Hey, there! Log in / Register

Imagine that: State with tough gun-control laws well below national average for gun deaths

The Globe reports that "Massachusetts, with its strict laws, has about 70 percent fewer gun deaths than the national average."

Topics: 
Free tagging: 

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

Comments

Uh.... we have better hospitals and are the most violent state in New England.

Look at the injury rate. Not the death rate.

up
Voting closed 0

Gun deaths are highly and inversely coorelated with the strictness of gun laws. It's not just Mass. It's everywhere.

In other news, the sky is blue and the sun rises in the east. Early results are that the pope is in fact Catholic.

up
Voting closed 0

Unfortunately:

Chicago
http://heyjackass.com/

&

Washington, D.C.

beg to differ

up
Voting closed 0

Congratulations - all you've managed to say is that little "R" republicanism is a problematic political system when you're in a large area that's basically a free trade zone.

up
Voting closed 0

So stating any inconvenient truth makes you a republican? Well sheeeeeeeiiiiiiit!

up
Voting closed 0

If you don't know what the difference is between little "R" republican and big "R" Republican, just ask. Like, you know that we all live in a republic but aren't necessarily Republicans, right? No, you obviously don't.

up
Voting closed 0

Pointing out Chicago and Baltimore gun violence rate makes you a Republican with an R in giant 72 point font?

up
Voting closed 0

Sorry if you're dyslexic, but that's the opposite of what I said. Quoting for accuracy:

all you've managed to say is that little "R" republicanism is a problematic political system when you're in a large area that's basically a free trade zone.

up
Voting closed 0

Our violent assult rate is above average. Larceny is above average. The only unusual thing about MA is the largest city, Boston, a big American city, has an unusually low murder rate compared to comparable cities in the northeast, south, midwest. But, it has above average violent assault.

This suggests, among other things, that victims of violent assaults, including attempted murder, by gun or something else, survive here in Boston and MA at a rate higher than the national average.

BTW: it's still very easy here for a law breaker (AKA criminal ) to get a firearm. The only people who might have a hard time legally obtaining firearms are defacto law abiding citizens, especially in the City of Boston.

up
Voting closed 0

Brookline, Lowell, and Watertown are FAR WORSE than Boston. Boston has a pointless unenforced AWB ban meant to intimidate legal owners, the infamous Moon Island exam which pointlessly has to be repeated every renewal, and restricts most licenses, but the city doesn't dick around and not issue licenses to qualified people. Nor has the city attempted to harass or shut down the one gun club within the city limits, which can't be said for other towns.

Those other cities & towns used to get away with blanket denying poor minorities in those towns until the state changed the law to require a written reason for denial. Qualified people were denied just because the PD could get away with it. "What are you going to do, sue us?" Even getting an appointment (which if you could even get one would be months down the road) for an application interview was turned into a game until towns started getting sued by civil rights organizations for treating people like garbage.

Amusingly Cambridge, Newton, Weston, and Wellesley are less strict than Boston. There's a lot of bigotry in these laws toward immigrants, minorities, and the poor. If you aren't white, a doctor, lawyer, politician, banker, or businessman with ~15k in cash deposits no civil rights for you in the wrong city or town.

up
Voting closed 0

Are you sure you didn't mean 15m?

up
Voting closed 0

You don't need a gun.

If only such requirements were put on those who have a driving license! Retest! Yes!

up
Voting closed 0

If I don't need a gun, you don't need free speech.

up
Voting closed 0

You don't see the problem with an unelected official (chief of police) arbitrarily deciding who the second amendment applies to? The idea that -- after a background check and state-mandated safety course -- your eligibility for licensure is based on your zip code doesn't seem silly?

Who's to decide who "needs" a gun anyway?

up
Voting closed 0

Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.

up
Voting closed 0

but I get to have one anyway.

I don't need to vote either. But I get to anyway.

I don't really need to procreate, but ...you get the idea.

up
Voting closed 0

They'd beg to differ!

up
Voting closed 0

So do Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Minnesota, Oregon, and Iowa.

up
Voting closed 0

If a person wants a gun, they'll find a way to get one regardless of gun control laws.

up
Voting closed 0

not "regardless of."

up
Voting closed 0

That's a tired old argument.

up
Voting closed 0

Because it continues to be completely true.

up
Voting closed 0

Bad people will always find a way to be bad. Our task, as a society, should be to ensure that there are sane laws in place to ensure that idiots and crazies can't easily also find a way to be bad. The government is supposed to govern.

If you don't like living as a civilized person in society, go to Syria or split off and form your own horrible country and leave the rest of us alone. Fondle all the guns you want. No one will miss you.

up
Voting closed 0

Civilized society means not conditioning the rights of free citizens on the misbehaviors of the marginal elements.

That means we all get to drive a car even though some small number haven't figured out how not to run red lights for a living.

up
Voting closed 0

For someone who loves criticizing arguments, you sure didn't pull any punches with that strawman.

I like our civilized society and pointed out that not everyone is civilized. It's always been that way and isn't likely to change soon. Can't tell if you missed that out of an honest lapse in comprehension, or a stubborn desire to show how "right" you are by disagreeing with points that were never made.

up
Voting closed 0

1. First anon trots out the old "if someone wants a gun, they'll get one whether or not there are laws against it" talking point.
2. I say that's a tired argument.
3. Second anon (you?) says it's tired because it's true.
4. Now, perhaps this is a bit of a jump - a "lapse," as you call it - but it seems to me that the point the second anon was making was that bad people will try to get guns with or without laws and regulations, so why bother making laws and regulations. I find that line of thinking to be anathematic to living in civilized society, and I have little more than contempt for those who uphold it. You are welcome to your own opinion, of course, but this is mine.

up
Voting closed 0

In the case of guns on Boston streets; from New Hampshire, Virgina, Illinois, and Tenessee.

Criminals on both ends ignore our gun laws and import them from states where they give them away for opening a checking account.

up
Voting closed 0

"....Only the criminals will have guns...."

In the end, having strict laws means we have less people killed by guns. That is the goal and it has worked.

up
Voting closed 0

There's already enough guns out there to kill the entire US population many times over. We need tougher goon control laws, not gun control laws. You can ban gun sales outright and it won't make any difference whatsoever - people will get shot with older, scratched up guns instead of shiny new ones, but I don't think it would matter all that much to them.

up
Voting closed 0

will save us from the impending Kenyan communist conspiracy to take away our guns and poison our precious bodily fluids.

up
Voting closed 0

it's impossible to own a firearm without hoisting the stars-n-bars.

Just like it's impossible to own a Koran without having a bomb strapped to your chest.

Just like it's impossible to own a motor vehicle without drinking the blood of cyclists (children, of course) for breakfast.

up
Voting closed 0

Is this intended to be a response to Mr. Buick's comment, or to some other comment? Because it doesn't seem at all related, in form or content.

up
Voting closed 0

Tourettes.

up
Voting closed 0

Wealthy, mostly white states are well below national average for gun deaths.

up
Voting closed 0

Citation needed.

up
Voting closed 0

Ok Adam "Bernine" Gaffin...

up
Voting closed 0

I'm really not much more than a Berseven, maybe a Bereight on a good day.

up
Voting closed 0

It really has nothing to do with gun laws. The majority of gun deaths (usually 65%-70% nationally depending on the year) result from suicide, not criminal activity. Massachusetts has a lower than average suicide rate compared to other states. This alone will account for the lower amount of gun deaths compared to other states on a per capita basis. It has nothing at all to gun laws.

This article is a classic use of a misleading statistic to push a political opinion.

up
Voting closed 0

Many suicides are impulse decisions. Similar to installing fences along bridges to deter jumpers, required waiting periods may reduce suicides as people struggling with depression who do not already own firearms, are not able to go right out and buy one.

up
Voting closed 0

We have a total ban on illegal drugs. Doesn't seem to stop people from making, acquiring, using, and too often killing themselves with them.

More laws and prohibition aren't a solution to a people problem which can't be solved legislatively.

up
Voting closed 0

It's illegal too, and yet people keep getting murdered. Should we repeal that law?

up
Voting closed 0

There's a huge difference between making an object illegal and making an activity illegal.

up
Voting closed 0

Possessing an object is an activity.

up
Voting closed 0

Do we need to ban every possible implement for committing murder when murder is already a crime?

up
Voting closed 0

Your argument is bogus. Gun fetishists fight even the slightest controls on purchase, sale, and possession of guns.

Even legal drugs have availability restrictions - prescriptions, regulated sales of alcohol and tobacco, etc.

up
Voting closed 0

Lol, do you have any idea the thousands of pages of gun legislation which exist in this state and federally?

up
Voting closed 0

You might not like them, but this is the real picture of gun death from actual numbers and not from your "just so" imagination.

http://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths

up
Voting closed 0

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

Number of deaths: 33,804
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

33,807 motor vehicle deaths - Blame the driver because I like my car!
33,636 firearms deaths - Blame the gun because I don't own one!

up
Voting closed 0

... it doesn't bother you that cars have a use, but guns are not necessary for most of the population?

That's some pretty special "logic" you got there, son.

up
Voting closed 0

I love these apples and oranges arguments. So I will go there: One could argue that cars are a necessity for many Americans to get to jobs, for one instance, and owning a gun is, in general, not. And, yes, people will die driving or being hit by cars. This still does not negate that whatever stats you may pull up to boost your argument regarding "Wow, Shirley, cars do indeed kill people!" the fact remains that the states with stricter gun laws have fewer deaths by guns.

Facts are indeed stubborn things.

up
Voting closed 0

and they cause global warming, which will kill us all! The end is near! Head for the hills!

You should ride an electric scooter instead. That's perfectly good. Only I get to decide who actually has a legitimate need for a car.

Also, speech isn't necessary. Most people are too boorish and unenlightened, and commit a micro-aggression per second when running their mouths. Not to mention that some of them disagree with The Dear Leader. So only I get to decide whether or not you're really allowed to publish that letter to the editor or forum post.

Isn't it great to live in a society where only the people who *deserve* their rights get them?

up
Voting closed 0

You're on a mission to deploy as many logical fallacies as possible. Best of luck with it.

up
Voting closed 0

You run one of the best news sites for Boston, why cheapen yourself with Salon-level headlines?
You fail to understand the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That is okay, but if you're seeking to report on such things, do your readers a service by actually researching, not regurgitating misleading statistics which suit your narrative.

Have you ever shot a firearm? If you have any desire to understand the subject you feel so passionately about, why don't you take the required course for firearm ownership in Massachusetts?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not sure how a headline about reduced gun deaths here somehow shows I'm against the Second Amendment, or why reasonable people shouldn't be allowed to interpret what it means differently (yes, I will admit we would disagree on the meaning of "a well regulated militia").

If you really believe your Second Amendment rights are being infringed upon in Massachusetts, sue. I'm sure GOAL and other groups would be more than happy to bankroll you.

I have no desire to own a gun, so no interest in learning how to use one, thanks. I don't know how to drive a subway train, either, does that mean I should stop complaining about the T?

up
Voting closed 0

there's only so much that can be learned about any topic from the outside.

To go with your example: I've never driven a subway train either, but I have designed and built control systems and operating procedures for heavy moving machinery, so I can talk with more authority about the redline runaway than I could have before I did that. Because the unknown unknown is a real thing, not just a bit of Rumsfeld Rhetorical Relish.

Similarly, I did take the firearms training about a year ago, even though I didn't intend on obtaining a permit or a weapon at the time, and still don't. And now I can make statements that rely less on preconceptions and more on concrete hands-on experience.

For example, I know (as opposed to believe), that a suitably-designed firearm can be placed into a verifiably unloaded and therefore safe state from which it is impossible for it to accidentally discharge. I also have hands-on experience unloading a gun and verifying that it is safe. This knowledge overrides a prior belief (and fear) that gun= always danger.

So, how can I convince you that guns aren't uniformly dangerous if you yourself haven't had that common experience which I could invoke as the context for any such conversation? I can't, because if you haven't handled a firearm yourself, the only thing I can ask you to do is to "take my word for it" which isn't a very satisfying strategy for making headway in a debate, is it now? Now, you can take the gun class and still come out the other end believing that people shouldn't be allowed to have them, but unless you weren't paying attention, your position won't be motivated by ignorance, and I won't be assuming that your position is motivated by ignorance.

up
Voting closed 0

Because Roman has seen with his own eyes that guns can be rendered safe by unloading them, that means that all guns are safe. They can also be rendered safe by leaving them disassembled, but nobody does that either.

At this point, Roman is using his very limited personal experience to deny the reality that guns should always be considered dangerous unless they are in pieces. I have previously linked to numerous stories of policemen, gun-safety instructors, gun-range masters and the like accidentally shooting their students, their colleagues, and themselves. One gun-safety instructor shot two of his students in separate incidents. These people are the experts in gun-handling, and with tragic frequency they fail to handle the things safely. Why should I trust some random stranger within range of me carrying a machine that is made for killing?

up
Voting closed 0

that you should (or shouldn't) trust the random stranger driving two tons of metal at highway speeds when you're on the highway: Lots of things are very dangerous, but you implicitly assume that all random strangers aren't ravenous idiots just itching to draw blood.

And what reality am I denying exactly?

How is it that an unloaded gun can hurt someone? I suppose you could bash a man real good with it, but you can do that with a brick, and those are sold to whoever wants to buy one. But then again, they aren't (gasp!) guns (clutch pearls!), so we don't have any emotionalism to drive the conversation on that one.

up
Voting closed 0

Cars are dangerous, yes. That is not why people use them, though. With guns, their danger is the only reason people carry them. If they were harmless, no one would want them. I don't assume that all the people carrying are "itching to draw blood," but whatever their desires, their devices' only purpose is to injure and kill, and they are extremely effective at that. All too often, whether intentionally or otherwise, gun owners demonstrate that effectiveness, and people are injured and killed.

What you are denying is the inherent and obvious hazard that guns present.

Exactly how do you know that any gun, other than one you have just cleared, is unloaded? How does anyone else know that that gun is unloaded? Did your gun safety course not tell you to treat every gun as a loaded gun? OF COURSE THEY DID. That most certainly includes any gun held by someone else. The only way you can be certain of a gun being harmless is if it's disassembled.

All the emotion is on your end. I like elegant mechanisms, and many guns are that, but I am also very aware of their inherent risk. I have qualified on various firearms, have seen what they do to human beings, and have read extensive accounts of their creating tragedy, even when carried by highly-trained experts. (If you don't believe me, search "gun-safety instructor accidental shooting" or just go here.) I'm really glad if you don't actually own a gun; the attitudes you display here tell me you shouldn't.

up
Voting closed 0

First, your headline, and the article, falsely connect "strict" gun laws with fewer deaths.

Second, it's not that my rights are being significantly infringed, it's that I filled out the forms to have legal arms here, which were already purchased legally elsewhere. Having done that I understand that these mindless bureaucratic rubber stamps (and fees) do nothing to make me or anyone else safer.

Your analogy is flawed. If you want to write about gun laws, you should know what gun laws actually do, which is to create minor inconveniences for law abiding citizens, whilst being disregarded by criminals.

up
Voting closed 0