Gun laws where guns take the most lives

>to point out that suicide risk is still a public safety risk... ...

I disagree with about everything you mentioned about suicide. This does not mean I am saying you are wrong, you can be right as far as how you feel the impact and all that, I just don't feel the same about the impact, and I do not consider suicide a reason to consider banning anything.

> Gun deaths involved in illegal activities are definitely public safety issues.

I do not think this is statistically significant. How many members of public are also injured when a drug dealer is shot? There was a time when drive by shootings inuring and killing bystanders was more common in the news, but I think that is much less these days, and even at it's peak, if you take out the drug dealers, drug buyers, the thieves, etc - how many in the public are affected by being shot?

> only about 48% of homicides could be directly attributed to gangs, with the rest being due to interpersional relationships, and "unknown causes"

This is some information, it seems about than half the homicides are targeted deaths where a criminal is killing someone likely due to illegal activities, and about half are from people who have known each other a long time and were likely arguing about money or someone sleeping with someone kind of things.

Skimming the info via snopes it seems about 2/3 of the 'interpersonal relationship kind of homicides' happened with a gun and 1/3 of the kills used something else.

Here's the point I am / was trying to make above and here, I disagree that these deaths should be chalked up as public safety issues broadly. Most of these killings took out the intended target without collateral deaths of public bystanders, neighbors, etc.

If there were no guns, knives, other methods, and the only way to kill a human was the use of poison gas, and 10,000 a year people killed not just the intended target in the interpersonal relationship but also anyone living in adjacent apartments or others at such and such restaurant / pub / etc.. then I would be behind this as public safety issue.

> Gun crimes significantly affect minorities, which has a significant accumulative effect not just on public safety, but the health, safety and economic stability of significant portions of minority communities.

Understand the importance here, but disagree. If you had said "Violent crimes significantly affect minorities, which has a significant accumulative effect on the health, safety and economic stability of significant portions of minority communities" - I would say yes, and this is important stuff. Regardless of the tools that violent offenders use, the issue is complex and I think it's important for the whole community.

> Wait, cell phone use causes deaths? You lost me there.

"In 2016 alone, 3,450 people were killed. 391,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers in 2015.

During daylight hours, approximately 481,000 drivers are using cell phones while driving" [1]

This does not include times when baby drowns in tub while mom is addicted to fbook. Also does not include the times when texts or social accounts on a cell phone lead to argument about interpersonal relationships that ends in death.

now here I agree:

>people are not rational, and we should be legislating based on real-world harms, not based purely on the "perception" of risk.

On that statement, we are on total agreement.

[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving

> The US is different but not a special snowflake. Just California alone I think would qualify. The weather, the girls, the agriculture, the money...

kidding aside... could it be that Canada is only worth about $39 billion for drug sales and the US is about $109 billion per year?

I only have one neighbor (that I know of) who would kill for under a thousand bucks, however if there was a million dollars sitting downtown in cash I am guessing there would be more.

I don't know enough about Canada to say, only a few minutes of edited tv here and there, but from what I had seen - people there appeared to be more willing to help people in need - on the street, and via the govt.

The people I saw in the cities also appeared to be very comfortable and not so angry / intimidating - which may mean you can coerce people there without threatening with a gun or shooting up a block. If you can bully large groups with just a scowl, there is no need for guns and shooting.

I'm just guessing though, I am sure there are many factors.

The lack of help here in the states puts a lot of people on the street with lack of access to healthcare and shelter - that kind of creates environments for crime.

I also think people here are more willing to stand up and fight for what they have or what they want. Not sure that's a geography thing (are people more willing to be shitty to others around them about keeping their 70 degree all year california weather as opposed to the snowy mountains up north?

I'm not sure they actually have fewer guns per capita available up there, but I think they have less reason to fight and kill.

Maybe it’s the US’s prison to no vote and no job pipeline, not sure Canada has the same thing?

Could it have to do with things like the US has 58,000,000 latino / hispanic Americans and Canada has 700,000 ? The US has 10 million illegal immigrants and Canada has 100 thousand? Canada has a million black people and the US has 38 times that many?

I don’t mention these things because I think these people are bad or good, it’s just something that makes USA and Canada different.

Again I am not an expert, just seen a couple of shows and a few searches online. These are some ideas about things that may be factors in the differences. I’m sure I am ignorant in these areas and more. Could it be that people in the US spend more time outside throughout the year comparatively and so more fights break out down here? All kinds of things.

I looked into moving to Canada, but I don’t qualify to move there, I could try to sneak in and be an illegal immigrant, but I would not get the healthcare and votes and other experiences I assume – so I may visit one day, but I don’t expect to actually get a lot of first hand understanding of how different it is unfortunately.

Please stop talking about Brazil as a single reality. Murder rate is completely different across state lines. And guns play zero role into the causes, as others have already pointed out.

Any serious analysis on USA is done in a per-state basis, and the same applies to Brazil.

I agree that better social programs, decreased inequality, and drug decriminalization would be a much better approach to preventing gun violence than more people having guns.

Just piping in to say, that, demographics of a city DO have an effect on violent crime. And a lot of it stems from inequality - you can actually see it literally on the roads. In areas where you get tailgated, music bumpers, and just all-in-all too different kinds of people sharing the same spaces, you have a LOT of latent anger. And anger rubs off on everyone. It's kinda like the theory of a single happy person rubbing off on others and makes them happy. Well in these urban areas filled with inequality, I've generally just seen mostly the anger spread.

It's an enormous problem that essentially stems from the wrong kinds of people living with each other. The fix? Don't change the people, change the inequality.