CNN/Three Laws That Would Reduce Gun Deaths

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
13,684
Likes
15,035
Location
Right behind you.

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,882
Likes
24,494
What is needed for any credibility is a double blind study.

The statistical "researchers" should be given limited info:

- A crime reduction initiative was done in City X
- Before and after stats

This info should NOT be given info on:

- What city
- What the initiative was
- No reference to guns

They should also be given before and after stats from cities that had other "initiatives" - such as declaration as sanctuary cities; changes to welfare programs; etc. Furthermore, they should be given before and after stats of cities in which nothing was done.

The current approach to "research" like giving someone a new medicine and asking "does this make you feel better". In order to be given maximum credibility in medical journals, not only must the patient not know if he is getting the real drug or placebo, but the researcher interacting with the patient must also not know (hence the term double blind).
 

allen-1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
13,459
Likes
38,184
Location
GA; (CT escapee)
whatever they have to say they can stuff it up their ass.

I actually took the time to read the article.
I'm a dumbass; you saved yourself the effort.
They can most definitely stuff it up their ass.

That article is the most shameless piece of crap masquerading as reporting as the "research" masquerading as research that it's written about. Feces stacked upon feces.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
27,701
Likes
32,505
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
Many states, from private sellers who are not FFL licensed dealers.

MA is not one of those states.

Which in the end is completely meaningless, because the gun still traces back to SOMEBODY. The vast majority of guns out there were sold from a dealer post '68 and are logged to a person. So, its still possible to "trace" the gun. Will it require actual police work to hunt down the sales train? Yes.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,882
Likes
24,494
Which in the end is completely meaningless, because the gun still traces back to SOMEBODY. The vast majority of guns out there were sold from a dealer post '68 and are logged to a person. So, its still possible to "trace" the gun. Will it require actual police work to hunt down the sales train? Yes.

No.

If someone buys a gun cash and carry from a private seller, the only requirement is that the seller not knowingly sell to a prohibited person. The trace may lead to nothing more than "I sold to a fat smelly white guy I met at a gun show who saw the for gun for sale sign on the back of my coat".
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
27,701
Likes
32,505
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
No.

If someone buys a gun cash and carry from a private seller, the only requirement is that the seller not knowingly sell to a prohibited person. The trace may lead to nothing more than "I sold to a fat smelly white guy I met at a gun show who saw the for gun for sale sign on the back of my coat".

Still leads to someone, and that gun still started its journey at a dealer with a background check, that's my point. People are always going to sell things without the government knowing. So the idea of "universal background checks" is meaningless. People will still just sell the gun privately anyway.
 

Spanz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
53,995
Likes
70,184
"ammunition background checks, which were associated with an 18% reduction in death. "

ya know they have a point. I usually do not ask my ammo where it has been before I bought it!
 

MachineHead

NES Member
Rating - 100%
65   0   0
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
8,331
Likes
3,559
Location
Central MA
"ammunition background checks, which were associated with an 18% reduction in death. "

ya know they have a point. I usually do not ask my ammo where it has been before I bought it!

I personally make my ammo fill out a CORI, so I know every round was properly vetted.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,993
Likes
4,373
Location
WNW of MHT
Here's the most glaring failure of this Boston University "study", shows their need to achieve the preordained conclusion:
The researchers did not explore whether rates of gun-related homicide and gun-related suicide seemed to be affected differently by the different laws.
. . .
CNN reached out the National Rifle Association for comment about the study and is awaiting a response.

Although there is good evidence that state laws requiring universal background checks, as well as handgun-purchaser licensing or permit requirements, reduce homicides and suicides, the current study does not add to the evidence base, said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, who was not involved in the current study.
You know an anti-gun study is really flawed when the Johns Hopkins center can't endorse it -- or maybe Dan is just mad he didn't get paid?

Anybody feel like digging into the background of Bindu Kalesan, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University and her funding? Looks like Bindu's 2015 anti-gun study was at Columbia university, and even more biased?
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 27, 2016
Messages
83
Likes
12
Location
Taunton, MA
Here's my 3 gun laws that would reduce gun violence:
-Penalty for use of firearms in commission of a violent crime= deportation to Syria
-Penalty for firearm negligence leading to injury or death of another person= relocation to New Jersey
-Penalty for mass shootings= deportation to North Korea
 

the_shootist

Banned
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
10,110
Likes
1,590
Location
Nowhere near Mass!
Here's the most glaring failure of this Boston University "study", shows their need to achieve the preordained conclusion:

You know an anti-gun study is really flawed when the Johns Hopkins center can't endorse it -- or maybe Dan is just mad he didn't get paid?

Anybody feel like digging into the background of Bindu Kalesan, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University and his funding? Looks like Bindu's 2015 anti-gun study was at Columbia university, and even more biased?

Just follow the money!
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,882
Likes
24,494
Still leads to someone, and that gun still started its journey at a dealer with a background check, that's my point. People are always going to sell things without the government knowing. So the idea of "universal background checks" is meaningless. People will still just sell the gun privately anyway.
I am not advocating so-called universal checks - in fact, I think there is benefit to people having guns the govt does not know about (as registration is a prelude to confiscation).

The current situation is that an undocumented sale is lawful. The opposition is trying to change that so that every legally transferred gun is traceable to the current person in possession, and possession of an untraceable gun the govt does not know about is unlawful.
 

hminsky

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
77   0   0
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
8,593
Likes
4,737
The horseshit is piled high on this one. Hard to even know where to start.

Laws around firearm identification, which make it possible to determine the gun that fired a bullet, were associated with a 16% reductions in deaths.



OK, according to the summary of their article
Findings
31 672 firearm-related deaths occurred in 2010 in the USA (10·1 per 100 000 people; mean state-specific count 631·5 [SD 629·1]). Of 25 firearm laws, nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality, nine were associated with increased firearm mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0·39 [95% CI 0·23–0·67]; p=0·001), ammunition background checks (0·18 [0·09–0·36]; p<0·0001), and identification requirement for firearms (0·16 [0·09–0·29]; p<0·0001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10·35 to 4·46 deaths per 100 000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1·99 per 100 000, and firearm identification to 1·81 per 100 000.

So ... they did a correlation of firearms laws in states to firearms death rates in those states.

And they "adjusted" for "relevant covariates", whatever that means. And then they conclude that the three strongest correlated
laws are the ones responsible for reduction in deaths.

Let's see, how could this possibly fail to produce sensible results.

Well, I wonder how you "adjust for relevant covariates" between say Baltimore, MD, and Montpelier, VT?
Is "the percentage of the population that is inclined to commit multiple violent felonies and murder without remorse" a relevant covariate?
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,993
Likes
4,373
Location
WNW of MHT
Few existing state firearms laws are assoc with reduced firearms mortality -- Bindu

Bindu has a history of providing anti-gun quotes to media and promoting new gun laws. Even her twitter is just pure anti-gun propaganda.

WP said:
{ Bloomberg funded anti-gun researcher Daniel } Webster said that those fingerprinting laws aren't even currently being implemented, raising the question of how they would prevent gun deaths -- and particularly in suicides where tracing the bullet to the gun hardly seems like a deterrent. Kalesan said that that the laws would result in fewer guns,and said the study wasn't designed to distinguish how policy contributions to suicide or homicide deaths.

+60% of firearms deaths are suicides, and I strongly suspect that if you dig into their results (gotta pay to read the journal), you'd find that the majority of "firearm mortality" reduced by their recommended laws are suicides, and the authors did not put any effort into determining whether substitution comes into play -- do states with "ammunition background checks" have a lower suicide rate, or just a lower firearms suicide rate?

Best part of the Washington Post story:
"Briefly, this is not a credible study and no cause and effect inferences should be made from it," Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy & Research { at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health } wrote in an e-mail.
. . .
"What I find both puzzling and troubling is this very flawed piece of research is published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals around," Webster said in an interview."Something went awry here, and it harms public trust."
Hey Bindu, you know you f***ed up when the most NRA-hating academic in the nation says your anti-gun study is crap.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
4,950
Likes
4,764
Location
Merrimack Valley
The researchers found the largest effects for [lower gun deaths were]:
1. Universal background checks, which were associated with a 39% reduction in death, and
2. Ammunition background checks, which were associated with an 18% reduction in death.
3. Laws around firearm identification, which make it possible to determine the gun that fired a bullet, were associated with a 16% reductions in deaths.

So, my problems are:
1. The community has asked for the ability to conduct backround checks before, but we were denied access to said federal database, which, at the moment is dodgy at best as far as its accuracy goes. Will this stop all problematic transactions? No, but could it be a good start? Maybe.
2. Ammunition Background check: Has California even passed this yet? I know they tried in October 2015, but March 2016 (if it passed) seems rather early to declare any sort of numbers out of this. Now, on the one hand ammo background checks seems sensical: I can own a firearm and then become a federally prohibited person but not turn it in. However, wouldn't a federal license just make more sense and be an easier adoption?
3. Laws around firearm identification, which make it possible to determine the gun that fired a bullet: I know New Jersey has this program and its an abysmal failure. California, again, is trying, however as far as I am aware microstamping is not a possibility, and if it were I can't see how long term results could be created.
 

jason19711971

NES Member
Rating - 100%
110   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,297
Location
Lakeville
Here's my 3 ways to reduce gun crime

1. Stop Illegal immigration: This also means export all illegals out of the country.
2. Encourage law biding citizens to get a license and carry for home and personal security. Instruct to use and store the weapon properly
3. Keep prisoners in prison.
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
7,363
Likes
3,782
Location
Deep in the woods of SC
I still want to know what state I could just go to and buy an "assault weapon" workout a,background check

Hell, down here, if you have a CWP, the dealers won't even do a background check. Just put your PIN on the 4473 and it skips the check and just goes straight to printing out the approved form. I sold 3 rifles this morning w/o background checks. Private sales are as simple as you hand me cash I hand you a gun, the end. Don't even need a BOS.
 
Top Bottom