Sigh....I am not a legislaterso I dont know what be a good new law. All I am saying is instead of a knee jerk close the ranks the ranks position, be a bit open minded about it. Allow an honest conversation.
BREAKING: At least 10 feared dead from mass shooting in Dayton, OH
- Thread starter TemplarKormac
- Start date
Sigh....I am not a legislaterso I dont know what be a good new law. All I am saying is instead of a knee jerk close the ranks the ranks position, be a bit open minded about it. Allow an honest conversation.
none of these mass shooters have prior criminal records.
- Mar 31, 2009
- 107,038
- 90,652
- 3,605
I am "allowing"it. I've asked repeatedly what new law would have prevented this past weekend.
I did see where red flag laws are being proposed and given the Ohio shooter comments on a kill and rape list that's a possibility. Another is opening up juvenile records and given some of the shooters are very young that's another possible.
My own thoughts are if an individual is prescribed meds dealing with emotional or mental issues a data base could be established.
Last edited:
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,573
- 52,855
- 2,290
But, the majority of them have shown signs to friends and family that they are not right in the head.....
Ben Shapiro was talking about the idea by David French for gun violence restraining orders which would be narrowly crafted orders allowing the police to intervene...of course the police intervened in the Parkland shooters life over 32 times...but that is beside the point.....a limited number of people would be eligible to rat out someone who might be dangerous and a court hearing in 72 hours would be mandated....
Until you want to round up people just cause you want to drag them in for questioning, that might be the best you can do..
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,573
- 52,855
- 2,290
Wait....you're doing it wrong...
1) You are supposed to call all gun owners killers.
2) You have to say that all gun owners wanted to be the ones pulling the triggers.
3) You have to say that anyone who disagrees with banning and confiscating guns is just as bad as the killers.......
Then, finally, you have to say that all you want is "common sense" gun control...
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,926
- 1,600
Orlando shooter and the Texas one both had backgrounds that should have prevented gun sales.
Don't need more laws or to lose due process for "red flags" but we do need to research this mindset in depth and ensure background checks can access all they should be able to.
My one concern about the latter idea is people may then be reluctant to seek help. People who are medicated for mental illness are no more likely than anyone else to commit violence. This wouldn’t have had any effect on these recent shootings though.
Allowing restricted access to juvenile records for the purpose of background checks could be helpful.
I think no one law will but attacking it from multiple angles might: mental health, restricting some weapons or accessories, better background checks. The other thing is social responsibility. How far are we willing to tolerate certain kinds of rhetoric? I don’t mean laws, laws can only do so much, but we should speak out and say hey, this is not acceptable.
Moron.
I’ve never said 1, 2 or 3.
I think there is a need for common sense gun regulation. People like you slam the door on it and run around screeching how “they” are going to grab your guns and the only solution to gun violence is more guns! Sounds like something right out of Monty Python.
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,926
- 1,600
Can you elaborate on potential common sense regulations? What exactly would that be?
In my personal opinion I would like to see restrictions similar to that on fully automatic weapons placed on assault style weapons and high capacity magazines.
I also strongly support a waiting period. The number one cause of gun deaths is, I believe, suicide, often by a gun purchased impulsively for that purpose.
I would like to see a better background check system that includes all gun purchases.
Stricter sentencing on crimes using a gun.
I don’t know how to create better legislation that would cover mental illness as it relates to purchasing guns, most of the time these people seem relatively normal until they act. Maybe we should simply put a priority on mental health in this country.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,573
- 52,855
- 2,290
Semi-automatic rifles ..... you mean just about every rifle out there......and over 18 million of them that you guys really hate? Because a hand full of people use them illegally?
Would you then want knives regulated like fully automatic weapons since they actually kill more people every single year? And pools.....will be need to put them on that list because they kill over 3,500 people every single year while all rifles kill about 400? What about cars that kill 38,000?
Magazine capacity has no bearing on the deaths in a mass public shooting....
A tube fed ( no magazine) 5 shot ( not 30) Pump action shotgun....was used to murder 20 people in Russia and injured 40..... More than at Gilroy, more than in Ohio....it wasn't the weapon or the magazine, it was time in the gun free zone and choice of target.
Two pistols were used to kill 32 at Virginia tech....24 at Luby's cafe.....
Waiting period? Japan has extreme gun control...only criminals and police can have guns....their suicide rate is higher than ours.....waiting periods are foolish.
Background checks? Almost none of the mass public shooters got their guns from private sales....... since mass public shooters commit no crime before the shooting, they can pass any background check, including those for private sales. Criminals use straw buyers who can pass current Federally mandated background checks....which is where they get the bulk of their guns....friends and family buying the guns for them...so those same straw buyers will pass a background check for a private sale,which they never use anyway..........or they steal the guns.
Stricter sentencing on guns....our current problem in our major cities is that democrat judges, prosecutors and politicians keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail on bond, and out of prison with light sentences....maybe you know why they do this considering how much they complain about gun crime....but then let repeat gun offenders back on the streets over and over again.
Of all the things you want...only this one makes sense. In Japan, they forced the Yakuza to stop carrying guns...by putting a life sentence on using a gun in a crime...with 15 years for mere possession...no bond, no bail, not reductions in sentences.
That is how you actually dry up 99% of our gun crime.....the rest of your ideas are unnecessary if you just put longer sentences on gun crime
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,573
- 52,855
- 2,290
More guns in the hands of normal people save lives....
Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,573
- 52,855
- 2,290
And I have actual research on my side........that shows that as more people carry guns for self defense, violent crime is reduced...
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf
The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)
.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....
Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf
This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed
========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf
Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.
=======
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313
Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*
Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok
We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf
Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
===============
This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf
COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**
CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.
=============
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf
~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1
Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: cemood@wm.edu Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.
Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.
=======
States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294
An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).
Taking apart ayre and donahue one....
“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..
Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.
Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
This is fucking hilarious. THe National Rampage Association has fought against background checks and closing the gun show loophole for years, did everything they could to undermine the ATF and the work they need to do, and then complain WHEN the inevitable nut slips through the system they've made so weak.
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,926
- 1,600
I think better background checks and stronger enforcement of what we have already is a great start.
The hard part of "assault weapons" is they never were classified as such til the gun grabbers decided to "extremefy" the word. Then we come back to what traits make it an "assault" rifle that don't also include almost every other gun.
The AR fires no faster than a. 22. The 22 also has large capacity mags and can have them with collapsible stocks.
Put 3 mags together and changing them is easy.
This is where I tend to see gun grabbers get frustrated by terminology and then just want semi automatics gone.
Which is about all guns. Even a 6 shooter revolver can reload fast and fire in semi automatic fashion.
Which is why people on the pro gun side get defensive. You can't really define the traits of an "assault" or "military style" without taking out a lot more than the AR type gun.
What I believe would help the most is our leadership to just grow the fuck up and stop all this bitter hatred for "the other side". This builds the ATTACK mindset and then people go out and act up for "their side" and the rest play pin the moron to the other side games.
We've lost our sence of common decency and there are no laws that have will bring that back.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,573
- 52,855
- 2,290
Coyote knows this.....and doesn't care. They are simply using any word or definition they need to get the biggest gun grabbing bang for the buck.......
The smarter ones now realize that if they can get the "assault" rifle banned, that then gives them the power to demand all other semi-auto rifles, and even revolvers...since they all fire the exact same way.....How will weak kneed politicians stand up to the call..." we banned "assault" rifles because they were dangerous, how can you deny us banning all the other guns because they shoot the same way as the guns we banned...."
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,573
- 52,855
- 2,290
How is it weak, you dumb ass. None of the shooters committed crimes that put them in the system.....
You are such an idiot....you asshats demanded background checks...you got them...you were told they would not stop criminals or mass shooters.....they didn't stop criminals or mass shooters...
Then you demand the next step..."Universal Background Checks" for private sales...sales that do not supply criminals or mass shooters with guns, and which criminals can bypass with straw buyers and mass shooters can bypass because they can actually pass any background check....
So...after universal background checks also fail, you asshats will be back demanding gun registration...another dumb thing that doesn't do anything.........but........it let's you know where the guns are in the hands of normal people, which was the goal all along.
You can already get your hands on guns used in crimes..... the guns you can't touch, yet......are the guns that normal people have that are never used in crimes.....and you want those like the drug addict wants his Crack.......
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,926
- 1,600
I'll wait for her to reply. But yes, the road you are on I've also seen time and time again. You simply can't name a trait for an AR15 you also can't apply to most other guns. 9 times out of 10, or more, the shift does go to" ban 'em all" which is why there is zero trust to stop at a few changes.
The "left" just wanted 1 flag taken down. Unfortunately a hallmark of the left is to treat such "wins" as a road map to get a lot more.
Something has to give. But it will never be resolved by escalating the screaming and emotional attacks on guns and gun owners.
And while I understand what trump and many would like to do with "red flags" NOTHING gets done without due process. We lose due process for any reason, we are done as a country that we ever used to be.
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,926
- 1,600
Universal background checks use the same system OF WHICH is already broken. Why shove more through a flawed system and expect any positive results?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,573
- 52,855
- 2,290
Because they don't care if it works.....they just need universal background checks on the books so that when they fail, they can come back demanding gun registration....
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Tim Walz Says China’s Genocidal Regime Might Be the World’s “Moral Authority”- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
-
