I'm asking about their similar rates, not total number. Rates are for deaths per 100,000 or whatever, so why does California have such a high rate of death by gun with so many gun laws?
This argument has become circular, for I have already answered this question of yours; even still you appear to be missing it.
Now, if you want to argue over a point about “rates”, then there are many other states with rates that are just as high (while discarding the low numbers associated with such rates as overall the population of other states pale in comparison to California); such high rates are not only prevalent in just California and Washington D.C.
Regardless when we discuss rates what we are really boiling down are its associated sums.
What? The percentage rate isn't a game. It's how to fairly compare states with different populations.
I meant “game” as in a metaphor, not literally. However, yes that is correct we are dealing with scale, a radio of 1 (occurrence):100,000 (people). Again many states have rates just as high if not higher than California, e.g., Delaware has a rate of 79.17, Illinois a rate of 80.35, Louisiana a rate of 80.32 and there are many other examples.
Btw, you're not helping your gun-control case by pointing out Washington D.C. with its even more gun laws has a high rate of death via gun.
And neither was, as you assert, that my case. I am merely comparing respective numbers as you are attempting to feebly corrupt or vilify specifically California, which has a vastly larger population then all other states, save for a very small handful, e.g., Texas, New York, Florida, etc.
Pointedly, I am not for “gun control” per se, but I am all out for gun rights and responsibilities. And contrary to the posturing of those arguing within this thread, there is a vast difference between the two.
The underlying issue concerning my RIDAPA proposal, which should be very apparent (at least by now), is that should something like this ever actually become statutory, it would forever thereafter establish a working precedent to vastly restrict both the states and federal government from meddling any further in matters of “gun control”.
Since you didn't answer my question in a way that makes sense for this discussion, I will try again...
I didn’t answer your question, and I didn’t make sense? Well I wholly disagree. You asked why firearms are so commonly used to commit homicide and I responded with a valid answer as to why that is so.
Why does California, with such restrictive gun laws, and Washington D.C., with such restrictive gun laws, have a rate of murder by gun high enough to make those gun laws look ineffective? If California has lots of gang violence, that's too bad, but how can those gangs be using so many guns with California's restrictive gun laws? Will more gun laws stop these people from using guns? Because it sure doesn't look like gun laws are stopping them now.
Oh, wonderful, so now you are going to get into that whole notion that because a small segment of society consistently decides to violate public laws that then proves that all such laws are ineffective and therefore, there should simply be no public laws. And that in the course of such wondrous euphoria the fee-markets will prevail without any need whatsoever for interference by the government and finally then will shinny pot-of-gold rainbows flourish, white satin unicorns fly, and cotton candy grow plentiful. Please, oh please, spare me of all that.
Tough to answer, again, it is rather simple, because at this time California really does nothing to actually inhibit gangs (as neither does it do anything about putting an end to unlawfully employing aliens, illegal aliens, etc.). The fact is that law enforcement departments actually only desire to capitalize off of gang, drug, and weapons violence (as it is perpetual and increases along with the population); just as they do with DUI checkpoints, for such checkpoints are not really at about putting an end to drunken driving, but are all about generating consistent revenue from it.
The point of establishing public laws, which is to mean public order, is to make culpable those who commit wrongdoing against the collective interests of the public and furthermore to establish an effective means of civility and recompense.
And yes, the likely result of establishing more and stricter gun laws is to decrease gun violence, while in consequence property related crimes will most certainly increase. As can now be observed from the Australian model. For example, if a law was made compelling all to surrender their firearms by a certain date or otherwise face a premise search by law enforcement and then to be severely penalized if caught being in possession of a firearm, all crimes involving firearms would begin to rapidly diminish.
It should be noticed that there is a greater distinction between being allowed to own and keep a firearm and ammunition and in consequence not being allowed to.
With consideration to the overall population of say California or for that matter Washington D.C. (or any other state), the sum of people killed by gun related violence is rather minuscule with respect the entire population of those states.
Yet, as another idea, how about we flip this argument, by formulating a new question, such as: are firearm related homicides null (or even greatly decreased) in states with either very lax or nonexistent gun control laws? Such as say: Arizona, Idaho, Vermont, Mississippi, and Kentucky?
