New Gun Study

[JustRalph]

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294#preview

Here's the preview. I haven't found the entire thing yet. But the study is getting attention.

The long and short of it........

"The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997)."

John Lott is vindicated again.......state laws don't work and may cause more murders. Concealed carry works to cut murder rates

[pandy]

I lean right on many issues but not on gun laws, which should definitely be much tougher while protecting the 2nd amendment right to own a gun. Right wingers who don't want stricter gun laws simply don't understand that laws protect. Best example I can think of is our driving/licensing laws. We have to get our cars inspected every year. We are fined if we drive like idiots and we have a point system to protect against bad drivers. We have to have car insurance and we have to take two tests to get a drivers license, etc. Without these laws in place, millions of innocent people would get killed or severely injured in additional accidents. These protections work and make sense and similar laws can be applied to owning a gun that would cut down on gun violence. I'd like to see much better background checks, 30 day waiting periods and bans on certain types of weapons.

[Robert Goren]

Half hearted guns laws that aren't enforced don't protect people.

[pandy]

Half hearted guns laws that aren't enforced don't protect people.


That of course is one of the biggest problems, the laws aren't enforced. But the laws also aren't strict enough. Background checks here in PA. are a joke. You could be married to a career criminal who has a rap sheet a mile long and you will get approved. Also, the penalties for selling guns illegally are way too soft. The NRA has way too much power over our gutless politicians. But the bottom line is, unless we get campaign finance reform, the only types of major policies that the gov't is going to approve are going to be things like the "Affordable Care Act" that raise taxes on the middle class and re-distribute income. Laws that will help the middle class, like smarter gun laws, have no shot.

[Show Me the Wire]

So the states that have restrictive gun laws have more criminals?

BTW driving a car is not a Right, it is a state granted privilege which can be regulated.

[Robert Goren]

So the states that have restrictive gun laws have more criminals?

BTW driving a car is not a Right, it is a state granted privilege which can be regulated.Which came first?

[Show Me the Wire]

Which came first?


Guns, cars came centuries later.

[Tom]

Guns, cars came centuries later.

Brilliant! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[JustRalph]

I lean right on many issues but not on gun laws, which should definitely be much tougher while protecting the 2nd amendment right to own a gun. Right wingers who don't want stricter gun laws simply don't understand that laws protect. Best example I can think of is our driving/licensing laws. We have to get our cars inspected every year. We are fined if we drive like idiots and we have a point system to protect against bad drivers. We have to have car insurance and we have to take two tests to get a drivers license, etc. Without these laws in place, millions of innocent people would get killed or severely injured in additional accidents. These protections work and make sense and similar laws can be applied to owning a gun that would cut down on gun violence. I'd like to see much better background checks, 30 day waiting periods and bans on certain types of weapons.

Bob, I respect you. On a lot of subjects btw. But the data doesn't back it up. Guns are much easier to conceal and traffic in etc. the only person your measures has any affect (is that the right one?) on is the law abiding citizen. Period. And they are not the problem. Simple as that.

The same protections in the motor vehicle code are not analogous because every single day police drive by people who are carrying a gun criminally, and they never know it. It's easy to ID the guy who can't drive legally. In fact it's a money making venture for many jurisdictions. Much harder to find illegal guns. As someone who spent 12 yrs doing it, you would be surprised how hard it can be. Especially if your bad guy is experienced or has half a brain. Your traffic law style measures would be ignored universally by the bad guys. Just like everything else. It would only inflict unnecessary crap on the wrong people.

[Clocker]

Guns are much easier to conceal and traffic in etc. the only person your measures has any affect (is that the right one?) on is the law abiding citizen. Period. And they are not the problem. Simple as that.


"Affect" is a verb, "effect" is a noun. As in "special effects". :p

A study by the US Dept. of Justice examined where criminals convicted of crimes involving guns got their weapons. About 20% said that they had bought them directly in a legal sale. About 40% said that they had obtained them from family or friends without going through any legal process. And about 40% said that they had gotten their guns "on the street".

[JustRalph]

"Affect" is a verb, "effect" is a noun. As in "special effects". :p

and your point..................................... :lol:

[Clocker]

and your point..................................... :lol:

You asked. ;)

[Robert Fischer]

Statistics can be very misleading when context is ignored.

Even more so, when context is actually understood, and then that insight is applied in such a way to obtain a favorable statistical analysis.

[JustRalph]

Statistics can be very misleading when context is ignored.

Even more so, when context is actually understood, and then that insight is applied in such a way to obtain a favorable statistical analysis.

so, you are saying they rigged the study?

Btw, I thought I could download the whole study.......but alas, I can't. They say it will be available soon.............. we shall see.

[Tom]

What context is Fast And Furious?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/02/gun-from-botched-fast-and-furious-operation-turns-up-after-mexican-resort/

A gun from the failed "Fast and Furious" operation has turned up after a shootout at a Mexican resort last month, Fox News confirms.

[pandy]

Bob, I respect you. On a lot of subjects btw. But the data doesn't back it up. Guns are much easier to conceal and traffic in etc. the only person your measures has any affect (is that the right one?) on is the law abiding citizen. Period. And they are not the problem. Simple as that.

The same protections in the motor vehicle code are not analogous because every single day police drive by people who are carrying a gun criminally, and they never know it. It's easy to ID the guy who can't drive legally. In fact it's a money making venture for many jurisdictions. Much harder to find illegal guns. As someone who spent 12 yrs doing it, you would be surprised how hard it can be. Especially if your bad guy is experienced or has half a brain. Your traffic law style measures would be ignored universally by the bad guys. Just like everything else. It would only inflict unnecessary crap on the wrong people.


The thing is, one of the biggest problems we have with guns is these nuts who walk into public buildings, like schools, and start shooting. These are not your typical criminal. Most of them have never committed a crime. That's why this right wing theory that if we have stricter gun laws only the criminals will have guns is way off base. The thugs, like drug dealers, and common criminals, are using guns as a business tool. The nuts, who are killing children or other innocent people in random shootings, are a much different animal. And in most of these shootings, the shooters are not the type that are going to buy guns illegally. And they don't have to because they don't have criminal records. They are using their parents guns, or simply buying their own. Consequently, something has to be done to make it more difficult for these nuts to commit these horrendous crimes.

The right wing rhetoric like "guns don't kill, people do" doesn't solve a damn thing. The gov't has to do something to stop these mass shootings and the only thing that will work in the short term is tougher and smarter gun laws. Do we need societal changes too? Yes, but we can't wait 30 years to fix this problem. It has to be addressed now. One of the things I would do is create some sort of law so that parents can be prosecuted if one of their children uses their gun to kill someone. That would make parents more responsible. Teenagers have all sort of psychological problems and they are simply not mature enough to be around loaded guns. Many parents are too ignorant, arrogant, or simply have too big an ego (My kids would never do anytihng like that) to realize this. People don't understand this, but if you have guns in the house that are not hidden or locked and you have children under the age of 18, you are irresponsible. The bottom line is, we have to do something to stop this and laws are the best way to do this, as long as the laws are enforced.

I've known many people who leave loaded guns in the house where their children can get to them. They say, "my kids know that they are now allowed to touch my guns." That is ignorance. Children, and teenagers, are not mature enough to be left with that kind of responsibility, and many parents aren't aware that their children are going through difficult times mentally.

[Dave Schwartz]

So the states that have restrictive gun laws have more criminals?

No, probably not.

Rather, the perceived notion that all victims are defenseless causes more violent crime.

There is a story that went around some of my retired cop friends in Reno that says a drunk guy in a sports bar got out of line one night. A little pushing and shoving and suddenly a guy he shoved whips out a pistol only to find more than a dozen weapons drawn down on him, only some from ex-cops.

The point is that the notion that someone besides the (potential) criminal might have a weapon is a big deterrent for "gun bullies."


I've known many people who leave loaded guns in the house where their children can get to them. They say, "my kids know that they are now allowed to touch my guns." That is ignorance. Children, and teenagers, are not mature enough to be left with that kind of responsibility, and many parents aren't aware that their children are going through difficult times mentally.

True that. I had a friend from long ago who lost a teenager that way. Don't know how I could forgive myself, were it me.

[pandy]

I lived in a rural area for 7 years, a lot of hunters, farmers, etc., and every year several children in those areas either shoot themselves or one of their siblings because the parents have that mentality that their children will not touch their guns.

I tried to explain to them that children often disobey their parents. Their response would be, "Not my children." So then I would ask them, "So you never disobeyed your parents?" Then I would get the old blank stare. All children disobey their parents. That's why we call them children. What's scary is, the more you tell your child not to do something, the more you arouse their curiosity and the more likely they are to do it. But amazingly many parents simply don't understand that this simple fact of human nature.

[JustRalph]

Bob, those laws that parents can be prosecuted already exist in most states.

[pandy]

I know, but they're not always enforced. I really don't believe the founding fathers meant for people to own and carry some of the automatic assault weapons that are available when they wrote the 2nd amendment. I respect the 2nd amendment, but right now things are out of control. These guns crimes are a lot like most things, if it doesn't happen to you it's easy to think that it's not a problem. But these right wingers who are in love with guns will change their tune when someone walks into their kids school and starts shooting an automatic weapon that holds 30 rounds.

[boxcar]

I lean right on many issues but not on gun laws, which should definitely be much tougher while protecting the 2nd amendment right to own a gun. Right wingers who don't want stricter gun laws simply don't understand that laws protect. Best example I can think of is our driving/licensing laws. We have to get our cars inspected every year. We are fined if we drive like idiots and we have a point system to protect against bad drivers. We have to have car insurance and we have to take two tests to get a drivers license, etc. Without these laws in place, millions of innocent people would get killed or severely injured in additional accidents. These protections work and make sense and similar laws can be applied to owning a gun that would cut down on gun violence. I'd like to see much better background checks, 30 day waiting periods and bans on certain types of weapons.

The law does not protect anyone when an armed home invader forces his way into your home and is threatening to kill you. The law does not protect when an armed thief breaks into your home. And where was "the law" that was supposed to protect Zimmerman when Trayvon used the cement pavement as a lethal weapon with which to bash his skull? And similar new stories as this are in abundance out there. As stated previously, the only way a law-abiding citizen can be protected by "the law" is to have a 24-7 armed policeman at his side.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I know, but they're not always enforced. I really don't believe the founding fathers meant for people to own and carry some of the automatic assault weapons that are available when they wrote the 2nd amendment. I respect the 2nd amendment, but right now things are out of control. These guns crimes are a lot like most things, if it doesn't happen to you it's easy to think that it's not a problem. But these right wingers who are in love with guns will change their tune when someone walks into their kids school and starts shooting an automatic weapon that holds 30 rounds.

Huh? But I thought you said the law would protect such innocent people?
The fundamental flaw to your argument is that crooks will obey gun laws, which would level the proverbial playing field, i.e. both crooks and good guys won't have guns. But crooks will not obey. Crooks will always find a way to circumvent the laws.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

I know, but they're not always enforced. I really don't believe the founding fathers meant for people to own and carry some of the automatic assault weapons that are available when they wrote the 2nd amendment. I respect the 2nd amendment, but right now things are out of control. These guns crimes are a lot like most things, if it doesn't happen to you it's easy to think that it's not a problem. But these right wingers who are in love with guns will change their tune when someone walks into their kids school and starts shooting an automatic weapon that holds 30 rounds.

Bob, you cannot buy automatic weapons in the US. Nobody has used an automatic weapon in any shootings in the United States.

[TJDave]

the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states....These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level.

These states with carry restrictions and higher murder rates...They wouldn't also have higher populations and/or significantly higher urban populations, perhaps?

[PaceAdvantage]

The gov't has to do something to stop these mass shootings and the only thing that will work in the short term is tougher and smarter gun laws.You'll never be able to legislate away insanity.

Just ask the Bath school bomber. Google it.

[JustRalph]

These states with carry restrictions and higher murder rates...They wouldn't also have higher populations and/or significantly higher urban populations, perhaps?

Don't know yet. For some reason you cannot have access unless you have "academic access" for the first few days.

The findings are being compared to this Harvard study from the summer.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[sammy the sage]

I lived in a rural area for 7 years, a lot of hunters, farmers, etc., and every year several children in those areas either shoot themselves or one of their siblings because the parents have that mentality that their children will not touch their guns.

I tried to explain to them that children often disobey their parents. Their response would be, "Not my children." So then I would ask them, "So you never disobeyed your parents?" Then I would get the old blank stare. All children disobey their parents. That's why we call them children. What's scary is, the more you tell your child not to do something, the more you arouse their curiosity and the more likely they are to do it. But amazingly many parents simply don't understand that this simple fact of human nature.

Stupid parenting... our parents DID BETTER...we had guns at age 6 & up...we WERE TAUGHT & shown what they could do...and ALL GUNS were considered LOADED...which IN FACT they were...and we took shooting lessons...

[Robert Goren]

Stupid parenting... our parents DID BETTER...we had guns at age 6 & up...we WERE TAUGHT & shown what they could do...and ALL GUNS were considered LOADED...which IN FACT they were...and we took shooting lessons...and you were lucky. I grew up in the same kind of area and I knew two teenagers about my age who died in gun/hunting accidents. Both had been hunting for at least 3 years. I am a big fan of teens learning to hunt, but I am not blind to the dangers.

[Dave Schwartz]

Bob, you cannot buy automatic weapons in the US. Nobody has used an automatic weapon in any shootings in the United States.

You left out the rolling eyes emoticon.

Besides, we all know the truth. Saw it on NCIS.

[JustRalph]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140103/METRO01/301030038

Detroit Police Chief breaks ranks with his brethren

Btw, I am not a fan of this guy because of his antics in Cincinnati. But he tells it like it is in this case. He was the Cincy police chief before Detroit

Please note the info in the article from polls of officers conducted on the same subject. Police Chiefs are politicians. Regular cops are not

[JustRalph]

You left out the rolling eyes emoticon.

Besides, we all know the truth. Saw it on NCIS.

Dave, nobody has used an automatic weapon to my knowledge. Semi auto is a different animal.

But I get your point.

[fast4522]

You know that he has been placed atop the shit list, when the time comes they will be in lockstep against him.

[pandy]

You'll never be able to legislate away insanity.

Just ask the Bath school bomber. Google it.

Agree, but if a nut comes walking towards you with a revolver that has 6 bullets, or a knife, you have a chance. If he has an automatic that can quickly fire 30 rounds, not.

[pandy]

Stupid parenting... our parents DID BETTER...we had guns at age 6 & up...we WERE TAUGHT & shown what they could do...and ALL GUNS were considered LOADED...which IN FACT they were...and we took shooting lessons...


Teaching kids how to use a gun properly doesn't guarantee that they won't blow someone's head off by accident, happens all the time. These farmers I referred to did teach their children how to use guns. You got lucky, some aren't as fortunate. Children shouldn't be allowed to shoot guns.

[fast4522]

Found this, I thought JR might get a kick out of it.

[JustRalph]

There's lots of "armed Mommies" out there............

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, nobody has used an automatic weapon to my knowledge. Semi auto is a different animal.

But I get your point.

Rarely would I say this to you but I think that you must have missed SOMETHING. For example (from memory, so I could have made it all up LOL) wasn't there an armed bank robbery in LA a few years back where the perpetrators had full body armor and automatic weapons?

I did a search for Fully Automatic Weapon Killings (https://www.google.com/search?q=full+automatic+weapon+shootings&oq=full+automatic+weapon+shootings&aqs=chrome..69i57.9932j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=fully+automatic+weapon+shootings&safe=off&start=0) and was surprised to find how rare they are. LOL - Definition of "rare" was that you had to go like 4 or 5 pages deep to find any in Google.

The first few pages of searches mostly had sensational headlines like this:

Obama: Newtown children killed with ‘fully automatic weapon’

... then when you get to the body of the article you find out that, of course, the weapons were semi-automatic.

However, I did find several articles, including one from 20 miles away from me in Carson City (and another from the shooting in Pendleton a few years ago): Carson City IHOP shooting (http://www.rgj.com/article/20111005/NEWS01/111005001/Carson-City-IHOP-shooter-fired-about-60-rounds-from-fully-automatic-rifle)

... where the weapon(s) used were modified semi-automatics, capable of firing on full auto.

For those who do not really understand, the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic weapon, is that a semi-automatic weapon demands a trigger pull for each round fired, while an automatic weapon continues to fire as long as the finger remains on the trigger. (Many modern-day automatic weapons reset after a 3-round burst, demanding another trigger pull for the next 3-round burst.)

For the record, it used to be very easy to take a weapon such as an AR-15 from semi-automatic to full automatic. All you had to do was prevent the sear-pin from re-engaging after the round fires. Newer versions of such weapons have been redesigned to make it much more difficult to accomplish an automatic state.

My point was that I was very surprised that your statement was very close to true, far more so than I expected. (Not that I doubted you.)

I am embarrased to say that I (like many people in our society today apparently) got my "news" from pop-culture. That is, we see automatic weapon-shootings so often on Major Crimes, or some other L.A.-based police show that we believe it to be factual.

What's next? Will we believe that CSIs really run the crime scene and do everything from questioning, to interrogation, to negotiating the confession? :bang:

[JustRalph]

From memory only, I believe the bank robbers you referenced had altered their weapons in the old style method you also describe. It used to take nothing more than ordering a 57 dollar kit to make the weapon fully automatic. As you described, they changed things in the design. I have no idea what it takes now. But I am sure it can be done. If there's a will............

In reference to the thread and Pandys theme, no automatic fire has been actually used in these killings as far as I can find. Reporters get it wrong all the time.

Btw, in a strident example of what can be done by those who have the will, look up the "Norco bank robbery" it's an old case that we learned about in the academy in California. If you can turn brooms and smoke bombs into grenades a little thing like a few laws won't change a damn thing.

Check out this video. It just proves that if the bad guys want to go all out, they can get around the law and build a weapon or buy it on the street.

At 4:55 it gets into some of the improvised devices. Check out the broomstick grenades, launched from a shotgun. The point being that these latest shootings get covered as if this stuff is new and the shooters possess some inordinate access to firearms etc. they don't. In fact they lack imagination and will compared to some past incidents.

OQXXcFmMVNE

[Dave Schwartz]

Great video. I watched it all the way through.

Is there a part 2? Seemed to cut off before the finish.

BTW, I believe this bank robbery story was actually used on either Major Crimes or The Closer.

[JustRalph]

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdbdfAc2E2g


Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDQrvW5-Pdc

Btw, the part about the first Deputy being only a block away ?

Our instructor told us he was actually pulling into the drive thru window to cash a check, as the robbers were going in the front.........