That long border with Mexico probably doesn’t help. The idea of self reliance is still pretty strong in the US as well.

Still, I bet there’d be a lot less deaths with more restrictive gun laws.

well no it only applies if you have a gun.

Neither Chicago, Los Angeles, nor New York allow open carry. Chicago has banned assault weapons, current gun deaths for 2018 are 524 and we still have a few days to go.

California actually does have the strictest gun laws in place. But a new academic study found that, once again, gun laws did not have their desired effect.

A joint study conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of California at Davis Violence Prevention Research Program found that California’s much-touted mandated background checks had no impact on gun deaths.


It's not about guns or laws, it's more about punishment. Stupid to have thousands in jail for pot and an equal amount on the street for illegal gun use. The people you want to restrict don't obey the laws....cause we already know there are laws against killing other people.

Isnt this the same biased site you used to say gun deaths are greater than auto deaths? Your source is biased as is your opinion.

Well, why don’t you look at the site rather than accuse me, or it, of being biased. Sounds like the opposite is occurring here. The site is an international university who is just simply reporting worldwide statistics. No bias in that. I found the site as I was simply reviewing statistics of gun deaths around the world and came across it. I've never been to that site before, and didn't glean bias from it. I entered "US" and reviewed the stats. Then, entered the "UK" and looked at theirs. That's it. Based on my own review, the statistical differences were astounding, alarming, and shouldn't be dismissed because it doesn't fit your view.

My point with the vehicle analogy was simply to demonstrate that MVAs are a big source of deaths in the US, thus we have license laws, driving rules/laws, and seatbelt laws since we are supposed to be a civilized society. These laws have markedly decreased the rates of deaths and serious morbidity that previously occurred; not eliminated them, but markedly decreased them. Rather than contemplate the comparison, you chose to break it down and attack the accuracy of it and claim bias of the analogy. That's when I quit responding. Waste of my time and yours (as this likely is, too). Clearly, you have an agenda that is different than mine and is based on personal connection with weapons, whereas mine is based on health concerns. Statistics, like the ones accessible on the site above, demonstrate that the same reduction could happen in the US if we tightens regulations about non-hunting guns. Another analogy, would be helmet laws. Look at states w/o helmet laws and states with them. Not only will you find a reduction in deaths, and serious morbidity, but also in health costs related to the numbers of people who sustain a serious head injury, but don't die, and end up draining the medical costs for long-term support. One survivor w/a head injury often costs about a mil/year of taxpayer money for support - not forever, but for quite a while. Despite helmet laws, people still die on street bikes. There is no panacea for any of these issues, but reduction is a reasonable goal, and laws are one defense that can be effective with broad societal issues that impact health..... like gun violence, MVAs, or helmet-less motorcycle injuries. Vaccines are another example. When vaccine rates are high, death and morbidity go down. States adopt vaccine policies for this reason. Not because it's politically motivated, but because rates of death and morbidity go down. It's that simple.

Its funny how when we dont agree with your opinion, you are being attacked. Professional victimhood at its finest.
I don’t mind you (we?) disagreeing with my opinion, but issues like this have the potential to result in very heated debates, thus my anticipation of getting attacked. And, you demonstrate it again. Rather than check out the site, and information gather about statistics, you just throw it out there that I am biased and the site is too.

Where did you get the term “professional victim hood” from, Fox? Sounds good, might as well use it, eh!? And, the reason I quit responding to your posts is not due to you disagreeing with me, but b/c you respond with typical generalized, conservative argument that attacks and claims bias, rather than actually reading the information and responding with rational, detailed debate.

I’m a science guy. I believe statistics and have no vested political interest in this issue other than people’s lives. You, on the other hand, have a personal connection to having weapons meant to kill other human beings, thus, unless it ends up affecting you personally, you’re unlikely to want to see it through any other lens. You’ll end up discounting anything I present as biased and distorted. Yet, deaths occur everyday. Access is the issue regardless of what you believe.

I will add that in the UK/Europe in general, its next to impossible to legally own a firearm, by design. Its a privilege reserved for the rich/aristocracy. Problem is there are still illegal guns and shooting deaths.
Maybe. Hopefully, there would be a better approach in the US. Again, the goal is reduction from the crazy stats that occur in the US. There needs to a balance so that people like you can own weapons you want/need for hunting/self-protection w/o allowing such vast access that currently exists. We'll never completely eliminate, but reduction is meaningful.

And I responded to that before I saw @furduknfish definition.

You'd be right. Low Country of South Carolina for awhile now.

I don't know how to use that multiquote function, so I'm doing it this way.
@uscvball
It isn't objective if suicides aren't parsed out. Of 38k gun deaths in the US in 2016, 23k were by suicide.
Again, access is the issue. If a gun is present in a home, you are more likely to die, whether intentional or not. Part of why suicide rates are so high is access to a gun. This is clear in medical literature.

Other statistical comparison that demonstrates why we can't compare the US and England on such things include...
Population: US is 326M. England is 54M
Square Miles: US is 3.8M England is 50k
In 2017, number granted permanent legal residence: US= 1.1M, England 28K
You're welcome to break those stats down to percentages. I know the total numbers are based on population rates. Still, break down those stats by #of deaths per capita, and the US will be astronomically higher than most other civilized countries.

In the world, the US is #1 in total crimes which is likely because we have a shitload of people and solid statistics. Guess who is #2? The UK also outpaces the US in terms of Fear of Crime. We are almost neck and neck regarding capital punishment enforcement which is staggering considering their population size. England did have half a dozen terrorist attacks in 2017.
Agreed. Access is part of why the shitload of people we have kill themselves or others.

But on top of all that, it isn't possible to have a shared vision with any other country when you consider how the US gained her freedom. Key word is Freedom.
Yeah, I hear you. I believe in freedom, too. I have to believe that there is a solution that reduces access but maintains individuals rights. It's just that both sides need to be motivated, and quit being so defensive about it all.

@uscvball
Neither Chicago, Los Angeles, nor New York allow open carry. Chicago has banned assault weapons, current gun deaths for 2018 are 524 and we still have a few days to go.
Yeah, but that's not a fair eval yet. 50 years of access, guns on the street (800,000+, or something like that), etc are hard to combat and see statistical differences in such a short period of time. Doesn't mean you don't try.
California actually does have the strictest gun laws in place. But a new academic study found that, once again, gun laws did not have their desired effect.
I trust studies that are repeated and confirmed. So many "studies" out there that it can be difficult to sift through accuracy. Perhaps, this is accurate. If so, it should be validated over time, then I would put weight into it.
A joint study conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of California at Davis Violence Prevention Research Program found that California’s much-touted mandated background checks had no impact on gun deaths.
As expected. Medical literature, including psychiatric literature, doesn't put a lot of stock in background checks. The "much-touted" part of that is really just crumbs from NRA advocates, not public health advocates. It's a strategy to get away from meaningful interventions.

It's not about guns or laws, it's more about punishment. Stupid to have thousands in jail for pot and an equal amount on the street for illegal gun use. The people you want to restrict don't obey the laws....cause we already know there are laws against killing other people.
Well, I don't disagree with you fully here. Kind of separate issues in my mind. I don't smoke pot or do drugs, and I have one Ruger .22 pistol that is an heirloom from my dad (the only meaningful thing I have from him), so again my angle is about public health, not any personal agenda. I can see your argument about the thousands in jail for non-violent offenses, but still feel access to hand guns is simply too high in the US and is why homicide/suicide rates are so high. It's really that simple for me.

Removing guns won't stop the suicide rate and frankly, since suicide isn't illegal, why include it in any statistical evaluation regarding gun-related deaths?

It isn't about rates. The sheer size of the US and the number of people introduces a number of socio-political and socio-economic factors that make the US unique among all civilized nations. As to the last statistic, if America is so damn savage, why are so many still desperately trying to get in? They aren't trying to get to England unless it's a terrorist.

Me thinks you misunderstood. They are #2 in crime so clearly they have issues and their citizenry doesn't feel safe on the street. But they do kill people. Here in America, some don't want guns but they also don't want capital punishment.

There isn't a solution. Rights are just that. Once you impinge or remove, the stakes change and there is no amount of give-back that will replace that right. It all starts with one and I'm not prepared to acquiesce on any.

One reason why I have an issue with a study like that....first of all, Australia is the land of pussies. The University of Sydney gets money from the UN, the Geneva Conferences, Cambridge, Oxford, etc. They are a single-minded anti-gun university looking to advance world policies on the US. Sorry, but fuck that.

Secondly, I read carefully about where the data came from. It's very inconsistent and they admit to "rough estimates". For instance, they claim more guns in the US than for each man, woman, and child and yet fail to highlight that over the last 40+ years. the proportion of households in the US with one or more guns has actually declined. At the moment, less than half, 42%, of all US households have even one gun.

Then you look at a country like Rwanda. They list total number of guns owned, and then include homicides, but not homicides by gun. How do you compare data when it isn't across the board?

For me, that study is flawed and very much driven by opinion and policy.

Its high b/c we have embraced a culture of not valuing life or empathy. Blame it on millenials or video games or rap if you want but people are the problem/cause. There is no magic wand that will stop that. Not so simple. You are not using science since you obviously confuse causality with correlation.