Gun Control

Pretty interesting article. It would seem that stricter back ground checks, and actual enforcement of those laws could lead to progress. Who knew?

The FBI and CDC Datasets Agree: Who Has Guns—Not Which Guns—Linked to Murder Rates

Siegel’s latest study, published July 30, 2019, in the Journal of Rural Health,reinforces previous research findings that laws designed to regulate who has firearms are more effective in reducing shootings than laws designed to control what types of guns are permitted. The study looked at gun regulation state by state in comparison with FBI data about gun homicides, gathered from police departments around the country. Analysis revealed that universal background checks, permit requirements, “may issue” laws (where local authorities have discretion in approving who can carry a concealed weapon), and laws banning people convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths.
Click to expand...


We also found that certain laws appear to be more effective depending on location. That makes sense because the nature of urban crime is somewhat different, and the populations in urban vs. suburban areas are different. In large cities with more than 100,000 people, we found background checks were even more effective at reducing rates of gun-related deaths than they were in suburban or rural areas. In contrast, we found that violent misdemeanor laws were more effective at reducing homicide rates in suburban and rural areas than they were in large cities. Permit requirements were robustly effective regardless of location. This is suggestive that applying a cluster of different types of state laws is necessary, because not every law will work the same for each local population.
Click to expand...
In the case of the Dayton shooter, we know that this is a person who should have been flagged as someone not able to possess a firearm. This individual made threats to kill and sexually assault high school classmates, he had a hit list with names written out. The principal and local law enforcement knew about it. It’s a perfect situation of an example that shouldn’t exist. I think a “red flag” law could make an impact—it’s hard enough to control people who don’t make threats. So when someone does threaten violence, they should not have access to a gun. The general picture that we’re getting is that if we can intervene in situations where there’s the greatest risk for violence to occur, that’s where we can have the greatest impact.
Click to expand...


siegel-stats-752x502.png

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Couple things:

  • Depending on where you look, a  "mass" shooting can be defined by 4+ dead - other sites say 8+ dead
  • I don't think it will take 3 months.
 
NM11046 said:
Couple things:

  • Depending on where you look, a  "mass" shooting can be defined by 4+ dead - other sites say 8+ dead
  • I don't think it will take 3 months.
Click to expand...


3 months?!?! That would be a dramatic improvement upon the status quo.

 
The Trump Administration already said he would veto background checks. In February,  The White House released a STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY regarding H.R. 8 Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 and H.R. 1112 Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019. "If H.R. 8, or H.R. 1112, are presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto the bill."

His off-the-cuff remarks supporting it are completely hollow. This dude is a straight-up pathological liar.


 
it might just work


EBjFebxU0AAN8uA.png:large


 
Last edited by a moderator:
QMany said:
The Trump Administration already said he would veto background checks. In February,  The White House released a STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY regarding H.R. 8 Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 and H.R. 1112 Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019. "If H.R. 8, or H.R. 1112, are presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto the bill."

His off-the-cuff remarks supporting it are completely hollow. This dude is a straight-up pathological liar.
Click to expand...
Sadly, background checks are not really the answer.  The answer is getting rid of guns.  I have yet to hear an argument that makes sense for someone to own an uzi...or anything other than a shotgun.

Here is what should be allowed to be sold.

1.  Musket

2.  Shotgun (10 gauge or 20 gauge, whichever one is the weaker one) and no automatic ones (if that is even a thing, I have no idea)

3.  Revolvers that only hold 6 shots

 
Danny Bateman said:
This is exactly why when/if I ever see people like this big brain out open carrying somewhere public I'm noping out of there as fast humanly possible.

Does anyone see someone like this holding in public and actually feel safer?
Click to expand...
No...and I don't want to see anyone carrying out in public.  It is creepy as s#!t to see someone that isn't a cop carrying a gun in public. 

 
teachercd said:
Haha!

I have only seen (or I guess noticed) it twice...and the second time was total "Super Action Hero" guy...It was creepy and comical.
Click to expand...


So.....if you’re a guy who walks into a place to commit a mass shooting, and you see this idiot standing there....who ya shooting first?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top