The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

2 hours ago, twa said:

 

A short barrel shotgun is no more dangerous than a long one, it just allows concealment easier and gives a wider pattern (at lower force)

 

if we really want to get into, you can argue a shorter barrel can actually be less dangerous because you're suffering greatly on accuracy in favor of concealment.

[crabbypatty]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about?

 

Virginia is a shall issue state. In general it's a very pro-gun state. The only place they really differ from Florida and Texas is when it comes to using your gun to defend yourself. VA has a very clear outline of what is/isn't acceptable, whereas the others don't really care and even let you protect property.

 

But when it comes to owning/carrying a gun Virginia is very much pro-gun.

They are for now, but the state is turning increasingly blue, led by the dip****s in the NOVA area.

Since I'm right next door I read a lot of VA news wrt guns and gun rights, and the calls for more gun control are getting increasingly more and more shrill about the need to "do something"

Now you have Northam promising to "get things done"

The repubs have a slim majority and were able to bury much of Northam's bs last year and hopefully can again this year but things are getting too close for comfort. A seat lost here or there and we may be singing a different tune come next cycle.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/sensing-an-opening-virginia-governor-revives-push-for-gun-control/2019/01/04/b1636280-103f-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html?utm_term=.7eb4425ee618

https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/01/more-gun-control-bills-announced-virginia-lawmakers-get-to-work/

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190115/virginia-gov-northams-anti-gun-bills-to-be-heard-in-committees

[tshile]

1 minute ago, crabbypatty said:

They are for now, but the state is turning increasingly blue, led by the dip****s in the NOVA area.

 

So basically you have no actual reason to refer to VA as a "previous bastion of gun freedom", because it's still pretty much a bastion of gun freedom.

 

It's just recently voted for democrats so it shows up colored blue on a map so you started spewing BS about it.

 

Got it.

 

 

[crabbypatty]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

So basically you have no actual reason to refer to VA as a "previous bastion of gun freedom", because it's still pretty much a bastion of gun freedom.

 

It's just recently voted for democrats so it shows up colored blue on a map so you started spewing BS about it.

 

Got it.

 

 

Ok so maybe hyperbolic but the rate things are going ain't looking good. It's more than spewing bs about a blue map. Yeah it's all fine and dandy for now, but like I said, the state is increasingly voting and turning blue.

did you read the bills going to committee this year? These give me a pretty good idea of the mood of the people there (not all) and their elected reps.

And this list isn't even all of them.

 

Senate Bill 1008, sponsored by Senator Adam Ebbin (D-30), and Senate Bill 1163, sponsored by Senator Richard Saslaw (D-35), contain very broad and overreaching language to ban items that increase the rate of fire of semi-automatic rifles, but do not fundamentally alter the way they operate.  It could be interpreted to ban firearm modifications such as match grade triggers, muzzle brakes, and ergonomic changes that are commonly done by law-abiding gun owners to make their firearms more suitable for a variety of lawful purposes.

Senate Bill 1084, sponsored by Senator David Marsden (D-37), would impose a vague and unpredictable standard of firearm storage upon law-abiding citizens and make them civilly liable for injury resulting from actions by a criminal who acquires a firearm stored in a non-compliant manner.  

Senate Bill 1096, sponsored by Senator Janet Howell (D-32), would restrict the ability of young people to use firearms for lawful purposes and increase penalties on adults who violate it.

Senate Bill 1162, sponsored by Senator Richard Saslaw (D-35), would criminalize private firearm transfers and deny adults under the age of 21 their Second Amendment rights by prohibiting them from purchasing firearms.

Senate Bill 1164, sponsored by Senator Saslaw, and Senate Bill 1454, sponsored by Senator Louise Lucas (D-18), would criminalize private firearm transfers.

Senate Bill 1303, sponsored by Senator Edwards (D-21), would allow local governments to prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense at meetings of the local government body.

Senate Bill 1324, sponsored by Senator Jennifer McClellan (D-9), would further victimize law-abiding gun owners who suffer loss or theft of their firearms if they do not report them within a certain time.

Senate Bill 1446, sponsored by Senator Mamie Locke (D-2), would reinstate a handgun rationing law that was in place from 1993 until it was repealed in 2012.  It would limit handgun purchases to one per 30 day period.

Senate Bill 1458, sponsored by Senator George Barker (D-39), would allow for individuals to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights without due process on baseless accusations.

Senate Bill 1473, sponsored by Senator Creigh Deeds (D-25), would allow local governments to suspend Second Amendment rights at public events.

Senate Bill 1482, sponsored by Senator Deeds, would add Albemarle county and the City of Charlottesville to the jurisdictions in which law-abiding citizens are not allowed to carry certain firearms without a concealed carry permit.

House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee – Subcommittee #1

House Bill 1654, sponsored by Delegate Sam Rasoul (D-11), would prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying long guns in certain jurisdictions without a concealed carry permit.

House Bill 1856, sponsored by Delegate Delores McQuinn (D-70), would allow local governments to prohibit law-abiding citizens from defending themselves while visiting public libraries.

House Bill 1992, sponsored by Delegate Cia Price (D-95), would allow local governments to enact their own gun control ordinances, potentially resulting in a patchwork of laws and the Second Amendment not being equally protected across the state.

House Bill 1644, sponsored by Delegate Jeffrey Bourne (D-71), would further victimize law-abiding gun owners who suffer loss or theft of their firearms if they do not report them within a certain time.

House Bill 1691, sponsored by Delegate Marcus Simon (D-53), is a vaguely worded attempt at banning “undetectable firearms” already banned under federal law.  It would likely ban many commonly owned firearms made with modern materials that are not actually undetectable.

House Bill 1763, sponsored by Delegate Rip Sullivan (D-48), would allow for individuals to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights without due process on baseless accusations.

House Bill 1899, sponsored by Delegate John Bell (D-87), would remove the option for conceal carry permit applicants to use an online or video instruction course to satisfy the training requirement.

House Bill 1956, sponsored by Delegate David Toscano (D-57), would allow local governments to suspend Second Amendment rights at public events.

House Bill 1957, sponsored by Delegate Toscano, would allow courts to restrict the self-defense rights of parents who have a child in their household found to be needing services or who is a status offender.

House Bill 2244, sponsored by Delegate Sullivan, would expand the misdemeanor offenses that would result in a loss of Second Amendment rights.

House Bill 2285, sponsored by Delegate Cliff Hayes (D-77), would restrict the ability of young people to use firearms for lawful purposes and increase penalties on adults who violate it.

House Bill 2372, sponsored by Delegate Patrick Hope (D-47), would impose a one-size-fits-all set of firearm storage requirements for family day homes, including requiring that firearms and ammunition be locked separately.

House Bill 2399, sponsored by Delegate Alfonso Lopez (D-49), would allow state police to delay firearm transfers up to five business days to process instant background checks instead of the current end of business day requirement. 

House Bill 2479, sponsored by Delegate Kenneth Plum (D-36), would criminalize private firearm transfers.

House Bill 2492, sponsored by Delegate Kathy Tran (D-42), would ban many commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and handguns as well as ammunition magazines greater than ten rounds in capacity, encompassing most standard capacity magazines in use by law-abiding citizens.  In addition, it would ban the carrying of certain shotguns by individuals who do not have a concealed carry permit.

House Bill 2604, sponsored by Delegate Jeion Ward (D-92), would reinstate a handgun rationing law that was in place from 1993 until it was repealed in 2012.  It would limit handgun purchases to one per 30 day period.

 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

Ok so maybe hyperbolic but the rate things are going ain't looking good. It's more than spewing bs about a blue map. Yeah it's all fine and dandy for now, but like I said, the state is increasingly voting and turning blue.

 

Maybe you should look into the history of this state. It's gone back and forth a lot for a long time. You're making the same BS claims plenty have made in the past that have never come true. And if the 2016 election featured a normal republican candidate, I'm not so sure Clinton even wins the state. 

 

People try passing things all the time all over the place and they go nowhere. So you're going to have to try harder than that nonsense.

 

In essence: Yes, you are just spewing BS about a blue map.

 

The state is still incredibly Pro-Gun. Only people who don't live here and only look at a political map would think otherwise.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, crabbypatty said:

Unfortunately for you Florida is headed the wrong way quickly. FL like VA used to be one of the bastions of gun freedom. But it seems like they have made a hard left turn recently.

How do you feel about all the noise they're making down there about NY style restrictions?

 I actually have no clue what you're talking about. Maybe because I don't live in Florida anymore even though I'm still a Florida resident.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 hour ago, crabbypatty said:

For most they can order a gun online, easy peasy, yes.

But you have to ship it to a FFL, make sure said FFL is on the sellers list (if not they have to send their info in)

wait for it to arrive, or go to a gun store and purchase, fill out the 4473, wait while they do the nics check, hope you don't get delayed (3 days wait)

Then either walk out with your gun or come back in 3 days, unless you were flat out denied (tons of reasons for delays/denials)

 

And again, the point is, if you are a law abiding citizen following the framework of the laws already in place, it SHOULD be easy to purchase a gun.

Many in this thread think you just walk into a store, plunk your money down and walk out. Sometimes that's the case after the 4473 and nics, but oftentimes you end up waiting for awhile and or get delayed. I used to get delayed every time because someone with the same name had a lengthy criminal history.

 

For me here in WV it's easy as can be. I got to bypass all the safety course bs because I have a valid dd214. Show that to the clerk, pay my $75, come in a few weeks later to pick up my ccw.

CCW holders in WV don't have to deal with the nics check, so I buy what I want, have it shipped to my ffl, fill out my 4473, pay my transfer fee and I'm out the door. No nics check, the ffl just files the form away in case the ATF needs to see it at some point.

 

For most it's not that fast/easy. And for me at first it wasn't either.

 

The last four guns I've purchased took probably 10 mins tops, maybe less.  The majority of that was completing the form and waiting on the background check (this was just the gun shop portion of it for both rifles and handguns). 

 

For any rifles/shotguns, since a permit is not required, 10 mins to complete the process (if you know what you want and they have it in stock).  Handgun permit took some time, for me at least.  In NC, you apply for the permit online, pay the processing fee and download a medical release form to sign off on releasing court orders and capacity for pistol purchase permits.  They check to make sure you were never deemed mentally unfit to own/possess a firearm.  

 

That medical release form needs to be completed, signed and notarized at the Sheriff's office and is required before they start the application process, which is 14 days.  Once processed, they send you an email telling you the status and when approved, you have to pick up the purchase permits in person at the Sheriff's office and pay there.  They give you the option to purchase additional permits for something like a small $5 fee per permit.  Permits issued are good for up to 5 years.

 

The only pain in the ass for me was just logistics.  I live 30 mins away from the Sheriff's office and they only process applications from 8am - 5pm M-F, which made doing the mental health release form and picking them up quickly during a lunch break impossible (only get one hour).  I had to use PTO to do it, but that's fine, wasn't really that big a deal.  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

21 hours ago, crabbypatty said:

Straight to the insults I see. if I'm choosing to be a "make believe tough guy" then you're choosing to be a real life cuck.

Did you just call somebody a cuck for real?? 😆😆

[mcsluggo]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

 

It's interesting that DC, with all its strict gun laws, has the gun violence and murder rates it has while VA (supposedly the problem because they can just come over here and buy guns) doesn't have that problem.

 

Don't get me wrong, we're not a shiny star of the country in terms of low crime and violence, but if you compare our numbers to DC you'd be excused for wondering if the numbers were reporting on the same thing given how incredibly different they are.

 

 

 

 

you certainly don;t think you can compare the example of DC to broad example of "Virginia" in any meaningful way, do you?

 

DC is a major city, with the inherent benefits and challenges that come with it.   Virginia is a diverse state ranging everywhere from rural farmland, through the rich NOVA suburbs that get to cherry-pick the metropolitan benefits with-out the worn-out urban core costs; and on up to Richmond (and Norfolk) that are smaller, but perhaps kinda similar comparison points to DC...if you squint hard enough.          And... <<although i have no ACTUAL evidence...>> i think that Richmond doesn't particularly shine relative to DC on any crime-statistics metrics..does it?     (they both traded the dubious honor of  per-capita-murder-capitol of America in the 80s, before both places cleaned up their act significantly--- just like MOST American cities have done in the last 30 years.) 

[Burgold]

Perception is funny. From where I stand the NRA (not necessarily gun rights people) have blocked every potential gun control idea no matter how minimal for over a decade. They refuse to compromise or address any issue from mental health to background checks to anything. A micrometer is too much to ask for. Meanwhile, the gun control side has asked for the tiniest most incremental changes only to get their necks stomped on. For instance, gun rights activists have insisted that the real problem is not guns, but mental health, but any attempt to address the mental health side of ownership is vigorously fought. Though not the same, the NRA went to court to sue that a blind man who shot and killed his son (not legally blind, but absolutely without sight) retain his right to own guns for the purpose of self defense. They argued he needed the right to have a gun not only for home defense, but in public despite a complete inability to see.

 

At any rate, the idea being pushed in recent posts that gun rights people are tired of compromising seems not to jibe in anyway with the reality I've experienced. Maybe it's a difference between focusing on state laws versus  national laws. Then again, we also had an admission that the fear that Virginia might become more restrictive as the state gets bluer was being expressed as the state already having become restrictive. In other words, projected fears are being stated as current reality.

 

As to how onerous the paperwork is for law abiding citizens... to be honest, I don't mind that at all. I don't mind law abiding folks having to endure waiting periods. After all, there is never a reason you need a gun NOW! If you do need a gun NOW then it is too late because you are currently in a firefight. Any other reason, you can wait a few days or weeks or you can act with foresight in advance of hunting season.

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

you certainly don;t think you can compare the example of DC to broad example of "Virginia" in any meaningful way, do you?

 

Obviously not. We're an incredibly pro-gun state with significantly less violent/gun crime than DC. They're an incredibly strict gun law city with a horrendous gun/violent crime problem.

 

I just find it interesting that the solution being proposed is that we change our laws because DC has a problem and we're somehow causing it because we have access to guns and are close to them.

 

We need our rights curtailed like yours because you still have a problem after curtailing yours.

 

(i don't know if you live in DC. so yours is being used generally)

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by tshile

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

So, questions to both sides on the gun control debate.  Let's assume that both sides are willing to talk/compromise on the issue, start somewhere for the better safety of our children and families.  

 

To those on the left or far left of the debate:

Would you be willing to adopt another federal ban on assault weapons that basically mirrors the one put into place by the Clinton administration (with some modifications/additions to what makes the list), while allowing those who currently possess any firearms that would be on the list to be banned to be grandfathered in (not having to turn them over to law enforcement)?  

 

If so, would you be willing to compromise and still allow high capacity magazines for all firearms (rifles and handguns) to be left alone to get another federal assault weapon ban put into action?

 

 

To those on the right or far right of the debate:

 

Would you be willing to accept another federal assault weapons ban (as listed above) knowing that you would be grandfathered in on any of the weapons that would be banned? 

 

You wouldn't be having to give up anything purchased legally and simply would not be able to make future purchases of those banned weapons (like before).  Is it really that big of a deal at the end of the day as it only impacts future sales and manufacturing (for civilians)?   

 

 

 

 

[bcl05]

From my perspective, with about 33,000 gun deaths per year, we, as a country and culture, have clearly demonstrated that as we don't have the responsibility or common sense needed to have easy access to guns.  

 

Since there appears to be no acceptable way (from the NRA perspective) to figure out or screen for who can be trusted with guns, it seems to me broad and significant limitations is the only thing that may work at decreasing gun deaths. 

 

33,000 unnecessary deaths per year (mostly of young and healthy people) is a horrifying national health crisis that is not being addressed in any meaningful way.   

 

I would be open to any legislation that decreases gun deaths.  

 

I would have no problem with gun ownership if people would just stop dying from gunshots.  

Edited March 19, 2019 by bcl05

[Burgold]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Obviously not. We're an incredibly pro-gun state with significantly less violent/gun crime than DC. They're an incredibly strict gun law city with a horrendous gun/violent crime problem.

 

I just find it interesting that the solution being proposed is that we change our laws because DC has a problem and we're somehow causing it because we have access to guns and are close to them.

 

We need our rights curtailed like yours because you still have a problem after curtailing yours.

 

(i don't know if you live in DC. so yours is being used generally)

 

Just typed in Richmond and violent crime rate into Google. This is the first thing it spat out.

 

Richmond. In 2012, Richmond had 42 murders, a murder rate of 20.2 per 100,000. In 2007 the FBI Uniform Crime Reports ranked Richmond as the 5th worst city for violent crimes with populations of 100,000 to 250,000. Today Richmond is not in the top 25 of violent crime or murder.

 

Better article

 

Richmond ranks high in violent crime

https://commonwealthtimes.org/2017/11/19/richmond-ranks-high-violent-crime/

 

Richmond had one of the highest murder rates last year among mid-size U.S. cities, according to an analysis of local and federal data.

Richmond, which has about 223,000 residents, had 59 murders and non-negligent manslaughter deaths last year, according to the Richmond Police Department, equating to a rate of 26.4 homicides per 100,000 population.

In terms of its murder rate, that puts Richmond near the top among the 236 cities that have populations between 100,000 and 300,000 and were included in the FBI’s most recent Uniform Crime Report.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

To those on the right or far right of the debate:

 

Would you be willing to accept another federal assault weapons ban (as listed above) knowing that you would be grandfathered in on any of the weapons that would be banned? 

 

You wouldn't be having to give up anything purchased legally and simply would not be able to make future purchases of those banned weapons (like before).  Is it really that big of a deal at the end of the day as it only impacts future sales and manufacturing (for civilians)?   

 

Technically i'm on the right of this debate, but I don't know that it's an accurate way of describing. I'll respond to this one.

 

If we're going to ban a class of guns then:

- It better be based on function. So if you want to ban semi-automatic carbines, cool. If you want to ban gas-powered carbines, cool. I'm not signing up for banning AR-15's just because that's the term everyone knows, meanwhile 50 funtionaly-similar weapons are floating around but because they have a wood stock control people think they're hunting rifles and AR-15s aren't.

 

- It better not allow any grandfathering. I do not want to be banned from owning a gun my neighbor owns simply because he bought his before I decided I wanted one. I want the ability to arm myself equal to those around me. There's a millions of AR-15s out there. You're going to ban me from having one but let all those others simply because they purchased theirs before me? No way. I get to have what they get to have. And if a bill like that gets put up and looks like it's going to pass I will immediately go out and buy an AR-15. I don't even want one (which is why I don't own one), but I'll be damned if some nonsense like that is going to let my neighbors have a bunch and I can't have one.

 

I understand why grandfathering is a thing, but I'm not OK with it. I'd rather the government reimburse them full value. Or do nothing. 

 

6 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Just typed in Richmond and violent crime rate into Google. This is the first thing it spat out.

Yeah, you should look at hampton roads. They have terrible violent crime too.

 

 

[mcsluggo]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Obviously not. We're an incredibly pro-gun state with significantly less violent/gun crime than DC. They're an incredibly strict gun law city with a horrendous gun/violent crime problem.

 

I just find it interesting that the solution being proposed is that we change our laws because DC has a problem and we're somehow causing it because we have access to guns and are close to them.

 

We need our rights curtailed like yours because you still have a problem after curtailing yours.

 

(i don't know if you live in DC. so yours is being used generally)

 

 

I live in McLean, Virgina.   Best of all worlds, from the urbanization-development standpoint  (all the benefits of living inside the beltway of a major urban area, none of the costs of dealing with urban blight from older development)

 

and YOUR answer above was a purposefully blasse "ignore whatever was just said to you... and happily skip around and just restate what you had previously said while spinning a parasol and twisting a pinkie in my dimple..."     

 

As a statistician i will absolutely and authoritatively state ... again... that you can NOT make ANY meaningful comparisons between the old-urban-core "Washington DC"  and the catchall "Virginia"  with one boolean variable    (strict gun laws versus not-strict gun laws...or ANY OTHER variable, for that matter).     Anyone comes off like an idiot trying to assert that you CAN draw conclusions there.    There are WAY to many substantial differences between the two to make such a simplistic comparison without taking a LOT of care to control for all those other factors... and frankly, you know that.        (which is why i tried to lead you towards a Richmond versus DC comparison... it is still a pretty complicated comparison, but at least there you are comparing apples to oranges, rather than pears to mazarattis)

 

But if you want to restate it AGAIN... go ahead...and skip along while you do it.... but you will sound (again) just like the preacher in the 50s that asserted that Rock and roll (Evil-TM) led directly to teen sex --- because more pregnant teens listened to Rock and Roll music than the general population.    (never mind the fact that most of the general population were old farts...of course)    

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

and frankly, you know that.        (which is why i tried to lead you towards a Richmond versus DC comparison... it is still a pretty complicated comparison, but at least there you are comparing apples to oranges, rather than pears to mazarattis)

 

Richmond is still lower than DC and still has the access to guns the rest of us in VA have. But the larger point is that, somehow, the rest of VA doesn't really have this problem at all... despite having ample access to all kinds of deadly guns.

 

And being a shall issue state where almost anyone can walk around with a concealed gun legally.

 

The answer is not coming over here and telling us what to do. The answer is for DC to get its act together.

 

And you know that too, but you want gun control so it makes for a nifty little talking point

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by tshile

[mcsluggo]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Richmond is still lower than DC ....

 

no, it isn't.

 

DC has 16.7 murders per 100k people, Richmond has 20.2 murders per 100k people.... 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(100,000–250,000)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

[mcsluggo]

 

if you want to try for better apples-to-apples comparisons....    shall we try comparing murder rates in the USA versus all other developed economies, with the simple boolean "strict gun laws versus not strict gun laws"..?   

 

 

(I'll answer for you:    no..you don't want to make that comparison, because (chose 1)

 

a)  there are far too many other complicated factors for this to be a meaningful comparison

b) .....sputter... SWITZERLAND BABY!!! ...   high-five!    (ignore the other 99.5% of comparable populations) 

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

no, it isn't.

 

DC has 16.7 murders per 100k people, Richmond has 20.2 murders per 100k people.... 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(100,000–250,000)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

 

These are old. Your richmond numbers are from 2012 for christ's sake. Best I can see your DC numbers are from 2014.

 

DC is going through a rough spot. They had a 46% increase in murders last year

 

DC for the last few years:

2015 - 24.1

2016 - 20.3

 

Richmond the last few years:

2014 - 18.9

2015 - 19.5

 

I can't find rates for 2018 but I can find tons of articles throughout 2018 that show Richmond's declining and DC's rocketing. in 2018 they were up 46% on homicides.

 

Surely as a statistician you knew you were using ridiculously old numbers. right?

 

6 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

if you want to try for better apples-to-apples comparisons....    shall we try comparing murder rates in the USA versus all other developed economies, with the simple boolean "strict gun laws versus not strict gun laws"..?   

 

 

(I'll answer for you:    no..you don't want to make that comparison, because (chose 1)

 

a)  there are far too many other complicated factors for this to be a meaningful comparison

b) .....sputter... SWITZERLAND BABY!!! ...   high-five!    (ignore the other 99.5% of comparable populations) 

 

I'm for stricter gun laws. Just not dumb gun laws.

 

I'm positive a country that is incredibly strict on gun ownership has fewer gun violence crimes and I would bet fewer murders.

 

I'd prefer to live in switzerland or norway to be honest. Family complicates things, as does their immigration laws.

 

 

[bcl05]

You guys are quibbling over whether Richmond or DC has marginally higher murder rates than the other.  They both have murder rates that are orders of magnitude greater than most cities in the developed world.  London's 2017 murder rate?  1.5.  Berlin's?  1.6.  Tokyo?   0.3!

 

We have a stupid amount of people dying from gunshots.  Every single one is a waste.  

[mcsluggo]

do you want to compare cities to cities??

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate

 

a few things to note:

 

St Louis has 3 TIMES the murder rate of Richmond and DC (that is a lot!)

 

the USA has 5 cities on this dreadful list.   the USA is the ONLY rich country that has ANY cities on this dreadful list.   .... wanna know something about most (if not ALL?) other rich countries?   they have stricter gun control laws than the USA.     

 

 

there is (very likely) no discernable statistical  difference between 19.5 and 20.3 murders per 100k  .. but there is a really big difference between 60 per 100k, and 5.5 per 100k in Talinn.. the most dangerous city in Europe)

[tshile]

Well I was comparing the state since the discussion was about the laws at that level and people getting around DC law by going to VA. 

 

Which is is why I compared the two. 

 

But mcsluggo got all statsy on me with old data, I just wanted to point out it’s lower. And it is. If you use data within the last 5 years. 

 

But richmond is a ****hole as well so I’m not really trying to stick up for it. Just showing that with better access to guns the rate is lower in that city. And the state as a whole is no where near what DC is. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

do you want to compare cities to cities??

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate

 

a few things to note:

 

St Louis has 3 TIMES the murder rate of Richmond and DC (that is a lot!)

 

the USA has 5 cities on this dreadful list.   the USA is the ONLY rich country that has ANY cities on this dreadful list.   .... wanna know something about most (if not ALL?) other rich countries?   they have stricter gun control laws than the USA.     

 

 

there is (very likely) no discernable statistical  difference between 19.5 and 20.3 murders per 100k  .. but there is a really big difference between 60 per 100k, and 5.5 per 100k in Talinn.. the most dangerous city in Europe)

 

Are you intentionally not paying attention?

 

the conversation was about people in dc coming over to va to get all their guns. 

 

Yet the people here, who do t have to go anywhere, don’t have this problem. 

 

Maybe theres something else about DC and Richmond that cause people to murder each other at such an exceptional rate. 

[visionary]

I enjoy visiting Richmond....

 

 

😀

[TheGreatBuzz]

23 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I'm positive a country that is incredibly strict on gun ownership has fewer gun violence crimes and I would bet fewer murders.I'd prefer to live in switzerland or norway to be honest. Family complicates things, as does their immigration laws.

 

 

I'm sure if you can just get over their border and say you're seeking asylum from such an unsafe place like DC, they'll welcome you with open arms, right?

Edited March 19, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz
Grammar