yes, but they would show up in the assault rate, which is much lower than the country on average. I would imagine being shot and not dying would fall under that. But they are much lower there as well. You would think more rural areas, louisiaa, arkansas, tenn., south carolina would all have a higher death rate than they do, relative to their assault rates.
I think people in rural areas are used to handling firearms in more situations than people in cities. That's just one explanation. More important is that there isn't the simple cause/effect relationship you imply. Funny you bring up, say Arkansas. They're gun laws are not so strict compared to NY state. Yet their murder rates, etc., appear to me to have a similar decline since the 1990s (republican revolution, coincidence?). Arkansas (See per 100,000 data): http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/arcrime.htm New York: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm
fck, Mags, I never would have thought that you would sound like an oboma slogan..responsible people will be ok with a revised registration process..poppycock where do you stop..do you want some secret surveillance org shadowing gun owners to make sure they remain "safe" by gov standards? I think we are better served to keep a closer watch on those that are less stable and past felons,odds are that these are the people that cause problems
Lmao!!! Yeah because you won't hear screams from the people getting stabbed or onlookers seeing bloody bodies falling to the ground. No wonder Denny calls your strawman out. What's even crazier is I actually think you believe everything you say.
Sarin gas attack in Tokyo subway killed 13, seriously injured 50, and otherwise harmed about 1,000 others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
A huge percentage of shootings in NY, and other large cities, are gang-against-gang crimes and as such go unrecorded.
So medical records should be required with the background check then? I said I am a republican with very liberal views. I made that clear. And I don't mind some form of government regulation for safety. Just like I support the FDA to regulate the manufacturing of drugs and food products.
So are you saying a mentally-deranged veteran returning from Afghanistan couldn't commit mass murder in a mall with only his hand-to-hand training and a ball-point pen? Is that your contention?
hmmm no medical records check but I would tke the smaller number of mentaly ill and deny them the right to own a gun unless they could get a doctor to sign off.
but how would you determine needing a doctor sign off if you aren't checking their medical records to see they're mentally ill?
take it from the other dirrection, if someone has a condition that may be of harm to others or requires medication to maintain, they should have to have a doc sign off or not be allowed
yes, but if I have a condition, but want a gun, and go to buy one, I'm not disclosing that info voluntarily, knowing it's going to keep me from getting a gun.
the same way DMV knows if your eyes will not allow you to drive or if there is any other medical condition that hinders you, does not get you 100 percent but anyone thas seen a doc can be tagged
From what I remember when I gt my license, I think the DMV checked my eye sight. So do you mean, then, not a check of medical records, but that if someone goes to a doctor, and let's say is diagnosed with Asperger's, that the doctor is then required to enter it somehwere, where it is is, essentially, entered into a no gun database?
