Hey, there! Log in / Register

Go figure: States with stronger gun laws have lower rates of firearm deaths

And the lowest of them all is Massachusetts, according to data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control.

Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

up
Voting closed 0

A smug liberal is berating me for not being a liberal! The horror!

up
Voting closed 0

Just because you disagree doesn't make it about you.

up
Voting closed 0

First major gun legislation in Florida in over 20 years. Passed with bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition.

  • Raised age to buy a gun in Florida from 18-21
  • Bans bump stocks
  • State funded mental health services
  • Probably will put more guns in schools, not teachers but other staff

The law does not;

  • Close gun show loophole
  • Ban assault weapons
  • Ban large capacity magazines

The NRA is suing Florida in federal court over the new law.

up
Voting closed 0

Please see every major city.....

up
Voting closed 0

We're far from perfect, but in instances like this I'm proud to live in MA!

up
Voting closed 0

This graph is totally misleading - the glaring omission is that the majority of those states falling "below the national average" have the highest concentrations of population centers and represent a majority of gun deaths per year nationally. Sorry, but if I go to Alaska, I'm not looking over my shoulder waiting to get help up.

Strong gun laws in Massachusetts do not keep guns off the street when they come (illegally) from other states with lax laws. I support strong gun laws here - and nationally, and until something is done nationally, CRIMINALS will get still get guns. NOTE: Legal MA gun owners are NOT THE PROBLEM - as much as they are being vilified currently.

"Strong gun laws" in Chicago certainly didn't help the 750+ killed last year alone - or the 3K+ in California. DC had an outright ban on handguns for years - how did that go?

I salute those who are taking up the fight in the wake of recent school shootings, but the problem is much larger than "assault rifles". Its lax gun laws from state to state, our culture, and failure to harshly prosecute for violation of the laws already on the books. The reality is that only around 3% of gun deaths occur by rifle yearly - so to come out and say that nuts with ARs are the problem is just shortsighted, and a weak argument when you look at real data.

It's much larger, more complicated, and more difficult to address. Hopefully, we can work to fix it in our lifetimes. Change will need to start with actual legal gun owners - demanding reform and more uniform laws. The NRA does not care for the opinion of someone that has nothing to do with the gun industry - they care about $ and their members.

up
Voting closed 0

This is a very well thought out comment. And very true. I’m a police officer in the city and sadly, I couldn’t believe this study when I saw it. I’ve been to more than a few homicides during my 10 plus year career and I have never had to collect shell casings from an AR-15. It’s always been deaths where the perpetrators have used (probably illegally obtained) handguns. Does that mean I think that every citizen should have access to assault style weapons? Nope. And I fear the threat of a mass shooting as much as the next person, but the probability is incredibly high that the next homicide I respond to will be committed by a suspect using a handgun.

We need our judges to enforce the laws we already have. They aren’t at all and these gun crimes are being committed by the same people over and over again.

Side note: if Boston is one of the “safest” cities in America when it comes to gun violence, I can’t begin to imagine what it’s like in Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit. Because for a certain population, Boston is not safe at all, and I have seen too much violence just as a cop to label even this place a safe city. Parts of America are a complete war zone.

up
Voting closed 0

From reading the comments on previous gun stories I've learned guns can only make us safer, the police are useless, and that everyone who is unarmed is choosing to be murdered. So to claim lower gun ownership equals less firearms death has got to be a mistake, or more likely, liberal media conspiracy.

/sarcasm

up
Voting closed 0

I believe the term you are looking for is "Fake News"

up
Voting closed 0

Yet another area where republicans are complete failures. Look at how bad all the red states are doing on that list. I'm proud to live in a state with common sense gun laws and where politicians haven't prostituted themselves to gun companies.

up
Voting closed 0

Wow, even when looking at death data some people can't help but politicize the issue. Newsflash - the states that are "doing good"? (based on your assessment) account for the majority of the overall gun deaths - like far and away.

To get things done (like national uniform laws and background check processes) it will take both parties - finger pointing is what helped lead us to our current situation.

Also - in case you don't know, Massachusetts is home to the largest gun manufacturer in the country S&W (AOB) - and our state/local reps are plenty happy to have there here.

up
Voting closed 0

Citations needed.

up
Voting closed 0

Sorry bud but your not going to be able to brush off republicans role in this problem. Your leader is literally telling people to watch out or democrats will "take away your Second Amendment."

Are you going to try to tell us that the NRA doesn't prefer the Republican party?

There is no logic to saying that because a gun manufacturer exists in Massachusetts, that therefore Democrats are equally culpable in our lack of movement toward gun reform.

Here's to pointing a big fat finger right at you.

up
Voting closed 0

The things I would have to do to bring my heirloom weapons into the state are farcical.

They could do with an overhaul by people who know what they are talking about - particularly since you should be able to have older weapons (and no permit to buy ammo for them).

But MA is way ahead on making people keep them locked up, locked away, and out of reach of children.

up
Voting closed 0

what has kept us from having any mass-shootings here in the Bay State.

up
Voting closed 0

Even those intending to use rifles and shotguns were quickly overpowered.

The reality is that MA is tough on AR-15 and other military weapons of mass destruction. That makes it harder for somewhat disorganized or juvenile people to get ahold of them.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't know how many but because the AR15 design is now way over 50 many of them fall under curio and relic status, meaning that, yes, some shootings popularly attributed to modern or state-of-the-art firearms may have actually been committed with antiques. More and more will continue to enter this category as they age out of the system. As a remedy for the widespread ignorance of guns as a topic among those wishing to promote policies on it, I recommend they join a local shooting club and attend meetings regularly, or subscribe to American Rifleman magazine and read up.

up
Voting closed 0

Next thing you're gonna tell me that countries with strong road safety laws, enforcement and infrastructure have lower car related deaths.

up
Voting closed 0

Remember we need to fear brown people with guns but not fear these people. Cue the dueling banjos:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/03/07/tennessee-republicans-c...

up
Voting closed 0

Demographics have more to do with it than laws. VT, NH, and ME have virtually no laws yet have even lower rates of crime and firearm related deaths than MA.

Poverty tends to lead to more crime with firearms and more suicide with firearms. New England is relatively wealthy compare to the rest of the country.

MA's rate of deaths by firearm has also been increasing faster than any other state in New England since 1998. Something the commonwealth should not be proud of.

up
Voting closed 0

MA's rate of deaths by firearm has also been increasing faster than any other state in New England since 1998. Something the commonwealth should not be proud of.

up
Voting closed 0

Mass resident and gun owner. I would be thrilled to see Massachusetts gun laws applied Federally. There's nothing onerous or unreasonable in statute or rule, that I can see. And per the CDC, hey, it actually seems to work! It's an entirely reasonable model that allows gun owners functional access and should make non-gun owners feel unthreatened. At lease by legal gun owners.

And I would go one step further--I would limit capacity to 5 rounds in all long guns and six in all handguns. Buy back or pay for modifying any firearm that doesn't comply.

up
Voting closed 0

The lowest violent crime rates and gun related violent crime in America.

We have an overwhelming problem with gun violence in overwhelmingly urban areas. Mass school shootings, you say? Still, statistically, rare and on a yearly basis account for a tiny fraction of murders and gun related violence.

up
Voting closed 0

Gun deaths are higher in areas with denser populations. But since you can't limit guns to just those living in remote areas the only way to lower gun deaths overall is to tightly control who can legally purchase them.

up
Voting closed 0

Vermont has NY on one side, Canada on another, and Massachusetts on a third. All have strict gun laws. NH and Maine have less restrictive laws, but little market to bring in the big guns, as it were.

Cuts down on the availability of certain weapons even if they are legal.

up
Voting closed 0

Sensationalist, misleading headline. What people care most about are gun laws that reduce criminal deaths and child accident deaths, not all types.

Do these gun laws reduce suicides, accidental deaths, or murders the best?

Illinois has background checks, but rampant murders in Chicago. Mass has strict laws, but gang members still kill each other, and sometimes, unfortunate innocent bystanders.

Flu and pneumonia still kill more Americans than guns, but that's not so sensational. Yet only hospitals force workers to get flue shots.

up
Voting closed 0

You may not care about that, but a lot of people do care about it. It actually isn't a case of "will find some other way" - guns make it quick and easy for impulsive or intoxicated people to blow their own heads off.

up
Voting closed 0

That would explain why the US suicide rate is on par with Western European countries with much stricter gun laws. Fewer gun suicides but roughly similar suicide rate overall.

Then there is Japan, with a suicide rate exceeding the US homicide rate...

up
Voting closed 0

If you control for access to guns, you only control one factor. Suicide in Japan has never had the social stigma that it has in the United States.

up
Voting closed 0

is firearm deaths per rate of firearm ownership.

If that is roughly constant, then you will expect lower gun ownership states to have lower mortality from firearms and states with higher ownership rates to have higher mortality rates. Here's something that comes close:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_b...

Some of the numbers look a little out-of-date but:

Massachusetts: (1.8 gun murders / 100k) / (22.6pct ownership) = .08
Arkansas: (3.2 gun murders / 100k) / (57.9pct ownership) = .06
Idaho: (0.8 gun murders / 100k) / (56.9pct ownership) = .01
New Hampshire:(0.4 gun murders / 100k) / (14.4pct ownership) = .03
Texas: (3.2 gun murders/ 100k) / ( 35.7pct ownership) = .09

Conclusion: Arkansas has more guns than Massachusetts but lower rates of murder per gun than Massachusetts. Maybe it means it's just certain massholes and certain Texans that can't be trusted with guns and everyone else is just fine doing their thing.

Or one could look at other demographic breakdowns and conclude that Massachusetts skews young and professional, which is not a likely breeding ground for murderers to begin with, etc etc etc. But that wouldn't support the narrative.

up
Voting closed 0

Clearly this much more convoluted reasoning is a better explanation than more guns = more gun deaths.

"Or one could look at other demographic breakdowns and conclude that Massachusetts skews young and professional, which is not a likely breeding ground for murderers to begin with, etc etc etc. But that wouldn't support the narrative."

Or you could do a little research and see that MA and every other New England state are among the 12 oldest states in average age of residents.

But yes the narrative that more guns in people's hands results in more gun deaths is just so farfetched, such a forced narrative. I don't even understand how someone could come to that conclusion in the first place.

up
Voting closed 0

What's more likely: gun owners are all alike or gun owners are not all alike?

up
Voting closed 0

And other methods of separating the "good" owners from the bad ones.

We agree that's a good way to lower fatalities.

up
Voting closed 0

Why were you ever under the impression I was against background checks?

up
Voting closed 0

New Hampshire is the safest state to live in in the country.

New Hampshire has the most permissive gun laws in the country. (Optional shall-issue carry license, no state-level restrictions on ownership of anything, no restriction on open carry.)

But keeping looking for those correlation/causation relationships to make your point.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes when I think about low firearms deaths I never think of Chicago or Los Angels. Also, many cities with more lenient gun laws have a more reasonable climate so the criminals are out and about most months instead of the 3 warm months New England has..

up
Voting closed 0