CNN/Three Laws That Would Reduce Gun Deaths

bfm

Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
10,849
Likes
17,176
Location
Somerville
We should use some of the findings to our advantage.

"Not all of the gun laws on states' books appeared to be effective. Indeed, of the 25 laws examined, nine initiatives — some of them dear to the hearts of gun-control advocates — were associated with increases in gun deaths. These included bans or restrictions on assault weapons, limits on the number of firearms a customer could purchase, and laws requiring locking devices on firearms available for sale. "
 

MachineHead

NES Member
Rating - 100%
65   0   0
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
8,331
Likes
3,559
Location
Central MA
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.

That's awesome! Truly instant.
 

allen-1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
13,469
Likes
38,277
Location
GA; (CT escapee)
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.

Same in Georgia.
 

allen-1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
13,469
Likes
38,277
Location
GA; (CT escapee)
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.

That ship already sailed. I have firearms in my possession that were legally obtained that have no paper trail; and that was before I left Connecticut.
 

Horrible

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
12,508
Likes
5,498
Location
NOLA
These lawrs are already in existence in MA, NY, CT, NJ, DC, $hitcago, etc and it hasn't done a damn thing to reduce violent crime.

Meanwhile, near MA, NH/VT/ME are three of the top five SAFEST states in AMERICA!!! And we all know what those state's gun laws look like!

Article, epic fail!
 

omega42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
3,280
Likes
2,790
Location
NH
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.

No surprise there. CNN has gone from anti leaning to hard anti propaganda outlet over the last year.

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 [STRIKE=strikethrough]get a license and[/STRIKE] carry for home and personal security[STRIKE=strikethrough]. Instruct[/STRIKE], and seek instruction to use and store the weapon properly
3. Keep prisoners in prison.

FIFY
 
Last edited:

Varmint

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
20,511
Likes
13,440
Location
North Shore, MA

So according to the study, Massachusetts (and 2 other states) have background checks for ammo, and gun deaths went down in 2010 due to those checks. That tells you all you need to know about this 'study'. Not to mention, what kind of scientist goes into a study with such an obvious bias?

Because of the shortcomings of the firearms background checks, "we were very happy when we got the result that background checks for ammunition is effective, and could be more effective than (firearm) background checks alone," she said
 

usp45ct

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
5,997
Likes
2,296
Location
Western Ma
So according to the study, Massachusetts (and 2 other states) have background checks for ammo, and gun deaths went down in 2010 due to those checks. That tells you all you need to know about this 'study'. Not to mention, what kind of scientist goes into a study with such an obvious bias?


Me thinks the use of "Scientist" in you post is generous. The word "retard" seems to fit better.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,282
Likes
5,854
Location
My forest stronghold
WBUR did a story on this study yesterday on their Radio Boston show: http://radioboston.wbur.org/2016/03/11/gun-safety-laws. Even they were skeptical as was David Hemingway - and we all know how much he likes guns!

The study's authors are using numbers without having any understanding of what the numbers mean.

The central claim of the study is: "firearm related deaths could be reduced by 90 percent — from 30,000 a year to just 3,000 — with the passage of just three gun safety laws" -- universal background checks, background checks for the purchase of ammunition, and registry or tracing of guns. Regardless of what efficacy those measures would have in reducing violent gun use, their connection to suicide is tenuous at best. People who use a firearm to commit suicide likely are already gun owners and if their not, can usually pass a background check.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,996
Likes
4,378
Location
WNW of MHT
Study was self-funded?!?

I really hate linking to Forbes, but I noticed something interesting in this Forbes coverage of the study:
Forbes said:
The study is an effort by lead investigator Bindu Kalesan, a clinical trials statistician and assistant professor at Boston University, to understand gun violence. She and Boston University self-funded the work, which means there are no conflicts of interest.

“I think this study has some serious methodological limitation,” says Jeffrey Swanson, a gun violence researcher at Duke University. “The risk is you can come to some misleading conclusions.”
 

JJ4

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
3,017
Likes
1,549
Location
South Central MA
Do read the comments here:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/1...inds-3-laws-could-reduce-firearm-deaths-by-90

For some reason Slashdot (a site for nerd news) almost always lean libertarian / pro gun.

First comment:
Yeah, um, not so much (Score:5, Informative)


by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2016 @01:02AM (#51686941)

'Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Policy and Research, told the Washington Post, “Briefly, this is not a credible study and no cause and effect inferences should be made from it.” Webster is later quoted, stating, “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 Something went awry here, and it harms public trust.”'

Note that Webster works for Bloomberg's anti-gun policy center...
 
Last edited:

EC1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,740
Likes
2,564
Location
Somewhere
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.

When you look at their table of gun laws by state, they have made several errors and with much of their assertions coming from biased sources ???. Conclusions based on errors are useless and misleading, whether intentional or out of ignorance it is a mixed bag of trash and lies.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,904
Likes
24,539
1. MA has a low gun death rate

2. Approximately 92% of those licensed to possess a handgun in MA are licensed to carry concealed (or openly) in public.

Therefore, the way to reduce gun violence is to make sure that all persons who own handguns are allowed to carry them in public.

Sounds like flawless cause and effect using the standard anti-gun study methodology.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
17,142
Likes
4,880
Location
South Coast
1 Legalize all drugs, that would slow the gang shootings. No money in drugs to fight over.
2 Repeat felons would serve very long sentences.
3 Seal the borders.

Those are my 3 ways.
 
Rating - 100%
49   0   0
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
7,578
Likes
2,752
Location
Upstate NY
1.A gun may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.


2.A gun must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.


3.A gun must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
 

je25ff

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
13,006
Likes
5,803
Just wait until they pass laws that require gun owners to have insurance. Then the lawyers will catch on that law suits will have more money at the end of the rainbow.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,996
Likes
4,378
Location
WNW of MHT
According to Bindu, the AWB has driving a 15% *increase* in deaths in MA.

The push for the repeal of the laws which these researchers say have the unintended consequence of increases firearms deaths should be fun. The study says bans on "assault weapons" brought a 15% increase in mortality, so WBUR says MA can save lives by repealing the AWB.

Just wait until they pass laws that require gun owners to have insurance. Then the lawyers will catch on that law suits will have more money at the end of the rainbow.
What kind of insurance? We've already been around that [thread=257968]twice[/thread] -- you can't buy insurance to cover yourself against your own intentional acts, and you can't be forced to buy insurance to exercise a constitutional right (e.g. speech, or religion). So yeah, such a law will enrich lawyers, up until somebody gets the case in front of the supreme court.
 

je25ff

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
13,006
Likes
5,803
What kind of insurance? We've already been around that [thread=257968]twice[/thread] -- you can't buy insurance to cover yourself against your own intentional acts, and you can't be forced to buy insurance to exercise a constitutional right (e.g. speech, or religion). So yeah, such a law will enrich lawyers, up until somebody gets the case in front of the supreme court.

I never would have thought government mandated health insurance costs would be considered a tax either.
 
Rating - 60%
3   2   0
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
2,065
Likes
367
kind of insurance? We've already been around that [thread=257968]twice[/thread] -- you can't buy insurance to cover yourself against your own intentional acts,

Wrong then, wrong now. Any current ISO (or ISO derivative) homeowners insurance form contains the following language;

764fab06dbff07b9bd07b6537e75461e.jpg
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
1   0   1
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
1,045
Likes
144
Location
Cooper Maine
Well NY and IL already sort of have that law about ammo. I live way up in Maine and everybody has firearms we do not even need a permit to carry a firearm. We have none of the murders that places like CA,NY,NJ and IL have wonder why that is?
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
17,142
Likes
4,880
Location
South Coast
Well NY and IL already sort of have that law about ammo. I live way up in Maine and everybody has firearms we do not even need a permit to carry a firearm. We have none of the murders that places like CA,NY,NJ and IL have wonder why that is?

I would give you the answer but I would be called a racist.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,924
Likes
434
Location
Vermont, a Free State
I do know one thing they can legislate that will significantly reduce crime.

It's pretty drastic though.

“Everything we've done so far hasn't worked so it's time to try something different,” said *. “Because these people will pick up a stick, a rock or they're going to use their fist. Are you going to cut everybody's hands off?”

The video of some of the above is on the webpage below. They did leave out "Good luck getting the voters to go along with that" after cutting hands off was mentioned though.

http://www.wptz.com/news/vermont-new-york/burlington/Burlington-council-approves-assault-weapons-ban/18045346
 
Top Bottom