Loose gun laws, high crime cities?

Everyone tell us that the looser the gun laws are, the safer society will be.

If a city requires no gun permits or doesn't limit what kind of guns you can own, the people will be armed and safer.

And yet there are a TON of cities in Conservative states that have very loose gun laws, but also VERY high murder rates?

How is this? I thought loose gun laws=safer society?

St. Louis
Baton Rouge
Kansas City
Memphis
Mobile
Indianapolis
Tulsa
Atlanta
Nashville
Greensboro
Louisville
Des Moines
Las Vegas
Dallas
Jacksonville
Houston
Oklahoma City

They ALL have murder rates above 10 per 100,000

why is their murder rate soo high when they have "gun freedom"??

hmmm?

 

The state of Arizona, which is a cc state, has a murder rate of 4.5 and a 'gun' murder rate of 2.5

 

You can look at every one of those cities and you will find the high murder rates in the black sections.

 

Ronnie, any higher insidence of gang activity in those cities? Just askin'

 

I know that has happened in Tulsa. It used to be a great city.

 

For the same reason Chicago has a high murder rate.

 

OP, you're cherry pickin' your stats.

I live in a state with greater than 50% gun ownership. That state also has one of the lowest gun murder rates in the US.

LOW

hmmm?

 

All those cities are controlled by Democrats.

It's almost as if Democrats and crime are related to one another.

 

They key word in your analysis should be 'city', not 'gun' or 'law.'

It doesn't matter where you go in America: violence is far lower per capita in low population density areas (ruralia). Most of the people spouting 'more guns = less crime' live in these low pop density areas where its true- the fear of getting shot and buried in some rednecks back 40 keeps the urbanite prowlers and troublemakers out of the rednecks back 40 ...and in urbania. I don't think theres any force on earth that's going to decrease the violence associated with too many people living in too small of an area (urbania). I do believe 'more guns = less crime' out here in the sticks. I don't believe its true in the city. What the city should do about this- I've no idea, that's why I left. I think urbania is F'ed no matter what. Too many rats always eat eachother. I suspect they want to ban my guns so little tommy gangbanger will spread his crime spree outside the city limits, and spread the misery around. I moved out here to get away from little tommy gangbangers BS, so I can tell you its not going to happen. Frankly, if cities want to ban guns, I won't fight it, even though its blatantly unconstitutional- 'not my circus, not my monkeys.' If folks are gonna live stacked up on eachother like that, reveling in their insanity, so be it. Let the insane asylum govern itself. Just leave me the F out of it.

 

One can selectively chose to create the case for most anything- and you have.

Oakland California- solid in anti-gun territory- has a murder rate of 16.3.
Peoria Illinois rate is 19.5, and Illinois gun laws are extensive, anti-owner or carry and toughest in the nation.
Chicago is worse, at 20.7
San Bernardino California is at 22.5

None of them are gun-friendly.

Nationwide, the murder rate declined by 6.2% from 2017 to 2018. Overall, the condition is improving, not declining.

Of course, we have been conducting an all-out war on drugs for 50 years- and last year, around 80,000 people died from drug overdose, much higher than gun deaths. Seems we don't really know how to control anything very well, and make poor choices when we try.

Murder is not an act of a gun- but of a person. The culture and disposition of a people in any given area will equate to their propensity for violence.
It IS a people problem, and that will not be altered much by gun laws- but it will be altered by consequence. IF you as a criminal believe that you would be shot dead attempting a home invasion, you won't become law-abiding as a result, but very likely will probably look for a safer kind of criminal activity. Guns are a tool. How they are used is totally dependent on whose hands they are in. Good guys with guns can indeed stop bad guys with guns. It is backwards to attempt to disarm and limit the good guys and do nothing about the bad guys, just because that's harder to do.
But there is no question- it is people who kill people. They do not choose to kill because a gun is available, because their are all kinds of weapons available all the time.
The weapon is an issue of choice, not the source of the motivation.

But Consequences DO affect motivation.

California felt burdened with the cost of incarcerating people who commit lesser crimes- so to cut prison costs, they changed the laws. They increased the threshold between petty larceny grand theft, and made the penalty a fine without jail time. So- shoplifting became much more profitable with less consequence, and the level of it exploded. Most petty thefts are never investigated, just noted and filed. However there is a gun-related effect here. IF a criminal steals a gun in California and it's worth less than $950 (most are) the fine for that crime will often be less than the value of the gun- and the person who stole it will still be on the streets..... stealing guns. Same consequence as stealing a TV, but far more profitable. Now we know that a stolen gun is far more likely to be in the hands of dangerous people, far more likely to be used for new crimes or violence than a legitimately owned gun, so WHY would you allow any gun thief to get by with a slap on the wrist? ANY gun theft should be a felony, and should be actively investigated. That would have impact- on crime and criminals. You know what? They aren't interested in that. It would require active investigation and prosecution and incarceration- and that would cost money. Better that California save a buck than prevent crime- including murder. Easier to pass laws restricting law-abiding citizens with no malicious intent, and say you are doing something good to save the world.

This is all about how people think- How, not what; because How is the underlying mental process that controls the what. It's hard to change, but far more important. This is why we have people who simply can't separate the guns from the people who misuse them, and blame the gun over the offender. It's also why we can't end the drug issues and crime issues; so many of us can't bring ourselves to see them accurately, so we grab whatever illusion sounds good.

Fix the people problem- and you won't have a "gun problem". Fix the gun problem, and the homicidal maniacs will be just as many as before- killing with whatever is convenient at the time.
The only common and consistent thread through all murders and violence is violent or disturbed PEOPLE.

 

black people/black culture

Sorry, but reality is the ultimate racist.

 

Yeah, that's common sense. Just look at the wanted posters and the prison population. Even a fifth grader, a vision impaired, or a cave man can see that. But I don't care about the stats, I care about guns in my home and in my vehicle for my protection from the human predators among us. Personal safety first, we have the second amendment for a reason and it has worked since 1791. A man has the right to protect his castle.

 

I don't know who said that. But I know that easier arms procurement leads to more gun violence.

 

And easier knife procurement to more knife violence.
Physical strength training to more physical violence?

This could be a long list. However, if we can control the violence in people the availability of guns, knives or even physical strength will not be relevant at all.
The people who are violent are the common denominator- no violence occurs until they chose to do so and the choice of weapon or process is always secondary to that choice to use violence.

 

Sounds about right. But it's great to have such a freedom. Look at the millions of people who are wanting to live in our great country. You could also say "that easier vehicle procurement leads to more vehicle deaths". "that easier drug procurement leads to more drug related deaths". "that easier food procurement leads to more obesity". A free society, which melds with human nature, also carries risks and responsibility, even hardships and dangers.

 

Sounds right too, but you forgot that the benefits of firearms and drugs are very small compared to the damage you can do with them. Guns are only useful in hunting and law enforcement, whereas everyone needs cars and knives.

So there are good reasons why anyone can use knives and cars. This is not the case with drugs and guns.

 

I don’t own a “car” but use firearms a few times a week. . I’m not LE and I don’t hunt. You’re operating from a completely false premise.

 

Chicago has VERY strong gun laws.

I thought loose gun laws= safer society.

I guess not.

 

Then you obviously have a rare job or give yourself to a rare hobby.

 

they haven't passed strong gun laws.

the cities in Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, Nevada, Iowa, ALL have loose gun laws.

so its good we can now ALL agree that just because a society has loose gun laws, doesn't guarantee its a safer place to be.

 

What's about the so-called "Israel"? Settlers often use assault rifles to kill native inhabitants. Is this by law or do they act criminally?

 

There was a city or county in Georgia that passed a law that all citizens must possess a gun. That info was posted for all to see. The crime rate went down.

 

so, since we have established that loose gun laws do not guarantee safety, and strong gun laws also do not guarantee safety, maybe we can find some common ground as to which gun laws actually are smart and which ones are useless

 

NYC has strengthened its gun laws over the last 30 years.

murder rate has plummeted

 

You mean Kennesaw ...
The Devil went down to Georgia ...