Most recent murder in CA, San Francisco by a 5 times deported illegal. I am not
able to post hyperlinks but google to find that CA has the strictest gun laws in
the US. Then google the murder in SF in the last day or two. What
law could have prevented this murder?? Law breakers are people who break
Here are some further comments regarding my posting. First, my two surviving
sisters were present at the incident and can corroborate my story. Second, the
severity of punishment does not deter crime, but only the certainty of it.
Pickpockets used to work the crowds at the hanging of other pickpockets in
London. When a criminal comes face to face with deadly force, he is already
"caught" and has lost the probability game. When seconds
count, the police are only minutes away. They will tell you that.
This is to Itsjstmeagain who has asked for verifiable evidence that a non law
enforcement "goog guy" with a gun stopped a "bad guy" with a
gun.I can provide that. I was sleeping at 1:30AM on a crisp autumn
night. I suddenly woke up not knowing what had awakened me. I lay still for a
moment before I heard again the snap of a footstep through my open window. I
rolled out of bed and crept below the window ledge to wake up my mother. She
got up and turned on all of the outdoor lights, leaving the indoor lights off.
The prowler then knew his game was up, so he went to the front porch. My aging
German Shepard whose hearing had failed her earlier was now awake and began
lunging at the glass in the door. I got the family rifle from a closet and sat
on the floor opposite the front door My mother stood to one side while I aimed
at his chest. We made eye contact. He said he would leave, but he made two more
trips around the house before he did leave. I was 14, but now am 70.
Gun regulations at a Federal level would level the playing field for all States.
It would end/curtail gun running from a weak State to a strong State. It is
only a start. Criminals using or possessing a gun during a crime would receive
severe mandatory penalties. Make the penalties imposed by the Feds for all
States. Ending gun violence is the ultimate goal, again this is a start.I would like to see verifiable evidence that a non law enforcement
'good guy' with a gun stopped a 'bad guy' with a gun. What
was the damage to others and property. Make this an honest comment, not the
typical rhetoric that comes from the gun lobby.
One of my children worked with a person who lived in Chicago who hated guns, had
relatives die from violence. Moved away from Chicago. Seen a different
perspective on guns and lifestyle. They now have a different view have seen that
law abiding citizens are not the problem with guns. They do receive greaf from
family living in Chicago about gun rights. So maybe taking violence out of
people is the better solution, than trying to just unarm people. Violent people
will turn to other forms of violence. Imagine gang bangers throwing bombs around
to protect their drug turf and profits, etc.
Great list of states I won't live in.
sportfan21,I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. You are
focusing on four states out of 50 to support your conclusion. Here are the
following violent crime statistics for ALL 50 States, broken down by top &
bottom half rankings of their Brady Scores (higher rank=stricter gun laws):25 strictest gun law states: 357 violent crimes per 100,00025
least strict gun law states: 348 violent crimes per 100,000A very
small difference and probably not statistically significant, but stricter gun
laws actually happen in MORE VIOLENT states, and less strict gun laws are in
LESS VIOLENT states. If you limit your figures to the top & bottom 10
strictest states, the gap actually widens.Summary: Stricter gun
laws do NOT lead to safer states...in fact, there's evidence that they lead
to LESS safety.Sources: The Brady Project, 2012 FBI UCR Report
Here are some trends that people should be aware of: Gun Violence has a much
stronger correlation with population than anything. Gun laws typically reduce
gun related crime rates. Louisiana and Missouri are the 2 states with the
highest gun murder rates (7.7 and 5.4 per 1000 people). Many people have
mentioned New York and Illinois as examples of gun law failures, but they are
22nd and 25th in Gun related murders, behind Arizona and Texas.You
can try to avoid the facts, but stricter gun laws do decrease gun related
crimes. As a country, gun laws have become stricter over the past 30 years and
fewer people own guns. The result? Fewer gun related crimes.Sources:
FBI 2010 Crime Report and Uniform Crime Reporting Program 1960- 2008
Foxtrot,Not sure what you mean by "finally," since a LOT of
research has been done on the subject on both sides of the issue. I think the
truth may be that liberal urban cores may feel they need super-strict gun laws,
and maybe in some cases they actually do because of the much higher gun violence
problems there, while the rest of the country outside of large cities don't
need or want stricter gun laws, because they truly do not need them and such
laws would actually make matters worse. "Controlling for
differences" is very vague and way beyond the scope of these posts, but
Texas and Arizona both have lower violent crime rates than California. The real
issue is, why is the left not focusing on the REAL problem, which is not the
existence of guns per se? The REAL problem is societal...why do young men - and
they are overwhelmingly male - commit crimes at such hugely higher rates in
inner cities than the rest of the country? Looking at the breakdown of families
and faith in the home would be a great start to answering that question.
From article by William P. Hoar: "FBI data for 2011 indicate that almost
13,000 people were murdered with a weapon... Of those, 323 were killed with
rifles of all types." The data indicate that more were killed with "bare
hands." What should we do about that? There much more about firearms
restrictions and the results, but it would not all fit in the space. The
author's conclusion was that gun laws do not reduce crime.
Voice of Reason - finally a well written, well thought out and articulate
reason. Thank you. I would like to see some further testing finding the true
explanatory factors and even TEST what really strict laws would do. Does
California, controlled for differences, have a lower rate of gun violence than
Texas or Arizona? Someone has got to have done this.
NoodleKaboodleGlad you asked. First off, yes I know that the 1st
Amendment is not just about speech, but that was the part I was referring to.
In answer to your point, yes there is restriction of some forms of speech or
expression on TV or radio, But there is not any restriction on that same speech
in other venues. Like cable TV. Or certain websites, or satellite radio. So
restrictions on speech are not universal, just subject to certain jurisdictions.
What the 2nd Amendment defenders are worried about is the Federal Government
making national restrictions that cover all parts of the country.
josephscott,You have to do a scatterplot of the Brady ranks vs. FBI
violent crime ranks for all fifty states then do a trendline of the graph, all
of which I have done. In a previous job of mine I was responsible for tracking
crime trends for a large Utah city, so I have some experience in this regard.
The trendline is clearly as I stated, although it may or may not be steep enough
to be statistically significant to a 95% confidence interval; I haven't dug
into it that deep. There are numerous other factors affecting
violent crime rates besides gun laws, of course...for example, if you remove
urban cores from the national statistics, the national gun violence rate drops
to something like Belgium's, at least it did ten or so years ago. I'm
confident it would be similar today. In other words, the vast majority of our
nation's gun violence comes from inner-city crime, much of it gang
related...NOT from law-abiding gun owners in suburban and rural areas. I think
that's why we have a divide between liberal urban areas that want strict
gun laws, and the rest of the country that doesn't.
There are so many "cold hard facts" making crap up too. The states that
have the strictest laws DO NOT have the highest gun violence. Without doing the
math it seems there is relatively little correlation between strict laws and gun
violence. Unfortunately, the biggest explanatory value that I can guess is race
and poverty. But that isn't nice to talk about. Here is the data, stop
making up inflammatory garbage statements. Not all liberals are bad, not all
conservatives are either, but I guess it makes you feel better..Won't let me post a URL. Go to Wikipedia, gun violence by state.
@Noodlekaboodle: "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, Slander and
libel aren't allowed..." That's an apples to oranges
comparison. You can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater all day long. You
can slander and libel anyone you want. But there are consequences to those
actions, just as there are consequences to USING a firearm inappropriately.The proper comparison between 1st and 2nd amendment rights would be
preemptively cutting out someone's tongue so they are completely unable to
yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
@MG ScottI'm guessing that you aren't aware that the 1st
amendment isn't just freedom of religion. It's freedom of all types of
expression. What i'm trying to say is that we already have restrictions on
the 1st amendment. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, Slander and
libel aren't allowed, and the FCC is ok to regulate TV and radio. How is
that not a restriction on the 1st amendment?
New Yorks gun laws just changed, I wonder if the Brady ranking took that into
account or if that score was based on old rules. The new laws there make me
glad I live here.
"The state known for the strictest gun laws is California."-----------------Gosh! Who'd a thunk it!!??The
state with one of the worst managerial records is the one with the strictest gun
laws.Good'ol California. Nice place to come from.
The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable gun restrictions are constitutional,
so those of you who are so confident some of the states' laws are
unconstitutional are holding opinions contrary to even the most conservative
member of the court.States with the most stricture gun laws have
less gun violence. Those who feel less safe from gun violence in such states are
simply basing their fears on perception, not fact.
It's funny how the states I would feel the least secure in (like New Jersey
or California) are also those with the highest level of gun control.
I only wish our governor would protect our second amendment rights as
enthusiastically as our legislature is inclined to do. I'm really
disappointed in the governor's veto of the constitutional carry bill. Utah
had a chance to speak in defense of the constitution loud and clear. Isn't
that what we are supposed to do? Wouldn't it be amazing if everyone who
raised his hand and swore to defend the constitution really did?
It is amazing that every year the Brady bunch puts out their "rankings"
and the media dutifully prints every last word as if it is Gospel truth brought
down from the Mount by Moses or something.How about at least a
mention that the Center for Disease Control did a study, hoping to validate that
gun control laws worked, but were shocked to discover that actual research into
facts showed that there was NO EVIDENCE that ANY of the various gun control or
gun ban schemes so beloved by the Brady bunch actually had any measurable effect
on reducing crime.That is the real story about the effectiveness of
gun laws, regardless of the annual advocacy nonsense sent out by some partisan
group.How about some comments from the NRA, or local gun rights
leaders on the Brady stuff?
@Voice of ReasonI took a quick look at the 2011 FBI state violent crime
rate (per 100,000) stats and the Brady state rankings. I'm not seeing the
"inverse relationship" that you indicated existed, though I'll
continue to look closer.For instance #1 on the Brady list was
California, but that state is only the 18th most violent on the FBI list. FBI
stat shows 411.1 for violent crimes per 100,000 people. Far below the Alaska
rate of 606.5. Alaska is in a three way tie for last place on the Brady list.2nd on the Brady list is New Jersey, which ranks as 29th most violent on
the FBI list (308.4). Arizona, also tied for last place on the Brady list is
20th most violent on the FBI list (405.9).These are only a few data
points, but they are sufficient to demonstrate that the relationships
aren't quiet as clear cut as you had suggested.I tried to link
to the FBI crime stats page, but it was rejected by the moderators.
Isn't it interesting, despite CA and NY's large gang population they
are not in the top 10 (per capita) for highest number of firearm homicides?
However, many southern states have the highest per capita rates for homicides
Isn't it interesting that you never encounter someone who is for outlawing
guns who will post a sign in their yard that says,"This home is
a gun free zone."
One good man or woman armed with a gun might have stopped the shootings at:Sandy Hook ElementaryAurora Colorado TheaterWhen will
Liberal / Progressives ever learn that the weapon is not the problem. It's
the kook behind the weapon that's the problem; whether that is Kim Jong Un
or Timothy McVey.Criminals do not obey the countless laws already on
the books. All these new "Feel Good" laws do is infringe upon the rights
of the law abiding citizen, making it more costly for them to obtain and keep a
weapon to protect themselves and their loved ones.
When pressure cookers are outlawed, only Outlaws will have pressure cookers.
I'm loving the comments on this article. I think we're all growing
tired of the left-wing hatred for the 2nd ammendment. I'm so happy that the
expanded background checks bill was shut down today. I know the fight isn't
over though..On a slightly different note, isn't it sad that with all
that's been going on with North Korea, one of Obama's biggest concerns
is our gun rights? There are threats from N. Korea that they will use nuclear
bombs, and here's Obama and all the gun grabbers trying to take away guns.
I am writing to my representatives today to demand pressure cooker control! I
also want natural disaster control, old age control, and car control! Are we not
for the children?.... Man, the liberal media is messed up. Keep slurping the
Obama Kool-Aid guys, more people are turning you off.
The definition of infringed: To encroach on someone or something. Enough said,
the consitution is very clear. Instead of defaulting to the argument that guns
are the problem, we should examine the other possible causes, video games,
graphic violence in movies, and the use of behavior modifing drugs.When we've addressed these possible causes then let circle back to guns
as a possible problem.
So Illinois is "hailed" in this report for strict gun laws, yet Chicago
is out of control with the highest murder rate in the country. California and
New York also have high murder rates, yet strict gun control. The blinders are
coming off ordinary citizens and they can no longer be scared with such
I can see that at least two of those states do not follow the constitution
I am NOT a gun person: I avoid them like the plague. However the fact that the
latest gun tragedies have occurred in gun free zones is a fact that is not lost
on me. Additionally; gun free zones did nothing to stop Texas knife attacks or
Boston bombs. Instead of the left-wing media carrying Obama’s water
regarding gun control: how about some stories on the effects of Hollywood
violence on culture in general or an increased focus on mental health?
The cold, hard statistical fact is that if you compare States' Brady
rankings, and their FBI crime rankings, there is an inverse relationship between
the strictness of gun laws and low violent crime rates. In other words,
stricter gun laws correlate with higher violent crime rates. Reducing gun ownership does not - repeat, does NOT - reduce crime...it
actually contributes to an INCREASE in crime. This is supported by real-world
No surprise they're all ice cold blue states...however it's ironic
that these are the states with the highest amount of gun violence, especially
with unregistered firearms.
These states now need to pass laws restricting bombs. Bombs larger than a
firecracker should be outlawed. Nobody needs to own a bomb, but those who think
they need a bomb for sports, at least they should have to undergo a background
Amazing the number of rules and requirements a state governments can put on a
constitutional right. Let them try that with the 1st Amendment and see what