NU "study" sent to EOPSS - no 2A restriction in gun laws

https://drgo.us/legal-access-to-firearms-vs-homicide-rates/

Very good article pushing back on some of this nonsense.

Thanks for posting this.

NPR mentioned the NU study referenced (which is not the topic of this thread) at every news break one day a few weeks ago, complete with quotes from one of the authors.

I heard it like 4 different times and was curious what kind of mental gymnastics and general dishonesty had gone into the study to get the "results" that were reported. Now I know!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Only 97% get the license. The other 3% have to either go without or take extraordinary financial means to obtain a license.

THEN you have the problem of gun BANS in MA. Sure, you can get a $800 Sig. But what about a $150 protection piece??? Oh no. Those are too scaaarrrryyy for us to allow you to have.

Ergo - while there is no SIGNIFICANT barrier to obtaining a license, there are financial barriers that act just like poll taxes in previous you-don't-need-no-constertushunal-rights eras.

It's typical "I have a result I want, let's tailor a study around it" ejamacational scammity. Go and try and run a study to see where those 3% live. Lowell? Boston? Hmmm???? The higher crime areas ASSUREDLY have a much higher % of denials.

What about TYPE of license. "Listen, boy, you can't have this Class A permit, but we'll allow you a permit to have a shotgun in your home. Ergo, you are part of the 97%."

Typical tool-ism.
 
Last edited:
Basically a puff piece to fellate McDevitt and his participation in DeLeo's 2014 bill. I'd take serious issues with the claim that 42 of McDevitt's 44 recommendation were actually enacted and implemented.

As others have noted, approval rates are meaningless because the process is self-selecting. Soft denials and undue burdens placed upon applicants (cost, limited opportunities to apply, non-statutory requirements, disinformation by PDs,etc.) discourage large number of people from event bothering to apply.

We actually have a public policy that discourages people from exercising an enumerated right.
 
Tighter Massachusetts Gun Law Does Not Restrict Second Amendment


Sounds like Kevin Spacey saying Hey, i don't REMEMBER diddling that young boy, so it must not have happened, AND i am gay as shit!

i.e. totally believable
 
Basically a puff piece to fellate McDevitt and his participation in DeLeo's 2014 bill. I'd take serious issues with the claim that 42 of McDevitt's 44 recommendation were actually enacted and implemented.

As others have noted, approval rates are meaningless because the process is self-selecting. Soft denials and undue burdens placed upon applicants (cost, limited opportunities to apply, non-statutory requirements, disinformation by PDs,etc.) discourage large number of people from event bothering to apply.

We actually have a public policy that discourages people from exercising an enumerated right.

It's also worth noting that nearly every PD has at least some non statutory requirements, even the "green" towns. Like I don't think there is anything in MGL that demands "Letters Of Reference" from an applicant yet nearly every "green" town seems to demand them for first time applicants.

-Mike
 
It's also worth noting that nearly every PD has at least some non statutory requirements, even the "green" towns. Like I don't think there is anything in MGL that demands "Letters Of Reference" from an applicant yet nearly every "green" town seems to demand them for first time applicants.

-Mike

My town doesn’t have any extra requirements.
 
My town doesn’t have any extra requirements.

There's a handful that don't, I won't dispute that... but not a lot.

It's also easy for people on a renewal to say a given town is "green" but that's not really an accurate depiction a lot of times. There are red towns that will renew move ins with minimal issues but would give first timers a difficult time, apply restrictions etc.

-Mike
 
THEN you have the problem of gun BANS in MA. Sure, you can get a $800 Sig. But what about a $150 protection piece??? Oh no. Those are too scaaarrrryyy for us to allow you to have.

Geezus. I see your argument but there is no reason to be disingenuous, can we leave that to the antis please? Lying was always their department. Hell one of the first guns I bought (and this was after the GCA98 bullshit) was an AMT Back-Up 380 for the princely sum of like $225.00 . There's not a shortage of cheap guns in MA market (even new) if people really wanna buy junk. Hell you can get a Shield 9 now for a little more than that.

A better argument vs the bans is limiting choices with the bans deters people "up front" from exercising their rights. I know this very well because I was almost one of those people that said "I can't get what I want anyways, so **** it". It's very easy for a layperson to get sucked into that kind of thinking due to a ban. It's also designed to be intimidating so that people on the fence about firearms ownership in MA will opt towards noping out of doing it rather than do something which they might perceive as "taking a risk" because of the difficult laws here.

-Mike
 
Geezus. I see your argument but there is no reason to be disingenuous, can we leave that to the antis please?
[...]
It's also designed to be intimidating so that people on the fence about firearms ownership in MA will opt towards noping out of doing it rather than do something which they might perceive as "taking a risk" because of the difficult laws here.

-Mike
this! self-selection bias is a huge problem with the application process. I've genuinely no idea how many times I've had to explain to someone that the application process, though needlessly Byzantine, is actually not that hard to complete. It's just designed to keep you out through fear. And how many people refused to apply after the whole mass-expiry BS? I mean, if I was in my 70s and learned that my "lifetime" FID was no more, I would probably never try to reapply either. That's a lot of people that want to be legal who won't even try.
 
Back
Top Bottom