Great solutions.
Take a look below. I think most of us can agree that IL, CA, NY, NJ and MA have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. They rank 27th, 44th, 46th, 48th and 49th, respectively, in Gun Deaths per Capita. I don't have the evidence to back this claim, but my guess is that a large percentage of the gun deaths in Illinois (ie- Chicago) are attributable to firearms brought in from neighboring state with more lax laws. I'm looking at you, Indiana. Also, some more color for those among us who like pretty pictures. Pretty easy to see which party the leadership for each state belongs to. I only highlight this because of the countless times I've read in this forum how all the crime and gun violence occurs in the areas controlled by the stupid libs.
View attachment 537255
I think you would also agree that those states are among the wealthiest in the country, and have far better EMS and trauma care.
I really don't find much value in comparing state level statistics (see the contradictions I noted earlier eg CA and VT), but I would like to know the source of your data to look a little deeper.
While liberal run cities do seem to be the most violent places in the country, even that doesn't tell the whole story... Right here in Durham, there are neighborhoods that are safer than the safest cities, and neighborhoods that are literally more dangerous than active war zones, for either troops or civilians (I actually did the math for parts of Durham vs Afghanistan about 7 years ago).
The gun control laws that you seem to feel would make a difference simply don't seem to and I think you are weakening your argument by leaning on state level stats.
Remember, the goal should be fewer violent attacks, not necessarily fewer weapons unless the data is crystal clear.
Do you have data showing that within a given state, that the rate of shootings is lower in high gun control cities versus the counties in the rest of the state? That would be more persuasive to me since it helps to eliminate some confounding variables.
I think the argument/criticism you see against typical progressive/liberal politicians is because they often run the more violent cities within the states that may even have republican governors, and those liberals have been pushing policies that reduce enforcement and penalties on criminals while increasing laws that make it harder, or illegal, for other citizens to arm themselves against the criminals.
If you haven't studied project EXILE that ran in VA many years ago, I think you'd find it interesting. Apparently effective, but sadly discontinued.
Lastly, I think you are also getting a lot of push back, including mine, because it is not clear that your goal (of having stricter laws) would only apply to criminals... You are using overall gun ownership stats in your arguments and pointing positively at states with gun control that affects law abiding owners.
The big down side of that is that we know a huge risk to citizens actually comes from their government, and while you might look happily at how gun control in Europe correlates with low rates of shootings, would you say that it was a net positive over the last century taking into account the genocides that have happened there after mass disarmament?
Anyway, some food for thought. We probably won't change each other's minds, but as I said I do remain open to new data and would welcome links to or a description of your sources.
The bottom line for me personally is that I don't see any laws making a meaningful difference here in my hometown, where we have high levels of violence in small pockets, periodically spilling out into otherwise much safer zones. Without enforcement and incarceration of the perpetrators, and breaking the chain of violent conflict resolution to the children, it never has a chance of meaningfully reducing.
And in cases like the one that started this thread, it simply may never be possible to prevent a rampage from a violent person that has no criminal history. This kid could have sliced five throats, driven through a crowd, or burned down a house with a family in it if he couldnt get a gun. The reality is that humans are just capable of terrible violence, and personally, an honest and clear look at the data convinced me that all free people should be able to take responsibility for their own protection and that of their family, and not be forced to rely on laws or the police.
