I'm going to have to question or be skeptical of that. The areas with the most multiple shooting incidents have the toughest gun control laws and the most anti-gun culture. We all know there are plenty of parts of the U.S. where practically every other home has guns but the crime rates are super low. Usually white rural religious farming areas in the Midwest. So the presence of guns alone is not the only social factor that results in gun homicides.
Similar to the direct costs of illegal immigration. Even if we implemented all the gun control proposals that Democrats claim they want to implement, I am skeptical exactly how much that would actually decrease the costs of firearm injuries. (Because we're not talking about making all guns illegal, are we?)
every anti rights advocate who has supported banning some guns, has already made all the mental decisions necessary to support banning all guns
From the study: "Among homicides occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner (adjusted hazard ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35377715/ If the guns in these household were owned for protection then it didn't work out very well for the female homicide victims.
Generally speaking, in a civilized society the state does have a monopoly on force and for good reason. As an individual, you can't be trusted to be a fair judge/jury/executioner.
I think stopping straw purchases could result in a substantial decrease in firearm injuries. I'm 100% against both illegal immigration and illegal gun use.
The British Medical Journal study used the percentage of suicides committed with a gun as a proxy for gun ownership. "A review of over 24 gun ownership indicators found that the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm was the best measure for estimating gun ownership by state... A 10% higher state firearm ownership rate was associated with a significant 36.1% (20.1% to 54.2%, P<0.001) higher rate of mass shootings." https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542 The states with the high rates of mass shootings are: Vermont, South Carolina, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Kansas. Those states are not known for having restrictive guns laws.
don't let good propaganda go to waste! but it will be the same discredited crap no matter who keeps regurgitating it
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/5-s...-of-mass-school-shooting-study-143045102.html The researchers found that the states with the largest risk of a mass shooting were the ones with the largest populations — California, Texas, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania. Those five states made up almost 50% of the predicted mass shootings. The researchers also noted that certain states, including Iowa and Delaware, have never had a mass shooting. https://www.wfla.com/news/national/states-and-cities-with-highest-mass-shooting-rates/ As for the state with the highest rate of mass shootings? Louisiana ranked the highest per capita with around 4.3 shootings for every 100,000 people. The city with the highest rate was Washington D.C. with 10.4 shootings for every 100,000 people. DC has long had the most restrictive gun laws in the USA
you do know that none of your arguments defeat most of the pro gun arguments but there is only one valid argument that your side has-and you all have yet to prove it. there is only one valid argument in favor of the gun control you want to foist on country you don't live in-and that is proof that your desired schemes will substantially increase public safety and save lives. our arguments, on the other hand, aren't defeated even if you can prove your claims (which you cannot)
Maaaate research supports my position rather than yours but I do enjoy the flattery where you think I will have any influence over this matter
I won't disagree with that, but notice how they said "suicides committed with a firearm", rather than just "suicides". Of course if someone is suicidal and has a gun, they are going to be more likely to choose a gun as the method to do it.
Washington D.C. has a very high per capita rate of "mass shootings" despite the very restrictive gun laws there. Also, North Dakota (which is a Midwest farming state with small towns with lower population density) had zero mass shootings, despite a high per capita rate of gun ownership and fewer gun laws. So those are two exceptions to the trend that stand out.
Those cooked up and Cherry picked and manipulated statistics from anti gun sources are not impressive
Your propaganda and pseudoscience does not impress anyone except perhaps your fellow progressives who are also invested in disseminating such misinformation. But tell us some more about the ways of life in America.....
https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/mass-shootings-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/ I can’t validate your statistic
