• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

As Massachusetts shows, strong gun-safety laws work (Boston Globe)

Reptile said:
I believe that is true.

You need to have an LTC which at one point required a federal background check(?).
Click to expand...

While technically you’re probably correct, I’d say that’s a bit of a stretch. It’s pretty clear he believes that private parties sales require a background check in MA.
 
CATI said:
The title of the article is even messed up. Strong gun-safety laws over the correct gun control. The term gun safety laws is just to make them sound less like gun grabs and more about "safety"
Click to expand...
When was the last time they invited Eddie Eagle to teach children to STOP, LEAVE THE AREA, TELL AN ADULT.

It has nothing to do with safety.

When did they ever have the NRA teach mothers how to safely unload a Glock if they found it in the child's bedroom.

It's about confiscation.


Keep in mind that despite low gun fatalities due to so many great hospitals that our violent crime statistics are off the chart compared to other states in New Engand.
 
Mr. Lehigh makes the common mistake of confusing correlation with causation. He credits Mass gun control laws with the relatively low numbers of violent firearm crime and firearm suicides in Mass when there is no factual basis for saying that these laws actually are the cause of these numbers. He ignores several other factors. First of all he actually insults the citizens of the Commonwealth by implying that without all the gun control laws Mass would turn into another Chicago. In fact by far the majority of Mass citizens are not prone to gun violence (or violence in general) in the first place, and having extraneous laws that make gun ownership difficult for law abiding citizens has no impact on the small minority of people who are prone to it. Second he ignores the relatively good job that the Boston Police do in controlling the gangs in Boston. A major part of gun violence is caused by gang wars in the major cities. Boston is the only city in Mass that cracks the top 100 U.S. cities in size (number 21) and relative to places like Chicago, L,A., and Baltimore there is much less gang activity in Boston, thus the reduced amount of gang violence and gun related gang violence. Third, he ignores that fact that Mass has some of the best mental health care in the country, which is actually primarily responsible for the relative low suicide rates, not the gun control laws. Fourth, he claims that Chicago’s gun violence can be blamed on the free availability of firearms from Indiana, ignoring that Boston is only 50 minutes from Manchester, NH and its complete lack of gun control.

My contention is that if you eliminated all of the Mass gun control laws, you would see statistically insignificant increases in violent gun crime and a possible small increase in gun suicides (but probably not an overall increase in suicides). The only law that might have actual impact, and that would only be on firearm suicides, is the requirement for an LTC/FTD to get a firearm, which makes it harder for someone without one to commit an “impulse” firearm suicide.
 
Junior314 said:
Love when they quote an expert who has no idea what he is talking about. Also Rosenthal the "gun owner" can EABOD.

From his profile...

"What’s your favorite Massachusetts destination?

The North Shore and everywhere off the coast on my sailboat named ONWARD."

Hidden away in the story is the real agenda.
If, given the overwhelming national support for background checks of all potential gun buyers, this bill can’t pass the Senate, “then there is going to be no better case for removal of the filibuster,” Markey said in an interview.
Click to expand...

I don't think that democrats are going to be that monumentally stupid to remove the filibuster when there is a 50-50 split in the senate. When the day comes and the democrats lose control of the senate the republicans would literally steamroll everything the democrats did in the prior congress. So what good would there be in removing the cloture and filibuster when they will be on the receiving end, just like what happened when they did this for judicial appointments. There won't even be a need for committee votes, it would just straight up and down votes in the senate on everything with no discussion.
 
cathouse01 said:
Mr. Lehigh makes the common mistake of confusing correlation with causation. He credits Mass gun control laws with the relatively low numbers of violent firearm crime and firearm suicides in Mass when there is no factual basis for saying that these laws actually are the cause of these numbers. He ignores several other factors. First of all he actually insults the citizens of the Commonwealth by implying that without all the gun control laws Mass would turn into another Chicago. In fact by far the majority of Mass citizens are not prone to gun violence (or violence in general) in the first place, and having extraneous laws that make gun ownership difficult for law abiding citizens has no impact on the small minority of people who are prone to it. Second he ignores the relatively good job that the Boston Police do in controlling the gangs in Boston. A major part of gun violence is caused by gang wars in the major cities. Boston is the only city in Mass that cracks the top 100 U.S. cities in size (number 21) and relative to places like Chicago, L,A., and Baltimore there is much less gang activity in Boston, thus the reduced amount of gang violence and gun related gang violence. Third, he ignores that fact that Mass has some of the best mental health care in the country, which is actually primarily responsible for the relative low suicide rates, not the gun control laws. Fourth, he claims that Chicago’s gun violence can be blamed on the free availability of firearms from Indiana, ignoring that Boston is only 50 minutes from Manchester, NH and its complete lack of gun control.

My contention is that if you eliminated all of the Mass gun control laws, you would see statistically insignificant increases in violent gun crime and a possible small increase in gun suicides (but probably not an overall increase in suicides). The only law that might have actual impact, and that would only be on firearm suicides, is the requirement for an LTC/FTD to get a firearm, which makes it harder for someone without one to commit an “impulse” firearm suicide.
Click to expand...

I don't base what are my essential civil rights based on a piece of paper. If we're going to be structuring our civil rights around who uses them properly, then I suggest we start with voting. There's absolutely no reason why democrats need the 'right to vote'. It should be a privilege for them and a right for me. It's only fair.
 
Why are people mentioning Chicago as a place with extreme anti gun laws?
AFAIK it's shall issue, no AWB, no handgun roster. The only Chicago-specific problem is no AR's, AK's, and possibly other semiauto rifles allowed but AR and AK pistols are GTG.
 
Alex9661 said:
Why are people mentioning Chicago as a place with extreme anti gun laws?
AFAIK it's shall issue, no AWB, no handgun roster. The only Chicago-specific problem is no AR's, AK's, and possibly other semiauto rifles allowed but AR and AK pistols are GTG.
Click to expand...
As far as Giffords Law Center is concerned, they rank Mass as number 7 for gun law strength and Illinois right behind it at number 8, both get an A- grade from them.
 
ProGun said:
What is a "Saturday Night Special"? I've heard the term from antis, but seriously never figured out what it is??!
Click to expand...
It's what rich white people call any gun that poor people can afford to buy. I'm not joking. One of the main way they try to curb gun ownership is by making it too expensive.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
I don't think that democrats are going to be that monumentally stupid to remove the filibuster when there is a 50-50 split in the senate. When the day comes and the democrats lose control of the senate the republicans would literally steamroll everything the democrats did in the prior congress. So what good would there be in removing the cloture and filibuster when they will be on the receiving end, just like what happened when they did this for judicial appointments. There won't even be a need for committee votes, it would just straight up and down votes in the senate on everything with no discussion.
Click to expand...
You're assuming the DemocRats will ever allow the Repubs to gain control again thru a fair and honest election
 
inkdesigner said:
You're assuming the DemocRats will ever allow the Repubs to gain control again thru a fair and honest election
Click to expand...

If the repubs can't win an election again it will be everyone's fault. Republicans control the state houses and can fix the voter laws. Let's see if they have the guts to grow a spine and fix it. If they don't then the republican party doesn't deserve to exist, right?
 
VetteGirlMA said:
If the repubs can't win an election again it will be everyone's fault. Republicans control the state houses and can fix the voter laws. Let's see if they have the guts to grow a spine and fix it. If they don't then the republican party doesn't deserve to exist, right?
Click to expand...
NH and AZ are the current places to watch. Both have active audit actions attempting to be pushed forward. We needs these audits to be done this year and laws passed before 2022 to make corrective actions.

What we need is 100% forensic paper audits within 30 days after every national election.
 
With a violent crime rate a bit less than the US average, MA has a greater share of non-firearms murders than most states. Non-firearms murders include those where cause of death was indeterminate.

D1A913E2-3B80-4715-B14D-44D0D456301E.gif
 
Alex9661 said:
Why are people mentioning Chicago as a place with extreme anti gun laws?
AFAIK it's shall issue, no AWB, no handgun roster. The only Chicago-specific problem is no AR's, AK's, and possibly other semiauto rifles allowed but AR and AK pistols are GTG.
Click to expand...
Until Alan Gura started causing trouble (for the enemy) Chicago banned all handguns for little people - (Aldermen back before they became Alderpeople or whatever were exempt) not registered prior to a cutoff date in 1982 and had onerous requirements for the registration of long guns. It has only been in recent years that the Land of Lincoln is shall issue. Funny, the opposition never did an analysis seeing what allowing the ordinaries get licensed to carry did to the Chicago shootings.
 
Last edited:
xtry51 said:
It's what rich white people call any gun that poor people can afford to buy. I'm not joking. One of the main way they try to curb gun ownership is by making it too expensive.
Click to expand...

This. There are are lot of really great, well thought out comments here. I’ll add that the licensing in Boston was, and is inherently racist. The time and money necessary to meet the requirements (Moon Island is no more though?) prevents many people, including myself initially, from completing the process. My wife and I started the process when we first moved here but stopped because it was too involved, costly, and time consuming; exactly what they want it to be.
Never mind that BPD HQ, the place where one must go to interview, has itself been physically hit with gunfire on multiple occasions. Having moved from VT 16 years ago, the local news was very quickly dubbed “the who shot who”.
 
Reptile said:
I believe that is true.

You need to have an LTC which at one point required a federal background check(?).

I know LenS has the names of the exact checks, Triple I(?), and the correct order they are done.

Edit:

“Here’s the trifecta: The gun industry in Massachusetts sells more guns nationally than are manufactured in any other state, and yet we have the lowest per capita gun-death rate in the nation and the lowest per capita costs from gun injuries and death in the nation,” said Rosenthal, himself a gun owner.

I would LOVE to know if Rosenthal has at least one magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

I wish somebody would ask him that and have his answer on record.

"Mr. Rosenthal, if you had to defend yourself and your loved ones from a multiple violent killers in your home - would you prefer to have more than 10 rounds?"

I know he reads this forum.

He might even be a registered member.
Click to expand...
Himinsky !
 
G Port said:
Massachusetts also shows how to effectively distribute vaccines to the elderly
Click to expand...
That's not nice to poor charlie.
He did an extensive study as to which state ( West Virginia) had the most effective distribution method in the country .
Then after careful consideration , went 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
 
Last edited:
Lynyrd Skynyrd's Ronnie Van Zant, who grew up in a very bad part of Jacksonville, Florida, wrote the infamous song about cheap, shoddily made, small caliber handguns that drunk a**h***s in his city used to kill each other. He owned a .22 target pistol so he was not, according to his brothers, anti-handgun.
ProGun said:
What is a "Saturday Night Special"? I've heard the term from antis, but seriously never figured out what it is??!
Click to expand...
 
cathouse01 said:
Mr. Lehigh makes the common mistake of confusing correlation with causation. He credits Mass gun control laws with the relatively low numbers of violent firearm crime and firearm suicides in Mass when there is no factual basis for saying that these laws actually are the cause of these numbers. He ignores several other factors. First of all he actually insults the citizens of the Commonwealth by implying that without all the gun control laws Mass would turn into another Chicago. In fact by far the majority of Mass citizens are not prone to gun violence (or violence in general) in the first place, and having extraneous laws that make gun ownership difficult for law abiding citizens has no impact on the small minority of people who are prone to it. Second he ignores the relatively good job that the Boston Police do in controlling the gangs in Boston. A major part of gun violence is caused by gang wars in the major cities. Boston is the only city in Mass that cracks the top 100 U.S. cities in size (number 21) and relative to places like Chicago, L,A., and Baltimore there is much less gang activity in Boston, thus the reduced amount of gang violence and gun related gang violence. Third, he ignores that fact that Mass has some of the best mental health care in the country, which is actually primarily responsible for the relative low suicide rates, not the gun control laws. Fourth, he claims that Chicago’s gun violence can be blamed on the free availability of firearms from Indiana, ignoring that Boston is only 50 minutes from Manchester, NH and its complete lack of gun control.

My contention is that if you eliminated all of the Mass gun control laws, you would see statistically insignificant increases in violent gun crime and a possible small increase in gun suicides (but probably not an overall increase in suicides). The only law that might have actual impact, and that would only be on firearm suicides, is the requirement for an LTC/FTD to get a firearm, which makes it harder for someone without one to commit an “impulse” firearm suicide.
Click to expand...
Manch is 50 minutes from boston?!? You otherwise make some pretty coherent statements.
 

Similar threads

Insane Video Shows Police Gun Down Teenage Kidnapping Victim as She Ran To Them for Help
2
Replies
35
Views
827
Token_Black_Guy
T
BREAKING NEWS: Scores Killed, Hundreds Injured as Extremists Riot in Boston Area
Replies
16
Views
927
Bfatz
Bfatz
Gun rights enthusiasts as Extremists
Replies
2
Views
328
StevieP
StevieP
LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
260
M1911
M1911
ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
Back
Top Bottom