Statistically,by accident, which ranks higher, Gun deaths or motorcycle deaths?
Ranked purely by accidental deaths, Motorcycle Deaths are much higher than Accidental Gun Deaths. Logically, it could be presumed that ALL motorcycle deaths are accidental, or unintentional. The primary purposes of a motorcycle is transportation, and recreational use. Guns have many legal primary uses, including hunting, recreational, occupational, and defensive use. Logically, it cannot be presumed that all firearms deaths are accidents. To compare the TOTAL number of firearms deaths (around 30,000) to the TOTAL number of deaths on motorcycles (around 4500) is a bad comparison. Although the number 30,000 sounds terribly impressive, the truth of that number is that about 57% of those deaths are suicides--that's about 17,100. In other words, people that were looking to end their life. Had a firearm not been available, they would have likely used another method. Firearms are simply the most efficient and effective method for suicide, therefore the logical choice when available. Of the remaining deaths 12,900, most are classified as homicide, but no distinction is made between justified homicides (self defense) and unjustified homicides (murder). The number of accidental deaths generally is small, usually less than 3% of the total according to the CDC. That's about a 1000 accidental deaths, approximately each year. Using the numbers supplied by zeebya (and I do not know his source for those numbers, as the CDC is only now finalizing their report on compiled 2004 deaths), we can see that accidental deaths on motorcycles is about 3 times higher than accidental gun deaths, in that year. That is the only true comparison that can be made. Anything else is "apples and oranges."
Why are red states safer and richer than blue states?
Red States have much higher violence rates than Blue states. Your assertion is false. States with most murders per capita: Lousiana #1. Maryland #2, Missouri #3, South Carolina #4, Nevada #5 Arizona has 5.5 Murders/100,000 residents. Texas and Oklahoma have 5.0 Murders/100,000 Residents. Comparatively, New York has 4.4 murders/100,000 Residents and Massachusetts has 3.2 Murders/100,000
Why does USA have higher firearm related deaths per capita compared to other top first world countries?
When you examine gun ownership rates in the US, there is no clear connection between gun ownership rates and crime.I live in a city of 50,000 that has only had one murder that I'm aware of in the last decade or more, committed with a knife, despite widespread gun ownership (I own two and always carry in public). This puts my city on par with the elite of the first world for safety.I used to work in a city of about 390,000 about 20 miles away. They average about 120 to 130 murders per year, which puts them squarely in the third world statistically.We have the same laws and gun ownership rights. What's different is the race, culture, and economic prosperity of the people who live in these areas, which changes everything.My city is almost totally white, middle class, and there is a culture of responsibility and respect, that other area is majority black, poor, and the culture is one of crime and violence. In the US, the culture from one area to another varies wildly. African Americans make up 13% of the population and commit over half the murders.We also have an uncontrolled southern border, a neighbor which is a hotbed of cartel violence, and huge numbers of people who flee north into our country, in the process enabling the cartels to establish themselves here, and to import drugs. This also contributes to our crime and violence rates.My point is not to put down minorities or particular cultures, but to make clear that a racially and culturally diverse nation, with disaffected minorities with internal problems, uncontrolled borders, influxes of third world populations from violent nations spreading cartels into our lands, cannot be compared with homogeneous first world nations in Asia and Europe where the populations have a shared history and culture of responsibility, reliability, education, and hard work.If you are simply comparing middle class white Americans to Europeans, the crime rates are fairly comparable. Just lumping all the US into one category is an apple to oranges comparison however, as many urban areas are not really first world in many respects, as well as some rural areas.
Is Vermont a red neck state? After all they have the most lax gun laws in the Union.?
. . . and one of the lowest crime rates. DC has one of the strictest and the highest crime rate. Thus once again illustrating that the cause of gun crime is not the possession or regulation of guns, but the culture of the people who live in a given area.
Why Are The Most Deadliest Cities Run By Democrats?
In the Bay Area,California crime is almost everywhere and it just so happens that almost all of the people we have running this area are mostly Liberal or Democrat. Most of the citizens are Liberal or Democrat and the whole atmosphere reeks of Political Correctness and dysfunction. And not only that but the people seem detached from reality and unable to reach on any sane level. Can you believe that San Jose,California was recently voted one of the safest cities in the United States in which to live? What a crock. I'd like to see someone like Barbara Walters take a stroll through downtown San Jose during Cinco De Mayo day and make it out alive. That would make headlines for sure. But the odds of that happening would be zero to none as if she actually did take a stroll through downtown San Jose during Cinco De Mayo she be pushing up daisies within a matter of weeks. I think the reason why Democrat run cities are so filled with violent crime is simple. The laws are lenient and gun control is strictly enforced to the point that most of the people who own a gun are criminals because law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have one. But my question is this: Where would you rather be? Behind bars or 6 feet under? I would rather be behind bars for breaking the law for defending myself while using a gun because at least then I'd still be alive and my son would still have his mommy. That is why we want to leave California and never come back. I'm thinking Tennessee or Alaska would be more suitable for us and the sooner we relocate the better.
Why doesn't New York State have the Death Penalty?
Here's some of what New Yorkers found out about the death penalty: The worst thing about it. Errors: The system can make tragic mistakes. As of now, 143 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. We’ll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Keeping killers off the streets for good: Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages: -an innocent person serving life can be released from prison -life without parole costs less than the death penalty Costs, a big surprise to many people: Most people realize that the death penalty costs far more than life sentences, but not many know why. The legal process is much more complex in death penalty cases, because the punishment sought is irreversible. We know that innocent people were executed in the past (in the US and elsewhere.) The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages and they apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death. Crime reduction (deterrence): Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent. The death penalty is no more effective in deterring others than life sentences. Who gets it: The death penalty magnifies social and economic inequalities. It isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. Victims: Like no other punishment, it subjects families of murder victims to a process which makes healing even harder. Even families who have supported it in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative. The death penalty comes down to retribution or revenge—the only plausible reasons to support it.
How would gun regulations go about keeping firearms out of the hands of psycho/sociopaths?
You mean like the Obama Executive order Trump tore up?There already are other firearm regulations that accomplish that to a degree in all other developed countries (and Democratic states.)Largest Study to Date Finds Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Actually WorksFor instance, the US has racked up 400% more mass shootings than Germany, which comes in second on the list of mass shootings.Mass shootings: How U.S. gun culture compares with the rest of the worldOther developed countries have an even better record than Germany.Australia overhauled their firearm regulations in 1996 in the wake of a mass murder — including banning highly-powered guns — and according to one study, overall firearm death rates decreased by 14 percent the following year.”Tellingly, there also hasn't been another mass shooting of dozens of citizens in Australia in the 20 years since.The last mass shooting in England of 12 citizens, occurred back in 2010. Cumbria shootings - WikipediaWhereas we've had several massacres of dozens in the US this year alone.Around the world, sensible gun control, that includes banning high powered weapons, lessens violence.“when countries pass several laws at once that worked together to overhaul the country's firearm code, gun-related deaths tended to decrease.“Banning "weapons that are actually very powerful", for example, automatic weapons.Implementing background checks.Required permits and licenses for purchasing guns.For example, in South Africa in 2000, the Firearm Control Act contained all these measures, and saw a 13.6 percent reduction in firearm homicides every single year for the next five years.And in the US, Democratic states With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related DeathsRepublican states where it's easier to stockpile are comparative war zones: STUDY: States With Loose Gun Laws Have Higher Rates Of Gun ViolenceAnd the Red state vigilanteswithall them extra guns create more crime, rather than less:Red States Have Higher Crime Rates Than Blue StatesFor instance, “in 2007, Missouri got rid of laws requiring people to have a permit to purchase a firearm.Following this legislation change, one study found that Missouri's homicide rate increased by 25 percent.No other changes in legislation appear to be able to explain the change.”
Are US mass shootings disproportionately concentrated in either red or blue states?
The question is, Are US mass shootings disproportionately concentrated in either red or blue states?The first mass shooting is modern times was when a man named Charles Whitman opened fire on people from the tower located on the campus of the University of Texas, Austin Texas on August 1, 1966. Since then there’ve been many more especially since the one that occurred April 20, 1999 in Columbine High School in Colorado.Unfortunately, some people have thought it logical since then to try to correlate gun ownership with frequency of mass shootings. This is incorrect reasoning for political purposes, an attempt to persuade people that non criminal ownership of guns causes mass shootings.The question is an insignificant part of the overall death rate. In the US 8.3 people per 1000 are killed by something every year. Of that 2,650,000 people at most, only 17,000 die of gunshot wounds during the worst year on record. And of that 17,000 deaths by gunshot fewer than 1000 have been killed in a mass shooting in any given day since mass shootings began to increase in number.Last summer, the Democrat governor of Virginia said in a press conference that 93 million people per day die of gunshot wounds in the United States. Ninety three million per day.Accidental deaths account for far more than 17,000 per year or 500-to -1000 per year by intentional mass shootings. Even if all 17,000 gunshot deaths could be totally eliminated, the death rate would only drop from 8.3 per 1000 to 8.26 per thousand.No gun law ever stopped a killing. Killing human beings who aren’t threats themselves is a major crime yet the murder rate keeps on rolling in the US and every other country regardless of gun presence or absence.People will continue to die and mass shootings account for a microscopic size part of that death rate: it is not sensible to focus on the least significant number.