world

316 people are shot every day in America. Here are 5 stories

109 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


109 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

If I lived in the USA, I'd have a gun to protect myself from bad guys.

-19 ( +12 / -31 )

Blacks make up about 13% of the US population but 68% of murder victims, mostly shootings. And no its not the police doing the killing, its generally young black men shooting other young black men.

Identifying the problem is the first step to the solution.... two words....Drugs ....Gangs.

10 ( +27 / -17 )

For some context (before the partisan bickering begins) crime overall is still dropping with a few insignificant exceptions. This is about the murder rate, which is increasing regardless of city size or party running it.

And no, no one knows why. If someone tells you it's because of defunding the police (the right) or the number of guns on the streets (the left) there is no data supporting that. It's just someone making their own link to make a political point.

No one knows why, and with crime it's always been that way.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

If I lived in the USA, I'd have a gun to protect myself from bad guys.

If you have a gun, you are the bad guy.

6 ( +24 / -18 )

DC diners run for cover during a shooting.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

If you have a gun, you are the bad guy.

Please expand on that.

-8 ( +12 / -20 )

380 mass shootings this year. 405 killed. 1,590 injured.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Problem: police are too oppressive

Solution: defund and remove police immunities

reality: emboldened criminals going a criminal rampage due to an ineffective security that refuses to get involve due to negative public reaction regardless of outcome.

(insert surprise pikachu.jpg)

problem: guns !!!!!

solution: remove all guns 

reality: removing a citizens right to defend themselves combined with an infective security force emboldens and incentivises criminals on their right to loot and pillage.

(insert surprise pikachu.jpg)

-14 ( +10 / -24 )

reality: emboldened criminals going a criminal rampage due to an ineffective security that refuses to get involve due to negative public reaction regardless of outcome.

"Defun the police" doesn't mean what you think it means.

reality: removing a citizens right to defend themselves combined with an infective security force emboldens and incentivises criminals on their right to loot and pillage.

The vast majority of the world lives without guns just fine.

6 ( +17 / -11 )

The vast majority of the world lives without guns just fine.

In which countries are there no guns?

-14 ( +7 / -21 )

However you might try to spin it, there’s is gun violence because there are a lot of guns on the streets.

Reduce access to guns and the violence will go down.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

Americans have decided this is an acceptable number of people to die per day, so that they can carry guns to protect themselves.

When looking at this, and at how poorly the US handled the pandemic, you can clearly see Americans really don't care much about other Americans. If it doesn't affect them personally, then they don't care.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

Australia took the guns away.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

In which countries are there no guns?

In this context "no guns" means of course that they're not rampant on the streets and readily available to the general population. It's pretty much understood.

In England, even policemen don't carry firearms.

9 ( +16 / -7 )

Americans have decided this is an acceptable number of people to die per day, so that they can carry guns to protect themselves.

Sure, Americans recognize self defence as a valid reason for ownership, but that doesn't mean they 'accept' such a high level of gun violence.

According to Statista.com, overall, 68% of Americans strongly support or somewhat support more gun control.  Especially “(p)olicies for more funding for mental health screening and treatment, mandatory background checks and licensing for gun purchases, and passage of a national “red-flag” law.” 16% of Republicans and 75% of democrats strongly support these laws, and 18% of democrats somewhat support them, vs 26% of republicans. A PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist poll said that, “When asked to choose, 55 percent of U.S. adults said the nation needs to prioritize controlling gun violence, compared to 39 percent of Americans who said they preferred protecting gun rights.” Support is stronger for proposed laws that regulate WHO can get firearms, as opposed to WHAT kind of firearms they can get. This is because while more homicides and mass shootings are carried out with handguns, a lot of legislation focuses on so-called ‘assault rifles’ which are responsible for approximately 2% of gun homicides. Proposed bans of these kinds of firearms receive about 50% support.

A strong part of elected President Biden’s platform was gun reform, and he has already signed six (?) executive orders regarding gun control, which is about all he can do without majority support in the senate. Some states have increased (or introduced legislation to increase) funding for research into causes, effects and preventive measures of gun violence. Finally, in the 2021-2022 senate session, there are 98 anti-gun proposals compared to 42 pro-gun proposals. This suggests that America has far from decided it’s ok with gun violence.

https://www.thetrace.org/2019/01/state-gun-violence-research-california-new-jersey/

https://amgoa.org/Proposed-Federal-Firearm-Legislation

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811780/support-for-stricter-gun-control-laws-in-the-us/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws-new-poll-says

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

In this context "no guns" means of course that they're not rampant on the streets and readily available to the general population

So 'no guns' means 'some guns.' If you're going to debate, say what you mean.

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

United States is a country that lives in fear, common people are armed, neighbors are armed, criminals are armed, pastors are armed, parishioners are armed, businesses are armed, teenagers are armed, the police are armed, the liberals are arming themselves, the conservatives are armed to the teeth and EVERYONE, EVERYONE, EVERYONE is in a lot of frustration and stress, and they have as a pretext the stupid second amendment not for self-defense but to pass over whoever acts or thinks differently. That country became a hotbed of violence, police brutality, belligerent stupid conservadurism, racism and intolerance, it's full of wannabe Jhon Waynes and Chuck Norrises, everyone has a tribal mentality and they are ready to kill each other just for nothing, that is not from a country that is considered first world. No country that is considered modern, decent and civilized guns cannot have any role in society, that is a mentality of the wild west where the most violent survive and that is the 'mirukkkan mentality believe they are free and brave because they have a gun and they can use it against whoever they want, what a wild, hostile and dangerous country is the land of the "freee"..

And besides so much tragedy, people always need to have a car only to be able to buy milk and eggs, it is absurdly and underdevelopedly pathetic, loooool! Third world !!

How much I love my clean, civilized, peaceful and free of guns JAPAN !!..

5 ( +11 / -6 )

America is one big death cult.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

In which countries are there no guns?

Nowhere, but Japan is about as close as it gets.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

Sure, Americans recognize self defence as a valid reason for ownership, but that doesn't mean they 'accept' such a high level of gun violence.

The two are a unit package. You can't have the guns without the people dying from them, and you won't have the people dying from them if without the guns. They go together.

So yes, Americans have accepted this number of deaths per day is acceptable. They just don't like to have it pointed out, because it doesn't allow them to continue the illusion that there is no cost of life for the right for them to arm themselves.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

The lead photograph is pretty devastating.

I have three daughters.

gary

8 ( +9 / -1 )

So 'no guns' means 'some guns.' If you're going to debate, say what you mean.

I didn't even say "no guns", I said "The vast majority of the world lives without guns just fine.", which is very exactly true. If you're going to split hairs, at least don't pu words in my mouth.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

For some context (before the partisan bickering begins) crime overall is still dropping with a few insignificant exceptions. This is about the murder rate, which is increasing regardless of city size or party running it.

The number of violent crimes in the United Stateshas dramatically fallen over the last two decades, although the number of reported violent crimes has risen slightly in the past few years. A similar story is told by looking at the violent crime rate per 100,000 residents, which factors in the role population growth plays in increasing the overall number of crimes. It is important to note that violent crime figures may not always be precise as there is a worryingly high rate of violent crimes not reported to police. This is a particularly the case for rape and sexual assault, where only around one quarter of offences are reported. It is therefore almost certain that the actual rate of violent crime is considerably higher than officially figures suggest. 

https://www.statista.com/topics/1750/violent-crime-in-the-us/#topicHeader__wrapper

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

Ulysses: However you might try to spin it, there’s is gun violence because there are a lot of guns on the streets. Reduce access to guns and the violence will go down.

I'm very anti-gun and agree. But any sudden year over year changes aren't due to availability.

Strangerland: You can't have the guns without the people dying from them, and you won't have the people dying from them if without the guns. They go together.

I see gun owners as, "I support selling guns to counter people buying guns."

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Strange breed those americans. They think the way to stop gun violence is to ..get more guns. Was it Einstein that said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

10 ( +12 / -2 )

I see gun owners as, "I support selling guns to counter people buying guns."

I see it differently, I see guns to protect myself my family, my property, to hunt and I enjoy as a hobby collecting them.

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. People without guns can not shoot anyone. The majority of countries restrict gun ownership. Not America.

Firearms Rate: 120.5

Estimate of Total Firearms: 393,347,000

2021 Population: 332,915,073

7 ( +9 / -2 )

without guns 

I apologize. I'll have to adjust my definition of that word. Without now means with a certain number.

So yes, Americans have accepted this number of deaths per day is acceptable. They just don't like to have it pointed out, because it doesn't allow them to continue the illusion that there is no cost of life for the right for them to arm themselves.

Right. Just ignore the facts and figures presented in my post showing majority support for gun control.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

 I see guns to protect myself my family, my property

But you live in Japan.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Extremely dangerous country. You'd be mad to visit there, unless you were forced to for business. I just feel sorry who the innocent people, who are not gun crazies, who have to live there. Every day is super dangerous.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. People without guns can not shoot anyone. The majority of countries restrict gun ownership. Not America.

Never will just like other countries use knives often to kill people and the selling of knives won’t be prohibited either even though the vast majority of people don’t use them for killing or hurting people.

But you live in Japan

WHEN I’m in Japan.

-17 ( +0 / -17 )

Never will just like other countries use knives often to kill people and the selling of knives won’t be prohibited either even though the vast majority of people don’t use them for killing or hurting people.

When it comes to knives, hammers etc. difficult to kill 50 people with them. But very easy with an assault weapon.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

A gun is designed for the single purpose of killing.

Knives, hammers etc. are designed for other uses.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Americans have decided this is an acceptable number of people to die per day, so that they can carry guns to protect themselves.

When looking at this, and at how poorly the US handled the pandemic, you can clearly see Americans really don't care much about other Americans. If it doesn't affect them personally, then they don't care.

As cutting as this is, as an American, I have to say it is very accurate. The base level we work from is every person for themselves.

16 ( +16 / -0 )

Never will just like other countries use knives often to kill people and the selling of knives won’t be prohibited either even though the vast majority of people don’t use them for killing or hurting people.

Are you seriously comparing knives to guns? Wake up to yourself, your country is a disgrace.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

But you live in Japan

WHEN I’m in Japan.

That is the most profound I've read this morning.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

When it comes to knives, hammers etc. difficult to kill 50 people with them.

It doesn’t matter. Death is death. Tell it to the people that were killed by them. I understand (to a very small point) what you want to imply, but whether it’s one person regardless of how they died is too much. I don’t discriminate when it comes to violent deaths, they’re all bad because the end result is, the person is deceased.

-16 ( +2 / -18 )

It seems the vast number of shootings are not by the police,

zichiToday  09:13 am JST

A gun is designed for the single purpose of killing.

Maybe in your country but not in the US. Target shooting, detaining criminals, deterring criminals.

Many non-lethal uses.

Regardless, guns vastly outnumber automobiles, but more deaths are caused by automobiles. Not worried about guns--more worried about violent criminals, drunk drivers, inept surgeons . . .

-18 ( +0 / -18 )

WHEN I’m in Japan.

So how do you protect yourrself, your family and your precious property while in Japan?

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Never will just like other countries use knives often to kill people and the selling of knives won’t be prohibited either even though the vast majority of people don’t use them for killing or hurting people.

The inevitable false equivalency between firearms and knives.

Two major differences:

(1) knives have far more utility beyond killing others than firearms, which you admitted in your post; and,

(2) knives are incapable of killing as many people in as short of a timeframe as firearms.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Regardless, guns vastly outnumber automobiles, but more deaths are caused by automobiles.

Utility.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

deterring criminals.

Oh yeah, that's working like a charm, isn't it? Those guns sure are deterring criminals.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Regardless, guns vastly outnumber automobiles, but more deaths are caused by automobiles.

Yeah, because people need cars to live. Society would not function without cars. Hundreds of millions of Americans use cars everyday. Not the same with guns.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

JsapcToday  09:23 am JST

So how do you protect yourrself, your family and your precious property while in Japan?

Unlike the article, in Japan there are fewer violent criminals, so less need to use weapons that can be lethal, including knives, lead pipes and other means of killing.

JsapcToday  09:27 am JST

Oh yeah, that's working like a charm, isn't it? Those guns sure are deterring criminals.

Obviously since the article is not referring 316 people shot by police each day, so when police dry their weapons, there you go. Easy.

takeda.shingen.1991@gmail.comToday  09:28 am JST

Yeah, because people need cars to live. Society would not function without cars. Hundreds of millions of Americans use cars everyday. Not the same with guns.

How many people in Japan live without cars?

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

Japan is not a place where criminals already have guns.

Very few violent criminals so I feel fine without my guns, have sufficient alternatives because criminals are unarmed.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

How many people in Japan live without cars?

We're not talking about Japan. We're talking about the United States, where hundreds of millions of people need cars to work each and everyday.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Unlike the article, in Japan there are fewer violent criminals, so less need to use weapons that can be lethal, including knives, lead pipes and other means of killing.

And how many times have you used your gun to stop a violent crime in the US?

Obviously since the article is not referring 316 people shot by police each day, so when police dry their weapons, there you go. Easy.

I have no idea what any of this means.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

We can’t compare Japan and the US when it comes to gun ownership and crime because Japan is a safe country, but we can when it comes to not needing a cars to live.

Makes sense. There’s also the tiny fact that cars go live was specifically mentioned in the context of the US.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

P. SmithToday  09:25 am JST

The inevitable false equivalency between firearms and knives.

Who is trying to make any equivalency?

Two major differences:

(1) knives have far more utility beyond killing others than firearms, which you admitted in your post; and,

I admitted?? And what are the many uses of a knife that don't involve the blade?

(2) knives are incapable of killing as many people in as short of a timeframe as firearms.

The inevitable false equivalency between types of deaths.

bass4funkToday  09:39 am JST

Doesn’t matter, one death is too many and when you put forth that kind of analogy it sounds like one person’s life who was killed by a knife is worth less than 20 people being killed by a lunatic. It’s all bad, all of it.

Exactly. I don't get it when people try and justify death by means other than guns as being noble or something.

-19 ( +0 / -19 )

You can’t kill a bear or a rabid wolf with a knife, you could try and take out a Fox or a feral pig with one, I don’t recommend it. The same goes for protecting your property and with more cops being defunded. Knives will not protect you.

You can kill all those animals with a knife. You can also use a compound bow. Or, have stricter requirements for purchasing and storing firearms.

> Doesn’t matter, one death is too many and when you put forth that kind of analogy it sounds like one person’s life who was killed by a knife is worth less than 20 people being killed by a lunatic. It’s all bad, all of it.

Nobody is arguing that any of it is good or one person is less of a tragedy than 20 people.

Each death is a tragedy, and the number of tragedies grows when a firearm is involved. Knives aren’t capable of creating as many tragedies in as short of a period of time as a firearm.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

JsapcToday  09:44 am JST

And how many times have you used your gun to stop a violent crime in the US?

Once, two months ago.

I have no idea what any of this means.

I know.

I don't get what the far-left extremists' argument is. Ban all guns because people are killed by guns when used by violent criminals?

Ban all scalpels because people are killed by scalpels in the hands of malpracticing doctors.

Ban all cars because people are killed by cars when used by bad drivers.

-19 ( +0 / -19 )

Doesn’t matter, one death is too many and when you put forth that kind of analogy it sounds like one person’s life who was killed by a knife is worth less than 20 people being killed by a lunatic. It’s all bad, all of it.

lol not to anyone fluent in the English language it doesn't. Guns make it easier to kill people, so you have more violence in the US. If one death was really "too many," Americans would do something about it. But Americans don't care, so they do nothing.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Exactly. I don't get it when people try and justify death by means other than guns as being noble or something.

Nobody is doing that, which is why you don’t get it.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

You can kill all those animals with a knife. You can also use a compound bow.

Get real. Lol.

I can see my elderly relatives accurately using a bow and arrow, come on now.

Nobody is arguing that any of it is good or one person is less of a tragedy than 20 people. 

Then don’t bring it up.

lol not to anyone fluent in the English language it doesn't. Guns make it easier to kill people,

Any other weapon can be lethal, take your pick

so you have more violence in the US. If one death was really "too many," Americans would do something about it.

Then blame the politicians running the cities for not enforcing the laws on the books as well as the prosecutors that refuse to process, incarcerate and give lengthy prison sentences to gun offenders, do that and you will see the gun spikes go down. But since the Dems wanted to defund the police, the only thing now you can do is arm yourself. Liberals can’t have it both ways! What were they thinking would happen when they started to defund the police? Anyone with a functional brain could see where this was going. And the gun haters can hate all they want. The Democrats can talk all day, but they’re not going to do anything and they know it because many of their own constituents are gun owners.

But Americans don't care, so they do nothing.

No, we do care. If the Democrats would listen to law abiding gun owners they would know, but they won’t.

-17 ( +1 / -18 )

None of these 5 stories have a shooter that leftists can criticize fir race or politics.

so blame the gun and gun owners as a deflection.

-18 ( +2 / -20 )

Americans, we do care. We want the guns out of the hands of criminals.

which Dems won’t do. Because they don’t want to be seen as cracking down on certain races in inner cities where they get those sweet, sweet election changing votes.

plus it’s scary to Dems to confront criminals and take their guns. So instead they focus on legal gun owners who don’t vote for them.

all about race and votes as to why Dems do nothing.

-17 ( +2 / -19 )

Get real. Lol.

I can see my elderly relatives accurately using a bow and arrow, come on now.

Oh, I didn’t know your elderly relatives were part of the discussion.

You made a claim and I refuted it. You then introduce your elderly relatives into the equation. Weird.

Then don’t bring it up.

Don’t bring up the facts that knives have more utility and cause less death than firearms? Don’t bring that up?

11 ( +12 / -1 )

The States are long past being able to solve the gun problem. There is too much inner city poverty and drug availability. Mass shootings make the headlines, but these are just a very small fraction of the people killed in running totals daily. The mass shootings are done by "crazies" who pop up in unpredictable places and would probably find a way to kill a lot of people without a gun. Contrary to some posters concept of the United States, it is not a totally lawless land, crime and shootings are mainly a plague of the larger cities and just certain sections of them. Currently there are not enough prisons to hold the vast number of gangs and criminals if one did attempt to clean things up. One could pass laws to take away the guns, but the gangs and criminals would keep theirs, and the vast number of existing guns would go underground. How do you fix poverty, ignorance and culture?.. good luck with that!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Americans, we do care. We want the guns out of the hands of criminals.

lol No you don't. No meaningful legislation has been passed. Republicans don't want to pass any sort of gun control.

which Dems won’t do. Because they don’t want to be seen as cracking down on certain races in inner cities where they get those sweet, sweet election changing votes.

lololol Won't do what? What is your solution here, that you think Democrats are scared to do?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

lol No you don't. No meaningful legislation has been passed. Republicans don't want to pass any sort of gun control.

They don't want to pass legislation that targets lawful gun owners as opposed to criminals. New Zealand did that; taking some types of semi-autos away from hunters and farmers, while the crims carried on undeterred. By all accounts, there was no effect on gun crime. You could even say it increased.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/416881/rates-of-gun-crimes-and-killings-using-guns-at-highest-levels-in-a-decade

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

Oh, I didn’t know your elderly relatives were part of the discussion. 

Neither were other countries.

You made a claim and I refuted it.

Ditto

Don’t bring up the facts that knives have more utility and cause less death than firearms? Don’t bring that up?

I’m saying you can’t make a weak argument that without guns, there will be no killing, there will be, look at history before guns.

-16 ( +0 / -16 )

I’m saying you can’t make a weak argument that without guns, there will be no killing, there will be, look at history before guns.

Nobody is making this argument. We are pointing out that fewer firearms means fewer deaths from firearms.

We also know that knives, cars, etc. have a non-lethal function as their core utility and that utility is great. Firearms, however, have limited utility beyond killing. This means trying to compare cars and knives with firearms is a false equivalency.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

They don't want to pass legislation that targets lawful gun owners as opposed to criminals. 

lol I see this line a lot and it sounds nice; Let's target the criminals and let alone law-abiding gun owners. The only problem is, how do you tell the difference?

By all accounts, there was no effect on gun crime. You could even say it increased.

1) A pike in gun crime doesn't mean gun control doesn't work.

2) There could be other reasons, unrelated to gun control that caused the spike in gun crimes.

3)Gun deaths per capita in NZ are still half what they are in the US.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

America and its sick gun culture.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Nobody is making this argument. We are pointing out that fewer firearms means fewer deaths from firearms.

Death is death and we can talk about what liberals want, but the fact of the matter is, guns are not going anywhere.

We also know that knives, cars, etc. have a non-lethal function as their core utility and that utility is great.

Oh, history would prove you wrong on that one.

-18 ( +0 / -18 )

Death is death and we can talk about what liberals want, but the fact of the matter is, guns are not going anywhere.

64% of americans are for stricter gun laws. Are you saying that 64% of americans are liberals?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Will killings by gun be reduced if gun control were tightened further or if guns were prohibited all across the board? But, even if there were no guns at hand at the time of killing, the murderer could grab whatever he could use to kill: his own fist, a kitchen knife or a baseball bat. So, guns are not the real culprits to blame.

It is people's sick mindset, not guns, that accounts for the high rate of gun-involved homicides in the U.S., I think.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Was it Einstein that said "the definition of insanity 

Einstein NEVER said that, it's an Internet meme. https://www.history.com/news/here-are-6-things-albert-einstein-never-said

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

64% of americans are for stricter gun laws.

Are you saying that 64% of americans are liberals?

No, but since the majority of gun violence occurs in the largest cities like Baltimore, Chicago, NYC, Detroit, DC, Los Angeles these city mayors and governors should do more to enforce the gun laws that are on the books prosecutors should ask for stiffer prison sentences for repeat offenders.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Takeda,

Good points, but surely removing guns from circulation is designed to decrease gun crime immediately. 60,000 were taken back, to no obvious effect. Fewer guns, less gun crime, right?

Let's target the criminals and let alone law-abiding gun owners. The only problem is, how do you tell the difference?

The criminals are the ones breaking the law, and with a history of such.

1) A pike in gun crime doesn't mean gun control doesn't work.

It isn't a spike. It was increasing beforehand. At best one can say it was ineffective.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

@bass Oh, history would prove you wrong on that one.

That sounds like the alt right hero Alex Jones saying America was built on guns and whiskey. What a heritage.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

yes they want guns out of the hands of criminals who use them to kill innocent people, often in their own neighborhoods. You present this as if this unsourced, likely liberal leaning poll result, means that 64% of Americans want guns take from legal owners. they dont, they want them taken from criminals.

64% of americans are for stricter gun laws

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

No, but since the majority of gun violence occurs in the largest cities like Baltimore, Chicago, NYC, Detroit, DC, Los Angeles these city mayors and governors should do more to enforce the gun laws that are on the books prosecutors should ask for stiffer prison sentences for repeat offenders.

Gun Deaths per Capita by State

The following ten states have the highest gun deaths per capita (per 100,000):

Alaska - 24.4

Mississippi - 24.2

Wyoming - 22.3

New Mexico 22.3

Alabama - 22.2

Louisiana - 22.1

Missouri - 20.6

South Carolina - 19.9

Arkansas - 19.3

Montana - 19.3

Why aren't these governors doing anything?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

People who aren't Americans care that so many, many Americans die, shattered into guts and gore, every hour of every day.

But we don't decide American policy.

The rest of us don't care about your little class and party games, you all look like Americans to us. We just care about your people, and we wish you did too.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

So yes, Americans have accepted this number of deaths per day is acceptable. They just don't like to have it pointed out, because it doesn't allow them to continue the illusion that there is no cost of life for the right for them to arm themselves.

If you think ANY politician in America, ANY news outlet in America, ANY one at all in America is advertising the numbers we see in this article, you don't understand a semi-police state. The local news may carry one shooting but many, many are just not publicized. A shooting could happen a block away and you won't know about it. Offshore propagandists who see advantage in destroying America to gain power here are feeding the fear and paranoia and their financial arm is destroying the economy while making themselves quite rich. The American worker is at the level of just barely paying the bills and sometimes not which, itself, is generating rage and hopelessness and feeding the overt hostility that has always been an American cultural hallmark. Empires of psychopaths come and empires of psychopaths go, most often destroyed simply by the corruption of insane greed and the political weakness of extortion, bribery, blackmail, and outright murder. Watching America self-disassemble, pray that we IMPLODE and NOT explode or climate change will be the least of Mankind's worries...

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Perhaps you mean well @Jaspc 11:15pm in regards to the topic of senseless shootings but please, put Your stats in perspective of gun deaths ‘by category’, ie:

*“In Alaska, 69% of gun deaths are suicides vs. 23% from homicides; *

*compared to 61% gun deaths by suicide and 36% from homicides, nationwide.*

That being said, we can all agree these shootings are senseless.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If you think ANY politician in America, ANY news outlet in America, ANY one at all in America is advertising the numbers we see in this article, you don't understand a semi-police state. The local news may carry one shooting but many, many are just not publicized. A shooting could happen a block away and you won't know about it. Offshore propagandists who see advantage in destroying America to gain power here are feeding the fear and paranoia and their financial arm is destroying the economy while making themselves quite rich. The American worker is at the level of just barely paying the bills and sometimes not which, itself, is generating rage and hopelessness and feeding the overt hostility that has always been an American cultural hallmark. Empires of psychopaths come and empires of psychopaths go, most often destroyed simply by the corruption of insane greed and the political weakness of extortion, bribery, blackmail, and outright murder. Watching America self-disassemble, pray that we IMPLODE and NOT explode or climate change will be the least of Mankind's worries...m

Very nice. Most of the “American worker” would never be participate in a Free for all looting. Only losers.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Ask yourself , when reading all the names, why most of the cases are strongly biased to happen within Latin and black or better let’s say black Muslim communities. Spoiler alert, you won’t like your own answers. lol

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

That sounds like the alt right hero Alex Jones saying America was built on guns and whiskey. What a heritage.

Here we go again. Nice try….

The following ten states have the highest gun deaths per capita (per 100,000):

Alaska - 24.4

Mississippi - 24.2

Wyoming - 22.3

New Mexico 22.3

Alabama - 22.2

Louisiana - 22.1

Missouri - 20.6

South Carolina - 19.9

Arkansas - 19.3

Montana - 19.3

Why aren't these governors doing anything?

Good point, but not close to the busiest populated white collar urban cities where the majority of people and the majority of finance, trade and commerce as well as big tech situated. Not to mention these are the cities where police presence are at the upmost needed and the Dems decided to defund them. This is why people are leaving those richest blue states.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

there was an obvious, misleading reason for picking "per capita" instead of total.

and for stating gun "deaths" instead of "murders".

Gun Deaths per Capita by State

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

its the liberal media narrative. minority as a victim.

with silence on who the perpetrator of the crime was, nearly always a member of the same community.

when reading all the names, why most of the cases are strongly biased to happen within Latin and black

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

there was an obvious, misleading reason for picking "per capita" instead of total

Yeah. Because it would be stupid to talk in totals. Without taking differences into account, it would be difficult to know whether a number is high or low. Good grief.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Gun Deaths per Capita by State

The following ten states have the highest gun deaths per capita (per 100,000):

Alaska - 24.4

Mississippi - 24.2

Wyoming - 22.3

New Mexico 22.3

Alabama - 22.2

Louisiana - 22.1

Missouri - 20.6

South Carolina - 19.9

Arkansas - 19.3

Montana - 19.3

Very informative. Always good to see facts over partisanship.

This is why people are leaving those richest blue states.

Richest and most productive. Seventy percent of the wealth of the US is generated in in the blue states. I hope you are thankful they keep the US up there as the world’s largest economy. They are certainly carrying passengers.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Very informative. Always good to see facts over partisanship. 

No problem. Let’s hope Newsom, Loghtfoot and Cuomo reverse their destructive policies and war against the police. It would help the surging gun crimes

Richest and most productive. Seventy percent of the wealth of the US is generated in in the blue states. I hope you are thankful they keep the US up there as the world’s largest economy.

And a growing number of those people are thankful and feel they need to be safer and deciding to move out of these States and give them to the people that can hire their own private security of men and women with guns.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

No problem. Let’s hope Newsom, Loghtfoot and Cuomo reverse their destructive policies and war against the police. It would help the surging gun crimes

Okay.

What’s the problem with the states mentioned above with the highest gun deaths per capita?

What would you advise them to do? Something is clearly wrong.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

People leaving Texas for Florida. Better tax rates even if the gun laws are more restrictive. Or maybe

"Texas Senate passes bill that removes the requirement to teach Ku Klux Klan as 'morally wrong'"

4 ( +6 / -2 )

If one would do estimates of death based on these photos it shows that blacks and latinos kill themselves.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

According to this FBI data, of the 2,491 murders of black people reported in the U.S. in 2013, 2,245 perpetrators (90%) were black and 189 perpetrators (7.6%) were white. 

Of 3,005 murders of white people, 2,509 perpetrators (83.5%) were white while 409 perpetrators (13.6%) were black.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

When my kids were tots, we visited my father's house, and I happened to look into a closet only to find a pistol and a box of ammunition next to it. I pointed out to my dad that leaving such stuff around with curious kids about was unwise, and he apologized - he'd inherited it from his recently deceased FIL and stuck it in the closet. Just having a gun around is a very bad idea - whether shooting in heat of passion or accidental, it's a tragedy awaiting. Get a slingshot if you're that desperate.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Okay. 

What’s the problem with the states mentioned above with the highest gun deaths per capita? 

What would you advise them to do? Something is clearly wrong.

Nothing wrong and they weren’t disputed, however, we are talking about the cities or driving engines in the US that make the money with the best urban lifestyle and highest standard of living being torn apart by gun violence in States and cities with some of the strickest gun laws and none of these leaders are enforcing them. Now you have more white flight and into States where the leadership overall do take policing and gun crimes and prosecuting them more seriously. If they can’t or won’t protect or enforce the laws on the books, step down.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Okay. 

What’s the problem with the states mentioned above with the highest gun deaths per capita? 

What would you advise them to do? Something is clearly wrong.

Nothing wrong

Stopped reading there. Not serious. Just partisanship. Pointless continuing any discussion.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Stopped reading there. Not serious. Just partisanship. Pointless continuing any discussion.

No, it’s just liberals want a one-sided gun hating discussion and ignore any opposing viewpoints on the issue.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

It’s disingenuous to suggest that Alaska is the #1 location for concern related to murders where a gun was used.

liberals just found a stat to manipulate to mislead/defect from the actual issue.

which is Dem unwillingness to confront racial groups in the inner cities that are killing each other daily. Because those same people vote for them.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Please expand on that.

No.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

bass4funkToday  12:35 pm JST

Stopped reading there. Not serious. Just partisanship. Pointless continuing any discussion.

No, it’s just liberals want a one-sided gun hating discussion and ignore any opposing viewpoints on the issue.

You make them so easy to ignore.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It’s disingenuous to suggest that Alaska is the #1 location for concern related to murders where a gun was used.

liberals just found a stat to manipulate to mislead/defect from the actual issue.

which is Dem unwillingness to confront racial groups in the inner cities that are killing each other daily. Because those same people vote for them.

Damn liberals being all disingenuous by looking at the data instead of the race. It's disgusting.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

“Per capita”, “gun death” used for manipulation of data you mean.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Please expand on that.

No.

Right, because it's a ridiculously sweeping, borderline offensive generalisation. My mother owns a gun. She's an avid sportshooter and has a .22lr for pest control on the farm. She also volunteers at the local decile 10 school library and her church group. She's also never broken a law in her life.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Until minorities stop voting for Democrats nothing will ever change.

liberals are only now concerned about gun violence because a bunch of white people at a baseball game heard a shooting outside.

.Followed by a bunch of other white CNN people ar a fancy restaurant in DC seeing another shooting.

now it’s (temporarily) a problem to liberal media. But that will pass soon enough because it makes POTATUS look bad.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

“Per capita”, “gun death” used for manipulation of data you mean.

You just want to ignore the murder zone that is Alaska because its one of your team.

But stick with your "alternative facts", and keep telling us to focus on race.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Until minorities stop voting for Democrats nothing will ever change.

I think your team is on the right path telling minorities that they don't know how to vote in their own best interest, and should listen to the old white men in the Republican party who know better. I do believe that is a winning strategy, stick with it.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

2021 states with the highest rates of gun violence

Texas (3513)

California (3184)

Florida (2724)
2 ( +4 / -2 )

Worked last time. Got more percentage Black and Hispanic votes of any Republican in recent history.

you do know Joe Biden is an old white man too, don’t you?!

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

P. SmithToday  10:43 am JST

Nobody is making this argument. We are pointing out that fewer firearms means fewer deaths from firearms.

We also know that knives, cars, etc. have a non-lethal function as their core utility and that utility is great. Firearms, however, have limited utility beyond killing. This means trying to compare cars and knives with firearms is a false equivalency.

Fewer firearms doesn't mean fewer deaths--fewer criminals shooting people with whatever number of firearms means fewer deaths.

A knive is non-lethal at its core? I guess, if you don't stab someone. A gun is non-lethal at its core--if you don't shoot someone.

Who is comparing cars and knives with firearms but you? That's the libs' biggest problem--they don't want to face the actual issue and instead try and direct the narrative to the limited scope they want to cover.

Death by firearm, death by knife, death by automobile equal one thing and the same--death.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

It’s disingenuous to suggest that Alaska is the #1 location for concern related to murders where a gun was used

Lmao it isn't disingenuous to put things in perspective.

If there are only 50 homicides in Chicago, most people would say that is quite good, considering Chicago's population size.

If The same 50 people are murdered in a town of 1,000. That is a much worse, much higher crime rate, isn't it? Not accounting for population differences would completely skew results.

For the record, you wikipedia actually has a breakdown of gun homicides per capita, per state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

As one can see, with the exception of Washington DC all of the states in the top 10 are red states, with lax gun control.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Deaths from gun homicides are intentional. Deaths from vehicles are mostly accidents. Deaths from vehicular homicides are small numbers. Fords are the deadliest cars.

Distracted driving is the most common cause of road accidents in the United States, resulting in more crashes every year than speeding, drunk driving, and other major accident causes

2 ( +4 / -2 )

gun homicides

no, you missed the explanation  

These numbers include (among others) death as a result of suicide, self-defense and accidents. 

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

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

no, you missed the explanation  

No. You didn't scroll down far enough. Please keep scrolling.

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

Murders[edit]

This is a list of the U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The population data is the official data from the U.S. Census Bureau.[5] The murder rates and gun murder rates were calculated based on the FBI reports.[6] The official population of each state for 2010 and gun ownership rates were added for context.[7]

The gun murders in 2010 from FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program was 8,775.[8] The total number of murders from all weapons was 12,996.[8] These figures includes murders and willful manslaughters, but excludes "deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident" and justifiable homicides.[9] The U.S. reports a 70% conviction rate for murder prosecutions.[10]

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

2010? Yeah ok thanks “Wikipedia from a decade ago is a legitimate source” guy.

Even so your link still shows California with 1297 gun murders and Alaska with only 19. And a higher “per capita”.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites