Florida has more gun homicides

[2aguy]

I like this one.......the most recent and by Dr. Lott, the expert in this field.....

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...y-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf

Unfortunately, it is often too difficult to account for them. A much better approach is to study how crime rates vary before and after changes in permit rules have occurred.

The current analysis doesn’t provide the sophisticated estimates provided with earlier analyses simply because the necessary data won’t be available for a couple years.

Thus, it should only be viewed as suggestive. Between 2007 and the preliminary estimates for 2013, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.4 per 100,000 – a 22 percent drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 130 percent.

Overall violent crime also fell by the same percentage, 22 percent, over that period of time.

Using this new state level permit data from 2007 on, our analysis suggests that each one percentage point increase in the percent of the adult population holding permits is roughly associated with a 1.4 percent drop in the murder rate.7

Of course disgraced economist Lott. Why do you bother? No academic takes him seriously.

anti gunners calling him disgraced because he shows you how stupid you are, not a way to discredit someone...moron.

Like I said, no academic takes him seriously.

And no establishment Republicans took Trump seriously either........

 

[Brain357]

http://www.armedwithreason.com/a-lott-more-lies-debating-more-guns-less-crime/

Even according to Lott’s own list of the studies, the number of academics that disagree with him heavily outnumber those on his side. When we include the academics that Lott ignores, it’s not even close. It is readily apparent that the academic community is not on Lott’s side.

 

[Brain357]

This is a good one too......
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf

DOES THE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS DETER COUNTABLE CRIMES? ONLY A COUNT ANALYSIS CAN SAY*

FLORENZ PLASSMANN State University of New York at Binghamton and T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Abstract

An analysis of the effects of right-to-carry laws on crime requires particular distributional and structural considerations.

First, because of the count nature of crime data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate data, least-squares methods yield unreliable estimates.

Second, use of a single dummy variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right-to-carry laws is likely to introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis.

In this paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right-to-carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies.

We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies.

John Lott, along with two other young researchers, Florenz Plassmann and John Whitely, wrote a reply to Ayres and Donohue attempting to confirm the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis. However, when Ayres and Donohue examined Lott’s reply, they discovered numerous coding errors and empty cells that, when corrected, showed that RTC laws did not reduce crime and in some categories even increased it. In a latter email exchange with Tim Lambert, Plassmann even admitted that correcting the coding errors caused his paper’s conclusions to evaporate. Eventually, Lott removed his name from the final paper, citing disagreements over edits (which turned out to be a conflict over a single word) that had been made to Ayres and Donohue’s paper.

 

[Brain357]

This is a good one too......
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf

DOES THE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS DETER COUNTABLE CRIMES? ONLY A COUNT ANALYSIS CAN SAY*

FLORENZ PLASSMANN State University of New York at Binghamton and T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Abstract

An analysis of the effects of right-to-carry laws on crime requires particular distributional and structural considerations.

First, because of the count nature of crime data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate data, least-squares methods yield unreliable estimates.

Second, use of a single dummy variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right-to-carry laws is likely to introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis.

In this paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right-to-carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies.

We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies.

On the one hand, this indicates that right-to-carry laws do not always have the deterrent effects on crime that are envisaged by legislators and that the adoption of such laws is not without risk. On the other hand, our analysis suggests that it would be imprudent to make it generally more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns as long as there exist large numbers of weapons that can and will be used by criminals to commit crimes, because right-to-carry laws do help on average to reduce the number of these crimes.

On the other hand, our analysis suggests that it would be imprudent to make it generally more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns as long as there exist large numbers of weapons that can and will be used by criminals to commit crimes, because right-to-carry laws do help on average to reduce the number of these crimes.[

On the one hand, this indicates that right-to-carry laws do not always have the deterrent effects on crime that are envisaged by legislators and that the adoption of such laws is not without risk

 

[2aguy]

This is a good one too......
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf

DOES THE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS DETER COUNTABLE CRIMES? ONLY A COUNT ANALYSIS CAN SAY*

FLORENZ PLASSMANN State University of New York at Binghamton and T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Abstract

An analysis of the effects of right-to-carry laws on crime requires particular distributional and structural considerations.

First, because of the count nature of crime data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate data, least-squares methods yield unreliable estimates.

Second, use of a single dummy variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right-to-carry laws is likely to introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis.

In this paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right-to-carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies.

We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies.

John Lott, along with two other young researchers, Florenz Plassmann and John Whitely, wrote a reply to Ayres and Donohue attempting to confirm the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis. However, when Ayres and Donohue examined Lott’s reply, they discovered numerous coding errors and empty cells that, when corrected, showed that RTC laws did not reduce crime and in some categories even increased it. In a latter email exchange with Tim Lambert, Plassmann even admitted that correcting the coding errors caused his paper’s conclusions to evaporate. Eventually, Lott removed his name from the final paper, citing disagreements over edits (which turned out to be a conflict over a single word) that had been made to Ayres and Donohue’s paper.

Wrong...they didn't use the right figures and then failed to acknowledge their mistake....try to keep up....

 

[2aguy]

A Lott More Lies - Debating More Guns Less Crime

Even according to Lott’s own list of the studies, the number of academics that disagree with him heavily outnumber those on his side. When we include the academics that Lott ignores, it’s not even close. It is readily apparent that the academic community is not on Lott’s side.

Wrong.......You have been given the count and the numbers and continue to lie.

 

[2aguy]

This is a good one too......
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf

DOES THE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS DETER COUNTABLE CRIMES? ONLY A COUNT ANALYSIS CAN SAY*

FLORENZ PLASSMANN State University of New York at Binghamton and T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Abstract

An analysis of the effects of right-to-carry laws on crime requires particular distributional and structural considerations.

First, because of the count nature of crime data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate data, least-squares methods yield unreliable estimates.

Second, use of a single dummy variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right-to-carry laws is likely to introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis.

In this paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right-to-carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies.

We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies.

John Lott, along with two other young researchers, Florenz Plassmann and John Whitely, wrote a reply to Ayres and Donohue attempting to confirm the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis. However, when Ayres and Donohue examined Lott’s reply, they discovered numerous coding errors and empty cells that, when corrected, showed that RTC laws did not reduce crime and in some categories even increased it. In a latter email exchange with Tim Lambert, Plassmann even admitted that correcting the coding errors caused his paper’s conclusions to evaporate. Eventually, Lott removed his name from the final paper, citing disagreements over edits (which turned out to be a conflict over a single word) that had been made to Ayres and Donohue’s paper.

And of course....

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper.

In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.



In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”

 

[Brain357]

So you are up to 3. Lott who is discredited, moody who seems wishy washy, and plassmann who admits his own study was bad.

 

[Brain357]

A Lott More Lies - Debating More Guns Less Crime

Even according to Lott’s own list of the studies, the number of academics that disagree with him heavily outnumber those on his side. When we include the academics that Lott ignores, it’s not even close. It is readily apparent that the academic community is not on Lott’s side.

Wrong.......You have been given the count and the numbers and continue to lie.

You mean Lott has given you false numbers and you parrot him.

 

[2aguy]

This is a good one too......
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf

DOES THE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS DETER COUNTABLE CRIMES? ONLY A COUNT ANALYSIS CAN SAY*

FLORENZ PLASSMANN State University of New York at Binghamton and T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Abstract

An analysis of the effects of right-to-carry laws on crime requires particular distributional and structural considerations.

First, because of the count nature of crime data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate data, least-squares methods yield unreliable estimates.

Second, use of a single dummy variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right-to-carry laws is likely to introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis.

In this paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right-to-carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies.

We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies.

John Lott, along with two other young researchers, Florenz Plassmann and John Whitely, wrote a reply to Ayres and Donohue attempting to confirm the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis. However, when Ayres and Donohue examined Lott’s reply, they discovered numerous coding errors and empty cells that, when corrected, showed that RTC laws did not reduce crime and in some categories even increased it. In a latter email exchange with Tim Lambert, Plassmann even admitted that correcting the coding errors caused his paper’s conclusions to evaporate. Eventually, Lott removed his name from the final paper, citing disagreements over edits (which turned out to be a conflict over a single word) that had been made to Ayres and Donohue’s paper.

And of course the truth.....

John Lott's website


The authors give the impression that Dr. Lott had asked the Stanford Law Review to take his name off the work because he had lost confidence in the validity of the arguments in the original Lott, Plassmann, and Whitley paper. This impression is factually incorrect.

Dr. Lott had asked that his name be removed because he would not agree to changes in the paper that the Stanford Law Review mandated to accommodate a late changes in the original A&D article ("Shooting Down the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis").


Specifically, we were given an ultimatum to either:

(A) agree to the changes and our paper would be published in the Stanford Law Review,

or (B) the Stanford Law Review would publish only A&D's original paper but neither our paper nor A&D's reply.

These changes violated an agreement that we had reached with the Stanford Law Review about the editorial process and constituted a "final straw" to Dr. Lott in what had been a grueling editorial process.

Although Dr. Lott was prepared to withdraw the paper from the Stanford Law Review at this point and attempt publication elsewhere, he did not want to impose the cost on his junior coauthors of possibly losing the publication and generously offered to withdraw his name from the paper.


Although we (Plassmann and Whitley) fully understood and agreed with Dr. Lott?s dissatisfaction, we decided to accept his offer, to accept the mandated changes to our paper, and to proceed with publication.

Most of this debate with the journal editors took place by email (copies of these emails are available from us upon request). Particularly relevant are the two passages below, one from Dr. Lott's email to Mr. Ben Horwich, the president of volume 55 of the Stanford Law Review, withdrawing his name from the paper, and the second from Mr. Horwich's reply.

"[Dr. Lott wrote to Mr. Horwich:]
My coauthors
will go along with proposal

(A). They have both put a
tremendous amount of grueling work into this paper and
both are young academics who would like to see it
published.

As to myself, I am not very happy with
the way things have turned out.

I do appreciate
your hard work on this and I also appreciate the
difficult position that we have all put you in. I
think that you have done a very good job in what I am
sure has not been a very pleasant situation, and I think
that my exit from this project is the best way to help
somewhat minimize the hassles that are being imposed on
you and others. T

hey have done the work on this in any
case, and it is their decision. I am sorry that things haven't
gone more smoothly, though I trust that the end of these
travails is now insight."

"[Mr. Horwich wrote in reply to Dr. Lott:] While I'm of
course disappointed that your name won't appear on a piece . . .
I understand and can accept your decision.

Indeed, as
someone who himself may someday be in the position
of being a young academic, I find your respect and concern
for your coauthors' interests admirable."



The impression left by A&D is objectively and verifiably false. We appreciate the editors of the Stanford Law Review giving us this opportunity to set the record straight.

 

[Brain357]

This is a good one too......
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf

DOES THE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS DETER COUNTABLE CRIMES? ONLY A COUNT ANALYSIS CAN SAY*

FLORENZ PLASSMANN State University of New York at Binghamton and T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Abstract

An analysis of the effects of right-to-carry laws on crime requires particular distributional and structural considerations.

First, because of the count nature of crime data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate data, least-squares methods yield unreliable estimates.

Second, use of a single dummy variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right-to-carry laws is likely to introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis.

In this paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right-to-carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies.

We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies.

John Lott, along with two other young researchers, Florenz Plassmann and John Whitely, wrote a reply to Ayres and Donohue attempting to confirm the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis. However, when Ayres and Donohue examined Lott’s reply, they discovered numerous coding errors and empty cells that, when corrected, showed that RTC laws did not reduce crime and in some categories even increased it. In a latter email exchange with Tim Lambert, Plassmann even admitted that correcting the coding errors caused his paper’s conclusions to evaporate. Eventually, Lott removed his name from the final paper, citing disagreements over edits (which turned out to be a conflict over a single word) that had been made to Ayres and Donohue’s paper.

And of course....

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper.

In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.



In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”

More discredited Lott.

 

[2aguy]

A Lott More Lies - Debating More Guns Less Crime

Even according to Lott’s own list of the studies, the number of academics that disagree with him heavily outnumber those on his side. When we include the academics that Lott ignores, it’s not even close. It is readily apparent that the academic community is not on Lott’s side.

Wrong.......You have been given the count and the numbers and continue to lie.

You mean Lott has given you false numbers and you parrot him.

Troll.

 

[2aguy]

This is a good one too......
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf

DOES THE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS DETER COUNTABLE CRIMES? ONLY A COUNT ANALYSIS CAN SAY*

FLORENZ PLASSMANN State University of New York at Binghamton and T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Abstract

An analysis of the effects of right-to-carry laws on crime requires particular distributional and structural considerations.

First, because of the count nature of crime data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate data, least-squares methods yield unreliable estimates.

Second, use of a single dummy variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right-to-carry laws is likely to introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis.

In this paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right-to-carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies.

We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies.

John Lott, along with two other young researchers, Florenz Plassmann and John Whitely, wrote a reply to Ayres and Donohue attempting to confirm the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis. However, when Ayres and Donohue examined Lott’s reply, they discovered numerous coding errors and empty cells that, when corrected, showed that RTC laws did not reduce crime and in some categories even increased it. In a latter email exchange with Tim Lambert, Plassmann even admitted that correcting the coding errors caused his paper’s conclusions to evaporate. Eventually, Lott removed his name from the final paper, citing disagreements over edits (which turned out to be a conflict over a single word) that had been made to Ayres and Donohue’s paper.

And of course....

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper.

In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.



In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”

More discredited Lott.

You lie......you give false, misleading and just fake posts..........you smear people who disagree with you...you are a fucking troll......

 

[Brain357]

This is a good one too......
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf

DOES THE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS DETER COUNTABLE CRIMES? ONLY A COUNT ANALYSIS CAN SAY*

FLORENZ PLASSMANN State University of New York at Binghamton and T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Abstract

An analysis of the effects of right-to-carry laws on crime requires particular distributional and structural considerations.

First, because of the count nature of crime data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate data, least-squares methods yield unreliable estimates.

Second, use of a single dummy variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right-to-carry laws is likely to introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis.

In this paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right-to-carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies.

We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies.

John Lott, along with two other young researchers, Florenz Plassmann and John Whitely, wrote a reply to Ayres and Donohue attempting to confirm the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis. However, when Ayres and Donohue examined Lott’s reply, they discovered numerous coding errors and empty cells that, when corrected, showed that RTC laws did not reduce crime and in some categories even increased it. In a latter email exchange with Tim Lambert, Plassmann even admitted that correcting the coding errors caused his paper’s conclusions to evaporate. Eventually, Lott removed his name from the final paper, citing disagreements over edits (which turned out to be a conflict over a single word) that had been made to Ayres and Donohue’s paper.

And of course....

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper.

In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.



In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”

More discredited Lott.

You lie......you give false, misleading and just fake posts..........you smear people who disagree with you...you are a fucking troll......

Reduced to a name calling baby. You lose again.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Hey Brain,

List 3 new gun laws you believe would lower the rate of gun murders in Chicago. Then explain how each would do so, in your opinion.

 

[Brain357]

Hey Brain,

List 3 new gun laws you believe would lower the rate of gun murders in Chicago. Then explain how each would do so, in your opinion.

Interesting question. While it may surprise you I'm not that much of an advocate for more gun laws. I'm just a strong advocate for honest debate so I call out the BS.

On a city level they are pretty maxed out on gun control. So you could do this on a national level.
1. Registration.
2. Background checks on all sales.
3. Make pistols illegal for all but police.
This would make it much harder for criminals to get and use guns.

This would lower the gun homicide rate in Chicago. I haven't seen evidence it would lower the homicide rate as a whole so not sure why you would do it. I guess it would lower gun accidents and save some people from stray bullets.

I think Chicago needs more policing and longer jail sentences if you want to lower the homicide rate. That is what has lowered national rates for the last 30 years thanks to Bill Clinton. Sadly it means we have the fullest jails in the world so we really need to look at how to stop people from becoming criminals. But that is a thread all on its own.

 

[Rustic]

Hey Brain,

List 3 new gun laws you believe would lower the rate of gun murders in Chicago. Then explain how each would do so, in your opinion.

Interesting question. While it may surprise you I'm not that much of an advocate for more gun laws. I'm just a strong advocate for honest debate so I call out the BS.

On a city level they are pretty maxed out on gun control. So you could do this on a national level.
1. Registration.
2. Background checks on all sales.
3. Make pistols illegal for all but police.
This would make it much harder for criminals to get and use guns.

This would lower the gun homicide rate in Chicago. I haven't seen evidence it would lower the homicide rate as a whole so not sure why you would do it. I guess it would lower gun accidents.

I think Chicago needs more policing and longer jail sentences if you want to lower the homicide rate. That is what has lowered national rates for the last 30 years thanks to Bill Clinton. Sadly it means we have the fullest jails in the world so we really need to look at how to stop people from becoming criminals. But that is a thread all on its own.

2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[2aguy]

Hey Brain,

List 3 new gun laws you believe would lower the rate of gun murders in Chicago. Then explain how each would do so, in your opinion.

Interesting question. While it may surprise you I'm not that much of an advocate for more gun laws. I'm just a strong advocate for honest debate so I call out the BS.

On a city level they are pretty maxed out on gun control. So you could do this on a national level.
1. Registration.
2. Background checks on all sales.
3. Make pistols illegal for all but police.
This would make it much harder for criminals to get and use guns.

This would lower the gun homicide rate in Chicago. I haven't seen evidence it would lower the homicide rate as a whole so not sure why you would do it. I guess it would lower gun accidents and save some people from stray bullets.

I think Chicago needs more policing and longer jail sentences if you want to lower the homicide rate. That is what has lowered national rates for the last 30 years thanks to Bill Clinton. Sadly it means we have the fullest jails in the world so we really need to look at how to stop people from becoming criminals. But that is a thread all on its own.

1) felons do not have to register illegal guns....Haynes v. United States
2) Current federally mandated background checks are gotten around by criminals by having someone with a clean record buy the gun or by stealing a gun.......universal background checks are gotten around the exact same way....so they are pointless before they are started.
3) criminals would have them.....just like they do in Japan and Australia...normal people..would not have them.

Chicago already has gun registration and until recently you could not register a hand gun in the city.

And again...as more Americans bought, owned and carried guns for self defense since the 1990s....the gun murder rate went down....so the fact and truth of this reality makes all 3 of your gun control ideas unnecessary......

 

[2aguy]

The call for Universal Background checks is simply so that anti gunners can automatically get the next step....universal registration of guns......they need that if for when they finally get their ban....just like Britain and Australia....

The anti gun leaders, bloomberg, obama and clinton...they know that you can't do it all in one go...you can't say you are going to finally ban guns, but first you have to register them to make sure you get them all....so you lie.....you say you need universal background checks....which won't work any better than current, federally mandated background checks.......

Then.....after some time when the criminals are still getting guns...easily, and mass shootings are still happening...then the anti gunners will say....well duh....universal background checks for all Transfers, won't work if you don't know who actually owns the gun in the first place......and they will use the same things they are now using for universal background checks...they will make fake polls saying 90% of Americans want registration....it is only common sense.....we need to stop the violence.....

And then they will push for registration.....

And they will wait......and pray....for the next really big mass shooting....so they can roll out the gun ban.....just like Britain and Australia....

And notice...the anti gunners aren't saying we need universal background checks for gun Sales..... they are saying all Transfers....because they are dishonest assholes.....they know people here transfers and they think Sale......but once they get it on all transfers...they will use it to get rid of smaller gun instructors, and lending guns.....and a whole bunch of other things normal gun owners have no idea they are signing on for.......

The anti gunner want to create paper traps for normal gun owners....and each new law gives them a paper trap to catch an honest, law abiding gun owner and they can use those traps to punish them and to take away their right to a gun.....

 

[Brain357]

Hey Brain,

List 3 new gun laws you believe would lower the rate of gun murders in Chicago. Then explain how each would do so, in your opinion.

Interesting question. While it may surprise you I'm not that much of an advocate for more gun laws. I'm just a strong advocate for honest debate so I call out the BS.

On a city level they are pretty maxed out on gun control. So you could do this on a national level.
1. Registration.
2. Background checks on all sales.
3. Make pistols illegal for all but police.
This would make it much harder for criminals to get and use guns.

This would lower the gun homicide rate in Chicago. I haven't seen evidence it would lower the homicide rate as a whole so not sure why you would do it. I guess it would lower gun accidents and save some people from stray bullets.

I think Chicago needs more policing and longer jail sentences if you want to lower the homicide rate. That is what has lowered national rates for the last 30 years thanks to Bill Clinton. Sadly it means we have the fullest jails in the world so we really need to look at how to stop people from becoming criminals. But that is a thread all on its own.

1) felons do not have to register illegal guns....Haynes v. United States
2) Current federally mandated background checks are gotten around by criminals by having someone with a clean record buy the gun or by stealing a gun.......universal background checks are gotten around the exact same way....so they are pointless before they are started.
3) criminals would have them.....just like they do in Japan and Australia...normal people..would not have them.

Chicago already has gun registration and until recently you could not register a hand gun in the city.

And again...as more Americans bought, owned and carried guns for self defense since the 1990s....the gun murder rate went down....so the fact and truth of this reality makes all 3 of your gun control ideas unnecessary......

How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths