In a post published today, I ask whether the pandemic lockdowns have created a surge in domestic violence. Based on PFA cases filed in Northampton County, it appears that Covid-19 has had little or no impact. Governing, however, reports that 2020 was a banner year for gun deaths. Twenty thousand Americans were killed by firearms, and another 24,000 committed suicide by gun.
Using data from the Centers for Disease Control in 2019, which tracks the death rate per 100,000, you can see how the Keystone State ranks. Alaska and Mississippi are tied for the top spot with 24 deaths per 100,000. Massachusetts has the lowest death rate - 3.4 per 100,000/
Pennsylvania has 11.7 deaths per 100,000.
33 comments:
In PA, suicides were 63% of the 1,541 deaths. Most of those are males aged 50+. Guns are a way to die under your own terms. Do we wish to prevent that? Or do we not care because the dead are mostly white guys? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm truly puzzled.
36% of the 1,541 were homicides. That's 555. More than 350 or 63% of those happened in a single county, Philadelphia. That's right. Philadelphia contains 12% of PA's population but contributes 63% of PA's murders. Last year, that 350+ ballooned to almost 500. PA homicide rates have fallen in the last 30 years, amid an explosion in gun sales. The problem isn't guns in PA. The problem is Philadelphia, which already has strict gun control measures in place. They seem to be achieving the opposite of their intended purpose.
https://efsgv.org/state/pennsylvania/
https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-crime-levels-2019-shootings-homicides-police-20191230.html
This map makes it pretty clear. Gun safety laws are effective. CA, NY, CT have some of the strongest gun safety laws and the lowest rates of gun deaths. It's time for national bipartisan gun safety reform.
AIDS carriers kill about 15,000 Americans per year, statistically on a par with those killed by guns.
Do those who want to infringe the Constitutional rights of gun owners in order to "save lives" also want to abridge the rights of AIDS carriers by locking them up to save the lives of those the infect?
If not, why the inconsistency?
Great important factual information. Those who think gun control is the answer need to read this and digest the facts
I once read somewhere, that a man beat his wife to death with a frozen leg of lamb and then but it back in the freezer. The police couldn't find the murder weapon. It took them quite some time before the man finally fessed up to how he committed this dastardly deed. When we ban guns, let us all consider banning "frozen leg of lamb" or better yet...no more sheep. I just threw this at you to show how ridiculous some of the reasoning is when it comes to preventing deaths. If some one wants to kill themselves, they will find a way. Let's just hope it isn't by driving their car down the road at 100 miles an hour into another car coming their way. Like everything else, reasonable commonsense legislation should prevail.
You never see closing time shootings at the Lehigh Country Club.
There is never any gang-related gun violence at the Swain School.
I don't recall a single shooting in The Lehigh Parkway by one of its residents.
It would behoove us to know how many of these shootings were perpetrated by those who are, were, or have produced a child on welfare.
Perhaps gun ownership should be limited to net taxpayers of the productive class.
The numbers in this graph mean nothing, if this method of accounting is used. The larger the population, the lower the death rate per 100,000. Check NY and CA for a clue.
If the state adopts Philadelphia's "sensible gun control laws," can it expect the same disastrous results? The state should closely examine what Philadelphia is doing to curb gun violence. Then, it should immediately insure it's doing the opposite.
In would also bet that the vast majority of these crimes can attributed to Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Kansas City, Philadelphia, and another half dozen big cities. I would also bet that the majority of dead by murder are black and the offenders are of the same race. Chicago alone has more shootings and murders in a week than most states.
I think the nuance involved in the gun control debate is almost always lacking. This thread of comments does a great job of mentioning some of the complexities when discussing the statistics (7:12 & 8:54 especially!).
Its never just a matter of "gun deaths / total population = competency of your state's gun control policies." It is abundantly clear that poorer communities produce a disproportionate level of crime and violence. The best way to counter that historically has been GOOD police work. Defining "GOOD" police work isn't always a simple task, but taking away resources from our police never seems to be effective (defund the police). If we want to take this conversation to a serious place, banning or limiting the access to firearms almost never produces the intended results and almost always has unintended consequences.
Lets learn from our statistics and govern with more insight and intellect. Looking to the left to be the liberals of old to defend our inalienable rights given to us at birth to defend ourselves and protect ourselves from the threats of this world.
The right needs to be able to present better arguments than "Come and take them!" We can all act a little more mature then what has been paraded in front of us as "the new normal" of civil discourse.
Does the death per 100k include suicides?
7.12
"That's right. Philadelphia contains 12% of PA's population"
Philadelphia pop 2020--5.7 million
https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23098/philadelphia/population
Pa pop 2020--12.8 million
https://www.macrotrends.net/states/pennsylvania/population
So the numbers you cite appear to be at odds with reality
8.29
"AIDS carriers kill about 15,000 Americans per year, statistically on a par with those killed by guns."
Care to list the time a AIDS carrier walked into a school and mowed down the children?
Or a movie theater or food store?
perhaps an AIDS carrier took out a bunch of folks at a bible study meeting?
4:38
Try to think like an intelligent reader.
Deaths are deaths. If you want to infringe rights to prevent deaths, why do you only want to infringe the rights of one particular group? If you want to save 20K lives by infringing the rights of Americans at large, why don't you want to save 15K lives by infringing the rights of a much, much smaller group -- i.e. AIDS carriers? Why are the rights of AIDS carriers (who kill 15K annually) inherently greater than the Second Amendment rights of tens of millions (who kill 20K annually)?
Are you able to see the inconsistency in your "thinking," or are you only able to parrot the consensus of a rabble of dopey lefties?
By the way, sarcasm is really only effective for the intelligent and verbally stylish. You would do well to avoid it...
I believe gun owners should pay for licenses and insurance for each gun owned. Like we do for our drivers license, we pay for insurance for each car. How does that sound?
6:52
It sounds completely ignorant of Constitutional law.
Car ownership is not enshrined as a Constitutional right. Gun ownership is. "Shall not be infringed." How is that not obvious?
The city of Philadelphia has about 1.6 million people. The greater metropolitan area is 5.7.
6.38
Well restricting folks 2nd amendment rights currently exists-felons for example.
Try demanding to open carry on an airplane.etc
As to following the Constitution i agree a strict following of what the Founding fathers intended is the correct way, One can own as many single shot muskets as you want.
Aids carriers can be held responsible for their actions.
When one of the gun fanatics decides to shoot up a school the public gets to bear the cost.
The gun right defenders can claim that school children bleeding out from a AR means the kids died for freedom but hey deaths are just deaths right?
8.08
Yet the number claimed to have come from Philly does not mean everyone killed lived in Philly the 1.6 million figure. so the figure is misleading. the 5.7 figure is a more accurate figure when comparing an area with the entire state of PA.
However if you apply the realistic figure the argument posted loses it's effect.
Using the links provided Wayne and Fulton county have a very high level of gun deaths yet do not have any "strict gun policies".
The poster (7.12)is trying to argue an unknown.
How many lives were saved by strict gun policies in Philly?
No way of knowing.
However you could also argue that if Wayne and Fulton counties had strict gun policies more people would be alive just as well.
Again you cannot prove it.
"The city of Philadelphia has about 1.6 million people. The greater metropolitan area is 5.7."
Great point. It makes their level of violence and murder look even worse, when you look at it against the stark relief of those markedly safer counties that immediately surround it. Raising kids in Philly is an act of child abuse.
11:39
What can be proven is that the Constitution says, "Shall not be infringed."
It would seem you believe that current infringements justify further infringements, but that is likely the result of a poor education.
If you don't like guns, don't buy one, or move to a country without the Constitutional guarantee that exists in the U.S.
March 27, 2021 at 10:43 AM Anonymous said... the Constitution says, "Shall not be infringed... likely the result of a poor education.
The original constitution had only 7 articles. It's been amended 27 times as needs arised These 27 were not etched in stone by the right hand of God.
Four years after first written the 2nd amendment was added in 1791. In those days one used a horn to pour gunpowder into a musket. Tamp a lead ball and place flint in a rifle. It would be lucky if it even fired once before then enemy was upon them. Hence the bayonets.
Breech loading rifles didn't come into existence until the 1850's..The original framers could not imagine the kind of high powered semi-automatic weapons with 20+ round clips existing today. If they had they might have written the amendment quite differently. After 230 years we owe it to them and ourselves to take a serious re-examination.
BTW: Knock if off with this "poor education" bullshit.
10.43
You forgot about a well regulated militia.
Neither the 1st or 2nd amendments are unlimited.
If you want to consider someone screaming "fire" in a crowded theater an infringement you might want to look up the case law.
As to guns i own several yet have no need to cosplay special forces.
Responsible gun ownership is the goal playing "meal team six" is laughable.
Even Reagan said"that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
Almost all of the gun violence in Philadelphia is black on black crime. When I brought this up at work I was labeled a racist.
@6:43
Of course you were. This is the response of the low-IQ leftist. Generally, it is followed up with a shriek of some variation of "-ophobe!"
Heller.
If you think 2A is mushy and not etched in stone and you want it gone, I salute you. Now, stop flapping your gums over something and actually do it. Everyone knows how new amendments are passed. Stop threatening and put your boots on. It's an arduous process and you're not going to live to see the end of it. In fact, nobody will because 2A isn't going anywhere because most people don't want it to go anywhere and that's how democracies work.
Heller.
IGNORANCE is a replacement for low IQ and has no standing in the court of law. Hence, automatic and semi- automatic are two different things just like assault rifles, "automatic" and the bad black rifles sold to the public, "semi-automatic". Clearly two different things but certain types claim IGNORANCE of this fact by calling public owned bad black rifles assault riffles.
@LVCI Repeating rifles were invented in the late 1600's and for you to say the founding fathers lacked the foresight to be able to predict the continued evolution of weapon technology is absolutely ridiculous. To presume the intent and wisdom of the founding fathers is a level of ignorance I can barely comprehend. These men chose their wording so meticulously, to think that they meant anything BUT what was said is disingenuous and acting in bad faith.
I tend to side with the logic of taking the words at face value and literally.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Its clear (to me at least) that the founders wanted to make known the importance of the power in the hands of the people to protect themselves from tyrannical governments. A "well regulated" means well supplied & trained, not regulation in the legal regard.
"Shall not be infringed" is as black and white as can be.
Also the fact that it is the 2nd amendment shows what importance the founding fathers placed on it and what it meant to them.
So when people tell me to relax, its just a little gun control, I say nonsense. We are quite literally the most free country in the world when it comes to the right to defend ourselves. Why dont people value that level of freedom anymore and realize what benefits we have because of its existence.
We understand the 1st and 2nd amendments have their limits. Im not trying to buy and RPG or bring a gun on an airplane, because I know the consequences of firing a gun on a plane is almost always going to be more dire than the consequences brought on by the situation I am reacting to. Thats commonsense gun control. Removing 10 rd mags and semi auto rifles, when they make up less than 10% of homicides by gun is clearly just political opportunism and trying to advance an agenda.
This is the last point I will make on this rambling response. Gun control is a line in the sand that constitutionalists have drawn. If the federal government goes as far to say we arent respecting the 2nd amendment after they have trampled on the 1st and 4th, I have a feeling there will be unrest in this country the likes we have never seen. These are the days our founding fathers have warned us about and I think we are playing a game of political chicken. Neither side will steer out of the way and if we dont get off this collision course our country will fall from its position of global super power. Lets stop with the nonsense and get our house in order.
11:38 AM- Repeating rifles were invented in the late 1600's
No they weren't.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_rifle&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiSzrax09PvAhXNtlkKHaLmCtcQFjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0qadPGbDrX86ys6TiHVOQp
Apologies always welcome
To clarify. I do not consider a breech loading wheellock rifle from 1625 anything close to a repeating rifle. Take a look at THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO. Yes it can be armed more quickly but far from what I'd call repeating. It's a 4 step process before the trigger can be used to fire it..
@1:44
Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker was the first to produce repeating rifles in the late 1600s -- breech loaders, so he can certainly lay claim to pioneering the technology.
By denying that, are you ludicrously claiming that you have an argument for the Second Amendment being violated, or do you just enjoy the trivial "reasoning" so common among ignorant leftists?
Once again, you're proving to be poorly educated and hardly qualified to dictate the infringement of others' rights.
the problem with gun laws is the politicians and others who milk the idiots for their money over it. This is one of those hotspot things that gets everyone to open their wallets and make millions of dollars of uncontrolled donations to who they happen to support. I think it is all about taking money more then it has ever been about taking or not taken our guns.
The reality is less people die from guns in a year then cars even though you need a registrations, licenses, insurance, etc. to own and drive a car.
In many states you need none of that to have a firearm of any type.
The reverse is that we as a society do not want to do what we have to to deal with many of the people that are the root cause of the gun issue. If we were to address that portion of it for those of a small portion of the country many things that get publicized would be reduced. And then the next step would be to harshly penalize those for committing gun related crimes. And we only selectively do that type of thing.
Both sides cry the blues and are fed a spew of crap to get them to open their wallets.
Post a Comment