self-defense effectively being banned in Vermont.Submitted by Northwoods01 t3_10l5cbl in vermont
grnmtnboy0 t1_j5v1ezt wrote
What worries me is whoever's pushing this is ignoring the surge in gun violence in the places with the strictest gun control laws - Chicago and California come to mind
Macbookaroniandchez t1_j5v8ub7 wrote
just gonna note that Chicago and California both have significantly more gang violence than Vermont ever will...that's what drives the gun violence in both of those places.
But the idea of moving away Castle Doctrine to Duty to Retreat - is VT looking to compete with MA for strictest gun control laws?
Last point - laws are just words on a piece of paper, especially when a CRIMINAL is invading my home or threatening my family.
AniM97 t1_j5w58gi wrote
MA doesn’t even have a duty to retreat from the home.
kleptopaul t1_j5wi9zv wrote
It’s incredibly unlikely your home will be invaded in Vermont.
historycat95 t1_j5vukl3 wrote
Indiana has more gun violence than Illinois per 100k population.
Cherry picking stats leads to faulty conclusions.
Guns travel, but there's a general correlation between gun violence and lax gun laws if you look at state wide trends.
_foxmotron_ t1_j5v3xyn wrote
Places with more lenient gun laws have more gun violence.
joeydokes t1_j5vy26t wrote
VT,NH,ME all are as lenient as you can get; being Constitutional Carry States. The amount of GV in Northern NE is minimal at best.
CA has the tightest restrictions in the nation regarding permits and types of firearms allowed; which didn't prevent a GD thing insofar as recent headlines. Same can be said for NY as well.
Go figure. Maybe its less the guns and more the social fabric that binds us.
_foxmotron_ t1_j5vysf8 wrote
California has 20 times the population of the three states you listed.
joeydokes t1_j5w42uc wrote
which makes my point. Both that rural States don't need the same laws as populous ones and that even still, those stricter laws don't prevent GV.
_foxmotron_ t1_j5w7h96 wrote
It doesn’t prove anything? California has the strictest restrictions, and their rates of gun violence are among the lowest in the country. Rural Wyoming has the third highest.
The point we should be looking at is why are we even debating gun laws at a state level? They’re meaningless.
joeydokes t1_j5wlfwr wrote
> California has the strictest restrictions, and their rates of gun violence are among the lowest in the country.
Yet said restrictions failed to prevent those shootings that are the rally cry for more gun control
> Rural Wyoming has the third highest.
Likely due to the influx of CA re-locates to WY :) Or maybe cowboys just like plinking at flatlanders! Oh noes, could happen here! /s
_foxmotron_ t1_j5wnsia wrote
Or, y’know, gun control at a state level is pointless? What’s the purpose of strict gun control in California if you can just go to Nevada and easily get guns?
Or whatever point you were attempting to make I guess
joeydokes t1_j5wwwtg wrote
Yes, my point is both; that more gun control is pointless, both in State and between States. That facts do not align with feels, and that the fundamental issue is not guns at all, which are the symptom of the disease, not the cause.
Legalizing drugs would be a start, universal health care too. But the elephant in the room is wealth disparity. If you live in the US and are in the lower 20% income bracket you do not even register on the distribution map, thanks to the 1%.
And, even if you're lucky to be in the 40-60% income bracket, even if you have (employer) health insurance, you're likely 1 medical emergency away from bankruptcy!
So, why so many guns? Well, the billionaires are building their bunkers, the filthy rich are building their fortresses, while the rest of us, we proles, visit r/preppers (don't visit r/collapse) because it doesn't take tea leaves to know somethings amiss in River City.
Gubru t1_j5v5dlf wrote
You're confusing cause and effect.
_foxmotron_ t1_j5v66ey wrote
I’m Not saying there’s a correlation. I’m responding to someone who is implying a correlation between stricter gun laws and gun violence.
bkirchhoff t1_j5vh70x wrote
You’re confusing “correlation” and “causation” in your explanation. There may be correlation, but there is no evidence of causation.
[deleted] t1_j5wgobd wrote
[deleted]
Gubru t1_j5vcnz1 wrote
I misread your comment, my bad
kleptopaul t1_j5wif7d wrote
Most the guns in Chicago come from Indiana, which has lax gun laws.
SkettiStay t1_j5wzvqy wrote
Not true. Most come from Illinois, by far.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-crime-shooting-guns-illinois-gun-laws/11937013/
>ATF Trace data shows the top five states where guns recovered in Illinois were originally purchased from are Illinois (49.8%), Indiana (16.7%), Missouri (5.4%), Wisconsin (3.9%) and Kentucky (2.6%). Federal agents at the ATF identified the source state of 11,708 traced firearms in 2020.
Edit: That's for guns recovered in Illinois, not Chicago - it was a big story a couple of years ago. If you have different numbers for Chicago, I'd be interested.
kleptopaul t1_j5yenfn wrote
I was referencing this story from a few years back( albeit hyperbolically): https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/27/chicago-sues-gun-store-tied-850-guns-recovered-crime-scenes/4854619001/
People illegally selling guns from Indiana in Chicago is a big thing.
SkettiStay t1_j5z1he8 wrote
Thank you.
It definitely sounds like they have a case against that gun shop.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments