Johns Hopkins Study: Licensing, mag bans mean fewer mass shooting fatalities

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,336
Likes
1,885
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health says so.
Firearm Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Fatal Mass Shootings
“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention. “One side often calls for expanding background checks to private purchasers, and the other usually calls for fewer restrictions on civilian gun carrying. Our findings indicate that neither of those prescriptions are associated with lower rates of fatal mass shootings. What does appear to work to reduce mass shootings are licensing laws and laws banning large-capacity magazines.”

In their analyses, researchers identified 604 mass shootings involving four or more victim fatalities; a total of 2,976 victims were killed in these incidents. Approximately 28 percent (842) of victim fatalities were from domestic-related shootings, 61 percent (2,057) were from non-domestic related shootings, and it was unclear among the remaining 11 percent (77) of victims whether the shooting was domestic-related. Most mass shootings had four to six victim fatalities.

As for licensing, federal law requires licensed firearm dealers—but not private sellers—to initiate a background check before the purchase of a gun. Firearm purchaser licensing laws require even more: a direct application to a law enforcement agency that conducts background checks, often aided by fingerprint-based identity verification of the applicant. Under such laws, a license or permit to purchase is needed for sales by private individuals as well as licensed firearm dealers. Nine states—Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina—and the District of Columbia currently have some form of firearm purchaser or owner licensing laws. Previous research shows that firearm purchaser licensing laws are associated with reductions in rates of firearm homicides and suicides.
 
“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention. "


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCsVOO_3EUU



What, the actual f***? So now he makes up fake professor shilll credits to give to public health doctors?
 
When your name title takes up the first line of a paragraph I know you are no expert on the subject, your just in it for the pier review of other long ( winded ) named "experts".
 
Punish criminals. Leave 2A alone and stop trying to make everyone violate stupid fucI<ing retarded and restrictive laws.
 
Or claiming that smaller bottles will stop drunk drivers and deaths that they cause.

In SC someone had the brilliant idea that all alcohol in bars needed to be sold out of the individual shot nip bottles to prevent bartenders from over pouring and getting people drunk, so they passed a law. Soon everyone was getting shitfaced because if you ordered a drink with two or more alcohols in it the bartender had to pour it in full shot increments. So even a small margarita for example would have to have two shots of tequila and a shot of triple sec to get the mix right. Patrons were three or more drinks in on their first round even if they ordered one small drink. [laugh]
 
In SC someone had the brilliant idea that all alcohol in bars needed to be sold out of the individual shot nip bottles to prevent bartenders from over pouring and getting people drunk, so they passed a law. Soon everyone was getting shitfaced because if you ordered a drink with two or more alcohols in it the bartender had to pour it in full shot increments. So even a small margarita for example would have to have two shots of tequila and a shot of triple sec to get the mix right. Patrons were three or more drinks in on their first round even if they ordered one small drink. [laugh]

Holy cow. Perfect example of stupidity in legislation.
 
Hold up. So places that have no licensing have more mass shootings than those that don't???? (Well, I guess they are saying that there were places that had no licensing between 87 and 20xx and then ADDED it. I'm trying to think of that place. That place that was the Vermont of the country in 87 and now has strict licensing standards. Anyone name that state? Or even county? City?)


That's not what they did. They took a select 45 states. (Gee, what about the other 5??? I'm betting it didn't fit the narrative.) They analyzed shootings and came up with some sort of criteria of a "non-licensing" and a "licensing" district. And then compared it and lo and behold the licensed places had fewer shootings.

I wonder if we take out Illinois, Florida and DC and stick back in AK, VT, Maine and NH (just a guess to what states were skipped) the facts would not be so clear.


EDIT:

Three additional states—Missouri, Michigan, and Nebraska—were also included in the analyses based on their purchaser licensing laws; during the study period, these states repealed all or part of their licensing requirements.

So instead of chucking those 3 states completely out because it would be unthinkable that a state with a gun law and a gun problem would REPEAL their gun laws - you kept them in to prove your point. Now we're down to 42 states. The states with the strictest laws: MA, CT, MD, IA, HI, NJ, NY. All already low-gun-violence areas regardless of laws. (see: South Side of Chicago, aka Baddest Part of Town)
 
Who funds theses 'studies' and what agenda do those who provide it support? That is usually a reliable indicator of what results the 'study' will produce!

study=propaganda
 
Yep...didn't stop the Virginia Tech killer. He caused a mass shooting with 10 round magazines

That argument will only then enable the gun grabbers to say "You know, you're right, only single shot muskets should be allowed' We can't win and they won't stop coming until they're dead!
 
They seriously didn't think about the blatant conflict of interest here? That's peer-reviewed research 101.

Mark Twain
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination”

― Mark Twain

Exactly. Met a girl who told me about her desire to finish college, get a PhD, and perform research to prove [medical conclusion with political implications]. I noted her self-declared bias will cause issues if the research doesn't support her assumption. Which leads to another Twain quote....

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
 
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9133.12487

We limited our data set to incidents of homicide that occurred between 1984 and 2017, involved four or more victims (excluding any offender death), and involved a firearm of any type. We excluded any case that was coded as having a connection to gang or narcotic activity because one of our supplemental data sets excludes gang‐ or narcotic‐related events. Other studies that have examined mass shooting frequency have excluded gang and narcotic incidents, so we excluded these incidents to adhere to the current literature (Klarevas, 2016; Lankford, 2016).

We followed Zeoli et al. (2018) in excluding Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Montana from our analysis because of systemic Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)–SHR reporting issues over multiple years.

We found no evidence that concealed carry laws, assault weapons bans, prohibitions for domestic abusers and violent misdemeanants, or point‐of‐sale CBC laws were associated with the incidence of fatal mass shootings. In models in which the number of mass shooting victim fatalities was the outcome, handgun purchaser licensing was protective (IRR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.24, 0.82) and the point estimate for LCM bans suggests a large protective effect albeit with a wide confidence interval (IRR = 0.30, 95% CI .08, 1.10) that make inferences less certain.
 
Back
Top Bottom