Here are 17 states where you’re more likely to die from guns than from car crashes

n one-third of America, you are more likely to be killed by a gun than in a car crash, a new Violence Policy Center (VPC) analysis has found. “Firearm-related fatalities exceeded motor vehicle fatalities in 17 states and the District of Columbia in 2013,” VPC’s report said, citing the most recent federal data. “That year, gun deaths (including gun suicide, homicide, and fatal unintentional shootings) outpaced motor vehicle deaths in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.” In those 17 states, there were 12,730 gun deaths, compared to 11,256 car-related fatalities. The states with the most gun deaths were Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, Tennessee and Missouri, where the death rate was 50 percent higher—or more—than the national average of 10.64 gun deaths per 100,000 people.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/here-are-17-states-where-youre-more-likely-to-die-from-guns-than-from-car-crashes/


Interested on Victors views on this.

Also to add to the last article:


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/study-shows-too-many-americans-are-angry-impulsive-and-have-access-to-a-gun/

crazy

Evening Victor

Hope all is well

Not sure if you have seen this as not seen you around the last few days. As thought you would be interested in and what views you make of this. I am of the view the second article is more telling than the first one and that the second article explains why it is so high in the first article. Is the key then not so much to look at the guns but of those purchasing them, even more so if they have anger issue's etc?

What do you think

I agree with that last post Didge,
and this is WHY i am so much in favour of the present system of licensing and background checks applied to those who wish to hold a firearms certificate.
As I have said before the reality is that in britain there is a presumed RIGHT to bear arms. and the firearms certificate is in fact NOT a licence but a certificate that confirms in te opinion of the police you are a "fit and propper person to enact that right.
(the difference being that a licence makes legal that which in other circumstances IS NOT,
thus you have NO RIGHT under the constitution to drive a motor vehicle
you have NO RIGHT to practice medicine
and so on, BUT you CAN aquire a licence to do so.
HOWEVER you DO have a constitutional right to own a firearm
BUT you have to be certified as "fit and proper" to make the claim to that right)


and believe me those background checks are pretty thorough (as they should be)
and you are monitored, your medical record checked and your general attitude is noted by the FEO who interviews you.

could they be tighter...well yes they could, but to what purpose?
leaving aside deaths from ILLEGAL guns, in the hands of scumbags,
and the fact that most deaths from legal guns are at the hands of someone who "snapped"(and thus would likely STILL kill, with a different weapon) tougher licensing would save so few per year the difference would be statistically invisible...

however, could it be made better? YES without doubt.
for a start ALL FEO's (firearms enquiry officers) (the guys that interview you, check your security and "assess" your suitability) should be "firearms qualified" police officers OR membars of things like rifle clubs etc i.e they should have EXPERIENCE of these things, rather than (as most are ) just civvies "doing a job" (not to say that 99% dont do a reasonable job, but it would be better all round to go the "qualified" route (for a number of VERY good reasons)

Interesting Victor and thanks for the info, as you know more on the laws and licenses on this.

So it works fairly well here the license and checks, yet in the US its poor then?
There clearly is a significant problem in the US though. Clearly the hypothesis needs far more testing and understanding why, (claims the study) a percentage of Americans are angry or impulsive. Not knocking our American friends on here, but does this stem from having huge Ego's with the country being significantly the most powerful and dominant for decades? How this is played upon hugely whilst kids are growing up, especially in schools, with how great America is taught and perceived to them? Lets face it they do celebrate big time their identity over there. Which as you well know if such nationalist views go to the head, you then have those who would feel superior to others. Problems then start, especially around the racial aspect, as you will have some angry that some are classed as American, where they view them as inferior. Of course you then have many Latino's and even more so Blacks angry and resentful at the constant discrimination they face. Where then clearly America to me has to work on these two key issues which bring about anger. Of course its just an opinion and no doubt there is other factors too, but this to me could be the key areas to look further into, to helped combat the high levels of gun deaths and injuries. If people are medically banned with the use of further evidence on this, it could certainly help make a difference.

In states like Texas, there are no licenses or background checks required when purchasing a gun, and very few restrictions of any kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

Ben_Reilly wrote:In states like Texas, there are no licenses or background checks required when purchasing a gun, and very few restrictions of any kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

Well that tells me there is a strong advocacy of gun ownership there are more the high tech military hardware kind, assault rifles etc. Shades of what I call the Alamo Theorem here maybe. That people due to its historical past of a war that gained this state its independence and how this is played on men back then bearing arms to defend the state? With how this state is still on the border, with a few they still have to be armed to the teeth to defend it? Does this have any bearing to the Texan war of Independence, for why the laws are so lax?  Or being as you know Texas better than anyone else here Ben, why do you think there is such a slack law on guns? Profit for the industries based on high local support. Appreciate your knowledge here and offer some reasons would be cool?

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:In states like Texas, there are no licenses or background checks required when purchasing a gun, and very few restrictions of any kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

Well that tells me there is a strong advocacy of gun ownership there are more the high tech military hardware kind, assault rifles etc. Shades of what I call the Alamo Theorem here maybe. That people due to its historical past of a war that gained this state its independence and how this is played on men back then bearing arms to defend the state? With how this state is still on the border, with a few they still have to be armed to the teeth to defend it? Does this have any bearing to the Texan war of Independence, for why the laws are so lax?  Or being as you know Texas better than anyone else here Ben, why do you think there is such a slack law on guns? Profit for the industries based on high local support. Appreciate your knowledge here and offer some reasons would be cool?

I think guns loom large in Texan culture because of the cowboy mystique, which ironically is more a product of Hollywood than history -- most cowboys didn't carry guns, and most towns throughout the Old West didn't allow citizens to carry guns in city limits. But that's not how movies and TV shows portray it, of course, and a lot of Texans think they're descended from gunslingers when they're actually more likely to be descended from intellectual German atheists http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/1998/april98/scharf.html

Of course, guns are a bigger part of rural life in general, and Texas has rural roots -- I would say there are probably more gun-rights advocates in Texas who are defending hunting and "varmint control" on ranches, or at least who come from families where those were important things.

Also, politics lags behind public opinion, pretty much everywhere, but in Texas you can really see that as the biggest group with an opinion on gun control laws wants them to be stricter, the second-largest group likes them the way they are and a small minority wants them less strict: http://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/poll/features/gun_control_feature/slide1.html

I really don't think Mexico plays into it that much, other than with a few nutjobs who want to patrol the border with assault rifles. Maybe it did more in the past, and it's tough to find data on this, but I think the Texas attitude toward immigration reform says something about it. President Obama's proposals for immigration reform met with 64 percent approval from Texas Republicans. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-polls-even-red-states-strong-support

With all the gun violence in the U.S., I guess it's natural for non-Americans to assume that most Americans are fine with the current gun controls or lack thereof. Actually, Obama has proposed a range of gun-control reforms that have been popular throughout the country with people from both major parties. This is from Gallup, asking Americans whether they would vote for or against the proposals:



Their failure to pass shows just how much a grip the gun lobby has on the U.S. -- there really can't be any other explanation.

One other major difference between here and the states is that "good reason" has to be demonstrated for a firearms certificate (though not for a shotgun certificate)

and "home defence" is NOT an acceptable reason....

Ben_Reilly wrote:In states like Texas, there are no licenses or background checks required when purchasing a gun, and very few restrictions of any kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

That is just asking for trouble!!!