More evidence that more gun laws are not what is needed in the US

[jc456]

Gee, why aren’t you actually supporting gun control ?
States with stronger gun laws have fewer firearm deaths Bubba.

Why, bad guys will always have guns and I, unlike you, like good guys to have help protecting themselves. McDonald vs City of Chicago. See, if demfk mayors would punish the actual criminal, the gun law is set.

 

[Dagosa]

so you think that ain't happening? hahahahaahahaha I knew you were a fking racist pig.

If you could speak English coherently, maybe we’d know what your posts actually say.

 

[jc456]

If you could speak English coherently, maybe we’d know what your posts actually say.

There it is, the old, if you could speak English ploy from a fking racist pig.

 

[Markle]

Show your numbers. The black population is less then 20% of the total. Get real. Whites kill far more whites then blacks do…
Rural areas have more gun violence then urban areas. Red states are more dangerous then blue states.

How cute, you've been taking lessons from one of our other Trolls, IM2. Now you both look ignorant.

 

[Dagosa]

How cute, you've been taking lessons from one of our other Trolls, IM2. Now you both look ignorant.

Wow, another illiterate.

 

[Dagosa]

There it is, the old, if you could speak English ploy from a fking racist pig.

Is that your best shot bubba ?
” You fking racist pig”

 

[Dagosa]

Why, bad guys will always have guns and I, unlike you, like good guys to have help protecting themselves. McDonald vs City of Chicago. See, if demfk mayors would punish the actual criminal, the gun law is set.

States with stronger gun laws have less gun violence.
All you want to do is insure easy access to more firearms for criminals. It’s common sense to have all gun sales even private, be required to have a background check. Naw, then gun makers would lose money they now get for replacing criminal throwaways.

 

[Markle]

States with stronger gun laws have less gun violence.
All you want to do is insure easy access to more firearms for criminals. It’s common sense to have all gun sales even private, be required to have a background check. Naw, then gun makers would lose money they now get for replacing criminal throwaways.

 

[2aguy]

That’s not what I said foolish. In absolute numbers, more whites kill whites by 80 fking percent dufus, then blacks do.
You are the stupid one. I have the stats, you’re just making up shit.
If you’re white, you have a hell of a lot more to fear from whites, than blacks bozo. You are fear mongering. Then fear mongering where it belongs, with white males bubba.

Moron.......I know you are trying your best to hide the truth....but more blacks are murdered by blacks than blacks are murdered by whites.....and more whites are murdered by blacks than blacks are murdered by whites..

You can't hide those facts...

 

[2aguy]

States with stronger gun laws have less gun violence.
All you want to do is insure easy access to more firearms for criminals. It’s common sense to have all gun sales even private, be required to have a background check. Naw, then gun makers would lose money they now get for replacing criminal throwaways.

No....that is a lie.....you guys throw in suicide to lie about the numbers.......

Answering Policymakers’ Most Common Questions (And Debunking Their Most Common Misconceptions) About Gun Policy
=======


https://www.powerlineblog.com/archi...arms-laws-do-nothing-to-prevent-homicides.php

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