What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gun registration...yes, the democrats want it, yes, they want to use it to ban and confiscate guns....

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
101,546
Reaction score
41,214
Points
2,290
A great column by John Lott on the democrats creating a gun registration list, why they want it, why it doesn't even work when they have it in various states and other countries...

Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.

Conducting background checks to see if someone can legally buy a gun is different from the government keeping a searchable record of those who own guns. Indeed, federal law has always required that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System erase background check information within 24 hours of its completion.


Gun control activists push for registration as a way to solve crime. In theory, if criminals leave registered guns at a crime scene, they can then be traced back to the perpetrator. But in real life, a gun is usually left at the scene of a crime only when the gunman has been seriously injured or killed. Also, guns used in crimes are rarely registered. In the exceedingly unusual instances that they are, they aren't registered to the person who committed the crime. However, with both the criminal and weapon present at the scene, police can solve these crimes even without registration.

In a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania state police could not identify any crimes solved by their registration system from 1901 to 2001; however they did claim that it had "assisted" in a total of four cases, for which they could provide no details.

In a 2013 deposition for District of Columbia v. Heller II, the plaintiffs recorded that the Washington, D.C. police chief could not "recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime, except for possession offenses."

During testimony before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, Honolulu’s police chief stated that he couldn't find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours to registering and licensing guns each year. This is time that could have been spent on traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.


New York and Maryland spent tens of millions of dollars putting together a computer database on all new guns sold in the past 15 years, even recording the ballistic fingerprint of each gun. But even these states, which strongly favor gun control, eventually abolished their systems because they never solved a single crime.

In 2010, Canada conducted a detailed examination of its program. It found that, from 2003 to 2009, 1,314 out of 4,257 Canadian homicides involved firearms. Of the identified weapons, about three-quarters were not registered. Among registered weapons, the registered owner was rarely the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases – only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides – was the gun registered to the accused, and an unknown number of these homicide cases involve instances of self-defense. But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police failed to identify any cases where registration was integral to solving the crime.

 

night_son

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
13,001
Points
2,445
Location
The Full Moon
In the hive mind of the State the State is GOD. Also, in the hive mind of the State might makes right and use of lethal force is the ultimate proof the State really is GOD. We can't have lowly citizens armed with the ability to use might to make things right, now can we? That is what guns represent to demagogue democrats and the State in general: a real chance for citizens to not have to worship their government.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
32,999
Reaction score
7,729
Points
1,140
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
The left wants the state to have a monopoly on force,
They know they cannot have this while the citizenry remains armed.
Thus, anti-gun loons.
 

Tax Man

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
5,906
Reaction score
1,075
Points
170
Did not you see the warehouses full of confiscated guns Obama took? You guys crack me up!
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
32,999
Reaction score
7,729
Points
1,140
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Did not you see the warehouses full of confiscated guns Obama took? You guys crack me up!
Obama, like Biden, promised a ban on handguns, rifles and shotguns.
Both had a congress controlled by Democrats.
Why did those bans not materialize?
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
15,129
Reaction score
5,084
Points
208
A great column by John Lott on the democrats creating a gun registration list, why they want it, why it doesn't even work when they have it in various states and other countries...
Limitations on where guns can be carried and limitations on the type of guns, are the two specific reasons why gun crime and murder by gun is lower in Canada.

Don't name Canada in your comparisons but if you persist, you will hear objections from me.

Otherwise, go ahead and promote your dogma!
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
32,999
Reaction score
7,729
Points
1,140
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Limitations on where guns can be carried and limitations on the type of guns, are the two specific reasons why gun crime and murder by gun is lower in Canada.
You sure about that?
REALLY Sure about that?
POSITIVE?
Yes?
Good.
Please demonstrate the necessary relationship between thoise restrictions and the lower rates of gun violence in Canada.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
15,129
Reaction score
5,084
Points
208
You sure about that?
REALLY Sure about that?
POSITIVE?
Yes?
Good.
Please demonstrate the necessary relationship between thoise restrictions and the lower rates of gun violence in Canada.
Better that you name some other reason! And do it quickly because I'll write you off as a nuisance in about 10 minutes if you can't.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
32,999
Reaction score
7,729
Points
1,140
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
193,167
Reaction score
38,179
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Ronald Reagan supported the Brady bill as did many Republicans and Democrats.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
15,129
Reaction score
5,084
Points
208
Better that you name some other reason! And do it quickly because I'll write you off as a nuisance in about 10 minutes if you can't.
No, you're copping out, just like you always accuse me of doing.
I gotcha flatfooted with that question and so now we're finished for today.
Stew in your own juices for a while and better leave the gun alone too, just in case!
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
32,999
Reaction score
7,729
Points
1,140
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
No, you're copping out,...
You made a claim. Onus is on you to support it.
(This is your cue to tuck tail and run, as you always do.)
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
19,576
Reaction score
4,060
Points
245
Location
Virginia
A great column by John Lott on the democrats creating a gun registration list, why they want it, why it doesn't even work when they have it in various states and other countries...

Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.

Conducting background checks to see if someone can legally buy a gun is different from the government keeping a searchable record of those who own guns. Indeed, federal law has always required that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System erase background check information within 24 hours of its completion.


Gun control activists push for registration as a way to solve crime. In theory, if criminals leave registered guns at a crime scene, they can then be traced back to the perpetrator. But in real life, a gun is usually left at the scene of a crime only when the gunman has been seriously injured or killed. Also, guns used in crimes are rarely registered. In the exceedingly unusual instances that they are, they aren't registered to the person who committed the crime. However, with both the criminal and weapon present at the scene, police can solve these crimes even without registration.

In a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania state police could not identify any crimes solved by their registration system from 1901 to 2001; however they did claim that it had "assisted" in a total of four cases, for which they could provide no details.

In a 2013 deposition for District of Columbia v. Heller II, the plaintiffs recorded that the Washington, D.C. police chief could not "recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime, except for possession offenses."

During testimony before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, Honolulu’s police chief stated that he couldn't find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours to registering and licensing guns each year. This is time that could have been spent on traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.


New York and Maryland spent tens of millions of dollars putting together a computer database on all new guns sold in the past 15 years, even recording the ballistic fingerprint of each gun. But even these states, which strongly favor gun control, eventually abolished their systems because they never solved a single crime.


In 2010, Canada conducted a detailed examination of its program. It found that, from 2003 to 2009, 1,314 out of 4,257 Canadian homicides involved firearms. Of the identified weapons, about three-quarters were not registered. Among registered weapons, the registered owner was rarely the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases – only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides – was the gun registered to the accused, and an unknown number of these homicide cases involve instances of self-defense. But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police failed to identify any cases where registration was integral to solving the crime.

There are certainly Dems that want to ban all guns but I doubt they are in the majority. I think most Dems, including me, just want something that will reduce gun deaths while allowing people access to guns for fun or protection.

Some quick research by me seems to indicate no relationship between gun control laws and gun crime. I think one problem with these numbers is that most guns used for crime in NYC are not purchased legally in NYC. If states like mine, VA, had stricter laws, NYC might be a safer place. Maybe.

What I did find is that places with stricter gun laws had fewer gun deaths. Probably the number of suicides is what was affected. I think fewer gun deaths is a worthy goal.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
101,546
Reaction score
41,214
Points
2,290
There are certainly Dems that want to ban all guns but I doubt they are in the majority. I think most Dems, including me, just want something that will reduce gun deaths while allowing people access to guns for fun or protection.

Some quick research by me seems to indicate no relationship between gun control laws and gun crime. I think one problem with these numbers is that most guns used for crime in NYC are not purchased legally in NYC. If states like mine, VA, had stricter laws, NYC might be a safer place. Maybe.

What I did find is that places with stricter gun laws had fewer gun deaths. Probably the number of suicides is what was affected. I think fewer gun deaths is a worthy goal.


No......why is it that New York and Chicago have more gun crime than the states where these criminals go to buy the guns? Wouldn't it seem logical that if guns are easier to get in those states, then, according to the anti-gun logic, those states should have higher gun crime rates...since their criminals don't even have to leave the state to get the guns........

A deeper look shows that the concept that criminals getting guns from out of state is the problem is just wrong......

The Chicago Gun Myth | National Review

Lightfoot claims that 60 percent of the guns used in Chicago murders are bought from out of state. I assume she is relying on 2017’s suspect “gun trace report,” which looked at guns confiscated in criminal acts from 2013 and 2016. Even if we trusted the city’s data, most guns used in Illinois crimes are bought in-state. If gun laws in Illinois — which earns a grade of “A-“ from the pro-gun-control Gifford Law Center, tied for second highest in the country after New Jersey — are more effective than gun laws in Missouri, Wisconsin, or Indiana, why is it that FFL dealers in suburban Cook County are the origin point for a third of the crime guns recovered in Chicago, and home to “seven of the top ten source dealers”? According to the trace study, 11.2 percent of all crime guns recovered in Chicago could be tracked to just two gun shops.

The only reason, it seems, criminals take the drive to Indiana is because local gun shops are tapped out. There is a tremendous demand for weapons in Chicago. That’s not Mississippi’s fault. And Lightfoot’s contention only proves that criminals in her city can get their hands on guns rather easily, while most law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.

Lightfoot may also be surprised to learn that California borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. Yet no big city in California has quite the murder and criminality of Chicago. New York borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Yet NYC’s murder rate is only fraction of Chicago’s. Texas gets an “F” from Gifford Law Center, yet Houston and Dallas have murder rates that are half of that in Chicago. The rates in Austin and El Paso are tiny when compared to Chicago.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
101,546
Reaction score
41,214
Points
2,290
There are certainly Dems that want to ban all guns but I doubt they are in the majority. I think most Dems, including me, just want something that will reduce gun deaths while allowing people access to guns for fun or protection.

Some quick research by me seems to indicate no relationship between gun control laws and gun crime. I think one problem with these numbers is that most guns used for crime in NYC are not purchased legally in NYC. If states like mine, VA, had stricter laws, NYC might be a safer place. Maybe.

What I did find is that places with stricter gun laws had fewer gun deaths. Probably the number of suicides is what was affected. I think fewer gun deaths is a worthy goal.


More on fun with numbers by anti-gunners...

No, states with higher gun ownership don't have more gun murders

That looks a lot like a shotgun blast, because at least in 2014, the statistical case that high state gun ownership translates to more gun homicides was non-existent. This is what happens when you just look at the relevant numbers instead of cherrypicking whatever numbers tell the story you want. There's no significant statistical correlation here, whether or not you choose to include D.C. (the outlier, way up above the others). And in fact, when you just look at last year's gun homicide rate by state (calculated from FBI and Census data), you see that many of the states that they claim have low "gun death" rates actually have comparatively high rates of gun murders. New Jersey, for example, had a much higher gun murder rate than Idaho and Vermont.

So now you see why Vox, Mother Jones and others deliberately confuse the issue of gun violence by including gun deaths that don't involve violence: because their cherrypicking makes it seem like people in states with high gun ownership are more likely to shoot other people, when in fact it just isn't so. Perhaps there's another argument to be had about suicide, but it's a very different sort of debate. When most people think about gun control, they're worried about whether it can help stop them from being shot, not about whether it will prevent them from having a gun in case they become incredibly depressed and decide to end it all.


Obama Claims Other Countries With No Guns Safer; Here's Truth

The National Journal disproportionately excluded low-crime, pro-gun states such as Vermont, South Dakota, and Maine from its chart of homicide rates precisely because their homicide rate was low. These states have few gun laws (Vermont has the least of any state) and very low homicide rates. If you disproportionately exclude unregulated states that are safest from the calculation of which states have the lowest homicide rates, that will create the false impression that states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun deaths.

These “pro-gun” states have low homicide rates (for example, Vermont had the third lowest homicide rate in 2013, the lowest gun murder rate in 2010, and the second-lowest gun murder rate in 2007-2010. South Dakota had the fourth-lowest gun-homicide rate in 2007-2010).
But in its discussions of “Concealed Carry” and “Background Checks,” the National Journal deletes these states from its charts comparing pro-gun and anti-gun states by “Gun-related homicides per 100,000 people, by state (2013).” It deletes Vermont, South Dakota, Maine, and 8 other states (6 of which have few gun regulations) from each chart, claiming that these states had “too few homicides to calculate a reliable rate.” 9 of the 11 states excluded broadly allow concealed carry and do not impose additional background-check requirements beyond those contained in federal law. But the National Journal deliberately excluded those states, writing, “In 2013, Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides to calculate a reliable rate.”

************

It is truly bizarre to exclude the states with the fewest gun deaths from an article about what states have “the fewest gun deaths.” This is an egregious act of cherry-picking.

But that was apparently how the National Journal managed to claim that “the states that impose the most restrictions on gun users also have the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, while states with fewer regulations typically have a much higher death rate from guns.” (In 2013, the state with the nation’s lowest murder rate and lowest rate of gun-related homicides was Iowa, which is middling in terms of the number of gun laws. In 2007-2010, it ranked fifth-lowest in number of gun-related homicides. It does not have the “most gun laws.” It broadly permits concealed carry but also requires certain background checks. For some reason, the National Journal left Iowa in, while excluding other low-homicide, low-crime states like Vermont that have even fewer gun laws.).
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
101,546
Reaction score
41,214
Points
2,290
There are certainly Dems that want to ban all guns but I doubt they are in the majority. I think most Dems, including me, just want something that will reduce gun deaths while allowing people access to guns for fun or protection.

Some quick research by me seems to indicate no relationship between gun control laws and gun crime. I think one problem with these numbers is that most guns used for crime in NYC are not purchased legally in NYC. If states like mine, VA, had stricter laws, NYC might be a safer place. Maybe.

What I did find is that places with stricter gun laws had fewer gun deaths. Probably the number of suicides is what was affected. I think fewer gun deaths is a worthy goal.


The anti-gun....fun with numbers and the claim that more gun control = less gun crime game....

One of the ways the anti-gunners get their number is by including suicide into the mix.....suicide is the only way they get the numbers they do......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-laws-tend-to-have-the-fewest-gun-deaths/

In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference

.

Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.


Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.

******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?

Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down.


New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria.



Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.


According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis.

Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.


****************

The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review


Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.

But that is of course not at all what it means.

In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing.


This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.


And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.

Read more at: The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate | National Review
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
19,576
Reaction score
4,060
Points
245
Location
Virginia
The anti-gun....fun with numbers and the claim that more gun control = less gun crime game....

One of the ways the anti-gunners get their number is by including suicide into the mix.....suicide is the only way they get the numbers they do......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-laws-tend-to-have-the-fewest-gun-deaths/

In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference

.

Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.


Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.

******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?


Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down.


New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria.



Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.


According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis.

Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.


****************

The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review


Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.


But that is of course not at all what it means.

In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing.


This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.



And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.

Read more at: The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate | National Review
The only thing I disagree with you is that I care about reducing gun suicides.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
19,576
Reaction score
4,060
Points
245
Location
Virginia
No......why is it that New York and Chicago have more gun crime than the states where these criminals go to buy the guns? Wouldn't it seem logical that if guns are easier to get in those states, then, according to the anti-gun logic, those states should have higher gun crime rates...since their criminals don't even have to leave the state to get the guns........

A deeper look shows that the concept that criminals getting guns from out of state is the problem is just wrong......

The Chicago Gun Myth | National Review

Lightfoot claims that 60 percent of the guns used in Chicago murders are bought from out of state. I assume she is relying on 2017’s suspect “gun trace report,” which looked at guns confiscated in criminal acts from 2013 and 2016. Even if we trusted the city’s data, most guns used in Illinois crimes are bought in-state. If gun laws in Illinois — which earns a grade of “A-“ from the pro-gun-control Gifford Law Center, tied for second highest in the country after New Jersey — are more effective than gun laws in Missouri, Wisconsin, or Indiana, why is it that FFL dealers in suburban Cook County are the origin point for a third of the crime guns recovered in Chicago, and home to “seven of the top ten source dealers”? According to the trace study, 11.2 percent of all crime guns recovered in Chicago could be tracked to just two gun shops.

The only reason, it seems, criminals take the drive to Indiana is because local gun shops are tapped out. There is a tremendous demand for weapons in Chicago. That’s not Mississippi’s fault. And Lightfoot’s contention only proves that criminals in her city can get their hands on guns rather easily, while most law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.

Lightfoot may also be surprised to learn that California borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. Yet no big city in California has quite the murder and criminality of Chicago. New York borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Yet NYC’s murder rate is only fraction of Chicago’s. Texas gets an “F” from Gifford Law Center, yet Houston and Dallas have murder rates that are half of that in Chicago. The rates in Austin and El Paso are tiny when compared to Chicago.
I don't know Indiana laws, but I do seem to recall that for a long time, the illegal guns in NYC came from VA, not NY state.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
19,576
Reaction score
4,060
Points
245
Location
Virginia
More on fun with numbers by anti-gunners...

No, states with higher gun ownership don't have more gun murders

That looks a lot like a shotgun blast, because at least in 2014, the statistical case that high state gun ownership translates to more gun homicides was non-existent. This is what happens when you just look at the relevant numbers instead of cherrypicking whatever numbers tell the story you want. There's no significant statistical correlation here, whether or not you choose to include D.C. (the outlier, way up above the others). And in fact, when you just look at last year's gun homicide rate by state (calculated from FBI and Census data), you see that many of the states that they claim have low "gun death" rates actually have comparatively high rates of gun murders. New Jersey, for example, had a much higher gun murder rate than Idaho and Vermont.

So now you see why Vox, Mother Jones and others deliberately confuse the issue of gun violence by including gun deaths that don't involve violence: because their cherrypicking makes it seem like people in states with high gun ownership are more likely to shoot other people, when in fact it just isn't so. Perhaps there's another argument to be had about suicide, but it's a very different sort of debate. When most people think about gun control, they're worried about whether it can help stop them from being shot, not about whether it will prevent them from having a gun in case they become incredibly depressed and decide to end it all.


Obama Claims Other Countries With No Guns Safer; Here's Truth

The National Journal disproportionately excluded low-crime, pro-gun states such as Vermont, South Dakota, and Maine from its chart of homicide rates precisely because their homicide rate was low. These states have few gun laws (Vermont has the least of any state) and very low homicide rates. If you disproportionately exclude unregulated states that are safest from the calculation of which states have the lowest homicide rates, that will create the false impression that states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun deaths.

These “pro-gun” states have low homicide rates (for example, Vermont had the third lowest homicide rate in 2013, the lowest gun murder rate in 2010, and the second-lowest gun murder rate in 2007-2010. South Dakota had the fourth-lowest gun-homicide rate in 2007-2010).
But in its discussions of “Concealed Carry” and “Background Checks,” the National Journal deletes these states from its charts comparing pro-gun and anti-gun states by “Gun-related homicides per 100,000 people, by state (2013).” It deletes Vermont, South Dakota, Maine, and 8 other states (6 of which have few gun regulations) from each chart, claiming that these states had “too few homicides to calculate a reliable rate.” 9 of the 11 states excluded broadly allow concealed carry and do not impose additional background-check requirements beyond those contained in federal law. But the National Journal deliberately excluded those states, writing, “In 2013, Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides to calculate a reliable rate.”

************

It is truly bizarre to exclude the states with the fewest gun deaths from an article about what states have “the fewest gun deaths.” This is an egregious act of cherry-picking.

But that was apparently how the National Journal managed to claim that “the states that impose the most restrictions on gun users also have the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, while states with fewer regulations typically have a much higher death rate from guns.” (In 2013, the state with the nation’s lowest murder rate and lowest rate of gun-related homicides was Iowa, which is middling in terms of the number of gun laws. In 2007-2010, it ranked fifth-lowest in number of gun-related homicides. It does not have the “most gun laws.” It broadly permits concealed carry but also requires certain background checks. For some reason, the National Journal left Iowa in, while excluding other low-homicide, low-crime states like Vermont that have even fewer gun laws.).
More on fun with numbers by pro-gunners?

States with higher gun ownership do have more gun suicides.
 

Captain Caveman

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
4,634
Reaction score
2,416
Points
938
Location
England
A great column by John Lott on the democrats creating a gun registration list, why they want it, why it doesn't even work when they have it in various states and other countries...

Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.

Conducting background checks to see if someone can legally buy a gun is different from the government keeping a searchable record of those who own guns. Indeed, federal law has always required that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System erase background check information within 24 hours of its completion.


Gun control activists push for registration as a way to solve crime. In theory, if criminals leave registered guns at a crime scene, they can then be traced back to the perpetrator. But in real life, a gun is usually left at the scene of a crime only when the gunman has been seriously injured or killed. Also, guns used in crimes are rarely registered. In the exceedingly unusual instances that they are, they aren't registered to the person who committed the crime. However, with both the criminal and weapon present at the scene, police can solve these crimes even without registration.

In a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania state police could not identify any crimes solved by their registration system from 1901 to 2001; however they did claim that it had "assisted" in a total of four cases, for which they could provide no details.

In a 2013 deposition for District of Columbia v. Heller II, the plaintiffs recorded that the Washington, D.C. police chief could not "recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime, except for possession offenses."

During testimony before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, Honolulu’s police chief stated that he couldn't find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours to registering and licensing guns each year. This is time that could have been spent on traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.


New York and Maryland spent tens of millions of dollars putting together a computer database on all new guns sold in the past 15 years, even recording the ballistic fingerprint of each gun. But even these states, which strongly favor gun control, eventually abolished their systems because they never solved a single crime.


In 2010, Canada conducted a detailed examination of its program. It found that, from 2003 to 2009, 1,314 out of 4,257 Canadian homicides involved firearms. Of the identified weapons, about three-quarters were not registered. Among registered weapons, the registered owner was rarely the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases – only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides – was the gun registered to the accused, and an unknown number of these homicide cases involve instances of self-defense. But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police failed to identify any cases where registration was integral to solving the crime.

Hey retard, go to 7.10 in the video. Amanda Rae is an American living in the UK, she will explain to you about UK guns -


She will highlight what a fucking prick you are.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

New Topics

Forum List

Top