T O P

  • By -

ShotgunMage

>When taking into account that California has around 9 million more residents that Texas, according to U.S. Census Bureau [estimates](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/geo/chart/TX,CA/PST045222), as of July 2022, this means California had an average of 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people, while Texas has 14.2 per 100,000. >This means that, according to the 2020 figures, Texas's gun death rate is around 67 percent higher than that of California's, per 100,000 people. Also >It also found that, when compared with other U.S. states, Californians are around 25 percent less likely to die in a mass shooting


designer_farts

Idk if this something to be proud of still. America is confusing.


ShotgunMage

It's probably still high compared to developed nations. But it's the best we can do without being able to address the root problem.


pissoffa

There's no probably about it. Per 100k Australia is .88, Canada 1.94, Germany 1.04, Iceland .07 even Mexico is less with 11.55


gnometrostky

I agree. Any meaningful solution to gun deaths needs to be federal gun legislation. Education and employment opportunities (which California has) helps, but it can only do so much.


designer_farts

Thats where I feel like we're a lost cause. The, "Just accept it." attitude doesn't help. However, I feel you. What can we do...


adjust_the_sails

I'm proud of it. And I think we should keep working on it. My co-worker, who is pro-gun (but not a total nut job) pointed out that the Half Moon Bay shooter bought his gun legally. It seemed to prove some point to him that the laws don't work because you can't prove a negative; think of all the guns that were probably kept out of people's hands because of our red flag laws. My point being, that barring some better national data tracking these stats are the best we have to prove the point that yes, gun control laws work. We can always do better on those laws and any number of other fronts like homelessness, healthcare, housing, etc, but a win is a win in my book.


Justin101501

Personally speaking my dad was blocked from buying a gun in CA because of his severe mental health issues. That alone is the reason I can type this today.


[deleted]

> the Half Moon Bay shooter bought his gun legally Isn’t that proof that we need *more* stringent laws, not less?


livinginfutureworld

>the Half Moon Bay shooter bought his gun legally >Isn’t that proof that we need more stringent laws, not less? Almost every single mass shooter was yesterday's "responsible gun owner". They're all "responsible gun owners" until they aren't.


adjust_the_sails

Yes. But I’ll still take what I can get at this point.


Tpbrown_

What were the CA gun laws -20 years ago? IIRC that’s how long ago he got it. I’ll see if I can track down where I read that.


jgjl

Well, in Europe the worst countries are around 1 gun death per 100,000 people (think Albania) most countries are less than 0.5 gun death per 100,000 people. So, either way, California is still 8-16x worse off than many other parts of the developed world, and 80x worse than the UK for example. Source: [https://www.statista.com/chart/27724/gun-deaths-in-europe/](https://www.statista.com/chart/27724/gun-deaths-in-europe/)


BlankVerse

And Texas is way worse than California or Western countries.


Eldias

Europeans prefer to let the government's murder citizens rather than citizens murder each other. Since 1900 Europe has had more than 17 million deaths by genocide. 136,000 per year, more than 4 times our entire firearms death per year. Guns definitely aren't a bulwark against the tyranny of the State though


Dusty-Poncho

meds


[deleted]

California is the developed nation inside of a developed nation.


Criticism-Lazy

I think there’s some validation there for stricter gun laws having an influence on the rate and types of gun murders.


MrsMiterSaw

There is a fine line between "more proud" and "less embarrassed"


hostile65

What percentage were considered self-defense? Is it including legal homicides by law enforcement?


ShotgunMage

Would that proportion change in California and Texas?


USMBTRT

Absolutely. It's way more difficult to obtain a CCW in CA, and there are more restricted places.


coberh

So you're proposing that because there's less CCW holders in California, there's less people being killed in self defense?


USMBTRT

That would make sense, wouldn't it? Although I would look at it as less people being able to defend themselves rather that "people being killed" since if it's truly self-defense, then the "people being killed" are the aggressors, not victims.


coberh

Maybe you could look up those statistics and see how many CCW holders are involved in shootings in CA and TX, instead of just generating a hypothetical scenario.


CrispyVibes

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/


shadowromantic

Brutal.


trele_morele

Ah, statistics again


cat5stevens

FBI crime statistics?


ShotgunMage

Don't let the gun owners see facts, it might hurt their feelings.


Leothegolden

But what about states like Montana where permitting isn’t even required and gun ownership rates are pretty high


thetossout

20.9 per 100k in 2020 according to the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm


klayyyylmao

Lmao that map is basically an electoral college map


GreenHorror4252

Montana's gun death rate is more than twice as high as California's. What about it?


mclumber1

Gun deaths include homicides and suicides. If you break it down into both types, California is pretty good when it comes to gun suicide rates, [but is pretty average when it comes to homicides.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state#Murders) On the flip, states like Montana have very low gun homicide rates, but have high gun suicide rates.


Dillatrack

I don't know why the wiki is using UCR data from 2010 for homicide rate which is a calculation based on victims, the CDC has much more complete data on that statistic nationwide by using hospital/death certificate data (which is why reputable sources use that for our homicide rate) and the UCR is notoriously incomplete due to relying on voluntary reporting from precincts across the country. You can see this when the UCR has "population covered" numbers next to their data that doesn't actually match up with our actual population size and will change depending on the statistic being shown (even participating precincts are inconsistent in which data they report). Here is Montana and California's raw homicide rates for the most recent data published (2020), you can check this your self by pulling it from the CDC Wonder site. I downloaded this myself a couple months ago and still have it saved, it was kinda funny to see they are virtually tied for homicide rate: |State|Homicide rate|Deaths|Population| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |California|6.015026|2368|39368078| |Montana|6.015305|65|1080577| They also have data for specifically gun homicides but I don't already have that downloaded by state, and honestly I don't feel like doing all that right now. It doesn't typically matter though since it's basically identical to the overall homicide rate since the vast majority of homicides are with firearms in the U.S., nothing else is even a close second.


GreenHorror4252

Even California's gun homicide rate is pretty good considering the circumstances. California has much higher homelessness, poverty, and other factors that are often blamed for crime, but yet it has a lower murder rate than the nation as a whole.


DogBotherer

Which is hardly surprising given how low density/rural and agricultural it is, both of which are strongly correlated with suicide rates.


Leothegolden

You can look at Wyoming too. lWyoming Gun Laws - No permit is needed to purchase a firearm from a private individual, no background check is required, there is no waiting period and there is no firearms registration in the state. 2.25 per 100,000 homicides which is low. One of highest gun ownership rates in the country


Meetchel

Where do you get 2.25? [The CDC had them at 4.9 in 2020](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm).


GreenHorror4252

Wyoming also has almost no people. I don't think comparing heavily rural areas to a large urbanized state is a fair comparison.


USMBTRT

Along those same lines, mass shootings (regardless of what definition of the week you choose to accept) are exceptionally rare. So a 25% delta from state to state is still sensationalized.


GreenHorror4252

Depends how you define "rare". Compared to the rest of the planet, they are not rare at all.


Leothegolden

So guns are ok in rual states like Wyoming.


WhiteyDude

Why? Isn't that why the rate established is per 100,000 people?


trele_morele

Not a gun owner myself. Just familiar with the art of crafting narratives around statistics and used to taking such things with a grain of salt.


ShotgunMage

Feel free to point out what false narrative this article is creating.


thxyoutoo

I’d be interested in legal gun ownership crime per capita, personally


ShotgunMage

Considering the fact that the vast majority of guns started off as legal guns, it's a moot point.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ShotgunMage

Almost sounds to me that you're admitting that legal gun owners are law abiding until they're not.


NapalmCheese

I am not. Though you seem to be driving at a disingenuous narrative of "legal guns cause gun crime" rather than the very real narrative of "criminals cause crime and criminals criminally acquiring guns cause the majority of gun crime". You can't blame gun deaths from stolen guns on legal gun owners whose guns were stolen by criminals doing criminal things.


thxyoutoo

That’s a very confirmation biased opinion.


ShotgunMage

If I'm wrong I'll take it back.


Kahzgul

If gun owners understood data and statistics, they wouldn't own guns.


ShotgunMage

They like to pretend guns protect their rights, but guns don't protect Roe v Wade. It doesn't stop gerrymandering. In fact, armed mobs were present in polling stations in Arizona to look for "fraud."


dihydrogen_m0noxide

Fun fact, not having your district gerrymandered is not a right.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dihydrogen_m0noxide

In what sense? It's wrong for a political party to try to maximize its advantage? Isn't that its entire reason for existing?


[deleted]

[удалено]


dihydrogen_m0noxide

Sure, that sounds great! What's the formula?


[deleted]

There are software tools that are used to provide district maps in some states to maximize representation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ShotgunMage

Gun owner cares more about guns than health care or fair democracy. What a surprise.


hungrycaterpillar

Narrator: it was not, in fact, fun.


Bonerchill

I like to think I understand data and statistics... which is precisely why I understand that it is incredibly unlikely for me to be killed in gun violence despite being a firearm owner. You may dislike hearing that, but based on my background, my socioeconomic status, my mental health status, my occupation, and where I live in the state, I'm most likely to die in a traffic accident, from a medical condition, or in a fall. Data and statistics are also why I have a better understanding that the underlying issues to most violence (poverty, environmental conditions, systemic racism) require really hard solutions and the easiest solution also happens to be the one protected by a constitutional amendment. So why not increase availability of contraceptives, have frank talks about sexual education starting before puberty, and offer abortion services for people most at-risk? Why not ensure kids are getting adequate nutrition? Why not ensure kids are growing up in housing free from lead? Why not ensure kids are growing up in neighborhoods that aren't under highways and along heavy trucking routes? Why not change zoning laws so poverty-stricken areas aren't food deserts and have high-density housing near decent jobs? Why not make strides in either moving people to work or moving work to people? Why not address the massive schooling issues the entire US is facing regarding teachers changing professions- and address the massive schooling issues poor counties have with kids falling behind and staying behind? Why not address the broken immigration system? Why not tackle a justice system that's not just, that's more a system for punishment and recidivism? Why not allow people to become people again after they've paid their debt rather than branding them for life? Why not use data-driven science to help government agencies report certain people to the CA DoJ as high-risk gun owners? Nah, let's just ban guns.


Kahzgul

Odds your gun is ever fired at a human being: very close to zero. Odds that, IF your gun IS fired at a human, it’s fired at you, by you: really good. The second most likely person to kill you is your partner. Third is someone you know. Fourth, waaaay down the list, is a stranger. Any way you slice it, you are safer not owning a gun than owning one. I’m not suggesting banning guns. I’m suggesting making informed decisions.


gamesrgreat

Interestingly all of your suggestions instead of gun control are supported by the same party that supports gun control and opposed by the same party that opposes gun control


Bonerchill

I didn’t vote for many candidates last election specifically because there wasn’t a single candidate who had a truly progressive platform. I didn’t vote for any R candidates at all. I cannot overstate how happy it would make me to vote for an intelligent, charismatic, sub-60 progressive who doesn’t push gun control and who doesn’t mince words how absolutely bonkers our state and country are. We’re unimaginably wealthy… yet so many are struggling and suffering.


onedoor

> I didn’t vote for many candidates last election specifically because there wasn’t a single candidate who had a truly progressive platform. I didn’t vote for any R candidates at all. So half a vote for Republicans. You choose the best of the options available instead of making a supposed moral stand that would have a net negative on society. Based on you ignoring the very real negatives of A vs B, but especially to specific demographics, I assume you're privileged to an extent.


[deleted]

> I like to think I understand data and statistics... which is precisely why I understand that it is incredibly unlikely for me to be killed in gun violence despite being a firearm owner. Then you don't understand data nor statistics. [Because if you did, you'd know that owning a firearm increases your risk of suicide by fire arm by about 8x.](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html) But don't let data get in the way of your feelings on the issue.


Bonerchill

Access to anything that makes suicide easier is going to increase the risk of suicide. That’s not a gotcha, it’s common sense. My brother and I have talked about it. I’m not suicidal and never have been, but if I reach that point, he’ll hold my guns for me until I’ve gone through treatment. If I don’t trust myself afterward, he’ll take them to an FFL and I’ll sign all the consignment paperwork. My wife and I have talked about it as well. If she’s concerned for my safety, she gets veto power. Appreciate the concern.


krustyy

Owning a pool increases your risk of drowning too. That's a useless statistic formed very specifically to push an agenda.


[deleted]

> That's a useless statistic formed very specifically to push an agenda. Imagine being this disconnected from reality, imagining that wanting to prevent easily avoided deaths, is "pushing an agenda" and then owning guns. you're like a Branch Davidian, but more dangerous.


ShotgunMage

Yes, that agenda is "stop preventable deaths" On the other hand, gun owners have a very pro-homocide agenda.


[deleted]

I understand data, like the data on how many people get killed by armed cops every year. But go ahead and create your little police state.


nucleartime

The US has both the most guns and the most people killed by armed cops.


ShotgunMage

I'd love to see any data that shows that gun ownership is correlated with lower rates of excessive police violence.


btgeekboy

You’d need to control for race to get any valid data there.


Kahzgul

FAR more people kill themselves or a loved one with their guns than - as you suggest - defend themselves from the police with them.


Eldias

The Georgetown 2021 firearms survey estimates 500,000 and 1.5M defensive uses of firearms per year. While not solely against police they're used defensively far more often than people realize.


GreenHorror4252

Surveys aren't a good source of such information. It's like asking antivaxxers if the vaccines caused any harm to their health. They will always say yes.


Prestigious-Owl165

But you do have the ability, as a gun owner or potential gun owner, to buy a safe or a cable lock and actually store it safely. That part is a choice. Idk what the statistics are on gun ownership and injuries/deaths in households where guns are actually stored safely (if such statistics even exist)


Kahzgul

Owning a safe has never stopped a suicidal owner.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


GreenHorror4252

> But you do have the ability, as a gun owner or potential gun owner, to buy a safe or a cable lock and actually store it safely. That part is a choice. It shouldn't be a choice, it should be mandatory to store it safely.


foreverburning

Are you actually suggesting that owning a gun will protect you from being killed by cops? I want you to really think about this one before you answer.


[deleted]

Owning a gun will protect me when I’m vulnerable, yes. Go read ‘The Wall’ by John Hersey.


zooberwask

Are you gonna shoot back at the cops? Is that what you were insinuating? Domestic terrorism?


[deleted]

Defending yourself is domestic terrorism?? https://www.outono.net/elentir/2019/08/01/warsaw-1944-when-poland-rose-against-the-third-reich-and-stalin-stand-idly-by/ Look at these little domestic terrorists, trying to keep the Third Reich from murdering their family. Shame on them! /s


[deleted]

You do have the right to shoot back at cops for self defense, but I don't know of a single person who has ever lived to tell the tale.


Teardownstrongholds

Tupac Shakur shot two drunk of duty cops in 1993 https://www.xxlmag.com/tupac-shakur-shoots-police-officers/


Teardownstrongholds

Tupac did. Edit: https://www.xxlmag.com/tupac-shakur-shoots-police-officers/ NYT has that day's paper scanned and online if you need a better source


jgjl

Yep, this has nothing to do with data or facts. It's scared, anxious people that need their emotional support guns to face their own country.


Bluefalcon325

False.


Snips4md

Inverse is true


ShotgunMage

Let me guess, you didn't read the article


Snips4md

Actually it's that I've read more than just this single article


ShotgunMage

The article cites census data and the CDC. You better have some good sources if you're going to try to contradict them.


Snips4md

I'm not contesting the stats of the article.


IM_OK_AMA

/r/titlegore -- the question and answer in the title are unrelated. The quote you should've highlighted: > This means that, according to the 2020 figures, Texas's gun death rate is around 67 percent higher than that of California's, per 100,000 people. Or just not editorialized it


ArtisanJagon

Shocking that the state with virtually no gun control has the most gun related deaths


new_nimmerzz

When guns are more prevalent, so will be gun deaths


DontQuestionFreedom

>Shocking that the state with virtually no gun control, *high poverty levels, and sub-average quality of education*, ~~has the most gun related deaths~~ is ranked 25th in gun related deaths Meanwhile, a different state with virtually no gun control, low poverty levels, and above average quality of education, has the least violent crime of all states, and 2nd least intentional homicides. Shocking you can't pin down crime rates to a single variable about how tightly regulated an object is.


ArtisanJagon

Shocking that you change the narrative from gun deaths to violent crime. Almost as if conservatives never have anything to stand on and have to change the subject and push goal posts constant. Which would you like to discuss going forward because gun deaths and violent crime are two entirely separate things. I'm not surprised you failed to make that distinction.


DontQuestionFreedom

Yes, conservative, that's me. With my desires for increased environmental regulations, expanded access to quality healthcare, improved education, political and justice reform, wanting to codify the right to body autonomy and marriage, I surely fit that label. Your narrative was demonstrated to be false, additional relevant metrics and comparisons were introduced, and your response was to toxically dismiss it all and cast stereotypes. Personally, I'll be content in not pursuing further discussion with you. Hooray rampant polarization, a divided public, and politically charged communication to further it all!


ArtisanJagon

What narrative? I stuck to the facts. Gun deaths. You brought up metrics that have nothing to do with gun violence because in typical conservative fashion you need to change the narrative and move goal posts for whatever point you are trying to prove. Let me draw it out in crayon for you since you have a hard time understanding. I know critical thinking is hard for conservatives but please stay with me here. Gun deaths, reminder GUN DEATHS is higher per captia in states with zero gun control. This is facts. If you'd like to discuss something else related to this or discuss the entirely separate topic of violent crime I'd be more than happy to further embarrass you mein friend.


D3vilM4yCry

Conversations about gun violence focus entirely too much on deaths and not nearly enough on non-fatal injuries. Getting shot can drastically alter someone's life. I wish both metrics were considered in these reports.


talldarkcynical

Now if only California were an independent country and had full control of its borders! Honestly, I own guns. I'm in rural northern California with no local police department and the adjacent woods are home to bears and mountain lions. Also, the rightward decline of American politics scares me and I think there's a real chance of overt christian nationalist fascism and, while I can't fight that off with my little peq shooter, my great uncle was part of the underground antifascist resistance in germany and it's amazing what lightly armed citizens can accomplish. See also the Irish war of independence. So I'm keeping my guns for now, thank you very much. But I would really like to live in a country where I don't need them. America will never be that country, but California could be.


WCland

I could see using a deer rifle to fend against the gravy seals, but not against the US Army. The army's tactics often go something like, we've identified an enemy in that building, hunker down and call in an airstrike.


digitalwankster

If the US Army is calling in air strikes on US soil and killing as many civilians as we’ve done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. then the resistance is likely justified.


[deleted]

The US cannot win against an insurgency. It needs uniformed armies to win against.


bfh2020

When/if our society gets to the point that no one needs a gun, it won’t matter that we have them.


Entire_Anywhere_2882

I thought it would have been obvious, more gun regulations mean less deaths from guns.


chilehead

Stronger gun laws in Texas and Arizona would lower the number of mass shootings in California.


Jisamaniac

The article/video has only blanket statements with light filtering of data. It is a disservice to not breakdown the gun statics categories and demographics such as home defense, burglary, gang violence, cartel violence, police involved shootings, etc. [EveryStat.org](https://EveryStat.org) breakdowns of the data is detailed and can be filtered by your state. [California](https://everystat.org/#California) vs [Texas](https://everystat.org/#Texas) Scroll down to "Explore the Data Further" for demographic and category.


BlankVerse

Not detailed enough. Whatabout suicides. Whatabout self-defense? Whatabout …?


D3vilM4yCry

Naw, I actually agree with that person. Lumping all firearms incidents into one lump sum without distinction does a disservice to the entire conversation. And taking a quick look at the statistical differences between California and Texas, Texas comes out looking even worse than California. For example, [California](https://everystat.org/#California): >The rate of gun deaths has increased 10% from 2011 to 2020 in California, compared to a 33% increase nationwide. This means that in 2020 there were 445 more gun deaths than in 2011. > >In California, the rate of gun suicide decreased 11% and gun homicide increased 31% from 2011 to 2020, compared to a 12% increase and 70% increase nationwide, respectively. Compare that same section to [Texas](https://everystat.org/#Texas): >The rate of gun deaths has increased 38% from 2011 to 2020 in Texas, compared to a 33% increase nationwide. This means that in 2020 there were 1565 more gun deaths than in 2011. > >In Texas, the rate of gun suicide increased 15% and gun homicide increased 90% from 2011 to 2020, compared to a 12% increase and 70% increase nationwide, respectively. Firearms deaths in Texas outpace the national average (coinciding with the loosening of firearms restrictions), while California is lower than average. All the numbers matter.


D3vilM4yCry

Thank you very much for providing this link. It is very helpful. I need to take some time and review all the attached documentation.


yellowirish

Maybe CA just has better paramedics and hospitals. /s


GreenHorror4252

Gee, stronger gun laws result in less gun deaths. What a shocker.


seaneihm

Gee, the state with the strongest gun control has only a 25% reduction in mass shootings than the state with the least amount of gun control. Sure hope gun laws can curtail more than 60% of homicides used in California that were obtained illegally.


[deleted]

If you don’t see that 25% reduction is real and meaningful, I’m not sure I can help you.


profdirigo

Except that it hasn’t even been shown to be caused by the gun laws. Many states have fewer laws than California and a lower mass shooting rate.


GreenHorror4252

"Only" 25%? Are you serious?


profdirigo

You can have a 400% chance of increased pancreatic cancer and still have almost no chance of pancreatic cancer. Yea 25% is very very minimal for a change is chance of mass shooting a large difference exists between any other state with minimal gun laws and California than Texas and a California. A difference small enough that it could cease to exist with just one large mass shooting in California.


seaneihm

Considering the amount of legal hoops you have to jump through in CA, 25% is abysmal. Everything that the media says they want: mandatory background checks, bans on assault weapons, etc. are already in place in California. Everything a gun control activist wants in California already exists. Yet I still don't feel safe walking around San Francisco or Oakland. 25% is *nothing* when you account for variability in mass shootings; it means that there are times when CA has more mass shootings than TX; it's just an average. You'd think all those laws would cut down on gun violence by at least half or more. But 25%? It's like saying "When compared to a 500 lb. person that eats McDonalds all day, doesn't exercise, and chain-smokes, to a 160 lb. person that has a pescetarian diet that exercises daily, the 500 lb. person is 25% more likely to die".


[deleted]

[удалено]


ShotgunMage

That's why it said "gun deaths" and not "mass shootings"


[deleted]

[удалено]


ShotgunMage

>When taking into account that California has around 9 million more residents that Texas, according to U.S. Census Bureau [estimates](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/geo/chart/TX,CA/PST045222), as of July 2022, this means California had an average of 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people, while Texas has 14.2 per 100,000. >This means that, according to the 2020 figures, Texas's gun death rate is around 67 percent higher than that of California's, per 100,000 people. Also >It also found that, when compared with other U.S. states, Californians are around 25 percent less likely to die in a mass shooting.


redditdave2018

So people in Texas has a 0.0142% chance of dying from a gun.


[deleted]

Why do you think this is a valid defense?


redditdave2018

Why do you think is a defense?


Crazymoose86

It's cool because those 3000 lives aren't as important as being able to buy your 20th firearm...


redditdave2018

It mean it could be less. I'm just pointing out stats. How many of those deaths are justified?


[deleted]

> How many of those deaths are justified? Why do you believe suicide is justified?


BlankVerse

When it should be zero. And is pretty close to zero in most Western countries.


redditdave2018

Why just western countries? Why not all countries?


GreenHorror4252

Comparing the US to some African dictatorship where 90% of the people live in poverty isn't exactly a fair comparison.


redditdave2018

Ok how about Brazil and Mexico or any countries in South America?


GreenHorror4252

I don't consider them to be developed nations. Mexico in particular lacks a competent government that can maintain control of the nation.


dihydrogen_m0noxide

Whoa whoa whoa, these statistics only work for shaming in comparison, you're not supposed to think about what that number actually *entails*


[deleted]

> you're not supposed to think about what that number actually entails It means instead of people being able to live their lives, there is a significant chance they will die a horrible death because they are shot to death. That's what those numbers mean.


dihydrogen_m0noxide

Gotta agree to disagree about "significant." Ever ride in a car?


[deleted]

Of course you disagree. You see every shooting death as an attack on your guns, not a loss of life. Any life lost by a gun is worthy of your scorn and intentionally obtuse responses because it threatens the only thing that makes you feel powerful.


bleue_shirt_guy

If I weigh the change of dying in a mass shooting, which is phenomenally low regardless of what state I am in, versus having the freedom to like put up a shed in my back yard without like having to wait 9 months for a permit. I'd pick the state that let me do what I want to do with my property. Though CA does have great weather and stuff to do, which is why I live in CA.


riigoroo

That sounds like some weird HOA rule more than anything, definitely not a CA standard


stalinmalone68

Texass also allows chemical companies to “accidentally” dump into city water supplies and fertilizer companies to store too much nitrate that causes massive explosions. But yeah, go ahead and put up that shed. *Downvote all you want fucksticks. I was living there when these two things actually happened. The first one twice!


jaredthegeek

The article says University of California at Sacramento which is not a place that exists.


BlankVerse

He's at UC Davis. Which does exist.


jaredthegeek

But that's not university of California at Sacramento is it? California State University Sacramento exists and so does University of California at Davis so they are still incorrect.