH. > Almost like the denser the population, the less regard people have for each others' lives. This is why as a socialist I live in the middle of (R)edneck country.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Ancapistani 3y ago
> I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. It sounds like I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you. That's fine, I'm just giving context :P I think the causal arrow goes the other way. People raised in rural areas encounter firearms far more often - and in different contexts - than people raised in urban areas. When the only times you see firearms are on the hips of law enforcement or in the hands of criminals, it's reasonable that you will develop a very different view of them. In other words, I believe that on a statistical level support for gun control is proportional to the population density where people spend their early lives. I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. > This is why as a socialist I live in the middle of (R)edneck country. I spent about a decade as an Anarcho-Capitalist in socialist country. It was... an experience, that's for sure. It reinforced my belief that the people are far more apt to compromise and understand opposing views when they spend time face-to-face with people who disagree with them.
- timeon 3y ago
  > I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. On the other hand, the fact that almost anyone can have gun encourages police brutality. Because they need to expect anyone could be armed so they act accordingly. Also it is far easier to obtain gun illegally for violent criminals, when occurrence of guns in population is high.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  > I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. In this story, who gets to play the US and who gets to play the USSR? Cause I want to be on the side that outspends the other on firearms. Unlike those wussy nations who don't have gun violence.

TMWNN 3y ago

>Almost like the denser the population, the less regard people have for each others' lives. The problem with this is that Louisiana, Mississippi, and other rural states follow DC on the list. New Hampshire is no more or no less densely populated than those states. The best single way to identify a US state's placement on the list is to look at the percentage of blacks in the population <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Black_population_as_a_percentage_of_the_total_population_by_U.S._region_and_state_(1790%E2%80%932020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...>, then by urbanity. It's not a 1:1 correlation—nothing is—but it's pretty close.