Hmmm...Massachusetts gun control laws had no impact on gun crime rates.....who saw that coming? Well, we did........

[2aguy]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, and 83% of murder victims know their killers. Guns don't make you safer.



Uh, no, guy. Chicago had a very sensible gun law. Then the National Rampage Association sued to overturn it and between 2014 and 2021, our murder rate doubled.

This....

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[2aguy]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, and 83% of murder victims know their killers. Guns don't make you safer.



Uh, no, guy. Chicago had a very sensible gun law. Then the National Rampage Association sued to overturn it and between 2014 and 2021, our murder rate doubled.

And you left out the war on police started by the democrat party in 2015 and still ongoing........attacks that handicapped the police, and forced them to stop pro-active police work...known as the Ferguson Effect......not wanting to lose their jobs, pensions and freedom by engaging criminals unless they absolutely had to....

For 27 years Americans bought guns, owned them and carried them in higher and higher numbers.....

What happened to crime as they did this?

Gun crime went down 75%...

Gun murder went down 49%

Can you explain this?

Over the last 27 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 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- 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.


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

So why did gun crime and murder go up after the decline for 27 years?

In 2015 the democrat party declared war on local police.......it escalated to the point they burned and looted cities for 7months, murdered over 40 people wounding over 400 police officers, and burned court houses and police stations....all while telling the police not to stop the blm and antifa, democrat party terrorists, attempting to cut police funding and demonizing our police officers as killers...

The police stopped active policing and began to only respond to 911 calls.......and the criminals, the protected class of the democrat party, responded by carrying guns and shooting each other in larger numbers than we have seen since 1960s....

It’s something but I still think the Times is downplaying the obvious a bit. Here’s the chart of the monthly murder rate. What you’ll see is that the first month where the murder rate started to spike above the average in previous years was May. Why in May? Because George Floyd was killed on May 25th and by the next day the video was going viral. The final weekend of May became a weekend of violent protests which pushed the monthly numbers out of orbit. And from there the murder rate continued to go up as sometimes violent anti-police protests were taking place around the country:

Why would the death of George Floyd be connected with a wave of violence? I think the answer to that has to do with the nature of the protests, which were explicitly hostile to police. Police pulled back as protesters created autonomous zones in some cities.


It was basically the Ferguson Effect all on a national scale.

As police pulled back, criminals had less fear of consequences and also, some people felt more inclined to seek street justice rather than call the police when a disagreement arose. That’s the “increased distrust” mentioned above. The protests last year didn’t have to actually defund police departments in order to have a significant impact on the behavior of both cops and criminals.
----
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Portland had some of the most consistent and most violent protests last year and also lost a lot of officers to retirement and resignations. Portland was a worst case scenario for the connection between anti-police protests and increased violence and the numbers seem to reflect that.
FBI: Murder rose by 29% last year with the biggest spike coming after the death of George Floyd (Update)

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebuttingthe charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Crime Rates in Largest U.S. Cities Continue to Drop

Crime in the 30 largest U.S. cities is estimated to have declined in 2018, with decreases in the rates of violent crime, murder, and overall crime, according to a new Brennan Center analysis of the available data.

Murder rates in particular were down by 8 percent from 2017, a significant drop. 2018 marks the second straight year that murder rates have fallen, too, after increases in 2015 and 2016.

Overall, however, U.S. crime rates have dropped dramatically since peaking in 1991.

======
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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.




Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebuttingthe charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

Crime Rates in Largest U.S. Cities Continue to Drop

Crime in the 30 largest U.S. cities is estimated to have declined in 2018, with decreases in the rates of violent crime, murder, and overall crime, according to a new Brennan Center analysis of the available data.

Murder rates in particular were down by 8 percent from 2017, a significant drop. 2018 marks the second straight year that murder rates have fallen, too, after increases in 2015 and 2016.

Overall, however, U.S. crime rates have dropped dramatically since peaking in 1991.

 

[JoeB131]

That would be....ya know.....NOT obeying gun laws....

Dambass.

Good point. This is why we need a law that says when a gun Store in Indiana sells to people in Illinois, the people killed by those guns can sue them.

BULLSHIT. Prove it.

Kellerman Study. Look it up. It scared the NRA so bad they demanded the CDC stop studying gun violence.

Your murder rate doubled because you're a bunch of filthy criminal thugs at war with each other.

Nope, it doubled because guns became a lot easier to get.

 

[JoeB131]

his....

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7,

Kellerman said no such thing. He didn't retract it. He clarified that only 2.7 were murders, and the rest were suicides and accidents... which still count.

 

[JoeB131]

And you left out the war on police started by the democrat party in 2015 and still ongoing........attacks that handicapped the police, and forced them to stop pro-active police work...known as the Ferguson Effect......not wanting to lose their jobs, pensions and freedom by engaging criminals unless they absolutely had to....

There was no Furgeson effect. If there were, all the BLM cases that happened since 2015 wouldn't have.

If a cop can't do his job without hassling black people and letting the incidents escalate to lethal force, they should be fired and replaced by someone more competent.

 

[2aguy]

Good point. This is why we need a law that says when a gun Store in Indiana sells to people in Illinois, the people killed by those guns can sue them.


Kellerman Study. Look it up. It scared the NRA so bad they demanded the CDC stop studying gun violence.

Nope, it doubled because guns became a lot easier to get.

I posted kellerman....how he had to change his research because it was so bad the first time.........and the CDC was never banned from studying gun violence.......

You guys lie and lie and lie.....

Kellerman:

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6


The lie about the CDC research ban...

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.
• -------

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.

Dr. Lott testifying in 2019 about gun research and the CDC as well as private research..

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf



No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

 

[JoeB131]

I posted kellerman....how he had to change his research because it was so bad the first time.........and the CDC was never banned from studying gun violence.......

Wow, you think spamming the thread with your NRA crap impresses anyone other than your fellow Gun Fetishists?

 

[Abatis]

Wow, you think spamming the thread with your NRA crap impresses anyone other than your fellow Gun Fetishists?

What impresses me is your ability and skill in self-deception.

Do you really think you calling 2aguy guy's post "NRA crap" is legitimate and makes you look like a reasoned, knowledgeable person?

Hint . . . It doesn't, 2aguy's post consists of, and links to the CDC and NY Times and HuffPo and Politico and dozens of other sites and sources, NONE of which have an NRA domain attached.

Calling it "NRA crap" makes you look like a partisan fool willing to say anything to protect your incorrect positions. You aren't refuting anything with "NRA crap", it just shows you choose to wear a bubble-wrap helmet of bias.

You make arguing the gun rights side easy . . . There's no better debate opponent than one who demands you recognize they refuse to educate themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

What impresses me is your ability and skill in self-deception.

Do you really think you calling @2aguy guy's post "NRA crap" is legitimate and makes you look like a reasoned, knowledgeable person?

Um, yeah, Frankly, it's kind of easy to see the guy has guns on the brain. Like all he thinks about is guns. All the time.

Hint . . . It doesn't, @2aguy's post consists of, and links to the CDC and NY Times and HuffPo and Politico and dozens of other sites and sources, NONE of which have an NRA domain attached.

Doesn't matter. What you never see him do is post things that oppose the gun fetishist position.

So he'll use the site that defines a mass shooting as 5 or more people being killed and not the standard defintiion of more than one person being shot. He'll keep claiming Kellerman retracted his claims about guns when all Kellerman did was clarify his data.

Calling it "NRA crap" makes you look like a partisan fool willing to say anything to protect your incorrect positions. You aren't refuting anything with "NRA crap", it just shows you choose to wear a bubble-wrap helmet of bias.

You make arguing the gun rights side easy . . . There's no better debate opponent than one who demands you recognize they refuse to educate themselves.

The problem with you fetishists is that you fail to even recognize a problem.

We have 16,000 gun murders in this country a year. We have another 26,000 gun suicides. We have 80,000 gun injuries and 400,000 gun crimes.

 

[Abatis]

Um, yeah, Frankly, it's kind of easy to see the guy has guns on the brain. Like all he thinks about is guns. All the time.

Actually my primary focus is the Constitution and government's adherence to it. I enjoy debating gun rights not because I'm a "gun nut", it's just because it is the easiest branch of con-law to expose how un-American and anti-Liberty leftist loons like you are.

Doesn't matter. What you never see him do is post things that oppose the gun fetishist position.

Like so much when right-thinking people are debating wrong-thinking people, the mere action of rejecting your characterizations is demonized by unthinking people like you as "supporting" what you oppose. You never get to the core issues, your interest is only about how you feel about a particular issue and the perceived resistance you feel to what you want to do.

Your emotion burns so hot because it is so shallow.

Rittenhouse is a good example, people like you described him and his actions in such a nefarious and evil way, when a person came back just said "you're wrong and here's why", wacko's like you can only respond with calling us a supporter of "vigilantism" and "executions in the streets" and of course, because it happened at a supposed "BLM protest" we're white supremacists / racists . . .

See, you hold your positions as emotional construct and are incapable of discussing and/or defending them in the realm of logic and facts . . . to the point of eliminating from your consideration, black and white law.

You and your ilk are worse at higher thinking than a child who wants a cookie before dinner and even more immune from any attempts at reason.

So he'll use the site that defines a mass shooting as 5 or more people being killed and not the standard defintiion of more than one person being shot.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

He'll keep claiming Kellerman retracted his claims about guns when all Kellerman did was clarify his data.

Again, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Kellerman's "study" is indefensible as an empirical exercise.

The problem with you fetishists is that you fail to even recognize a problem.

No, we see the problem and are very aware of it. We know it deeper than assholes like you who only see "the problem" as a vehicle to amass power and advance the leftist statist authoritarian agenda. You don't care about the victims or reducing crime because you see it as the evidence that your "cure" of usurpation is needed.

We have 16,000 gun murders in this country a year. We have another 26,000 gun suicides. We have 80,000 gun injuries and 400,000 gun crimes.

Yup. And leftist work an agenda of turning a blind eye to mala en se crimes and not holding criminals accountable while advocating the enactment and enforcement of useless mala prohibita statutory laws against people who are not violent criminals.

Honestly, what do you feel about (I can't really ask you how you think) the new Manhattan NY District Attorney charging armed robbers with petty larceny which would only be subject them to imprisonment of up to 364 days in jail.

I have a real problem with it because that means that an armed robber, upon conviction, will not become a 18 USC §922(g)(1) prohibited person and will retain the right to buy and possess guns and ammo.

Is that protecting the public?

Is that "keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them"?

 

[Shawnee_b]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, and 83% of murder victims know their killers. Guns don't make you safer.



Uh, no, guy. Chicago had a very sensible gun law. Then the National Rampage Association sued to overturn it and between 2014 and 2021, our murder rate doubled.

Made me safer 4 times, 2 times saved my life.

My guns don't kill anyone. I leave them laying around and they don't go anywhere. Remember BC? "Ray guns don't kill Zorgonians, Zorgonians kill Zorgonians"

While it is unfair in some peoples minds, "stop and frisk" worked there.

Joe, You're welcome to believe anything you wish but I believe you're in the minority.

Does a Gun Make Your Home Safer? | SafeWise

Research shows that having a gun at home does not make us safer. SafeWise looks at the latest studies on gun safety.

www.safewise.com

The debate surrounding the right to own a gun in the United States is a controversial one, but answering the question about whether having a gun in the house will make you and your family safer is pretty straightforward. Our best bet is to look at the statistics surrounding gun ownership vs. gun violence and draw conclusions based on the research.

Do guns make us safer?

A 2018 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal found 58% of Americans agree with the statement “gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.”1 And gun owners seem to believe that idea at a higher rate. Pew Research Center found 65% of men and 71% of women gun owners say the primary reason they carry is for protection.2 While public opinion seems to support the idea that having guns makes us feel safer, science has something different to say about whether guns actually make us safer.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Good point. This is why we need a law that says when a gun Store in Indiana sells to people in Illinois, the people killed by those guns can sue them.


Kellerman Study. Look it up. It scared the NRA so bad they demanded the CDC stop studying gun violence.

Nope, it doubled because guns became a lot easier to get.

Legally a gun store in Ind can sell only rifles to an individual in Ill and only if they have a foid. If a handgun was in the mix it has to go to an Ill dealer first, still need foid card. Near impossible to get in Chiraq now.

CDC should not be studying gun violence at all. They first tried to get on the bandwagon in 1984, very good article in Nat Rifleman this month.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually my primary focus is the Constitution and government's adherence to it. I enjoy debating gun rights not because I'm a "gun nut", it's just because it is the easiest branch of con-law to expose how un-American and anti-Liberty leftist loons like you are.

Guy, a whole problem with your "Constitution as a suicide pact" thinking. I didn't sign up to be victimized by thugs and nuts who are able to buy machine guns, because 240 years ago, some slave rapist who shit in a chamber pot couldn't clearly define a militia. Absent your perverted interpretation of the Militia Amendment, is there really a good reason to let ANYONE who wants a gun have one.

Every other country has this right. You have to prove why you need a gun, the government shouldn't have to prove why you don't.

Rittenhouse is a good example, people like you described him and his actions in such a nefarious and evil way, when a person came back just said "you're wrong and here's why", wacko's like you can only respond with calling us a supporter of "vigilantism" and "executions in the streets" and of course, because it happened at a supposed "BLM protest" we're white supremacists / racists . . .

Okay, guy, here's the thing. Rittenhouse liked to hang out with the Proud Boys...

that's how we know he's a racist. His lawyers did a good job of cleaning him up for court, but it doesn't change him any more than it changed a gangbanger who wears a suit to court. The problem with the Rittenhouse verdict is that it creates a precendent that you can murder someone in a fight YOU started. That should be damned scary.

No, we see the problem and are very aware of it. We know it deeper than assholes like you who only see "the problem" as a vehicle to amass power and advance the leftist statist authoritarian agenda. You don't care about the victims or reducing crime because you see it as the evidence that your "cure" of usurpation is needed.

Uh, let's get real here. We have cops who are equipped like SOLDIERS patrolling our streets because the bad guys have so much firepower. Businesses have to invest in active shooter policies, magnetic locked doors, a whole procedure of walking ex-employees out of buildings like they are perps, armed security guards, CCTV cameras. There's a whole industry of locking down our homes like fortresses.

And you are here whining about "Freedom"?

Yup. And leftist work an agenda of turning a blind eye to mala en se crimes and not holding criminals accountable while advocating the enactment and enforcement of useless mala prohibita statutory laws against people who are not violent criminals.

Uh, one more time. We lock up 2 million people. We lock up more people than Red China. (does anyone else still call it "Red China", or am I just showing my age?) We have another 7 million people on probation or parole. We have a country locked down like a fortress, and you guys want to do more of that, please.

Honestly, what do you feel about (I can't really ask you how you think) the new Manhattan NY District Attorney charging armed robbers with petty larceny which would only be subject them to imprisonment of up to 364 days in jail.

I think it's another way you guys are distorting a news story to make it sound 100 times worse than it is. I'm so sure of this, I won't even waste my time googling to prove otherwise.

I have a real problem with it because that means that an armed robber, upon conviction, will not become a 18 USC §922(g)(1) prohibited person and will retain the right to buy and possess guns and ammo.

Why should you? You've established in your tiny little mind that gun ownership is as much a right as freedom of speech or freedom of religion... why shouldn't he have a right to have a gun? If the right to self defense is a human right bestowed by a benevolent Sky Pixie, then when shouldn't he have a right to own a gun once he's out of jail?

 

[2aguy]

Guy, a whole problem with your "Constitution as a suicide pact" thinking. I didn't sign up to be victimized by thugs and nuts who are able to buy machine guns, because 240 years ago, some slave rapist who shit in a chamber pot couldn't clearly define a militia. Absent your perverted interpretation of the Militia Amendment, is there really a good reason to let ANYONE who wants a gun have one.

Every other country has this right. You have to prove why you need a gun, the government shouldn't have to prove why you don't.



Okay, guy, here's the thing. Rittenhouse liked to hang out with the Proud Boys...
View attachment 585058that's how we know he's a racist. His lawyers did a good job of cleaning him up for court, but it doesn't change him any more than it changed a gangbanger who wears a suit to court. The problem with the Rittenhouse verdict is that it creates a precendent that you can murder someone in a fight YOU started. That should be damned scary.




Uh, let's get real here. We have cops who are equipped like SOLDIERS patrolling our streets because the bad guys have so much firepower. Businesses have to invest in active shooter policies, magnetic locked doors, a whole procedure of walking ex-employees out of buildings like they are perps, armed security guards, CCTV cameras. There's a whole industry of locking down our homes like fortresses.

And you are here whining about "Freedom"?



Uh, one more time. We lock up 2 million people. We lock up more people than Red China. (does anyone else still call it "Red China", or am I just showing my age?) We have another 7 million people on probation or parole. We have a country locked down like a fortress, and you guys want to do more of that, please.



I think it's another way you guys are distorting a news story to make it sound 100 times worse than it is. I'm so sure of this, I won't even waste my time googling to prove otherwise.


Why should you? You've established in your tiny little mind that gun ownership is as much a right as freedom of speech or freedom of religion... why shouldn't he have a right to have a gun? If the right to self defense is a human right bestowed by a benevolent Sky Pixie, then when shouldn't he have a right to own a gun once he's out of jail?

Proud Boys are not a racist organization, you know this, but continue to say it....

You are just nuts....

 

[Abatis]

Guy, a whole problem with your "Constitution as a suicide pact" thinking.

I agree, the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. You of course look at it backwards; that what must be preserved is government's power, no matter how far government has wandered from its establishing principles.

Me, I believe that what must be preserved is the liberty and rights of the people . . . After all, it is "We the People" with the ultimate power to enforce the Constitution, even declare the Constitution void and reclaim the powers conferred; to reassume the powers granted through the Constitution that created the government.

The retained right to keep and bear arms, (forever held inviolate by the 2nd Amendment), is the back-up, just in case that action of the People rescinding our consent to be governed can not be done peacefully.

I didn't sign up to be victimized by thugs and nuts who are able to buy machine guns, because 240 years ago, some slave rapist who shit in a chamber pot couldn't clearly define a militia. Absent your perverted interpretation of the Militia Amendment, is there really a good reason to let ANYONE who wants a gun have one.

Well, that is one way to tell everyone that you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory, without expressly saying you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory.

Every other country has this right. You have to prove why you need a gun, the government shouldn't have to prove why you don't.

And that is another way to tell everyone that you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory, without expressly saying you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory.

I think it's another way you guys are distorting a news story to make it sound 100 times worse than it is. I'm so sure of this, I won't even waste my time googling to prove otherwise.

Staying ignorant is certainly your right; just don't expect your uninformed mutterings to be respected.

Why should you? You've established in your tiny little mind that gun ownership is as much a right as freedom of speech or freedom of religion...

Not just my little mind, I'm content to stand on many determinations of SCOTUS on that point. I know I'm not alone and I'm in much better company than you.

why shouldn't he have a right to have a gun? If the right to self defense is a human right bestowed by a benevolent Sky Pixie, then when shouldn't he have a right to own a gun once he's out of jail?

I was speaking on what the law is and the effects of the law. The disablement of rights (RKBA is only one) upon conviction for certain serious crimes is a matter well settled in law and has been upheld as legitimate after due process, as secured by the 5th and 14th Amendments. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980).

Are anti-gunners so desperate as to now argue against what is a foundational premise of gun control, that we must keep guns out of the hands of people that Congress believes shouldn't have them?

I swear, you goofballs are turning the world upside down . . .

 

[JoeB131]

I agree, the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. You of course look at it backwards; that what must be preserved is government's power, no matter how far government has wandered from its establishing principles.

You work on the assumption that "government" is this evil force that just does things to mess with you. Government, even the worst of them, reflect the will of their people. All the Awful things Hitler did, the German people were down with it until they fought to the last old man and little boy.

Me, I believe that what must be preserved is the liberty and rights of the people . . . After all, it is "We the People" with the ultimate power to enforce the Constitution, even declare the Constitution void and reclaim the powers conferred; to reassume the powers granted through the Constitution that created the government.

Whenever you shitheads talk about "liberty", you usually mean the rights of rich white people to abuse the rest of us. Check your privilege.

The retained right to keep and bear arms, (forever held inviolate by the 2nd Amendment), is the back-up, just in case that action of the People rescinding our consent to be governed can not be done peacefully.

Okay, so if Black Lives Matters decides tomorrow to stage an armed insurrection to get police reform, you are going to be totally down with that, right? By your logic, this is what you have just said, that any group of assholes with guns can "rescind" consent to be governed. Or did you just mean white people?

This is what makes you gun fetishists so fucking dangerous, is that you think you needs you the guns to fights the gummit.

Well, that is one way to tell everyone that you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory, without expressly saying you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory.

Or I don't care about them. There are no rights. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942". Despite your "Lockean Rights Theory", we rounded up 110,000 Americans of Japanese descent and sent them off to camps for 4 years. No one objected. No one rushed out with their guns and said, "You can't take Ito, he's a swell guy!!!"

(This is where the Tiny-dicked Gun Fetishist will chime in 'FDR Did that. FDR is evil!!!")

We don't have rights. We have privileges that the majority begrudgingly puts up with. The only question is, should we continue to put up with the gun fetishists? How many times do we have to traumitize our kids with Active Shooter Drills

Staying ignorant is certainly your right; just don't expect your uninformed mutterings to be respected.

If you actually had a case, you'd have put a link for me to make fun of.

Not just my little mind, I'm content to stand on many determinations of SCOTUS on that point. I know I'm not alone and I'm in much better company than you.

Only a matter of time before we get a sane majority on SCOTUS...

I was speaking on what the law is and the effects of the law. The disablement of rights (RKBA is only one) upon conviction for certain serious crimes is a matter well settled in law and has been upheld as legitimate after due process, as secured by the 5th and 14th Amendments. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980).

Are anti-gunners so desperate as to now argue against what is a foundational premise of gun control, that we must keep guns out of the hands of people that Congress believes shouldn't have them?

Guy, you can't have it both ways. Either guns are a right conveyed by a Mighty and Benevolent Fairy in the Clouds, or they are the pronouncements of Congress.

So if Congress decides guns shouldn't be in the hands of anyone who isn't a soldier or a policeman, you should be fine with that. But of course you aren't.

Silly Darkie. Rights are for White People.

 

[JoeB131]

Proud Boys are not a racist organization, you know this, but continue to say it....

The Southern Poverty Law Center that tracks hate groups says they are...

 

[2aguy]

The Southern Poverty Law Center that tracks hate groups says they are...

The Southern Poverty Law Center is, itself, a left wing, racist, hate group, used to smear enemies of the democrat party.

 

[JoeB131]

The Southern Poverty Law Center is, itself, a left wing, racist, hate group, used to smear enemies of the democrat party.

Up is down
Right is wrong
Guns make us safer

DickTiny's Bizarro World

 

[Blues Man]

Actual story- Gun laws have no effect when they aren't enforced and the states next door still allow easy gun access.

So then you are saying we should actually enforce federal gun laws and put everyone found to be in possession of a firearm who is defined by federal law as a person who is prohibited in federal prison for a minimum of 5 years, right?

FYI when cities in this country actually did that, a statistically significant drop in violent crimes was the result.