MD and DC have higher murder rates than VA, yet VA has more liberal gun laws ... explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_09_tables-508.pdf#page29

Page 67 of 75. Homicide rates per 100K persons. I am not just talking about homicides by gun. I am talking overall murder rates, as a gun can be used to kill but can also be a deterrent to a variety of other methods. Anyhow, any thoughts on why murder rates (age adjusted, please read the footnote) are highest in DC (15.6) and close to twice as high in MD (10.2) than in VA (5.4)?

Nicely done.

That should dispense with their silly “citation please” deflections.

The only thing they’ll have left now is crickets and Trump rage.

Hey moron, it's already been asked and answered. Try to keep up.

Higher density = higher violent crime.

[Anonymous]

People compare city statistics to statewide statistics and then pretend it is a meaningful comparison. Discuss ....

[Anonymous]

Richmond has the 6th highest homicide rate in the US, among mid-sized ciites:
https://www.newsleader.com/story/news/2017/11/24/richmond-ranks-high-violent-crime/892802001/

[Anonymous]

Any statistics should be examined with and without the City of Baltimore [and spillover into Baltimore County], portions of DC and Richmond. Virginia and DC have nothing on the scope of Baltimore.

Virginia also has ROVA which is quite rural and people go hunting same as in most of PA.

[Anonymous]

Virginia doesn’t have a major city like Baltimore and DC. Richmond is tiny and the rest of Virginia is very rural.

[Anonymous]

WHere do you think the guns in the district and MD are coming from? Neighboring states like VA. Just like Chicago's gun trade flows from Indiana.

Next up in your research, look into urban vs rural density, poverty vs affluence and apples vs oranges.

[Anonymous]

OP's question is why we need to reverse past legislation that caused a chilling effect on public health research related to guns, because what is needed is extensive data related to a lot of factors. Might note that a large percentage of guns used in Chicago violent crime are not purchased in Chicago--their legal purchases were made in jurisdictions (I think Indiana) where it is easier to buy weapons.

A lot of data that could be used to analyze the effect of policies on gun deaths and injuries--and the kind of gun deaths (public mass shootings vs. domestic or workplace violence related, accidental vs deliberate, suicide vs homicide attempts, gun ownership patterns) is simply not collected. Also keep in mind the majority of gun deaths are due to suicide, not homicide.

The ratio of dollars spent per highway fatality vs gun fatality is something like 160:1.

I forget what the particular type of data is, but apparently ATF used to collect large amounts of certain gun-related data used by other agencies but stopped due to legislation (not the CDC gag rule, I don't think, it was something else).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_09_tables-508.pdf#page29

Page 67 of 75. Homicide rates per 100K persons. I am not just talking about homicides by gun. I am talking overall murder rates, as a gun can be used to kill but can also be a deterrent to a variety of other methods. Anyhow, any thoughts on why murder rates (age adjusted, please read the footnote) are highest in DC (15.6) and close to twice as high in MD (10.2) than in VA (5.4)?

Nicely done.

That should dispense with their silly “citation please” deflections.

The only thing they’ll have left now is crickets and Trump rage.

Hey moron, it's already been asked and answered. Try to keep up.

Higher density = higher violent crime.

Awwwww, you haz a mad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the guns are coming from virginia. but yeah, keep arguing that guns have nothing to do with gun violence. you just sound more and more stupid.

Truth

OP here. I didn’t say “gun violence”. You did. I said homicides of any method. Also, what evidence do you have that the “guns come from Virginia”?i am not disputing this one way or the other, merely pointing out the lack of facts supporting your emotional argument.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Some good replies here regarding population density and economic factors. However, there are some replies that are going off on tangents regarding suicides and accidental deaths. Please take those to a different topic. I am talking only intentional killings of someone else by any method, not just guns.

It is obvious that if guns didn’t exist at all then there would be no killings by guns. But there would still be murder. There would be no mass shootings but there would be bombings, running groups of people over on sidewalks, crashing planes into buildings, etc. But, given that there are guns and there always will be, are guns more of a deterrent than an enabler of homicides? Should we take guns from the police too? Why or why not? Do we trust police more than a law abiding homeowner to have one? Also, are guns the primary cause (vs. method) of homicides or is population density, economics, social media, diversity / lack of diversity, competency of local law enforcement, age, sex, etc? Combination of all? I.e. which variables would be most effective in reducing crime? Clearly it is NOT stricter state gun laws, given that someone willing to kill someone else won’t think twice about breaking his/her State’s gun law. It is also not reality to believe that all guns could be confiscated and locked away, so the cat is out of the bag there (i.e. there are enough guns available already to serve those wanting to use them for I’ll will regardless of our laws). So what are some realistic solutions, backed by factual data, to lowering homicide rates (again via any method) in MD and DC (and VA for that matter)?

[Anonymous]

Lots of questions that require significant data analysis - do we have even have all of that data? Maybe Congress should fully fund CDC to do the research.

And WTF are you smoking?! STRICTER GUN LAWS CERTAINLY DO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIMES!!!

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/violent-crime.html
“Gun Policy Effects on Violent Crime

“MAY INCREASE VIOLENT CRIME
- Concealed-Carry Laws
- Stand-Your-Ground Laws

MAY DECREASE VIOLENT CRIME
- Background Checks
- Prohibitions Associated with Mental Illness”

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Some good replies here regarding population density and economic factors. However, there are some replies that are going off on tangents regarding suicides and accidental deaths. Please take those to a different topic. I am talking only intentional killings of someone else by any method, not just guns.

It is obvious that if guns didn’t exist at all then there would be no killings by guns. But there would still be murder. There would be no mass shootings but there would be bombings, running groups of people over on sidewalks, crashing planes into buildings, etc. But, given that there are guns and there always will be, are guns more of a deterrent than an enabler of homicides? Should we take guns from the police too? Why or why not? Do we trust police more than a law abiding homeowner to have one? Also, are guns the primary cause (vs. method) of homicides or is population density, economics, social media, diversity / lack of diversity, competency of local law enforcement, age, sex, etc? Combination of all? I.e. which variables would be most effective in reducing crime? Clearly it is NOT stricter state gun laws, given that someone willing to kill someone else won’t think twice about breaking his/her State’s gun law. It is also not reality to believe that all guns could be confiscated and locked away, so the cat is out of the bag there (i.e. there are enough guns available already to serve those wanting to use them for I’ll will regardless of our laws). So what are some realistic solutions, backed by factual data, to lowering homicide rates (again via any method) in MD and DC (and VA for that matter)?

If you were truly interested in the answer, you would be reading the abundant research and not on this forum. And gun suicide, accidental death and homicide are all related, even if your boneheaded approach ignores that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Some good replies here regarding population density and economic factors. However, there are some replies that are going off on tangents regarding suicides and accidental deaths. Please take those to a different topic. I am talking only intentional killings of someone else by any method, not just guns.

It is obvious that if guns didn’t exist at all then there would be no killings by guns. But there would still be murder. There would be no mass shootings but there would be bombings, running groups of people over on sidewalks, crashing planes into buildings, etc. But, given that there are guns and there always will be, are guns more of a deterrent than an enabler of homicides? Should we take guns from the police too? Why or why not? Do we trust police more than a law abiding homeowner to have one? Also, are guns the primary cause (vs. method) of homicides or is population density, economics, social media, diversity / lack of diversity, competency of local law enforcement, age, sex, etc? Combination of all? I.e. which variables would be most effective in reducing crime? Clearly it is NOT stricter state gun laws, given that someone willing to kill someone else won’t think twice about breaking his/her State’s gun law. It is also not reality to believe that all guns could be confiscated and locked away, so the cat is out of the bag there (i.e. there are enough guns available already to serve those wanting to use them for I’ll will regardless of our laws). So what are some realistic solutions, backed by factual data, to lowering homicide rates (again via any method) in MD and DC (and VA for that matter)?

If you were truly interested in the answer, you would be reading the abundant research and not on this forum. And gun suicide, accidental death and homicide are all related, even if your boneheaded approach ignores that.

Whatever you say. Why are you on this forum then? Hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of questions that require significant data analysis - do we have even have all of that data? Maybe Congress should fully fund CDC to do the research.

And WTF are you smoking?! STRICTER GUN LAWS CERTAINLY DO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIMES!!!

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/violent-crime.html
“Gun Policy Effects on Violent Crime

“MAY INCREASE VIOLENT CRIME
- Concealed-Carry Laws
- Stand-Your-Ground Laws

MAY DECREASE VIOLENT CRIME
- Background Checks
- Prohibitions Associated with Mental Illness”

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Do you know what the word “MAY” means? You’ve inadvertently proved my point It is a COMPLEX issue and railing about one aspect does not solve the problem. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Some good replies here regarding population density and economic factors. However, there are some replies that are going off on tangents regarding suicides and accidental deaths. Please take those to a different topic. I am talking only intentional killings of someone else by any method, not just guns.

It is obvious that if guns didn’t exist at all then there would be no killings by guns. But there would still be murder. There would be no mass shootings but there would be bombings, running groups of people over on sidewalks, crashing planes into buildings, etc. But, given that there are guns and there always will be, are guns more of a deterrent than an enabler of homicides? Should we take guns from the police too? Why or why not? Do we trust police more than a law abiding homeowner to have one? Also, are guns the primary cause (vs. method) of homicides or is population density, economics, social media, diversity / lack of diversity, competency of local law enforcement, age, sex, etc? Combination of all? I.e. which variables would be most effective in reducing crime? Clearly it is NOT stricter state gun laws, given that someone willing to kill someone else won’t think twice about breaking his/her State’s gun law. It is also not reality to believe that all guns could be confiscated and locked away, so the cat is out of the bag there (i.e. there are enough guns available already to serve those wanting to use them for I’ll will regardless of our laws). So what are some realistic solutions, backed by factual data, to lowering homicide rates (again via any method) in MD and DC (and VA for that matter)?

If you were truly interested in the answer, you would be reading the abundant research and not on this forum. And gun suicide, accidental death and homicide are all related, even if your boneheaded approach ignores that.

Whatever you say. Why are you on this forum then? Hypocrite.

Your response makes no sense.