"Maybe I'm Wrong About Guns"

[Dadoalex]

Registration doesn't do anything....you moron....Canada, Pittsburgh, and D.C.....tried registration and all three were disasters and did nothing to solve cxrimes......besides being a tremendous waste of money and time...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.
====
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way.

Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.

During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also 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 each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.

Copying and pasting your irrelevancies brings length but neither truth nor relevance to your posts.

I said federal.
But since you bouth it up. comparing two states with similar populations

State	Population (total inhabitants) (2015) [2]	Murders and Nonnegligent Manslaughter (total deaths) (2015) [1]	Murders (total deaths) (2015) [3]	Gun Murders (total deaths) (2015) [3]	Gun Ownership (%) (2013) [4]	Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter Rate (per 100,000) (2015)	Murder Rate (per 100,000) (2015)	Gun Murder Rate (per 100,000) (2015)

Hawaii	1,425,157	19	19	4	45.1	1.3	1.3	0.3
Idaho	1,652,828	32	30	24	56.9	1.9	1.8	1.5

Gun murder rate 5 times higher in Idaho
Driven by a gun ownership rate 6 time higher
And Gun murder rate 50% higher in Idaho.
Whatever Hawaii is doing, including checking gun registrations is working.

 

[Dadoalex]

I know you are an idiot......but here, let's try again....

Why someone commits suicide does not matter in the discussion of whether guns are making them commit suicide.....Japan limits gun ownership to Yakuza and the police.....yet they still kill themselves at higher rates than we do here....as do about 20 other countries with extreme gun control....

Speaking of idiots, your uncle dad said to say hi.

Guns are over 82% effective when used in a suicide attempt in the US.
Guns account for more suicide attempts than all other methods combined in the US.
Eliminate the gun and the success rate drops and there will be fewer suicides in the US.

Now if you want to go live in Japan, which seems a fixation of yours, please, have at it.
BUT while you're comparing Japan vs Us states how about...
Total murder rate
Gun crime rates
Total crime rates

Let's show all the cards.

 

[Dadoalex]

This isn't canada dickbrain.

Yes....Canada tried to register just 5 million rifles........and couldn't do it....you idiot.

We have 600 million guns in private hands....over 20 million AR-15 rifles alone.......not to forget all the other rifle types...

You idiot....

I never said Hitler imposed gun registration you half wit....I keep telling asshats like you that morons in the German government in the 1920s, told the Germans that registering guns would make them safer, and reduce crime.......they also said the lists wouldn't get into the wrong hands...

Then, you doofus...the nationals socialists took control, and used the registration lists.....in 1932 going forward, to take guns away from Jews and the political enemies of the nazis...you idiot.....

Canada.....tried to register only 5 million rifles...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

Myth #4:

Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.
====
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.

During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also 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 each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.

No matter how much you copy and paste this still isn't Canada OR Japan and
All your other crap isn't federal.
What part of that escapes your tiny brain?

 

[Dadoalex]

Moron...the people buying those guns are straw buyers who can pass any background check.......you idiot......gun registration wouldn't stop them because they wouldn't register the guns that they plan on selling to criminals...you idiot.....

Well then why oppose background checks?
Or registration?
Or Limits on purchases?

If they're not going to work (in your mind) then no harm, no foul.

No constitutional issues
So....

What's the problem?

 

[hadit]

There he goes copying and pasting as if he made sense.

That, my Tiny Minded Querdenken is why we enhance the laws.

God, you are stupid even among the Querdenken

He has something from which to quote, do you?

 

[Markle]

"Many" are concerned. That's a reliable source.
I'll tell you what us entirely unjustified.
Every time guns are mentioned you all savage the gun shops to buy more guns and ammunition as if theres a civil war started.
Tell me how you justify that?
You're a paranoid about your filthy guns.

As you know, women and minorities are the leading purchasers of guns in the US today.

Why not? You and the rest of the far-left are working hard to destroy our police forces. Murders, violent crime down to shoplifting are running rampant. Why do you demand that the most vulnerable remain defenseless?

 

[Colin norris]

As you know, women and minorities are the leading purchasers of guns in the US today.

That's not what statistics show. The vast majority is men. Show that evidence.

Why not? You and the rest of the far-left are working hard to destroy our police forces.
No. You are saying that attempting to blame Biden for everything.
There is no bills for defending the police. It's a blatant lie.

Murders, violent crime down to shoplifting are running rampant. Why do you demand that the most vulnerable remain defenseless?


You never mentioned the same statistics under trump. How coincidental it suddenly appeared when trump was be eaten.
Don't insult people by suggesting It's Biden's fault. That's pure right wing propaganda.

 

[Markle]

Well then why oppose background checks?
Or registration?
Or Limits on purchases?

If they're not going to work (in your mind) then no harm, no foul.

No constitutional issues
So....

What's the problem?

There is no problem, there is still the 2nd Amendment. What part is not clear to you?

 

[2aguy]

GOD you are dumb.
The office makes the probable cause determination.
Ever heard of "pretextual stops?"
What do the courts say about pretextual stops?

BUUUUUUUUUUT
If you want the cops to go all LA's finest on you, be my guest.
Tell the cop he doesn't have cause and walk away.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

NOW as for background checks....
You want a gun? A gun used thousands upon thousands of times each and every year to kill innocent people?
A device whose only function is to kill people?
THAT my Tiny Brained Querdeken IS probable cause.
AND
If you object to the background check
Don't buy the gun.
YOUR choice and none of your rights are violated.

A device whose only function is to kill people?

Moron, guns save more lives in the U.S. than they take....the CDC research states that they are used 1.2 million times a year by law abiding people to stop crime.....rapes, beatings, stabbings, robberies and murders.....lives saved, you doofus.....

Lives saved....based on research? By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct


that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/defensive-gun-use-savings-dwarf-gun-violence-costs/

 

[2aguy]

Copying and pasting your irrelevancies brings length but neither truth nor relevance to your posts.

I said federal.
But since you bouth it up. comparing two states with similar populations

State	Population (total inhabitants) (2015) [2]	Murders and Nonnegligent Manslaughter (total deaths) (2015) [1]	Murders (total deaths) (2015) [3]	Gun Murders (total deaths) (2015) [3]	Gun Ownership (%) (2013) [4]	Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter Rate (per 100,000) (2015)	Murder Rate (per 100,000) (2015)	Gun Murder Rate (per 100,000) (2015)

Hawaii	1,425,157	19	19	4	45.1	1.3	1.3	0.3
Idaho	1,652,828	32	30	24	56.9	1.9	1.8	1.5

Gun murder rate 5 times higher in Idaho
Driven by a gun ownership rate 6 time higher
And Gun murder rate 50% higher in Idaho.
Whatever Hawaii is doing, including checking gun registrations is working.

Moron......I gave you the country of Canada......they couldn't effectivley register just 5 million rifles...

We have over 600 million gun in private hands, and over 20 million AR-15 rifles alone.......

I also gave you the fact that registration doesn't help the police solve crimes......and you still don't understand it....you are an idiot.


Gun murder rate 5 times higher in Idaho

Wrong....shithead.....they don't use the term "Gun Murder," because it isn't gun murder...they use "Gun Deaths..." First, show us the link to that data.....then I will show you that they use suicide to fake their number.....you idiot.

New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides

But what jumps out at you when you read Fleegler’s article is that the decrease in fatalities that he documents relates almost exclusively to suicides. What his study really shows is that strict gun laws have little or no impact on gun homicides:

Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).


http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/1

Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?
The same week Kristof's column came out, National Journal attracted major media attention with a showy piece of research and analysis headlined "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths." The subhead lamented: "But there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."
Critics quickly noted that the Journal's Libby Isenstein had included suicides among "gun-related deaths" and suicide-irrelevant policies such as stand-your-ground laws among its tally of "gun laws." That meant that high-suicide, low-homicide states such as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were taken to task for their liberal carry-permit policies. Worse, several of the states with what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers terribly lax gun laws were dropped from Isenstein's data set because their murder rates were too low!
Another of National Journal's mistakes is a common one in gun science: The paper didn't look at gun statistics in the context of overall violent crime, a much more relevant measure to the policy debate. After all, if less gun crime doesn't mean less crime overall—if criminals simply substitute other weapons or means when guns are less available—the benefit of the relevant gun laws is thrown into doubt. When Thomas Firey of the Cato Institute ran regressions of Isenstein's study with slightly different specifications and considering all violent crime, each of her effects either disappeared or reversed.
Another recent well-publicized study trying to assert a positive connection between gun laws and public safety was a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine article by the Harvard pediatrics professor Eric W. Fleegler and his colleagues, called "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." It offered a mostly static comparison of the toughness of state gun laws (as rated by the gun control lobbyists at the Brady Center) with gun deaths from 2007 to 2010.
"States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths," a Boston Globeheadline then announced. But once again, if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear. As John Hinderaker headlined his reaction at the Power Line blog, "New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides."
Among other anomalies in Fleegler's research, Hinderaker pointed out that it didn't include Washington, D.C., with its strict gun laws and frequent homicides. If just one weak-gun-law state, Louisiana, were taken out of the equation, "the remaining nine lowest-regulation states have an average gun homicide rate of 2.8 per 100,000, which is 12.5% less than the average of the ten states with the strictest gun control laws," he found.

Public health researcher Garen Wintemute, who advocates stronger gun laws, assessed the spate of gun-law studies during an October interview with Slate and found it wanting: "There have been studies that have essentially toted up the number of laws various states have on the books and examined the association between the number of laws and rates of firearm death," said Wintemute, who is a medical doctor and researcher at the University of California, Davis. "That's really bad science, and it shouldn't inform policymaking."
Wintemute thinks the factor such studies don't adequately consider is the number of people in a state who have guns to begin with, which is generally not known or even well-estimated on levels smaller than national, though researchers have used proxies from subscribers to certain gun-related magazines and percentages of suicides committed with guns to make educated guesses. "Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote in a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine paper. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low—there will be less opposition to them—and firearm ownership confounds the association."










Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? , by Robert VerBruggen, National Review

There is actually no simple correlation between states’ homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws.
This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets.

A year ago, I took state gun-ownership levels reported by the Washington Post (based on a Centers for Disease Control survey) and compared them with murder rates from the FBI: no correlation.

The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has compared states’ gun laws (as rated by the anti-gun Brady Campaign) with their murder rates: no correlation.

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, a former National Review reporter, failed to find a correlation even between gun ownership in a state and gun murders specifically, an approach that sets aside the issue of whether gun availability has an effect on non-gun crime. (Guns can deter unarmed criminals, for instance, and criminals without guns may simply switch to other weapons.)


, I recently redid my analysis with a few tweaks. Instead of relying on a single year of survey data, I averaged three years. (The CDC survey, the best available for state-level numbers, included data on gun ownership only in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Those were the years I looked at.)

And instead of comparing CDC data with murder rates from a different agency, I relied on the CDC’s own estimates of death by assault in those years. Again: no correlation.

------

Left-leaning media outlets, from Mother Jones to National Journal, get around this absence of correlation by reporting numbers on “gun deaths” rather than gun homicides or homicides in general.

More than 60 percent of gun deaths nationally are suicides, and places with higher gun ownership typically see a higher percentage of their suicides committed with a gun.

Focusing on the number of gun deaths practically guarantees a finding that guns and violence go together. While it may be true that public policy should also seek to reduce suicide, it is homicide — often a dramatic mass killing — that usually prompts the media and politicians to call for gun control, and it is homicide that most influences people as they consider supporting measures to take away their fellow citizens’ access to guns.

There are large gaps among the states when it comes to homicide, with rates ranging all the way from about two to twelve per 100,000 in 2013, the most recent year of data available from the CDC. These disparities show that it’s not just guns that cause the United States to have, on average, a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries do. Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide within a state, but there is a strong correlation between gun homicide and non-gun homicide — suggesting that they spring from similar causes, and that some states are simply more violent than others. A closer look at demographic and geographic patterns provides some clues as to why this is.


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427967/san-bernardino-shooting-guns-homicide-statistics

 

[2aguy]

Copying and pasting your irrelevancies brings length but neither truth nor relevance to your posts.

I said federal.
But since you bouth it up. comparing two states with similar populations

State	Population (total inhabitants) (2015) [2]	Murders and Nonnegligent Manslaughter (total deaths) (2015) [1]	Murders (total deaths) (2015) [3]	Gun Murders (total deaths) (2015) [3]	Gun Ownership (%) (2013) [4]	Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter Rate (per 100,000) (2015)	Murder Rate (per 100,000) (2015)	Gun Murder Rate (per 100,000) (2015)

Hawaii	1,425,157	19	19	4	45.1	1.3	1.3	0.3
Idaho	1,652,828	32	30	24	56.9	1.9	1.8	1.5

Gun murder rate 5 times higher in Idaho
Driven by a gun ownership rate 6 time higher
And Gun murder rate 50% higher in Idaho.
Whatever Hawaii is doing, including checking gun registrations is working.

You aren't comparing similar states, you moron....Hawaii is an isolated island.....you doofus.....

Try Chicago and Houston....you idiot....

 

[Markle]

Copying and pasting your irrelevancies brings length but neither truth nor relevance to your posts.

I said federal.
But since you bouth it up. comparing two states with similar populations

State	Population (total inhabitants) (2015) [2]	Murders and Nonnegligent Manslaughter (total deaths) (2015) [1]	Murders (total deaths) (2015) [3]	Gun Murders (total deaths) (2015) [3]	Gun Ownership (%) (2013) [4]	Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter Rate (per 100,000) (2015)	Murder Rate (per 100,000) (2015)	Gun Murder Rate (per 100,000) (2015)

Hawaii	1,425,157	19	19	4	45.1	1.3	1.3	0.3
Idaho	1,652,828	32	30	24	56.9	1.9	1.8	1.5

Gun murder rate 5 times higher in Idaho
Driven by a gun ownership rate 6 time higher
And Gun murder rate 50% higher in Idaho.
Whatever Hawaii is doing, including checking gun registrations is working.

You seem to demand that you vividly demonstrate your ignorance on a daily basis.

In the last 60s, I lived for several years in Key West. Even back then we had a much lower murder and crime rate than the rest of the country. Unless you planned ahead to jump on a plane, where were you going to go? We didn't have a thousand miles of ocean but we had 42 bridges, one seven miles long and 120 miles.

I lived there for about three years and I cannot recall a single murder.

Please get serious because you just look foolish.

 

[Dadoalex]

He has something from which to quote, do you?

About what?

He's posted stuff here OBVIOUSLY without reading it.
After the first three times it was obvious.
Since he's not actually reading what he posts his entire functionality is copying and Pasting.

Now, what is it you wanted?

NOTE: I'm being polite because your question, though intended as an attack, is reasonable. If it goes further, read the thread.

 

[hadit]

About what?

He's posted stuff here OBVIOUSLY without reading it.
After the first three times it was obvious.
Since he's not actually reading what he posts his entire functionality is copying and Pasting.

Now, what is it you wanted?

NOTE: I'm being polite because your question, though intended as an attack, is reasonable. If it goes further, read the thread.

I have read the thread, and many others in which he has posted this information. I have noted that those in opposition rarely, if ever, post corroborating information. This can only lead to the conclusion that he has supporting information while they do not and only post their own opinions.

 

[Dadoalex]

There is no problem, there is still the 2nd Amendment. What part is not clear to you?

Nothing I've proposed violates anyone's rights nor does does it bar anyone legally permitted to own form owning a weapon.

If you believe otherwise please show me the quote.

 

[Dadoalex]

A device whose only function is to kill people?

Moron, guns save more lives in the U.S. than they take....the CDC research states that they are used 1.2 million times a year by law abiding people to stop crime.....rapes, beatings, stabbings, robberies and murders.....lives saved, you doofus.....

Lives saved....based on research? By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct


that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/defensive-gun-use-savings-dwarf-gun-violence-costs/

Yeah, a firearm's only legitimate function is to kill.

Saves lives?
Stops crime?

How?
By killing or threatening to kill people.

AND...
A bunch of made up numbers from a bunch of gun propagandists?
You gotta be kidding!

Once again, what are a firearm's common uses beyond killing and threatening to kill?

 

[Dadoalex]

Moron......I gave you the country of Canada......they couldn't effectivley register just 5 million rifles...

We have over 600 million gun in private hands, and over 20 million AR-15 rifles alone.......

I also gave you the fact that registration doesn't help the police solve crimes......and you still don't understand it....you are an idiot.


Gun murder rate 5 times higher in Idaho

Wrong....shithead.....they don't use the term "Gun Murder," because it isn't gun murder...they use "Gun Deaths..." First, show us the link to that data.....then I will show you that they use suicide to fake their number.....you idiot.

New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides

But what jumps out at you when you read Fleegler’s article is that the decrease in fatalities that he documents relates almost exclusively to suicides. What his study really shows is that strict gun laws have little or no impact on gun homicides:

Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).


http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/1

Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?
The same week Kristof's column came out, National Journal attracted major media attention with a showy piece of research and analysis headlined "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths." The subhead lamented: "But there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."
Critics quickly noted that the Journal's Libby Isenstein had included suicides among "gun-related deaths" and suicide-irrelevant policies such as stand-your-ground laws among its tally of "gun laws." That meant that high-suicide, low-homicide states such as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were taken to task for their liberal carry-permit policies. Worse, several of the states with what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers terribly lax gun laws were dropped from Isenstein's data set because their murder rates were too low!
Another of National Journal's mistakes is a common one in gun science: The paper didn't look at gun statistics in the context of overall violent crime, a much more relevant measure to the policy debate. After all, if less gun crime doesn't mean less crime overall—if criminals simply substitute other weapons or means when guns are less available—the benefit of the relevant gun laws is thrown into doubt. When Thomas Firey of the Cato Institute ran regressions of Isenstein's study with slightly different specifications and considering all violent crime, each of her effects either disappeared or reversed.
Another recent well-publicized study trying to assert a positive connection between gun laws and public safety was a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine article by the Harvard pediatrics professor Eric W. Fleegler and his colleagues, called "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." It offered a mostly static comparison of the toughness of state gun laws (as rated by the gun control lobbyists at the Brady Center) with gun deaths from 2007 to 2010.
"States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths," a Boston Globeheadline then announced. But once again, if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear. As John Hinderaker headlined his reaction at the Power Line blog, "New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides."
Among other anomalies in Fleegler's research, Hinderaker pointed out that it didn't include Washington, D.C., with its strict gun laws and frequent homicides. If just one weak-gun-law state, Louisiana, were taken out of the equation, "the remaining nine lowest-regulation states have an average gun homicide rate of 2.8 per 100,000, which is 12.5% less than the average of the ten states with the strictest gun control laws," he found.

Public health researcher Garen Wintemute, who advocates stronger gun laws, assessed the spate of gun-law studies during an October interview with Slate and found it wanting: "There have been studies that have essentially toted up the number of laws various states have on the books and examined the association between the number of laws and rates of firearm death," said Wintemute, who is a medical doctor and researcher at the University of California, Davis. "That's really bad science, and it shouldn't inform policymaking."
Wintemute thinks the factor such studies don't adequately consider is the number of people in a state who have guns to begin with, which is generally not known or even well-estimated on levels smaller than national, though researchers have used proxies from subscribers to certain gun-related magazines and percentages of suicides committed with guns to make educated guesses. "Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote in a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine paper. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low—there will be less opposition to them—and firearm ownership confounds the association."










Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? , by Robert VerBruggen, National Review

There is actually no simple correlation between states’ homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws.
This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets.

A year ago, I took state gun-ownership levels reported by the Washington Post (based on a Centers for Disease Control survey) and compared them with murder rates from the FBI: no correlation.

The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has compared states’ gun laws (as rated by the anti-gun Brady Campaign) with their murder rates: no correlation.

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, a former National Review reporter, failed to find a correlation even between gun ownership in a state and gun murders specifically, an approach that sets aside the issue of whether gun availability has an effect on non-gun crime. (Guns can deter unarmed criminals, for instance, and criminals without guns may simply switch to other weapons.)


, I recently redid my analysis with a few tweaks. Instead of relying on a single year of survey data, I averaged three years. (The CDC survey, the best available for state-level numbers, included data on gun ownership only in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Those were the years I looked at.)

And instead of comparing CDC data with murder rates from a different agency, I relied on the CDC’s own estimates of death by assault in those years. Again: no correlation.

------

Left-leaning media outlets, from Mother Jones to National Journal, get around this absence of correlation by reporting numbers on “gun deaths” rather than gun homicides or homicides in general.

More than 60 percent of gun deaths nationally are suicides, and places with higher gun ownership typically see a higher percentage of their suicides committed with a gun.

Focusing on the number of gun deaths practically guarantees a finding that guns and violence go together. While it may be true that public policy should also seek to reduce suicide, it is homicide — often a dramatic mass killing — that usually prompts the media and politicians to call for gun control, and it is homicide that most influences people as they consider supporting measures to take away their fellow citizens’ access to guns.

There are large gaps among the states when it comes to homicide, with rates ranging all the way from about two to twelve per 100,000 in 2013, the most recent year of data available from the CDC. These disparities show that it’s not just guns that cause the United States to have, on average, a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries do. Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide within a state, but there is a strong correlation between gun homicide and non-gun homicide — suggesting that they spring from similar causes, and that some states are simply more violent than others. A closer look at demographic and geographic patterns provides some clues as to why this is.


Read more at: Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? | National Review

This ain't canada either Cap'n Copy/Paste.

REMEMBER, they're socialists, the like the environment, they stayed with the agreements Trump dropped.

When you're ready to talk about the good old USA, let us know ya dumbass!

 

[Dadoalex]

You aren't comparing similar states, you moron....Hawaii is an isolated island.....you doofus.....

Try Chicago and Houston....you idiot....

Hmmm

Pretty sure Chicago and Houston are not states
AND
So you acknowledge my claim that the reason gun control cannot work at the state level is because the states are NOT ISOLATED and transporting firearms illegally across state lines is easy and almost risk free.

SEE? I knew we could get a cogent thought out of you once you ran out of copy/paste material.

 

[hadit]

Yeah, a firearm's only legitimate function is to kill.

Saves lives?
Stops crime?

How?
By killing or threatening to kill people.

AND...
A bunch of made up numbers from a bunch of gun propagandists?
You gotta be kidding!

Once again, what are a firearm's common uses beyond killing and threatening to kill?

A firearm's use is to propel a small projectile at high velocities. That's it. You have completely ignored one of the most widely used functions of firearms, and that is shooting at targets to demonstrate skill. Have you never heard of the winter olympic games, the biathlon?

 

[Dadoalex]

You seem to demand that you vividly demonstrate your ignorance on a daily basis.

In the last 60s, I lived for several years in Key West. Even back then we had a much lower murder and crime rate than the rest of the country. Unless you planned ahead to jump on a plane, where were you going to go? We didn't have a thousand miles of ocean but we had 42 bridges, one seven miles long and 120 miles.

I lived there for about three years and I cannot recall a single murder.

Please get serious because you just look foolish.

When I was young I lived in Pittsburgh and would ride the bus downtown so I could fish at point park.

Oh, I'm sorry. This isn't the thread for posting irrelevancies?