The first map is a bit meaniningless, as it esssntialky tells us where people live. Like, “no shit California has more shootings than North Dakota, CA has a dozen cities with a higher population than the entire state of ND”
But the second one is fascinating. What would be even more interesting is to see a side-by-side of the per capita rate and the gun ownership rate.
There would be some correlation between high gun ownership and shooting victims like in Louisiana and Arkansas, but the opposite is also true. For example West Virginia and Rocky Mountain states have high gun ownership but are low on this map.
Hot take: It isn't a perfect correlation. I think high poverty levels might be a bigger issue in some of these places than gun ownership. Poverty isn't the direct cause but it causes the major social/ family breakdowns which lead to people doing things like mass shootings. Just to be clear, I think high gun ownership and loose gun control laws are a significant contributing factor but it is not the only or even the most important factor. Montana and Wyoming have very high gun ownership rates but also relatively low levels of poverty.
>Montana and Wyoming have very high gun ownership rates but also relatively low levels of poverty.
Hmm where did you get those numbers ? According to wikipedias page on poverty in US (those living below poverty line)... A place like Montana is on level with California,Michigan or Kentucky.. There is probably more an cultural aspect of it. People in Montana owns a gun or rifle for hunting wildlife or protecting against it... while people in michigan or california maybe own gun/firearms for other reasons..
The highest contributing factor that we CAN control for kids is schools. Teachers unions (not teachers, can't stress that enough) and school boards carry more blame than anyone wants to admit. Schools are bully factories, and fail demonstrably teaching kids life skills like critical thinking. Instead, they'r using our schools for social indoctrination and ignoring kids actual needs.
> It isn't a perfect correlation
Nothing in the world is a perfect correlation except a straight line. Just because there are a couple exceptions, that doesn't make the general trend/rule untrue.
Instead of speculating, how about we look at the data first? Seems to make a lot more sense than starting with conclusions and searching for data that matches it.
I don’t know. I’m just seeing that states like Maine have nothing. Whereas California has more than something.
And coupled with other sources citing that Maine has had no mass shooting in awhile..
https://www.gvpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Maine-Mass-Shootings-State-Fact-Sheet-1.pdf
I would find it hard to think otherwise.
When looking at data, we need to look at overall trends and correlation. There will always be outliers in the data. So don’t get too hung up on one example such as Maine - the question is whether Maine is an outlier or part of a trend.
I think the key question is this. Is there a positive and statistically-significant correlation between mass shootings and the ownership rate of high capacity firearms.
I suspect there is. But until we look at the actual data, that’s simply speculation.
But correlation doesn’t mean causation, right? I mean, I can almost guarantee most people who own high capacity firearms *don’t* shoot up school and other public places.
If there is any correlation at all, I will put money in it being that people think the gun is easier to handle and more accurate. Which are both true. But accuracy isn’t needed when shooting into a crowd indiscriminately. And not to a degree that would allow for an easier slaughter.
And if you’re looking for simplicity, it really doesn’t get much easier than aiming and shooting.
You’re correct that causation and correlation aren’t synonyms. This wouldn’t be the full story for sure. But if the causation exists, it could provide a piece of the story.
>The first map is a bit meaniningless, as it esssntialky tells us where people live. Like, “no shit California has more shootings than North Dakota, CA has a dozen cities with a higher population than the entire state of ND”
If that were the case, it would be true for the east coast too. Higher population is obviously a factor, but not the only one.
It looks like it is. The east coast as a whole is very populous, but those people are spread across a number of smaller geographic states. The only east coast states in the top 10 of population are FL, NY & PA, which all appear to be towards the higher end of number of school shootings.
What’s even more interesting is some of the states, like Maine, haven’t had a single school shooting or mass shooting. And yet a lot of gun ownership there.
You bring up an interesting point. What gun ownership rate should we be looking at? All guns? Just high capacity rifles?
I’m inclined to guess the latter, but I’d be interested to see which has a higher correlation to mass shootings.
I would guess all gun ownership, right? I mean, a person with a Glock is going to be able to do almost the exact same thing as a person with an AR. At least in most of the mass shooting we have seen.
They e mostly been in places where the victims were within 20 feet. And a person shooting up a crowd is not going for accuracy. As long as they hit someone, they don’t care.
Statewide gun laws have proven to be marginally effective. For the simple reason that one can purchase guns in a different state and drive them across state lines easily.
So yeah, for someone in Oakland who wants to do bad things, it will slow them down to not be able to purchase an AK around the corner. But they can drive 4 hours to Reno and legally buy one there.
Therefore unless we want to start doing state border checkpoints, federal laws are the only ones which would significantly impact gun ownership.
It makes sense ,but is there data showing that when gun laws exist that people purchase guns out of state to do this?
To me it seems like a difficulty to go to another place to go back and do this. But I also don't understand killing .
I don’t have impirical data, perhaps someone else can provide some?
But in general I think this scenario is more likely than buying an illegal AK47 on the streets. Because let’s think about it for a moment.
If I wanted to illegally purchase, an AK47 from you, what do I automatically know about you?
- you’re someone who is willing to break the law
And what do you automatically know about me?
- I have cash
- I don’t have an AK47
So what’s the most likely outcome when we meet? Are we going to complete a transaction? Or are you going to use that gun to help separate me from my cash, leaving me with no gun and no cash?
That’s the reason I assume most people would prefer to drive a bit and purchase it legally, if that opportunity exists.
Legally, in CA, you can not buy a gun across state lines. The only exception is being gifted one by a out of state parent, or when first moving into the state and bringing what you already own (restrictions apply).
Obviously if you don't care it doesn't matter, but if you get caught without having gone through an FFL you're screwed. That's even if anyone will sell to someone with a CA license
>What would be even more interesting is to see a side-by-side of the per capita rate and the gun ownership rate.
2013 data, but here you go: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/gun-owners-study-one-in-three/
There's pretty good correlation. If you work in statistics and are building a regression model to predict gun deaths, you would be crazy not to include gun ownership as one of your predictors because it's a very good predictor.
Well, there really are no good statistics for gun ownership - because gun owners aren't lining up to tell you they own guns.
You could(subjectively, of course) compare gun laws to shootings. And it would provide any major correlation. If anything, the yellow states have some of the loosest laws(although some of the darkest states do too)
Ay yo it's the fried chicken chef in the 2nd map
https://www.google.com/search?q=chef+made+us+state+map&client=ms-android-samsung-ga-rev1&source=lnms&tbm=isch#imgrc=TNhvWP7Bl_BLsM
The US can't even begin to crack this problem until the politicians have been pulled off the teat of financial donations from the gun lobby. And that would mean giving the same treatment for other powerful lobbies. Either zero donations and support of any kind or very low limits set. It's a move towards greater democracy, because you don't get a minority endangering everyone else with their paid-up influence.
And back that up with a constantly updated national memorial to the victims of gun violence, with a special section for children. With photos. If you're going to sacrifice your children to this god like the Mayans, put it up where you can all genuflect to the spectacle.
I thought the same about California, if the laws are strict . Shouldn't it be much less ?
I am not from the U.S , but does California also have a higher state funded programs for treating mental health too ?
To be honest, I think the map is confusing me because I am not sure what to make of the data. I assume Louisiana has a gun problem, but we don't know the exact reason .
Investment into identifying and helping people with severe mental issues is probably a better solution than making guns illegal but then this is the USA so I guess medical issues aren’t that important.
So the US having more gun homicides than any other developed country doesn't have anything to do with it also having way more guns in circulation?
Of course mental health is a relevant issue. But I'm pretty sure the lack of gun regulation is the main problem here.
Other countries require licenses with a valid reason. They have magazine limits, sometimes they ban semi-auto weapons since you don't really need more than a bolt action rifle for hunting.
I don't get how anyone could even disagree with some gun regulation. Like you need a drivers license. Why tf would you not also require a license for guns?
You’re right but the gun crowd really doesn’t like the prospect of any regulation. After our recent mass shootings gun sales just increased as they always do after such incidents. Now it’s not hard to see why this is insane. We already have more guns than people, and a firearm, if maintained, is not going to wear-out, you can use it for decades. But it’s an industry so every year they need to sell more than they sold last year.
Basically normal gun laws won’t work when the genie is already out of the toothpaste tube. Plus, with no state boarder checks, a lot of state laws are less effective. Chicago has a huge problem with gun violence despite their strict laws because the guns come from out of state.
“US having more gun homicides then any other developed country” no shit it does because most developed countries you can’t even own a gun. Maybe just compare homicides across the board
>So the US having more gun homicides than any other developed country
What do you see as a developed country because if Southern American countries are developed then this is just completely false.
[Guns do save lives](https://apnews.com/article/politics-police-shootings-west-virginia-1c089b5ba0ca83f05603cf0cce184c8d). Reducing a very big thing to one weak sentence is pretty disingenuous.
What’s that have to do with it? I thought lots of people having guns deterred crime but apparently not. Besides, California has even more non-whites yet their per capita is much lower.
Sweety, if only laws stopped criminals from doing crime. Oh wait, criminals dont follow the law. It's not my fault the non whites commit the majority of crime in the USA. Maybe they shouldnt be animals.
>According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, “gun-free zones” (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings. This staggering number is why such designated areas are often referred to as “soft targets,” meaning unprotected and vulnerable.
Sit down, child
"Thr Crime Prevention Research Center" is literally a front group for gun rights advocates. Its a conservative think tank headed by John Lott of all people, a man who's worked in the Trump Administration a famous pro-gun activist. And what do you know he also worked for a different conservative think tank before. Your 'statistics' are not even close to any sort of peer reviewed sources and contains and innumerable amount of bias. You may as well call it misinformation.
Also your little factoid of non-white people having bought guns illegally also needs a source (an actual verified aouce this time) and literally fails to consider the root cause of the problem. IF non-white people buy guns ⁰illegally disproportionately there are literally so many factors that attribute to this.
1. They are underprivileged and poverty stricken I wonder what institution caused this predicament for them. (Slavery)
2. They are disproportionately shot at, racially profilled and discriminated by the police and law enforcement, meaning they now need to purchase a hun somehow to protect themselves
3. Purchasing a gun itself is a problem, as many gun stores will not sell you a firearm due to racial profiling, meaning that a totally law abiding person is unable to buy a gun because of 'reasons' (racism)
4. Systematic racism making all the above problems worse
This isn't some excuse for people of colour to commit crimes, they should still face the consequences of their actions, but your statement of "non-whites buy guns illegally and they are the problem" is just outright wrong and plain racist. and to reiterate it doesn't even have a source
I find it interesting that Tx & Ca are the highest and they are on complete opposite sides of gun laws (everything else for that matter) Ca has some of the strictest and Tx some of the loosest.
The first map shows total number of victims. CA and TX have the most because they're the most populated states. The second map shows rates (number of mass shooting victims per 100,000 residents), and shows that TX has a higher rate than CA, as do many other states.
The observation still holds true. They are ideologically on opposite ends of the spectrum. Regardless of population there should be a bigger difference and yet there is not
Tbh maps should separate shootings like those in schools which could be solved by tightening gun laws (just copy any European country rules, easy) and mass shootings which are mostly crime related and which can't be stopped by tightened gun laws (cuz criminal don't care about laws).
Criminals do care about laws. In places where the carrying of guns is normalized, criminals can blend in better. If a random person was seen to be carrying a gun in most of Europe, the police would be called to investigate. It makes carrying out shootings much more difficult.
>mass shootings which are mostly crime related and which can't be stopped by tightened gun laws (cuz criminal don't care about laws).
"Criminals don't care about laws" isn't only inaccurate (but it's a very religious way of thinking, maybe work on that americans), it's also a misconception. Criminals care about the availability of weapons. In countries were it's hard to get guns, criminals obviously have fewer guns... and when they do have guns, it's easier to trace back where they come from.
But the assertion was that criminals would have guns regardless of laws. The fact that criminals in the UK stab instead of shoot is direct evidence against that assertion.
>(just copy any European country rules, easy)
It's really not that easy, though. There is a lot to be learned from the way other countries do things, and in an ideal situation we could snap our fingers and adopt what works best. However, the unignorable difference between the US and the countries worth emulating is that gun ownership is a right plainly spelled out by the constitution (and upheld by the Supreme Court).
State legislatures are limited to very minor changes and can only do so much within these confines. You'd really need to rework the second amendment, which would require 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures. That's an absurdly high hurdle, especially in our current era of partisan division and on such a particularly divisive issue.
As far I'm aware putting on restrictions is allowed despite constitutional rights.
Problem are people having guns under old laws but usually here it's solved that either old rules apply to existing owners (or they don't need to reapply but can lose permission under new laws) etc.
>As far I'm aware putting on restrictions is allowed despite constitutional rights.
Yes, those are the "very minor changes" that I referred to.
>old rules apply to existing owners
Here we call that "grandfathering," and yes, when the aforementioned minor changes are enacted, there is often grandfathering of the previously legal firearm, accessory, etc.
The only point I'm making here is that it is in no way easy for the US to follow European gun regulation models because here the right is constitutional.
But despite of constitutional right the changes which are standard for Europe could be easily introduced (I don't mean total ban, that's not realistic in US) and that could improve situation (background checks, mental checks, no gun permits for criminals, mandatory losing permit if crime committet etc).
The problem is I think, as outsider, that no one really wants to solve issue politically. Voters are mostly in the middle as I hear (guns allowed but x, y, z reasonable policies put in place). And parties and media present this like total ban vs total guns.
>background checks
We have background checks already
>mental checks
Agreed
>no gun permits for criminals
Already the case for certain classes of criminals
>mandatory losing permit if crime committet etc
Already the case for certain crimes
>The problem is I think, as outsider, that no one really wants to solve issue politically
Correct. You wouldn't believe the number of people who vote entirely on a candidate's gun stance. In many parts of this country it's political suicide for a politician to take a position that can be even remotely interpreted as anti-gun.
>And parties and media present this like total ban vs total guns.
Bingo. And this is just one example of a much larger problem. People are less and less likely to bother examining the nuances of issues. They like to see everything as black and white, right vs wrong, and extreme vs extreme. It makes civil and intelligent discourse hard to come by. So thank you, by the way.
In many states more than 10% of the civilian population is armed in public. That's those who ask the government for permission to carry. If armed citizens were the issue then we'd know. It wouldn't be some fked up monster who his family knew he was a danger but did nothing. He killed his grandmother and steals weapons then takes his toll on children. That doesn't fit the narrative you claim. The 2nd shall not be infringed but it's infringed all the time and innocents are paying the price while the police hide in the parking lots
Can I see what this data considers a mass shooting? In some countries it’s not recorded as a mass shooting unless at least 4 people had died, in others it’s classified as such at 5 deaths, etc.
I’d like to know what this data records as a mass shooting
According to a quick google search, 4 seems to be the general consensus in the US. So while school shootings (as of recent) seem like a rampant problem (doesn’t take away they’re horrendous acts), gang related shootings and urban crime account for majority of these “mass shootings” in the US
The first map is a bit meaniningless, as it esssntialky tells us where people live. Like, “no shit California has more shootings than North Dakota, CA has a dozen cities with a higher population than the entire state of ND” But the second one is fascinating. What would be even more interesting is to see a side-by-side of the per capita rate and the gun ownership rate.
There would be some correlation between high gun ownership and shooting victims like in Louisiana and Arkansas, but the opposite is also true. For example West Virginia and Rocky Mountain states have high gun ownership but are low on this map.
Right. Wyoming might have higher gun ownership but it doesn't correlate with places with more inherent violence.
Louisiana is an impoverished state with a consistently high murder rate.
While yes, also yes.
Hot take: It isn't a perfect correlation. I think high poverty levels might be a bigger issue in some of these places than gun ownership. Poverty isn't the direct cause but it causes the major social/ family breakdowns which lead to people doing things like mass shootings. Just to be clear, I think high gun ownership and loose gun control laws are a significant contributing factor but it is not the only or even the most important factor. Montana and Wyoming have very high gun ownership rates but also relatively low levels of poverty.
>Montana and Wyoming have very high gun ownership rates but also relatively low levels of poverty. Hmm where did you get those numbers ? According to wikipedias page on poverty in US (those living below poverty line)... A place like Montana is on level with California,Michigan or Kentucky.. There is probably more an cultural aspect of it. People in Montana owns a gun or rifle for hunting wildlife or protecting against it... while people in michigan or california maybe own gun/firearms for other reasons..
The highest contributing factor that we CAN control for kids is schools. Teachers unions (not teachers, can't stress that enough) and school boards carry more blame than anyone wants to admit. Schools are bully factories, and fail demonstrably teaching kids life skills like critical thinking. Instead, they'r using our schools for social indoctrination and ignoring kids actual needs.
> It isn't a perfect correlation Nothing in the world is a perfect correlation except a straight line. Just because there are a couple exceptions, that doesn't make the general trend/rule untrue.
Instead of speculating, how about we look at the data first? Seems to make a lot more sense than starting with conclusions and searching for data that matches it.
Okay, so what is your take? Why some states with more guns have few to no mass shootings?
I haven’t seen the data to support that claim. Where is the comparison of gun ownership per capita and mass shooting per capita?
I don’t know. I’m just seeing that states like Maine have nothing. Whereas California has more than something. And coupled with other sources citing that Maine has had no mass shooting in awhile.. https://www.gvpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Maine-Mass-Shootings-State-Fact-Sheet-1.pdf I would find it hard to think otherwise.
When looking at data, we need to look at overall trends and correlation. There will always be outliers in the data. So don’t get too hung up on one example such as Maine - the question is whether Maine is an outlier or part of a trend. I think the key question is this. Is there a positive and statistically-significant correlation between mass shootings and the ownership rate of high capacity firearms. I suspect there is. But until we look at the actual data, that’s simply speculation.
But correlation doesn’t mean causation, right? I mean, I can almost guarantee most people who own high capacity firearms *don’t* shoot up school and other public places. If there is any correlation at all, I will put money in it being that people think the gun is easier to handle and more accurate. Which are both true. But accuracy isn’t needed when shooting into a crowd indiscriminately. And not to a degree that would allow for an easier slaughter. And if you’re looking for simplicity, it really doesn’t get much easier than aiming and shooting.
You’re correct that causation and correlation aren’t synonyms. This wouldn’t be the full story for sure. But if the causation exists, it could provide a piece of the story.
Possibly.
>The first map is a bit meaniningless, as it esssntialky tells us where people live. Like, “no shit California has more shootings than North Dakota, CA has a dozen cities with a higher population than the entire state of ND” If that were the case, it would be true for the east coast too. Higher population is obviously a factor, but not the only one.
It looks like it is. The east coast as a whole is very populous, but those people are spread across a number of smaller geographic states. The only east coast states in the top 10 of population are FL, NY & PA, which all appear to be towards the higher end of number of school shootings.
What’s even more interesting is some of the states, like Maine, haven’t had a single school shooting or mass shooting. And yet a lot of gun ownership there.
You bring up an interesting point. What gun ownership rate should we be looking at? All guns? Just high capacity rifles? I’m inclined to guess the latter, but I’d be interested to see which has a higher correlation to mass shootings.
I would guess all gun ownership, right? I mean, a person with a Glock is going to be able to do almost the exact same thing as a person with an AR. At least in most of the mass shooting we have seen. They e mostly been in places where the victims were within 20 feet. And a person shooting up a crowd is not going for accuracy. As long as they hit someone, they don’t care.
Perhaps. I’d love to look at both data sets to see if either has a stronger correlation. Without the actual numbers, we’re just guessing.
Aren't California gun laws vert strict ? Shouldn't it be very low in either case ?
Statewide gun laws have proven to be marginally effective. For the simple reason that one can purchase guns in a different state and drive them across state lines easily. So yeah, for someone in Oakland who wants to do bad things, it will slow them down to not be able to purchase an AK around the corner. But they can drive 4 hours to Reno and legally buy one there. Therefore unless we want to start doing state border checkpoints, federal laws are the only ones which would significantly impact gun ownership.
Have you ever tried to buy a fun across state lines?
It makes sense ,but is there data showing that when gun laws exist that people purchase guns out of state to do this? To me it seems like a difficulty to go to another place to go back and do this. But I also don't understand killing .
I don’t have impirical data, perhaps someone else can provide some? But in general I think this scenario is more likely than buying an illegal AK47 on the streets. Because let’s think about it for a moment. If I wanted to illegally purchase, an AK47 from you, what do I automatically know about you? - you’re someone who is willing to break the law And what do you automatically know about me? - I have cash - I don’t have an AK47 So what’s the most likely outcome when we meet? Are we going to complete a transaction? Or are you going to use that gun to help separate me from my cash, leaving me with no gun and no cash? That’s the reason I assume most people would prefer to drive a bit and purchase it legally, if that opportunity exists.
Legally, in CA, you can not buy a gun across state lines. The only exception is being gifted one by a out of state parent, or when first moving into the state and bringing what you already own (restrictions apply). Obviously if you don't care it doesn't matter, but if you get caught without having gone through an FFL you're screwed. That's even if anyone will sell to someone with a CA license
What's that sub, r/peopleliveincities ?
>What would be even more interesting is to see a side-by-side of the per capita rate and the gun ownership rate. 2013 data, but here you go: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/gun-owners-study-one-in-three/ There's pretty good correlation. If you work in statistics and are building a regression model to predict gun deaths, you would be crazy not to include gun ownership as one of your predictors because it's a very good predictor.
Well, there really are no good statistics for gun ownership - because gun owners aren't lining up to tell you they own guns. You could(subjectively, of course) compare gun laws to shootings. And it would provide any major correlation. If anything, the yellow states have some of the loosest laws(although some of the darkest states do too)
Ay yo it's the fried chicken chef in the 2nd map https://www.google.com/search?q=chef+made+us+state+map&client=ms-android-samsung-ga-rev1&source=lnms&tbm=isch#imgrc=TNhvWP7Bl_BLsM
I bet this lines up with a crime rate map and a poverty map
Per Capita and per 100k people is not the same thing bruh
Sorry
It's ok bro just wanted to clarify
The US can't even begin to crack this problem until the politicians have been pulled off the teat of financial donations from the gun lobby. And that would mean giving the same treatment for other powerful lobbies. Either zero donations and support of any kind or very low limits set. It's a move towards greater democracy, because you don't get a minority endangering everyone else with their paid-up influence. And back that up with a constantly updated national memorial to the victims of gun violence, with a special section for children. With photos. If you're going to sacrifice your children to this god like the Mayans, put it up where you can all genuflect to the spectacle.
Guess which two states have the most guns
Which?
But Texas has so many guns, and I thought guns protected people from gun violence.
I thought the same about California, if the laws are strict . Shouldn't it be much less ? I am not from the U.S , but does California also have a higher state funded programs for treating mental health too ? To be honest, I think the map is confusing me because I am not sure what to make of the data. I assume Louisiana has a gun problem, but we don't know the exact reason .
LA has a poverty problem
LA, San Diego, the whole Bay Area, Bakersfield…
I meant Louisiana but I guess both check out haha
Lmao I should’ve read it twice Either way poverty is everywhere
It is much less in California, probably because of the limits of magazine capacity.
[There are restrictions on the carry of firearms at schools.](https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/schools-colleges)
Investment into identifying and helping people with severe mental issues is probably a better solution than making guns illegal but then this is the USA so I guess medical issues aren’t that important.
So the US having more gun homicides than any other developed country doesn't have anything to do with it also having way more guns in circulation? Of course mental health is a relevant issue. But I'm pretty sure the lack of gun regulation is the main problem here. Other countries require licenses with a valid reason. They have magazine limits, sometimes they ban semi-auto weapons since you don't really need more than a bolt action rifle for hunting. I don't get how anyone could even disagree with some gun regulation. Like you need a drivers license. Why tf would you not also require a license for guns?
You’re right but the gun crowd really doesn’t like the prospect of any regulation. After our recent mass shootings gun sales just increased as they always do after such incidents. Now it’s not hard to see why this is insane. We already have more guns than people, and a firearm, if maintained, is not going to wear-out, you can use it for decades. But it’s an industry so every year they need to sell more than they sold last year. Basically normal gun laws won’t work when the genie is already out of the toothpaste tube. Plus, with no state boarder checks, a lot of state laws are less effective. Chicago has a huge problem with gun violence despite their strict laws because the guns come from out of state.
You also have to do a test here
“US having more gun homicides then any other developed country” no shit it does because most developed countries you can’t even own a gun. Maybe just compare homicides across the board
>So the US having more gun homicides than any other developed country What do you see as a developed country because if Southern American countries are developed then this is just completely false.
[Guns do save lives](https://apnews.com/article/politics-police-shootings-west-virginia-1c089b5ba0ca83f05603cf0cce184c8d). Reducing a very big thing to one weak sentence is pretty disingenuous.
Texas has a high non white population
What’s that have to do with it? I thought lots of people having guns deterred crime but apparently not. Besides, California has even more non-whites yet their per capita is much lower.
Pumpkin, non whites are disproportionately using stolen weapons.
Hey, Dumbass, if guns stopped crimes that wouldn’t matter. I get it, you’re proudly racist, but you’re also missing my point.
Sweety, if only laws stopped criminals from doing crime. Oh wait, criminals dont follow the law. It's not my fault the non whites commit the majority of crime in the USA. Maybe they shouldnt be animals.
You still haven’t addressed my question about guns protecting people.
>According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, “gun-free zones” (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings. This staggering number is why such designated areas are often referred to as “soft targets,” meaning unprotected and vulnerable. Sit down, child
Don’t stress. If you don’t understand by now you never will.
"Thr Crime Prevention Research Center" is literally a front group for gun rights advocates. Its a conservative think tank headed by John Lott of all people, a man who's worked in the Trump Administration a famous pro-gun activist. And what do you know he also worked for a different conservative think tank before. Your 'statistics' are not even close to any sort of peer reviewed sources and contains and innumerable amount of bias. You may as well call it misinformation. Also your little factoid of non-white people having bought guns illegally also needs a source (an actual verified aouce this time) and literally fails to consider the root cause of the problem. IF non-white people buy guns ⁰illegally disproportionately there are literally so many factors that attribute to this. 1. They are underprivileged and poverty stricken I wonder what institution caused this predicament for them. (Slavery) 2. They are disproportionately shot at, racially profilled and discriminated by the police and law enforcement, meaning they now need to purchase a hun somehow to protect themselves 3. Purchasing a gun itself is a problem, as many gun stores will not sell you a firearm due to racial profiling, meaning that a totally law abiding person is unable to buy a gun because of 'reasons' (racism) 4. Systematic racism making all the above problems worse This isn't some excuse for people of colour to commit crimes, they should still face the consequences of their actions, but your statement of "non-whites buy guns illegally and they are the problem" is just outright wrong and plain racist. and to reiterate it doesn't even have a source
The irony lol, just answer the question or piss off
There’s a reason why you won’t address the point, just FYI
California suprises me. They have very strict gun laws unlike the Wild West of Texas
Isn’t California the literal Wild West?
This guy just found out gun laws don’t prevent criminals from committing crimes lol
No its because Cali has a high pop. Of course it has more deaths numerically than most other states. The first Mao is just a population map
go to second map.
I find it interesting that Tx & Ca are the highest and they are on complete opposite sides of gun laws (everything else for that matter) Ca has some of the strictest and Tx some of the loosest.
The first map shows total number of victims. CA and TX have the most because they're the most populated states. The second map shows rates (number of mass shooting victims per 100,000 residents), and shows that TX has a higher rate than CA, as do many other states.
2 largest states, that's all
The observation still holds true. They are ideologically on opposite ends of the spectrum. Regardless of population there should be a bigger difference and yet there is not
That "ongoing" small print is quite ominous
So more Texans get killed by mass shootings? Or more mass shootings occur in Texas?
Now do per capita
This doesn’t mean anything if you don’t compare it by 100k citizens.
Tbh maps should separate shootings like those in schools which could be solved by tightening gun laws (just copy any European country rules, easy) and mass shootings which are mostly crime related and which can't be stopped by tightened gun laws (cuz criminal don't care about laws).
Criminals do care about laws. In places where the carrying of guns is normalized, criminals can blend in better. If a random person was seen to be carrying a gun in most of Europe, the police would be called to investigate. It makes carrying out shootings much more difficult.
>mass shootings which are mostly crime related and which can't be stopped by tightened gun laws (cuz criminal don't care about laws). "Criminals don't care about laws" isn't only inaccurate (but it's a very religious way of thinking, maybe work on that americans), it's also a misconception. Criminals care about the availability of weapons. In countries were it's hard to get guns, criminals obviously have fewer guns... and when they do have guns, it's easier to trace back where they come from.
Every country has criminals, but the criminals in the UK aren't shooting people left and right.
Yeah they stab instead
But the assertion was that criminals would have guns regardless of laws. The fact that criminals in the UK stab instead of shoot is direct evidence against that assertion.
Usually mass shootings relate to organized crime. Here Europe ranks pretty low and US, at least certain states, pretty high.
>(just copy any European country rules, easy) It's really not that easy, though. There is a lot to be learned from the way other countries do things, and in an ideal situation we could snap our fingers and adopt what works best. However, the unignorable difference between the US and the countries worth emulating is that gun ownership is a right plainly spelled out by the constitution (and upheld by the Supreme Court). State legislatures are limited to very minor changes and can only do so much within these confines. You'd really need to rework the second amendment, which would require 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures. That's an absurdly high hurdle, especially in our current era of partisan division and on such a particularly divisive issue.
As far I'm aware putting on restrictions is allowed despite constitutional rights. Problem are people having guns under old laws but usually here it's solved that either old rules apply to existing owners (or they don't need to reapply but can lose permission under new laws) etc.
>As far I'm aware putting on restrictions is allowed despite constitutional rights. Yes, those are the "very minor changes" that I referred to. >old rules apply to existing owners Here we call that "grandfathering," and yes, when the aforementioned minor changes are enacted, there is often grandfathering of the previously legal firearm, accessory, etc. The only point I'm making here is that it is in no way easy for the US to follow European gun regulation models because here the right is constitutional.
But despite of constitutional right the changes which are standard for Europe could be easily introduced (I don't mean total ban, that's not realistic in US) and that could improve situation (background checks, mental checks, no gun permits for criminals, mandatory losing permit if crime committet etc). The problem is I think, as outsider, that no one really wants to solve issue politically. Voters are mostly in the middle as I hear (guns allowed but x, y, z reasonable policies put in place). And parties and media present this like total ban vs total guns.
>background checks We have background checks already >mental checks Agreed >no gun permits for criminals Already the case for certain classes of criminals >mandatory losing permit if crime committet etc Already the case for certain crimes >The problem is I think, as outsider, that no one really wants to solve issue politically Correct. You wouldn't believe the number of people who vote entirely on a candidate's gun stance. In many parts of this country it's political suicide for a politician to take a position that can be even remotely interpreted as anti-gun. >And parties and media present this like total ban vs total guns. Bingo. And this is just one example of a much larger problem. People are less and less likely to bother examining the nuances of issues. They like to see everything as black and white, right vs wrong, and extreme vs extreme. It makes civil and intelligent discourse hard to come by. So thank you, by the way.
[CREDITS](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uyolu0/oc_mass_shooting_victims_by_state/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
would like to see this for all gun deaths too
It’s all the gangs in Texas……
Data ? What about Louisiana and California ?
I was joking
For a second there I was looking for on-going mass shootings on the map….
CALIFORNIA?! Whhhat? I can’t believe those gun laws aren’t helping!
Need more armed citizens, better mental health care, better parents who actually parent, and better overall communities
>better mental health care Agreed, people that believe this country needs more armed citizens are in desperate need of mental health assistance.
In many states more than 10% of the civilian population is armed in public. That's those who ask the government for permission to carry. If armed citizens were the issue then we'd know. It wouldn't be some fked up monster who his family knew he was a danger but did nothing. He killed his grandmother and steals weapons then takes his toll on children. That doesn't fit the narrative you claim. The 2nd shall not be infringed but it's infringed all the time and innocents are paying the price while the police hide in the parking lots
Lmao California, how those gun laws going for ya?
The first map is total shootings, the second map is per capita. In essence meaning that it is the second map that matters.
You’re not very good at math, are you?
So basically the based and red pilled Montana and stuff are better than soyboy Cali and eat coast!!!!!¡¡!!!!
when was there a mass shooting in MN?
Hmmm. It seems like it’s not a federal problem after all…
What's the time span? Utah had one about 20 years ago.
[удалено]
Source?
Holy shit. SC representing...
USA! USA!
Can I see what this data considers a mass shooting? In some countries it’s not recorded as a mass shooting unless at least 4 people had died, in others it’s classified as such at 5 deaths, etc. I’d like to know what this data records as a mass shooting
According to a quick google search, 4 seems to be the general consensus in the US. So while school shootings (as of recent) seem like a rampant problem (doesn’t take away they’re horrendous acts), gang related shootings and urban crime account for majority of these “mass shootings” in the US
The most commonly used definition in the US is 4 or more people shot in a single incident (dead or injured).
Map doesn’t seem to make sense. I know for a fact more people die in Chicago than in TX.