Hey Ya'll

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Yeah. The Americans who don't own guns and never have seem to find banning guns a simple decision.

Or, I forgot, have their own armed security.

States with restrictive gun laws have FAR fewer gun-related deaths. Likely due to better-educated citizens, who aren't stupid enough to vote for Repubes, against their own self-interest. Doh!

https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Chicks

States with restrictive gun laws have FAR fewer gun-related deaths. Likely due to better-educated citizens, who aren't stupid enough to vote for Repubes, against their own self-interest. Doh!

https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542

What a novel concept.

[BigElCat]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

The small states are just like my fucking idiot nephew, no money, no source of income, wanting money from his comfortably wealthy aunt and uncle, and refusing to go along with any suggestions for changing his fucked up behavior.

You are a rational, intelligent man until your flow starts. I know the APA has gender on a sliding spectrum, now, but you don't need to jump off that bridge.

Do you still think those farm subsidies go to poor people in the small states ?

It doesn't.

[ZeroJunk]

Mass shootings are like opiates to the anti gunners.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

States with restrictive gun laws have FAR fewer gun-related deaths. Likely due to better-educated citizens, who aren't stupid enough to vote for Repubes, against their own self-interest. Doh!

https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542

One of the most intellectually lazy and dishonest presentations of stats I've seen in a while. You claim "States with restrictive gun laws have FAR fewer gun-related deaths." Yet, the data you're presenting are statistics for mass shootings, not overall "gun-related deaths".

A more incisive look at the data presents a very different picture. Probably the best source of data is the FBI crime stats by state/by year since state-by-state measurements can vary due to state-specific data collection and classification methodology.

Example: Louisiana, which sits at the intersection of "permissive" gun laws and high death rates. Yet, according to the CDC, almost half of the gun deaths in Louisiana in any given year are suicides. The Giffords site gives Louisiana gun laws an "F", but if suicides are subtracted from the total gun deaths in Louisiana, is more in line with Illinois: a state that Giffords gives an "A" rating, and just above Oklahoma that gets an "F' from Giffords.

Also, in many of the "top" gun death per capita states, the total gun deaths are measured against the state's population to achieve the per capita ranking. In states like Mississippi, the overwhelming majority of gun deaths occur in Jackson. Would one create restrictive gun laws for an entire state where only a small geographic area of the state is violent?

What's interesting in this argument is, as always, perspective. In this case, comparing the grades that Giffords gives to states based on gun law strictness versus a source like "Guns and Ammo.". You'd expect that a state that Giffords gives an "F" would be a state that "Guns and Ammo" ranks quite highly. In fact, there's only about an 8% correlation between the two rankings.

If anyone is interested in seeing the complete list in Excel with sources, let me know.