Where Is It Legal To Get Drunk And Shoot Someone? [Infographic]

Mother Jones is a socialist rag, and Pop-sci is pushing this stuff?!

Okay, having a graph does not make a thing scientific. NOBODY can deny that this is a pointedly political article. Unlike the argument that took place two days ago over Romney and the space program article, this article doesn't even have the shinny veneer of editorialized science.

I disagreed with other articles on Pop-sci and usually get over it, but this is beyond annoying, this is irresponsible journalism. If you want to share political opinions pop-sci, then make an opinion section. If not, knock it off.

cool story Emily, but what the hell does this have to do with pop-sci shouldn't it be on huffpost or something.

Are you kidding me? I have seen some semi political stuff on your site but this takes the cake. Silly me, I thought your site was about science, you just lost a whole ton of credibility with me . Your turning into yet an other lame stream media sellout. Is it because its what you perceive to be the cool thing? The trend? Or do you really just suck that bad?

Oh and one other thing, if Obama wins we are totally screwed.

Well, if it were up to Republicans they would have said . . . . "who the @#@$% even believes that in this day and age the law allows you to get drunk and shoot people. You're a darned LIBERAL LUNATIC! That's a liberal LIE. A LIE I TELL YA!"

Well, enter P O P S C i . . . .

The answer is no where is it legal to get drunk and shoot someone.* Come on PopSci, I have subscribed for years and while I have to roll my eyes every year at your "clip show" issue (the BEST OF issue where you just throw in hundreds of pictures and a few marketing blurbs and call it a day) I really can't believe that you have sunk so low as to let a non-science related article A: get on your site and B: be prominently displayed.
Whether I support firearms laws is irrelevant, this isn't the proper venue and the story was so slanted as to be groan worthy. Tell your intern Emily Elert to try again.

* possible exception being if you are a member of the Indianapolis Police Dept

"The right to bare arms shall not be infringed."

Too bad about the death of Popular Science.

Excellently said sobriant74.

Roughly guessing from the pics, Arozonia seems to be preparing to have some type of civil war.

I wonder who?

Come on PopSci.... You usually have such great articles, but lately it feels like the site is run by amateurs who let it get peppered with this type of garbage. Even if I thought the article was well written or made any type of real point. It doesn't belong here at all (not to mention it is a total recycle, almost cut and paste job from Mother Jones!) How is this article sitting next to one about evidence suggesting water ran on Mars??? Look at your lineup right now. We have an opinion piece about gun control a dead-end piece about homeopathy and a lame attempt to entertain us by putting world history into a Biblical timeline...... Get it together, you have readers looking for the latest news in science and technology and you are giving us neither with these types of articles.

There's a lot of Mexican gangs that have grown into Arizona, so they'd be getting guns as would people who would defend themselves. That's my guess anyways.

As for this article in general, this is very slanted and regarding the title, that was just atrocious. It is legal to defend yourself regardless of whether or not you are intoxicated (though I would imagine that feat is significantly easier while sober).

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

"The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries"
"it was found that individuals in a firearm owning home are close to five times more likely to commit suicide than those individuals who do not own firearms."
"In the United States, firearms remain the most common method of suicide, accounting for 52.1% of all suicides committed"
"In 2010 USA homicides, guns are the weapon of choice, especially for multiple homicides."
"It was determined in a study that for every firearm death in the USA for one year from 1 June 1992 an average of three firearm-related injuries were treated in hospital emergency departments."

For further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Oh, dying is just a result from killing. Had the victim not died, the killer would not suffer from the result of his actions, but instead lost interest from his failure and found another course of action.

Dying is such a nuisance to the poor killer.

Sarcasm..... Maybe yes, maybe no, you are the judge. ;)

PopSci has now taken the "Pop" too seriously and sunk to the same level as the rest of the lamebrain media. This site was on my favorites list because I could come here and not have to listen to opinion except where it was backed up with science and math. Your reputation with me is the same as NBC - Nothing But Crap. Is there anyone home here? Do the editors (webmasters?, ringleaders?) understand ANY of what we're saying here? Since you chose to run such a pile of dog squeeze as science, I can only assume your editorial policy will follow the same ignorant liberal path as your counterparts in entertainment television.

first off the title is so misleading that even Hillary Clinton is saying you've gone too far. seriously "where is it legal to get drunk and shoot someone?" first off it's nowhere. there is no state in America where you can get piss drunk then shoot someone and not be taken off to jail for assault or murder. however i believe you're referring to you're last map in your info graphic which shows the states that allow guns in bars. let me clear something up for you, having a gun in a bar, and shooting someone in a bar are two separate things. please don't push your BS views by trying to connect the two dots when you still have a big fuzzy cloud of morality in the way.

secondly, instead of getting prissy about laws that free up the use and ownership of guns you should also in good measure show the states which enacted tighter gun laws. maybe have your counters move into the negative numbers for each state that has enacted some form of gun control in the last 3 years. let me answer that for you, all of them have. including the district of columbia.

frick mars I'm moving to Tennessee

"For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense."

"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000."
"according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm."
"Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used, with similar patterns in cases of family violence."

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

Mother Jones!!!! Are you kidding me!!!! It doesn't get more left wing than that.

Way to illustrate how bias your views on science are.

Anyone have a recommendation on another site that presents science as science instead of using its power of journalism to push their political views?

and well said templarknight.

*facepalm*

You guys are either short of appropriate tags or really scraping to fill the quota. Everybody else said it just fine, though, so I'll say no more.

If you'd like a semi-related (but more honestly labeled) article, let me refer you to an article on Baen Books' home page (they're a sci-fi publisher; don't know how long it'll be featured) called Getting Guns Right.

And Uncle Malaria:
Seriously? Not only are you citing Wikipedia, you're selectively editing from Wikipedia, on a page dedicated only to gun violence. I could pull quotes from a page about "Atrocities committed by Germans" and it would undoubtedly look quite ugly but that doesn't mean Roland Emmerich or Andrea Merkel are psychopaths.

I don't want to overload the post here but to pick one of your quotes: "For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense."

Well duh. Most people tend to avoid assaulting someone carrying a gun.

If every adult qualified to get a CCL carried a gun on a daily basis violent crime would be nearly zero.
Even the Colorado theater shooter didn't commit suicide, intended to survive and likely would not have gone forward with the plan knowing that it would result in being caught in a crossfire with 100% certainty.
Automobile accidents kill more people than people kill with guns.
An unarmed theater full of people is a shooting gallery...
So is an unarmed nation...
Load your hands.

I posted the quote about guns used in self-defense because Americans say they need guns to defends them selves, when in fact guns are used for crime.

By golly that Missouri is whacky. They shouldn't let drunk people defend themselves.

I feel safer carrying a weapon on trips or away from home.

Uncle-Malaria, you quoted a wiki page. Everything you read on the internet isn't all true. Guns are not used for crime. Guns are used by criminals who don't really care about laws.

Unlike the people who post here, Wikipedia articles have show where the information came from.

"For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense." McDowall, David, Brian Wiersema (1994). "The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by US Crime Victims, 1987 through 1990". American Journal of Public Health 84 (12): 1982–1984. doi:10.2105/AJPH.84.12.1982. PMC 1615397. PMID 7998641.

"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." "WISQARS Nonfatal Injury Reports". National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved 2006-11-10.

Gun control should not be about politics, it should be about public safety. In Canada, you do not read stories about children bringing guns to school, or mass murders with a assault rifle, but in the US it is a daily thing. I don't see how more guns can reduce crime, when the more guns there are the more crime there is.

Uncle-Malaria, I come here to read about science and its implications on modern society. A discussion about gun laws should be discussed elsewhere. PopSci is not the place for editorial opinions on firearms, or your thoughts on gun violence. There are plenty of places to do so online, feel free to go there instead.

Sobriant74,
I believe that statistical analysis is a science. I think that the science behind the impact and implications of firearms is very relevant to modern society. I have only provided facts, of which I also provided where the facts came from.

This article has nothing to do with Science, Technology or the Future Now, so I don't get it. Maybe it's an attempt at humor. I'll have to check back here in the morning.

Uncle Malaria, I guess you haven't heard the testimony of a woman from Texas who had to watch her father and mother die in a Luby's restaurant because she left her weapon in her car per the businesses request. Also, your "facts" are entirely bogus. No one reports a crime that doesn't happen because it was prevented through defensive posturing. Also, I would like to point out that most "accidental shootings" are minor incident that happen when a shooter has fired his weapon down range at a target and the bullet subsequently ricocheted. That happens quite alot when firing at steel plates for target practice.

But, I don't hold out any hope for people like you believing in natural human rights and adhering to the Constitution of the United States of which I assume you are a Citizen (and if you aren't, then you can take your ideas back to whatever socialist sty you came from). I'll just make one thing clear here. We are coming to a fork in the road in this nation. This fork has three prongs. One follows the path of Obama getting re-elected and it will end in violence and civil war when our nation entirely defaults on its already booming nation debt which exceeds $16,000,000,000,000 (16 trillion dollars). The second prong leads to a slight stay of execution for this nation with the election of Romney. His election would put many (ill-informed) at ease and stabilize the markets and slow our debt spiral. But, even his election will not save us. He has shown through his own actions that he will continue on the path already set forth by Obama and this nation will dive into war with Iran, possibly Syria and Egypt as well. Then we will dive into civil war. The last prong to this fork in the road would lead us to salvation as a nation. The only way to take this path though is to convince more people of the truth of our situation that I fear is possible. And the truth of the situation is that we are over burdened by national debt, government, and we have given up nearly all of our Liberty and individual sovereignty and are currently livestock in a national corporation. But it has been said that it is easier to convince people of an easy lie than a hard truth and most would rather be blind to their situation like cattle going to slaughter.

Hey PolySci,

The democracts called, they wan't their liberal news back.

Thanks

SECOND AMENDMENT

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Now, WHY do individual states have to pass individual laws to protect that which is already stated in the federal law?

One more question - how does this all relate to POPULAR or to SCIENCE. Just like many other used-to-be good publications PosSci digressed to pushing liberal agenda. I get it that you press folk are open minded and progressive, but can you actually stick to doing your job while at work?

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson

Why not report on the major breakthrough of the ENCODE project? Get some real science in here please.

People, people, please! I think this article has absolutely no point being on PopSci's site, I agree but we are forgetting one thing!

This generation has lost interest! We are living amongst people who could recite an entire song but cannot tell you the first word of the Preamble.

Emily, I think this was out of line,shoulda sent it to the NYT or Life, but Popular SCIENCE? No. Wrong road, Emily, tsk-tsk
And Bagpipes, agreed. We've disagreed before, but I take my hat off to you sir.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain

Uncle-Malaria,
If you want to walk around unarmed... dreaming about how safe you are because the politicians and statistics that you worship like God's say whatever it is you think they say in that crazy head of yours... that's your business.

If you want ME to walk around unarmed you're gonna have to amend the Constitution.

For the l;ast time people...

PLAY. FAIR. IN. THE. COMMENTS. SECTION!!!!

Capiesh?

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain

GREAT ARTICLE Popsci!
And I'm beginning to like these graphics. COOL IDEA.
There has to be science involved in presenting data in a form so strikingly clear that it upsets people.

And that title actually makes sense.
Just because you are drunk does not mean you loose all control of your actions. You are ALWAYS responsible for your actions. Drunk or not.

(1) The law change was that if you shot someone legaly in self defense, then it did not matter if you were drunk when the shooting took place. Otherwise, if you were bent-up on a Saturday night when someone broke into your house to rob and murder you, the cops would take you in for being drunk and armed. Essentially it said that doing something legal was legal even if you were drunk at the time.

(2) Where is the science? This is barely data corellation. If the fact that it is an "interactive graphic" sufficient to count as science - because that is not some higher level programming.

(3) People with CCWs (or each state's version of them) are 13 times less likely to ever commit a prison worthy crime than the general populace (according to Concealed Carry on Wikipedia citing a 3 year study of permit holders in Texas).

(4) If guns do not prevent crime, why are they issued to every law enforcement officer in the country?

(5) Crimes exist because of an imbalance of power. Disarming criminals establishes a balance. Arming citizens does the same. Arming citizens is easier than getting criminals to agree to disarm.

(6) Most suicides are gun related in the US because (A) we have guns and (B) gun suicides are more effective - resulting in fewer attempts per succes. Yet, Japan, has a FAR higher suicide rate and almost no access to firearms.

(7) Laws that legalize carrying only increase the number of legal carriers - illegal carriers were already breaking the law. How many school shootings (like Columbine) would have been stopped swiftly if teachers and administrators with CCWs could have put those two boys down (before they killed others, then themselves)?

In Kansas, you no longer have to worry about unchecked school gunmen, because every licenced state employee with a CCW can now act to stop them (and what is a police officer but a state employee licenced to carry a firearm for the safety of the public).

(8) The second right listed in the Bill of Rights is the right to carry. That is not a law that allows you to carry, but a statement that it is your basic human right to do so. The Supreme Court has clairified that it (1) applies to individuals as well as militia, and (2) includes use for personal protection. Thus, the United States believes that it is a human right to arm yourself for personal protection and to fight against tyrrany, no matter where in the world you live (just as we hold to free speech, press, assembly, religion, trial by jury, and other freedoms).

We, as a country, should be setting the world example in freedom of arms that we do in freedom of speech and the press. If a state wants to pass a gun law, it should be this:

"Every ableminded citizen of [this state] shall, upon age of majority, supply themself with and shall keep posession of proper armaments necessary for the defense of life, liberty, and property." In which "proper armaments" is defined as "a current military caliber firearm, in working condition, with a minimium of thirty rounds of ammunition."

You have a wonderful magazine that I love to read. I anxiously await every issue. However, if keep publishing these slanted left wing editorial pieces I will no longer be a reader of your publications.

The correct answer is "only a far left leaning idiot would ever believe there is anywhere in this country where someone could legally get drunk in a bar and shoot someone".

Please stick to what you do best.

Wouldn't it also be safer to live in a country where criminals can be detained indefinitely by the government without the burden of proving guilt? There are countries like that. They are virtually gun free too. You hardly have to worry about violent crime. Perhaps those who are seeking more safety would be happier in one of those countries.

Personally, I value freedom over safety. I want to live in a country where I don't have my inalienable rights striped from me because of the foolishness of others. I am not responsible for those that commit crimes with a gun. I am not responsible if someone kills them self with a gun.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

Interestingly, violent crime rates have steadily declined since the 1990's, even as gun control laws were appealed or reversed, something the very liberal Mother Jones would easily overlook.

The only ones who care much about gun control anymore are hardcore liberals. Americans have come to understand that gun control laws don't generally make us safer, and based on numerous studies, they are correct.

BTW, as far as I know it is legal in EVERY state to shoot someone with a gun in self defense even if you are intoxicated. You may face a penalty for carrying a gun while intoxicated, but at least you'll be alive to go pay your fine.

Looks like Virgina is for (gun)lovers.

In Mexico, private gun ownership is outlawed. How likely is it one could get shot in a bar in Mexico compared with Arizona?

so you rolled up your shirtsleeves?

First off, Uncle Malaria, you are an idiot! Plain and simple. If you think you're better off without guns go live in Chicago, Detroit, or DC and see if you feel safer. Criminals view an unarmed populace as nothing more than a mass of potential victims 'in waiting' to be preyed on at any given time. When the public is allowed to carry concealed, the criminals are very, very hesitant on who they choose to go after. Now, if you look at countries around the world where firearms are effectively banned for the general public, the criminals still get them. But they don't get the civilian version we get here, they steal military weapons. From the cartels in Mexico to Afghanistan to any country you can name, the criminals all have higher power weapons than are available to us. And the general public is still left helpless. That gun-free utopia the progressives seek is a fantasy. The only way to have a safe society is for each person to be equally armed.

And second, to Oakspar77777;

Excellent post!

One more thing, and this is directed to PopSci. I hope you people realize that straying from a purely technical science magazine and venturing into left-wing politics will drive many of your readers away. I'm already sick and tired of reading about global warming, or climate change, or whatever the green fanatics are calling that myth these days. You people are pushing electric cars, solar energy, carbon offsets and a host of other things the vast majority of people aren't interested in. You have effectively become a left wing propaganda rag. Sad.

I agree with the people who said that this article is COMPLETELY unrelated to science. This is politics, not science. If I want politics, I read the newspaper. Still, here's my opinion on gun laws: Remember the kid who got shot and killed simply because he looked "suspicious"? And remember how the shooter got off free and was, in some cases, hailed as a hero who defended his (most likely extremely prejudiced) neighborhood? In my opinion, there's self-defense, and there's big-brother eliminate-people-who-seem-vaguely-suspicious defense. While most people would call me an "alarmist", I point out this example. The American obsession with guns has always confused me.

Isn't it amazing to read these comments? We see here a perfect demonstration of why politicians are afraid to mention the subject of gun control, and why so many state legislatures have passed laws making it easier to carry guns in all sorts of circumstances.

And now, with all the new laws, we are about to find out what happens when a lot more people carry a lot more guns. Who knows what the outcome might be? This is a huge experiment that no researcher could possibly perform, yet the experiment is being run anyway, on a large scale, in places all over the US. The scientist in me will be fascinated to learn the results.

And the human in me is saddened by the frustration, the despair, that comes through in many of these voices, many of these words spelled out in electrons.