The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: SZonian on March 06, 2018, 03:51:47 pm
-
Debate over the value of tough state gun control laws has reached a fever pitch following last month's deadly shooting of 17 people at a Florida high school.
Now, results from a new study indicate that such laws are potentially so effective they can prevent firearm-related murders on a regional basis, with the benefits extending into other nearby states that have more lax laws on the books.
States with strong firearm laws have overall lower rates of gun-related murder and suicide, according to the county-by-county analysis.
But counties in states with weak gun laws also appear to gain some protection from gun violence if they are located next to states with stronger laws, researchers reported.
"We found that in states with relatively lenient laws, if the surrounding states had stricter laws we found a lower firearm homicide rate," said study author Dr. Elinore Kaufman, a trauma surgeon at New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City. "This indicates there might be a protective effect that extends across state lines."
Emphasis mine.
[excerpted]
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2018/03/05/Study-Tough-gun-laws-keep-more-hands-off-the-trigger/4001520306246/ (https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2018/03/05/Study-Tough-gun-laws-keep-more-hands-off-the-trigger/4001520306246/)
-
100% USDA Choice Bovine fecal matter!
-
The only fingers they end up keeping off the trigger are law abiding citizens. They don't stop the thugs and just leave us vulnerable to crime.
-
100% USDA Choice Bovine fecal matter!
Your typical reaction to common sense. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Your typical reaction to common sense. *****rollingeyes*****
There is no common sense in any of these feel good do nothing proposals.
-
Your typical reaction to common sense. *****rollingeyes*****
This crap looks like "common sense" to you? Here, I have a set of these babies, too, I keep them handy for any random post I see from you: *****rollingeyes*****
-
States with strong firearm laws have overall lower rates of gun-related murder and suicide, according to the county-by-county analysis.
Those are two entirely different things, and a blatant attempt to skew the numbers.
-
These gun-studies are just like Global Warming bullshit data foisted upon the world by Activists using it to impose totalitarianism.
It's pure bullshit. Not one more gun law will we abide, anymore than those with pick up trucks will trade them in for electric cars should the state mandate it.
-
Those are two entirely different things, and a blatant attempt to skew the numbers.
Dead is dead.
-
Dead is dead.
Having sat on an attempted murder jury this past week, I can guarantee you that the conversation in the jury room would have been vastly different had the felon turned the gun on himself rather than on the man sweeping the convenience store floor.
-
Having sat on an attempted murder jury this past week, I can guarantee you that the conversation in the jury room would have been vastly different had the felon turned the gun on himself rather than on the man sweeping the convenience store floor.
Don't bother, he'll tell you he knows more about the case than you do.
-
Dead is dead.
And stupid is forever.
-
No attempts to refute the study, I see. Just name-calling and epithets. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Let me see the results of the study that looks at murder, suicide and violent crime in general, rather than just selective targeting of gun-related results.
People are still violent and crazy at times. Focusing on one of the tools used rather than the root problem is like preventing speeding by outlawing Buicks.
-
No attempts to refute the study, I see. Just name-calling and epithets. *****rollingeyes*****
You mean like calling someone a punk?
Honestly it's no use trying to have an honest debate or discussion about guns or most things important to Conservatives because it's more important you lecture us like we're one of your law classes than have an open mind or see another point of view other than your own...of which you think WAAY too highly of.
@Polly Ticks tried to rightfully point out that things like suicide and instances where it's an officer involved shooting skew the numbers.
And the best and most educated answer you could come back with was:
Dead is dead
Then you have the unmitigated gall to try and finger wag at others in here about "Just name-calling and epithets"??
Spare us your sanctimonious crap.
-
Dead is dead.
Agreed, so why have a study only on gun related murder and suicide instead of all murder and suicide?
The goal should be less deaths, not less deaths by one select method without regard to the rest.
-
Agreed, so why have a study only on gun related murder and suicide instead of all murder and suicide?
The goal should be less deaths, not less deaths by one select method without regard to the rest.
@thackney the problem is the people writing these studies have an agenda...and it's not to put out truthful information to the public..but then you and I both know that already.
-
@thackney the problem is the people writing these studies have an agenda...and it's not to put out truthful information to the public..but then you and I both know that already.
The study was authored by a trauma surgeon at New York Presbyterian Medical Center. What kind of study will you approve of as not motivated by an "agenda"?
-
Agreed, so why have a study only on gun related murder and suicide instead of all murder and suicide?
The goal should be less deaths, not less deaths by one select method without regard to the rest.
Because the purpose of the study was to examine the effects of gun laws on gun related deaths? The point is to determine whether and what types of gun laws are likely to be efficacious - capable of producing the desired effect - that is, a reduction in gun-related deaths.
Of course "the goal should be less deaths". I wish we were all working for that goal, instead of protecting our own "agendas". But the goal of the study is more narrow, as noted above.
-
Dead is dead.
Yep, and let lump whatever we got to into that soup to get the conclusions we want. Except as already said, if dead is dead then let's look at all causes of death, if we really want to move that needle.
The problem here is that they're playing fast and loose with the numbers, and drawing conclusions drawn from very loose correlations that completely break down on examination.
-
From 2007:
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.†Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.†And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists – Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser – in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland’s murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study’s authors write in the report:
If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death†were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct – that “gun don’t kill people, people do†– the study also shows that Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun – a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite – but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:
[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 – emphases in original)
http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ (http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/)
-
Because the purpose of the study was to examine the effects of gun laws on gun related deaths? The point is to determine whether and what types of gun laws are likely to be efficacious - capable of producing the desired effect - that is, a reduction in gun-related deaths.
Of course "the goal should be less deaths". I wish we were all working for that goal, instead of protecting our own "agendas". But the goal of the study is more narrow, as noted above.
Then it is only pushing an agenda and not concerned with actual safety of people, ie less deaths and less crimes, rather than less by a single type of tool.
-
Of course "the goal should be less deaths". I wish we were all working for that goal, instead of protecting our own "agendas".
You are the only one here pushing an agenda.
-
From 2007:
...
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun – a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite – but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:
http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ (http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/)
IOW, in short lingo, "Dead is dead?" **nononono*
-
You are the only one here pushing an agenda.
:silly: :silly:
-
Then it is only pushing an agenda and not concerned with actual safety of people, ie less deaths and less crimes, rather than less by a single type of tool.
No, it is attempting to determine whether specific laws are efficacious. Why is that evidence of "agenda"? Agenda is when leftists push bans on certain kinds of guns based on what they look like.
-
No, it is attempting to determine whether specific laws are efficacious. Why is that evidence of "agenda"? Agenda is when leftists push bans on certain kinds of guns based on what they look like.
Because, dead is dead. Look at the data for suicide. Multiple countries show significantly higher rates of suicide and far tougher gun control laws.
Should we only be concerned with those that die by a firearm? It would give misleading results.
Focus on the problem, not the tool. Removing the tool doesn't remove the problem, it doesn't save lives.
-
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate.
Does Norway require gun owners to be licensed, their arms to be registered, and transactions documented?
-
Should we only be concerned with those that die by a firearm?
Why yes, because the U.S. is uniquely the Wild West when it comes to millions of undocumented guns in private hands.
Focus on the problem, not the tool. Removing the tool doesn't remove the problem, it doesn't save lives.
Of course I am focused on the problem. IN THE UNITED STATES, it is violent deaths by firearms. Not knives, not bombs, not sharp sticks. Firearms.
-
Why yes, because the U.S. is uniquely the Wild West when it comes to millions of undocumented guns in private hands.
Of course I am focused on the problem. IN THE UNITED STATES, it is violent deaths by firearms. Not knives, not bombs, not sharp sticks. Firearms.
The problem is deaths. You have blinders on to the problem. Removal of the tool is not removal of the willingness to kill people.
-
Does Norway require gun owners to be licensed, their arms to be registered, and transactions documented?
Yes it's like a gun grabbers wet dream...you'll love the way they do things.
Gun ownership is restricted in Norway, unless one has officially documented a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defense, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency.
There are special rules for collectors of guns. They are exempt from many parts of the regulation, but, in turn, they must meet even more narrow qualifications. Collectors may purchase, but not fire without permission, all kinds of guns in their respective areas of interest, which they have defined in advance.
Ownership is regulated in paragraph 7,[1] and responsibility for issuing a gun ownership license is given to the police authority in the applicant's district.
Rifle and shotgun ownership permission can be given to "sober and responsible" persons 18 years or older. The applicant for the permission must document a need for the weapon. Two exceptions exist to this age qualification. Persons under the age of 18, but over 16 may apply for rifle or shotgun ownership licence with the consent of parents or guardian. For handguns, the lowest ownership age is 21 with no exceptions allowed. For inherited weapons, it is up to the local police chief to make a decision based on the individual facts of the case.
An applicant must have a clean police record in order to obtain an ownership license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Norway
But then again...Norway doesn't have a Second Amendment like we do that prevents the government from being this intrusive on our gun ownership rights.
-
But then again...Norway doesn't have a Second Amendment like we do that prevents the government from being this intrusive on our gun ownership rights.
So gun violence in the U.S. is a function of our lack of laws and "wild west" gun culture? Is that what you're saying?
-
The problem is deaths. You have blinders on to the problem. Removal of the tool is not removal of the willingness to kill people.
Honestly he doesn't have blinders on. He doesn't care about facts or that people will still murder people regardless of the tool used at the end of the day jazz just wants the guns out of the hands of people like you and me because he believes we don't need them nor have the right to own them.
-
So gun violence in the U.S. is a function of our lack of laws and "wild west" gun culture? Is that what you're saying?
Not what I'm saying at all counselor...that's you trying to put words in my mouth....not to mention using the terminology and phrases of the Liberal gun grabbers in this country.
That little trick might work in Pre-law 101...but it doesn't work in real life.
-
The problem is deaths. You have blinders on to the problem. Removal of the tool is not removal of the willingness to kill people.
First of all, I have never suggested "removing the tool"- just regulating it. And second of all, the "tool" is uniquely deadly. That idiot in Florida killed 17 kids - easy with a semiauto, less so with brass knuckles or a knife.
-
Not what I'm saying at all counselor...that's you trying to put words in my mouth....not to mention using the terminology and phrases of the Liberal gun grabbers in this country.
That little trick might work in Pre-law 101...but it doesn't work in real life.
Hey, you're the one who cited a study citing Norway's high gun ownership rate and low murder rate. What was your point, given that Norway requires licensure, registration and documentation of transfers, other than to highlight that gun culture can co-exist with regulation, and that (so it would appear) regulation may be efficacious?
-
Why yes, because the U.S. is uniquely the Wild West when it comes to millions of undocumented guns in private hands.
Undocumented how? By your private, made up definition?
Of course I am focused on the problem. IN THE UNITED STATES, it is violent deaths by firearms. Not knives, not bombs, not sharp sticks. Firearms.
I thought dead was dead? Or...
(http://www.idioms4you.com/img/angif-move-the-goalposts-def.gif)
-
We have "less deaths" that we did 20 years ago. But too many people still think it is OK to kill people. So long as that is true, we will have a problem. We have to quit blaming objects. Guns are harmless because they can't walk out and kill someone. Someone had to pull the trigger.
If you want to drastically reduce gun deaths, locate the top areas where people are killed with guns every year (it's almost always the same)and kill everyone in those areas with a quick-acting poison gas. Boom. The number of gun deaths plummets. The ends justifies the means.
-
Hey, you're the one who cited a study citing Norway's high gun ownership rate and low murder rate. What was your point, given that Norway requires licensure, registration and documentation of transfers, other than to highlight that gun culture can co-exist with regulation, and that (so it would appear) regulation may be efficacious?
And you're the one that attempted to somehow equate that to a "wild west mentality" in the U.S.
Sorry counselor...that won't fly here.
The point that flew right over your pointed head is that Norway...a country that has hi gun ownership rates also has one of the lowest murder rates in Europe.
The Harvard study I cited shows there's no correlation between high gun ownership and high murder rates.
But because you didn't like that I provided an actual Harvard funded study that disproves your little leftist theory that less guns equal less murders...you purposely decided to take the discussion down another path to avoid the hard truth.
That's called deflection. Were you ever to set foot in a real courtroom it might be considered a lame attempt at nullification...which is a common tactic by slimy defense attorneys when they don't have any other leg to stand on.
-
First of all, I have never suggested "removing the tool"- just regulating it. And second of all, the "tool" is uniquely deadly. That idiot in Florida killed 17 kids - easy with a semiauto, less so with brass knuckles or a knife.
Sorry, I meant remove the tool from the killer (while leaving the killer open to other methods).
Then why do other developed countries have murder rates or suicide rates comparable or even higher, yet also have strict gun control laws?
It is only pretending to solve the problem, while creating others.
-
So gun violence in the U.S. is a function of our lack of laws and "wild west" gun culture? Is that what you're saying?
You realize that, after you take out suicides, most gun violence is caused by repeat criminals who don't obey gun laws anyway?
-
No attempts to refute the study, I see. Just name-calling and epithets. *****rollingeyes*****
So what is your rebuttal, to this?
"Having sat on an attempted murder jury this past week, I can guarantee you that the conversation in the jury room would have been vastly different had the felon turned the gun on himself rather than on the man sweeping the convenience store floor."
-
So what is your rebuttal, to this?
"Having sat on an attempted murder jury this past week, I can guarantee you that the conversation in the jury room would have been vastly different had the felon turned the gun on himself rather than on the man sweeping the convenience store floor."
Unless he's said something in the past couple of dozen posts, his rebuttal has been the one I usually see from him when he's been bested: He will ignore what @Polly Ticks wrote.
-
Does Norway require gun owners to be licensed, their arms to be registered, and transactions documented?
For the most part, we already have that in the US.
Arizona has very little in gun restrictions, compared to other states. But it nonetheless requires background checks, delivery through a registered gun dealer, etc.
The easy way is to just say "we need more strict gun laws.
The tough way, is to analyze government failures in these shootings, and to insist government shape up.
BTW why aren't you calling for stricter rules for vehicle, pressure cooker, knife and fertilizer sales?
-
For the most part, we already have that in the US.
Arizona has very little in gun restrictions, compared to other states. But it nonetheless requires background checks, delivery through a registered gun dealer, etc.
The easy way is to just say "we need more strict gun laws.
The tough way, is to analyze government failures in these shootings, and to insist government shape up.
BTW why aren't you calling for stricter rules for vehicle, pressure cooker, knife and fertilizer sales?
Pressure cookers, knives and fertilizer (and diesel fuel) are completely unregulated and "wild west." I think you know I'm in AZ and I can be believed when I say I know what the "wild west" is like. And yup, had to do a background check to buy that rifle a couple weeks back.
-
BTW why aren't you calling for stricter rules for vehicle, pressure cooker, knife and fertilizer sales?
Well, as for motor vehicles, I'd like to see similar requirements for licensure, registration and insurance applied to firearms. As for the other items, let's address the most frequently-used "tools" for deadly violence first, then let's talk about the others.
-
Pressure cookers, knives and fertilizer (and diesel fuel) are completely unregulated and "wild west." I think you know I'm in AZ and I can be believed when I say I know what the "wild west" is like. And yup, had to do a background check to buy that rifle a couple weeks back.
I just called an AZ gun store this morning. Federal background check. AZ residency, or else waiting period.
Seems to be the most lenient state, already has the regs the gun grabbers are yapping about.
-
I just called an AZ gun store this morning. Federal background check. AZ residency, or else waiting period.
Seems to be the most lenient state, already has the regs the gun grabbers are yapping about.
It's been that way for at least a decade. And, in AZ, there is a limit to how many rifles you can buy in a set period of time because we're a border state. I think it's 5 rifles in 4 weeks. You can buy more in Philly. Jazz actually has laws that are more lenient than AZ when it comes to purchasing long guns.
-
Well, as for motor vehicles, I'd like to see similar requirements for licensure, registration and insurance applied to firearms. As for the other items, let's address the most frequently-used "tools" for deadly violence first, then let's talk about the others.
Here is an alternate analysis. Why not outlaw guns, for certain races of people, in the highest gun violence locals?
Oakland and Stockton in California for instance. Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis, Chicago, Baltimore, etc.
There is the biggest bang, for your gun-grabbing buck that way.
Do you think those bad guys, will observe your rules, regulations etc.?
-
Here is an alternate analysis. Why not outlaw guns, for certain races of people, in the highest gun violence locals?
Oakland and Stockton in California for instance. Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis, Chicago, Baltimore, etc.
There is the biggest bang, for your gun-grabbing buck that way.
Do you think those bad guys, will observe your rules, regulations etc.?
Nope. It's "raciss" to imply people in those jurisdictions are violent.
-
Went out this evening for a few hours among the good people if the town I live in...not once did the .45 I was carrying concealed try to jump off my hip and shoot anyone wild west style.
I doubt anyone even knew I had it on me.
Funny how that happens.
-
Went out this evening for a few hours among the good people if the town I live in...not once did the .45 I was carrying concealed try to jump off my hip and shoot anyone wild west style.
I doubt anyone even knew I had it on me.
Funny how that happens.
He ain't pickin up what you're layin down. :shrug:
I can't talk to em. Can't interpret, can't translate.
Closest I can come is a few Kid Rock songs.
-
Every city in the US that has a high crime rate also has tight gun control laws. Coincidence?
-
Every city in the US that has a high crime rate also has tight gun control laws. Coincidence?
Liberals will claim the gun laws are tough because the crime is high. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
-
Well, as for motor vehicles, I'd like to see similar requirements for licensure, registration and insurance applied to firearms. As for the other items, let's address the most frequently-used "tools" for deadly violence first, then let's talk about the others.
The most consistent tool used in murder, regardless, is the human hand. No matter what is wielded by that hand, that hand is acting on behalf of a criminal or otherwise deranged mind to kill someone, regardless of what (if anything) it is holding. Ban hands, and people will still find a way. (yes, hands AND feet are lumped together in the uniform crime statistics as weapons used to inflict blunt force trauma).
Once again, you and those of your ilk ignore the instances where the mere presence of a firearm prevented death, instances which far outnumber the cases where tools were misused by people to cause unjustified homicide (firearm shooting deaths include those shot while perpetrating crimes, too, iirc).
If the interest is in saving lives, you go with what works best, and we have that except in areas where firearms are needlessly banned to create free fire zones for criminals.
-
Liberals will claim the gun laws are tough because the crime is high. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The typical Liberal claim given when they want to double down on failed or ineffective policy is "Just imagine how much worse it would have been if we hadn't....(add SNAFU policy here)".
-
Well, as for motor vehicles, I'd like to see similar requirements for licensure, registration and insurance applied to firearms. As for the other items, let's address the most frequently-used "tools" for deadly violence first, then let's talk about the others.
Well the simple truth is a FAR greater number of people are murdered and injured by knives. Lets regulate, serialize, register and require insurance for knives. Someone could steal one of your knives and hurt someone with it. And you should be held liable for the damage caused by such a knife if you fail to report it stolen before it is used in a crime. With all the damage knives cause you should be required to store them in a locked safe so children and untrained people can't get access to them when not in use.
Thinking about it, we also need to ban assault knives. Regulate how sharp and how pointed any blade can be for safety reasons. No normal person needs a blade that sharp and if they do they should get proper training, a background check, get tested on proper handling and provide proof of insurance before taking possession. There should also be limits on how many knives you can have to prevent mass casualties.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSX1DqrQ5ztnO9iKqK5X1g7-HbVFpBNpHEr9eoDfGsCHVQxtH1j)
You must do it for the children. If it saves just one life...
Yes, I'm mocking you...
-
Well the simple truth is a FAR greater number of people are murdered and injured by knives. Lets regulate, serialize, register and require insurance for knives. Someone could steal one of your knives and hurt someone with it. And you should be held liable for the damage caused by such a knife if you fail to report it stolen before it is used in a crime. With all the damage knives cause you should be required to store them in a locked safe so children and untrained people can't get access to them when not in use.
Thinking about it, we also need to ban assault knives. Regulate how sharp and how pointed any blade can be for safety reasons. No normal person needs a blade that sharp and if they do they should get proper training, a background check, get tested on proper handling and provide proof of insurance before taking possession. There should also be limits on how many knives you can have to prevent mass casualties.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSX1DqrQ5ztnO9iKqK5X1g7-HbVFpBNpHEr9eoDfGsCHVQxtH1j)
You must do it for the children. If it saves just one life...
Yes, I'm mocking you...
You left out ice picks and screwdrivers....
-
The most consistent tool used in murder, regardless, is the human hand. No matter what is wielded by that hand, that hand is acting on behalf of a criminal or otherwise deranged mind to kill someone, regardless of what (if anything) it is holding. Ban hands, and people will still find a way. (yes, hands AND feet are lumped together in the uniform crime statistics as weapons used to inflict blunt force trauma).
Once again, you and those of your ilk ignore the instances where the mere presence of a firearm prevented death, instances which far outnumber the cases where tools were misused by people to cause unjustified homicide (firearm shooting deaths include those shot while perpetrating crimes, too, iirc).
If the interest is in saving lives, you go with what works best, and we have that except in areas where firearms are needlessly banned to create free fire zones for criminals.
With the high crime rates in Louisville and the problems with drugs...especially opioids in Kentuckiana...any place where there is one or more people carting concealed is much safer and less likely to be attacked than if we weren't there.
-
With the high crime rates in Louisville and the problems with drugs...especially opioids in Kentuckiana...any place where there is one or more people carting concealed is much safer and less likely to be attacked than if we weren't there.
North Dakota is generally pretty well armed, and concealed carry is common. Crime, even with the uptick in new arrivals from the oil boom has stayed fairly low compared to other places. As for feeling safe, why yes, I do when I have my weapon with me.