Annual Gun Law Score Card - 2014

[GGJohn]

X-posted from GCRA.
http://gunlawscorecard.org/

Every year, more than 30,000 Americans die from gun violence. But there’s more to the story. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has been fighting for smart gun laws for over 20 years, and we’ve noticed a trend: the states with stronger gun regulation have lower gun death rates, and the states with weaker regulation have higher gun death rates.

By grading all 50 states on their gun laws and showing the clear correlation between smart gun laws and reduced gun violence, we can encourage state legislators to adopt the common-sense solutions that will save lives. And not just at home—we found that states with the weakest gun laws are also responsible for trafficking the most crime guns.

The good news is that there’s been tremendous progress. Since the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook in 2012, 37 states have passed an unprecedented 99 laws strengthening gun regulation. Ten states have enacted major overhauls.

We grade the states each year to urge our leaders to build on the momentum for smart gun laws in America, stand up to the gun lobby, and not rest until the entire country has an A+.

Makes me proud that my state of AZ scored an F.

[Duckhunter935]

1. I feel perfactly safe in Oklahoma

I think safer than I felt in that A- state on the left coast.

[GGJohn]

2. I see all the states surrounding me, except for that A- state,

are F rated.

[guillaumeb]

3. most gun owners feel perfectly safe

until there is an "unforeseen, how could it have happened, what was he/she thinking" type of "accident" and someone dies in the home who might not have died in a gun-free home.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. That never happens in a gun owner's home. Except when it does.

[Duckhunter935]

4. I worry much more

About the drive to work.

[guillaumeb]

5. with good reason

I have guns, and knives, and swords, and other things, but I constantly read about people who cannot be bothered with basic safety. As a result, people die. There should be a requirement for insurance to cover each firearm. The cost might deter the "Red Dawn" type collector. If you need liability insurance for a car, why not for a gun?
My view

[Duckhunter935]

6. It would be very cheap

Criminal acts not covered and actual rate of accident per firearm very, very small. I Have my firearms added to my homeowners insurance. Lets cut down on drunk and distracted driving which kills and injures many more.

[guillaumeb]

7. amen to that

[MicaelS]

14. Because owning a car is not a right.

Owning a gun is.

But, while we're on the subject, I think mandatory liability insurance for driving a car is simply a way to penalize the poor. It's a money train for Insurance Companies. And these laws got passed because the Insurance Companies lobbied the various State Legislatures with campaign contributions.

Given the horrendous state of affairs of public transport in many places in the US, it is almost mandatory to own a car. People who have money are going to buy insurance to cover themselves and their car anyway. All this mandatory liability insurance is a cost for the poor that they are never going to get a return on. If they don't have insurance, and cause an accident, they're never going to pay off the judgement anyway. They will probably loose their license for a period of time.

You want to be covered, cover yourself, that is is my view.

[jimmy the one]

18. musket insurance

quillaume wrote: If you need liability insurance for a car, why not for a gun?

micaelS: Because owning a car is not a right. Owning a gun is

Why then does the nra offer gun liability insurance? they contend it's a good thing to have, more or less.

wiki, auto ins: Until 1956, when the New York legislature passed their compulsory insurance law, Massachusetts {~1925} was the only state in the U.S. that required drivers to get insurance before registration ... It required automotive liability insurance as a prerequisite to vehicle registration ... North Carolina followed suit in 1957 and then in the 1960s and 1970s numerous other states passed similar compulsory insurance laws.

Early americans circa 1800 could be held liable for misuse of their firearms & muskets outside of militia duty (perhaps as well as) - the 2nd amendment was no guarantee of immunity from prosecution for letting your musket accidentally shoot someone in the foot while target practicing. Not that I know of any 'musket insurance' back then, more like they might've considered it an 'act of god'. Ha.

[beevul]

21. The false equivalencies from you folks are tiresome.

"If you need liability insurance for a car, why not for a gun? "

Liability insurance is required to USE a car on public roads, not for OWNERSHIP the car.


Your suggestion about a liability insurance is for OWNERSHIP, not public use.


Congratulations, you are the 276459832513298438th poster to have compared an apple with an orange while pretending that they're the same thing.

[guillaumeb]

22. do I win a prize?

but seriously, in my area,
1) you must have license plates on any vehicle stored on your property.
2) to purchase plates you must show proof of insurance.
3) the insurance requirement is linked to ownership.

The same could be required for firearms.

[Duckhunter935]

23. What state if I may ask?

[guillaumeb]

28. you may

Illinois

[Straw Man]

24. No, not yet.

but seriously, in my area,
1) you must have license plates on any vehicle stored on your property.
2) to purchase plates you must show proof of insurance.
3) the insurance requirement is linked to ownership.

That sounds to me like a local ordinance aimed at "quality of life." In other words, no one wants to live next to a property that is strewn with derelict vehicles. I'm guessing that the owner could stash those heaps in a garage and go plate-less.

We'd have to see the ordinance to be sure. Do you have a link.

[beevul]

25. You're speaking of the exception, rather than the rule.

"1) you must have license plates on any vehicle stored on your property."

What about a vehicle which BY LAW can not be plated, like a mud dragster or a drag car?

Guess those aren't allowed to be owned where you live huh?

Regardless...what you're speaking of, is the exception. In the great majority of jurisdictions in this nation, you don't need anyones "permission" to own property, up to and including *GASP* guns.

And that's as it should be, including *GASP* guns.

Proposing such a thing on the national stage would mark the end of the political career of whoever was stupid enough to propose it, and rightly so.

And I, along with tens of millions of other Americans, aim to see it stays that way.

[guillaumeb]

29. lack of clarity on my part

vehicles refers to vehicles intended for street use. That included trailers that can be towed behind a vehicle. A race car or boat or vehicles that are not "street legal" do not need a license.
You wrote:
In the great majority of jurisdictions in this nation, you don't need anyones "permission" to own property, up to and including *GASP* guns.

There was no attempt on my part to talk about "permission" to own property. I am not sure how you interpreted what I actually said to arrive at your conclusion. And that includes *gasp* guns.

But permission to own is not an absolute right without concomitant obligation. You might own a house but if you allow the house to become uninhabitable you can lose the house. You might own a business but if you use the business as a front for drug dealing you can lose the business. There are no legal absolutes. And that includes firearms.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. "But permission to own is not an absolute right without concomitant obligation."

What is the concomitant obligation for the free exercise of religion, speech, voting rights and not being subject to unreasonable search and seizure?

[guillaumeb]

31. glad you asked

In order:

free exercise of religion does not include human and/or animal sacrifice. Does not include the ability to own "religiously justified" slaves.

free speech does not include the right to make a bomb threat anywhere.

voting rights are being infringed upon and abridged all over the US in the name of "voter integrity" and other catch phrases.

the SCOTUS has issued many 4th Amendment rulings that infringe upon our rights.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law.
More:
Florida v. Bostick [501 U.S. 429, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991)] illegal search and seizure upheld

There are many more I could include.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. In order

free exercise of religion does not include human and/or animal sacrifice. Does not include the ability to own "religiously justified" slaves.

I'm not sure how this is not analogous to your earlier comment about an insurance requirement but whatevs --

People exercising their religions do not need to carry a policy or other license to practice. Private citizens do not carry slander and libel insurance.

Perhaps a more fitting analogy would be: Owning a gun is a right. Maliciously or carelessly killing someone with a gun is criminal. I doubt you would find any resistance to that idea here.

free speech does not include the right to make a bomb threat anywhere.

But people engaging in speech are not held liable, either criminally or civilly for the acts of those who do make bomb threats. Only those making bomb threats are ever subject to the force of law and then only after they have violated the law.

Similarly, no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process -- including the right to effective self-defense.

the SCOTUS has issued many 4th Amendment rulings that infringe upon our rights

How does that buttress the case for gun control? Just because they infringe one right they are allowed to infringe any other right they choose?

It seems an odd argument to claim the government is becoming increasingly oppressive and disregards the rights of the citizenry then claim the government should possess the sole right to possess armed force as if our disarming will somehow make them treat us with any more respect.

The worst subjugation is the one you impose on yourself. It is also the most unforgiveable.

[guillaumeb]

34. keep to the point

you asked:

What is the concomitant obligation for the free exercise of religion, speech, voting rights and not being subject to unreasonable search and seizure?

My response was that no right is an absolute right. Ignoring my response is not a refutation of my point. The law confers no absolute rights. Neither does the Constitution.
As to the Second Amendment and "absolute rights" consider that in:
McDonald v. Chicago (561 U.S._(2010)),

The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.

The last 2 sentences are illuminating and uphold completely my premise that there are no absolute rights in law.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. "The law confers no absolute rights. Neither does the Constitution."

Agreed, but restrictions on rights either

A) Come after some adjudicated offense has been proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt or

B) there is a compelling state interest and the proposed remedy is effective while being minimally invasive

Restrictions aren't/shouldn't be based on irrational fears.

[guillaumeb]

38. all true and agreed with

B is generally the point that needs to be established to convince the SCOTUS. Except with womens' health issues, especially abortion rights. SCOTUS requires little in the way of compelling interest and allows many infringements. In my opinion.

[NaturalHigh]

26. Me too.

[Logical]

39. LOL, why did you feel unsafe in CA? Too many democrats I assume for you. nt

[Duckhunter935]

40. They can't drive

always on there fricking phones

[Logical]

41. OK Is a hell hole of GOP supporters, like my state Kansas i know i would enjoy CA. Nt

[samsingh]

8. kick

[pablo_marmol]

9. The usual horse puckey from The Controllers

What they won't tell you is that Maine, with an F rating had .8 gun murders in 2010 as compared to the A- rated California at 3.4. And that CA wasn't that much safer that F rated Mississippi. The last thing these liars want their minions to do is take a good long critical look at a chart such as this: (or heaven forbid.......read an award-winning book by a liberal criminologist!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

And of course what they won't tell you is that violence in the South has ALWAYS been higher than the rest of the nation - where most of the F rated states lie. In fact, as far back as 1958, violent crime rates in the south were three times the national average.

http://www.businessinsider.com/south-has-more-violent-crime-fbi-statistics-show-2013-9

Blaming the 'culture of violence' and the heat for the higher violence rates is viewed with serious skepticism by modern scholars. To the best of my recollection, there is still a great deal of mystery surrounding the long history of southern violence.

[jimmy the one]

19. mucho grande problemo pablo

Pablo: What they won't tell you is that Maine, with an F rating had .8 gun murders in 2010 as compared to the A- rated California at 3.4.

Why don't you compare apples to apples, rather than a state, maine, with it's largest city population at 66,000 = 0.07 million, to California with their mucho grande larger cities.
California has over 100 cities with populations LARGER than portland ME's 66,000:
Portland Maine: 0.07 million
Los Angeles: 3.8 million
San Diego: 4.4 million
San Jose: 1.0 mill
San Fran: 0.8 mill
Fresno: 0.5 mill

Pablo uses nra weird logic from the late 70's, compare south Dakota with California or new York & imply guns were the reason for low crime & murder.
You need buy that book 'statistics for dummies', Pablo.

Compare apples more to apples, here's parity except for Hawaii's high pop density & low gunownership:
pop/ popdensity/ totmurd/ totgunmurd/ gunownership/ murdrate/ gunmurdrate
gun control Hawaii 1,360,301 .. 216.8.. 24 ..7 ..6.7%.. 1.8.. 0.5
pro gun Maine......: 1,328,361 .. 43.04 ..24.. 11 ..40.5% ..1.8.. 0.8

Pablo: And that CA wasn't that much safer that F rated Mississippi. The last thing these liars want their minions to do is take a good long critical look at a chart such as this

The best way to compare gun control California, is with only 3 other comparable states, new control York, progun florida, & progun texas, somewhat conveniently two pro gun, two gun control. 2013 stats:
Florida murder rate. .. 5.0 ... gun ownership rate 24.5% (due in part retirees)
California murder rate 4.6 .... ....................... 21.3
Texas murder rate .... 4.3 ............................. 36
New York murd rate.. 3.3 ...............................18

-- so calif/ny 3.95 avg edges out texas/flor 4.65

[pablo_marmol]

10. Will CA go from A- to C- if/when it goes shall issue?

And how on earth did Illinois end up with a B+?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. The map reflects controllers fantasies rather than your actual ability to survive

[pablo_marmol]

16. Indeed it does. NT

[sarisataka]

12. I wonder what an A+ state

would look like?

No way to know since their 'how we grade' only gives vague references to assigning points then the states are ranked and graded. No total points, breakdown by grade or any other way to determine why one state is a C+ and another a B-

[ileus]

13. common sense...not so common with the controllers.

[ManiacJoe]

15. Looks like the UBC fraud brought the WA grade "up" to B-.

[ileus]

17. I wish Virginia could upgrade to an F.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. For comparison --

It's like gun law rating and violent crime rates seem to have no correlation.

I wonder why that is?

[jimmy the one]

33. what year is the Violcr graph?

nuc uni: It's like gun law rating and violent crime rates seem to have no correlation. I wonder why that is?

Sometimes the effort to pass reasonable gun control does not live up to expectations due several possible reasons,
OR, the state with little gun control is sparsely populated with low population density & smallish cities, smallish urbanity, & has not the racial problems which larger cities tend to have.

Your map graph does show that of the top ten states in violent crime rates, 8 are progun states, two maryland A- & delaware B-, while the other 8 pro gun states have F's. While not a correlation, seems pretty supportive of pro gun states having higher violent crime rates, eh?
Actually, Arkansas & Oklahoma are tied for 10th, so that's 9 of 11 in the top ten.

The 'safer' ten states are 8 pro gun, 2 gun control; these safer ten have approx 25 million people in all (7 million in neutral minn C- & guncontrol haw B+), representing approx 8% of total US population 2010, compared with the 'more dangerous' ten in violent crime, approx 50 million (approx 7 million in gun control md & del), about 15% the US population.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. Ya know.

When you approach a conversation in conversational tones it isn't so bad to have you provide your thoughts on a subject.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. The latest numbers are here, per the FBI:

Crime in the United States
by State, 2013


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls

Note: Rates for 2014 have not been released yet