Warning to American Firearm Owners for Canadian News Anchor

[ThatRobGuy]

Gun laws don't have a high correlation with reduced or increased murder rates at the state level.

100% correct

However, now that you've posted this, prepare for backlash from both sides of the political spectrum

There's this set of statistics as well that deal gun violence specifically as it pertains to the gun ownership rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

...and again, like you mentioned for the other set of statistics, there's no correlation.

The highest gun ownership rate in the nation is Wyoming (not Texas, much to the surprise of many I'm sure), and they have a gun homicide rate that's pretty much on par with Euro nations. However, right next to them is Alaska with the 2nd highest ownership rate in the nation, yet their murder rate is 3x that of Wyoming.

If you look at the opposite end of the spectrum, the lowest ownership rate is D.C....and they blow everyone out of the water in terms of high murder rate...not even a close 2nd.... However, the 2nd lowest ownership rate is Hawaii, and their murder rate is very low.

If you sort the data by gun ownership rate, the murder rate is completely random, there's no correlative trend one way or the other.

...and typically, data like that creates a strong temptation for people on both sides to cherry pick, since no matter what their stance is, there's always 4-5 states that fit their narrative, so they base their arguments on those 4-5 states, and throw out the rest of the data to try to make their point.

 

[Vylo]

100% correct

However, now that you've posted this, prepare for backlash from both sides of the political spectrum

There's this set of statistics as well that deal gun violence specifically as it pertains to the gun ownership rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

...and again, like you mentioned for the other set of statistics, there's no correlation.

The highest gun ownership rate in the nation is Wyoming (not Texas, much to the surprise of many I'm sure), and they have a gun homicide rate that's pretty much on par with Euro nations. However, right next to them is Alaska with the 2nd highest ownership rate in the nation, yet their murder rate is 3x that of Wyoming.

If you look at the opposite end of the spectrum, the lowest ownership rate is D.C....and they blow everyone out of the water in terms of high murder rate...not even a close 2nd.... However, the 2nd lowest ownership rate is Hawaii, and their murder rate is very low.

If you sort the data by gun ownership rate, the murder rate is completely random, there's no correlative trend one way or the other.

...and typically, data like that creates a strong temptation for people on both sides to cherry pick, since no matter what their stance is, there's always 4-5 states that fit their narrative, so they base their arguments on those 4-5 states, and throw out the rest of the data to try to make their point.

The biggest thing the data suggests honestly, is that wealth inequality, racial tension, and corruption are large factors in crime, not so much the weapons involved.

Removing guns would reduce mass shootings, but those comprise a very small number of gun deaths and deaths overall. They just make more headlines.

 

[Chris B]

I guess that depends on what your definition of Tyranny is...

Do you think extremely high tax rates are a form of tyranny???

No, not in a democracy. You can get rid of governments that think that way, over time, without bloodshed.
Unless the majority are in favour of a higher tax (higher services) economy, after all.
And those who are more wealthy, who might feel themselves being robbed (why they remain the more wealthy...)
have more options than most for either reducing their tax burdens or for simply leaving the country.
(I think that's no as easy a solution for Americans as it is for many other nationalities?)

 

[myownmynativeland]

Good point, I did a very poor job of stating my position. If you shoot and kill someone, you should be investigated, and unless it can be shown that you were in clear and obvious danger of being killed, beyond any doubt, you should be charged with manslaughter, murder, or the appropriate charge.

Clearly you do not understand 'stand your ground' Laws. I don't have to wait until I am almost dead to repel an attack with any force available. Try to 'polar bear' me and I am free to use lethal force in self-defense. Break into my home and I am free to use lethal force to stop you. Try a car jacking-same thing.