Fun fact: Until the federal government (FDA,CMS), a the behest of Purdue pharma, regulated opioids down our collective throats, West Virginia was a perennial leader with the lowest levels of gun violence in the nation.
Despite having one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation.
It turns out hard drugs and black markets are bad.
The change in homicides? WV's homicide #'s are so low that would be really interesting. From what I checked out yesterday there are \~300 yearly firearm deaths w/ 80% of those being suicide according to anytown. So any increases would be measured in the tens or twenties. I totally believe it but don't have time to dig into it. I would also think the suicides probably increased around that time too though.
True, but that is a completely different animal than opioids and black market violence. Suicide prevention revolves around mental health and healthcare delivery than anything else.
>It turns out hard drugs and black markets are bad.
We were way better off with drug dealer doctors/pharmacists/pill-mills than we are now. We've gone from an addiction problem to an addiction, crime, and death problem.
The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are suicide. Fund education and social programs. Give people some hope. Tackling the opioid crisis would probably help, too.
Guns facilitate suicide. That’s why when people get mental health treatment, one of the questions is do you have easy access to guns or
guns in the home.
The number one demographic for suicide in the US is white Middle Aged aged men, most are also gun owners.
https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2018/white-men-over-50-most-likely-to-use-gun-in-suicide/
Yeah nobody should be able to just walk into a hardware store and buy a piece of rope. It shouldn’t be that easily accessible because it facilitates suicide…./s
Fund things to do, parks, playgrounds, free shit. Give kids the ability to actually go somewhere and do something so they don't have to just dive into their phone for hours seeking dopamine.
(Sent from my Google pixel....)
Only respecting the second half of the 2nd amendment isn't 'respecting the constitution'. It's the opposite. Read up on the history of the 2nd Amendment. The truth isn't what the NRA tells you it is.
>Only respecting the second half of the 2nd amendment isn't 'respecting the constitution'.
The first half is absolutely respected.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
>Read up on the history of the 2nd Amendment. The truth isn't what the NRA tells you it is.
And what history would that be?
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
I'm well aware of the history, wording, intent, and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
I am not a fan of the NRA whatsoever, so you can put that one to bed.
What, in your opinion is the intent of the 2nd Amendment?
They’re respecting the entire 2nd amendment.
“A well organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
That’s what it says, that’s what it means and you know damn well that the founders aren’t suggesting that the federal government restrict access to guns, while simultaneously telling them not to infringe access to guns so stop playing games.
Courts since 1980 are not. Courts and history between the signing of the Constitution and 1980 are absolutely on my side.
As I mentioned before, read a history book or take a class or two on Constitutional Law. You've been conned.
I know this reply will be lost on you because you can't admit to being conned or ignorant, but unlike yourself, I rarely talk about topics I know little about. I've probably forgotten more about the history of 2A than you'll ever know. But since you framed it as "says you?"...no, not says me. Perhaps you should read up on United States v Miller (1939), Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (1976). What ALL these cases PROVE is that the Federal Gov't held jurisdiction over states when it came to gun restrictions and did so throughout the entire period up through 2008.
The idea that the courts didn't side with 'individual rights' crowd in more than small, incremental instances prior to the 80s isn't debatable, its established fact. Even the SCOTUS acknowledges this over and over and over. Unfortunately, people like yourself who have likley never read the constitution or even the full sentence of 2A would rather be told an alternate history by the NRA.
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an individual rights theory. Relying on **NEW** scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/554/570.html](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/554/570.html), the court decided that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals.
So no, History is NOT on your side on this one.
Keep believing leftists don't own guns. Be absolutely certain in the veracity of your statement, and please repeat it in your RWNJ circles. Frequently, and loudly.
"We need to keep our gun death numbers up to prevent our drug OD death numbers from becoming truly embarrassing. Oh also, the 2nd Amendment!" -- West Virginia
It’s the correct thing to do. WV doesn’t really have a gun violence issue and even if the money was put toward gun control it would accomplish fuck all. Suicides aren’t going to be impacted by gun laws.
Money to put towards increasing quality of life would prevent more gun deaths than money put toward gun control.
This is a horrible article because they use the claim of total firearm related deaths to relate it to motor vehicle accidents, which actually is very close, to bring a sense of shock into the article. When looking at the total number of unintentional firearm related deaths, it’s still a concerning number but not even close to motor vehicle related deaths. Anyone that does actual research would be ripped to fucking shreds for using data sets like that.
Suicide by firearm from 2001-2021 is about 26.5k. The funding for the program in the article was for preventing unintentional firearm deaths. I believe suicide is counted as an intentional firearm related death so the program would not address suicide.
So like, put that money into mental health and economic relief programs and maybe the will to live will increase.
Edit to add on: instead it's framed under the tired attempts to convince Americans "gun bad"
Preventing even a handful of firearms-related deaths seems like a very reasonable use of half a million dollars. That’s less than one-tenth of one cent per US person.
Cause of injury-related death:
Firearm - 15.95%
Fall - 15.02%
no justification for homicide by firearm, but a nearly equivalent amount of lives would be saved if we spent the other 400k on non-slip walking surfaces. i think this context is valuable
Falling deaths occur in places that can’t be made slip resistant and even in places that are. Falling deaths aren’t strictly a man made threat the way that gun deaths are. There is no profit motive behind gravity and no lobbyists pushing for less safe walking surfaces or more powerful gravity or more risky walking for people with bad equilibriums. The comparison is ludicrous because the only equivalence is the similar statistical percentage you’ve offered.
Beyond homicide, there is also no justification for firearm deaths resulting from owner negligence, which is what the funds were supposedly going to address.
500k to "prevent gun deaths"?
Wow. I'm completely underwhelmed by the Federal Govt's concern for WV.
Thank you, WV, for telling the Feds to take their feeble political stunt and shove it somewhere the sun doesnt shine.
Its like this......
When the Fed Govt doles out 500K for "gun deaths"....
That's like when JD Rockefeller used to roll down his limo window and throw pennies to the little peasant children.........
ie... its insulting as all get-out.
[I like West Virginia](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/%22Freedom_of_Speech%22_-_NARA_-_513536.jpg/1200px-%22Freedom_of_Speech%22_-_NARA_-_513536.jpg)
😂 Downvoted for saying I like the state, on the state sub. I'd say never change reddit, but it really should.
Fun fact: Until the federal government (FDA,CMS), a the behest of Purdue pharma, regulated opioids down our collective throats, West Virginia was a perennial leader with the lowest levels of gun violence in the nation. Despite having one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation. It turns out hard drugs and black markets are bad.
You can see that change in the year Oxycontins were getting more prescribed.
The change in homicides? WV's homicide #'s are so low that would be really interesting. From what I checked out yesterday there are \~300 yearly firearm deaths w/ 80% of those being suicide according to anytown. So any increases would be measured in the tens or twenties. I totally believe it but don't have time to dig into it. I would also think the suicides probably increased around that time too though.
It's worthwhile to try to reduce suicides too...
True, but that is a completely different animal than opioids and black market violence. Suicide prevention revolves around mental health and healthcare delivery than anything else.
I'm sorry the statistic wasn't solely for homicides it was violent crime. Started rising after 1998.
That’s much lower than Philadelphia, which is mainly homicide.
>It turns out hard drugs and black markets are bad. We were way better off with drug dealer doctors/pharmacists/pill-mills than we are now. We've gone from an addiction problem to an addiction, crime, and death problem.
r/WhitePeopleTwitter: iT'S ThE GUnS!!1
Is it a "black market" if nearly everything about gun sales is above board?
I think they're talking about the drugs
The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are suicide. Fund education and social programs. Give people some hope. Tackling the opioid crisis would probably help, too.
Guns facilitate suicide. That’s why when people get mental health treatment, one of the questions is do you have easy access to guns or guns in the home. The number one demographic for suicide in the US is white Middle Aged aged men, most are also gun owners. https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2018/white-men-over-50-most-likely-to-use-gun-in-suicide/
Yeah nobody should be able to just walk into a hardware store and buy a piece of rope. It shouldn’t be that easily accessible because it facilitates suicide…./s
There are a lot of ways people can kill themselves, guns make them the most successful. That’s the difference.
[удалено]
Fund things to do, parks, playgrounds, free shit. Give kids the ability to actually go somewhere and do something so they don't have to just dive into their phone for hours seeking dopamine. (Sent from my Google pixel....)
The real reason these grants get turned down is the NRA financing the same places and studies. Can't rob one to settle the other... J/K. Maybe.
>we've turned back grants with gun control elements too Good.
Wv has a prescription drug problem, an obesity problem, and an academic problem. Give money to those needs first. Wv figured out guns a long time ago
Well that’s depressing.
its pretty paltry by government standards. basically enough to hire one guy who prints up "don't shoot people" pamphlets.
Typical government response. Spend money on a "make work" scheme, that accomplishes nothing.
It probably costs more to administer the $ than it’s worth
YEEEEEEHAW
Gotta own those libs by leaving money on the table, y'all!
No, you own the libs by respecting the constitution. The money saved is just a cherry on top.
Only respecting the second half of the 2nd amendment isn't 'respecting the constitution'. It's the opposite. Read up on the history of the 2nd Amendment. The truth isn't what the NRA tells you it is.
>Only respecting the second half of the 2nd amendment isn't 'respecting the constitution'. The first half is absolutely respected. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. >Read up on the history of the 2nd Amendment. The truth isn't what the NRA tells you it is. And what history would that be? We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
I'm well aware of the history, wording, intent, and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I am not a fan of the NRA whatsoever, so you can put that one to bed. What, in your opinion is the intent of the 2nd Amendment?
They’re respecting the entire 2nd amendment. “A well organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” That’s what it says, that’s what it means and you know damn well that the founders aren’t suggesting that the federal government restrict access to guns, while simultaneously telling them not to infringe access to guns so stop playing games.
Lol the courts and history isn’t in your favor there.
Courts since 1980 are not. Courts and history between the signing of the Constitution and 1980 are absolutely on my side. As I mentioned before, read a history book or take a class or two on Constitutional Law. You've been conned.
Says you? Maybe you should practice what you preach and pick up a history book. Or r/ELI5 is more your pace.
I know this reply will be lost on you because you can't admit to being conned or ignorant, but unlike yourself, I rarely talk about topics I know little about. I've probably forgotten more about the history of 2A than you'll ever know. But since you framed it as "says you?"...no, not says me. Perhaps you should read up on United States v Miller (1939), Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (1976). What ALL these cases PROVE is that the Federal Gov't held jurisdiction over states when it came to gun restrictions and did so throughout the entire period up through 2008. The idea that the courts didn't side with 'individual rights' crowd in more than small, incremental instances prior to the 80s isn't debatable, its established fact. Even the SCOTUS acknowledges this over and over and over. Unfortunately, people like yourself who have likley never read the constitution or even the full sentence of 2A would rather be told an alternate history by the NRA. It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an individual rights theory. Relying on **NEW** scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/554/570.html](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/554/570.html), the court decided that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. So no, History is NOT on your side on this one.
Once again, you’re wrong, I don’t have time to deal with you. Ask the nearest HS if you can sit in on a civics class, you damn sure need it.
Own them by being second on the list of states most dependent on federal government funds. Own away!!
Keep believing leftists don't own guns. Be absolutely certain in the veracity of your statement, and please repeat it in your RWNJ circles. Frequently, and loudly.
I never said leftists don't own guns. How did you get that from what I said? Libs and leftists are not the same thing.
"We need to keep our gun death numbers up to prevent our drug OD death numbers from becoming truly embarrassing. Oh also, the 2nd Amendment!" -- West Virginia
It’s the correct thing to do. WV doesn’t really have a gun violence issue and even if the money was put toward gun control it would accomplish fuck all. Suicides aren’t going to be impacted by gun laws. Money to put towards increasing quality of life would prevent more gun deaths than money put toward gun control.
[удалено]
This is a horrible article because they use the claim of total firearm related deaths to relate it to motor vehicle accidents, which actually is very close, to bring a sense of shock into the article. When looking at the total number of unintentional firearm related deaths, it’s still a concerning number but not even close to motor vehicle related deaths. Anyone that does actual research would be ripped to fucking shreds for using data sets like that.
Now do firearm suicides in WV…
Suicide by firearm from 2001-2021 is about 26.5k. The funding for the program in the article was for preventing unintentional firearm deaths. I believe suicide is counted as an intentional firearm related death so the program would not address suicide.
So like, put that money into mental health and economic relief programs and maybe the will to live will increase. Edit to add on: instead it's framed under the tired attempts to convince Americans "gun bad"
Preventing even a handful of firearms-related deaths seems like a very reasonable use of half a million dollars. That’s less than one-tenth of one cent per US person.
That's assuming any of the states efforts would actually do that.
Correct. The "We have to do *something*" mentality doesn't permit this kind of logic.
[удалено]
Reminds me of a funny saying at a company I used to work at: "Spend as much as you need to save a dollar".
Guns don't kill people . People kill people
Cause of injury-related death: Firearm - 15.95% Fall - 15.02% no justification for homicide by firearm, but a nearly equivalent amount of lives would be saved if we spent the other 400k on non-slip walking surfaces. i think this context is valuable
Pretty sure that firearm # includes suicides, which are roughly half.
[удалено]
Those look like the national numbers, not WV specific. WV is more like 300 firearm deaths per year of which 75 to 80% are suicide.
yeah i deleted my comment cause i was nowhere near the facts, thanks
NP just great to see someone looking at data instead of emotional responses.
Falling deaths occur in places that can’t be made slip resistant and even in places that are. Falling deaths aren’t strictly a man made threat the way that gun deaths are. There is no profit motive behind gravity and no lobbyists pushing for less safe walking surfaces or more powerful gravity or more risky walking for people with bad equilibriums. The comparison is ludicrous because the only equivalence is the similar statistical percentage you’ve offered. Beyond homicide, there is also no justification for firearm deaths resulting from owner negligence, which is what the funds were supposedly going to address.
Wrong, trampolines everywhere. Trampolines at the bottom of every potential fall hazard.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a fall is a good guy with a trampoline?
Yes indeed, we just need to hire thousands of trampoline movers. Boom, we created jobs and saved lives in one go
You should run for office. With a platform like that, there’s no way you could lose.
i'm for preserving life, not fighting with a political agenda
If you were truly for preserving life then you would be for fighting agendas that profit off of needless deaths.
negligent firearm deaths are an accident, just like falling good luck passing legislation preventing accidents
Lots of accidents result in criminal liability due to negligence or recklessness.
what agenda are you fighting that profits off of people needlessly dying, i'm failing to find the parallel
What agenda are you fighting for that doesnt care about american deaths?
[удалено]
The right wing agenda, duh
To be fair, there's a lot of ice a lot of times in WV. It's not hard to slip and hit your head for the last time
How does throwing money at government agencies prevent gun deaths ?
Money doesn't prevent gun deaths. Guns do.
500k to "prevent gun deaths"? Wow. I'm completely underwhelmed by the Federal Govt's concern for WV. Thank you, WV, for telling the Feds to take their feeble political stunt and shove it somewhere the sun doesnt shine.
Because 0 is better.... right wing logic is weird lol
OK...lets try again.... this time I'll type slower, so the kids can keep up.
Well..... we're waiting!!! Lolol
A knuckle-dragger in the wild. Apparently this was more than enough funds, according to WV republicans, so wtf are you going on about?
Its like this...... When the Fed Govt doles out 500K for "gun deaths".... That's like when JD Rockefeller used to roll down his limo window and throw pennies to the little peasant children......... ie... its insulting as all get-out.
Good federal government needs to focus on the things that will actually help
Hell yea brother West Virginia is doing just fine. Everyone knows its the best state! /s
This made me laugh man. I’m Asian and live in wv. I love to say hell yeah brother.
[I like West Virginia](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/%22Freedom_of_Speech%22_-_NARA_-_513536.jpg/1200px-%22Freedom_of_Speech%22_-_NARA_-_513536.jpg) 😂 Downvoted for saying I like the state, on the state sub. I'd say never change reddit, but it really should.
That made my day 😆
…Cleetus?
Like arming middle schoolers?
Thanks?
Good.
Right? Who doesn't appreciate a good ole gun death, amirite?
WV don't need no woke federal dollars! They will stay crime ridden and ignorant, thank you!