Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guy, if you reread the article in the OP, he is not comparing states with and without comprehensive background checks. He is saying there is about a 40% reduction in those crimes, comparing before and after the comp. background checks.According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.
And here we have the evidence that shows you and your link are wrong....
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/13/fact-checker-gun-background-check-claims-true/15153955/
• Background checks for all handgun sales make women and police safer: The group cites a different report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
In this one, the group uses FBI data to come up with its own conclusions. It does this by compiling data from states with mandatory handgun background checks and those without to arrive at the claim that women and police are about 40 percent less likely to be killed with a handgun in states with mandatory checks.
Fact Checker started re-creating the finding about women but soon stopped after the first four states examined. New Hampshire and Vermont, which have no background check at shows, had much lower rates of women being killed by men than New York and New Jersey, which do require background checks on handguns at gun shows.
But that wasn't the reason Fact Checker stopped this line of inquiry.
The homicide statistics come from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports — and the FBI cautions againstpeople comparing places based on the statistics because not all law enforcement agencies submit their data and there are other factors that can also skew comparisons, such as more densely populated areas vs. more rural places.
Further, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns report was not peer reviewed, it doesn't share the numbers used to reach its conclusions, and it treats correlation as causation, strongly implying that lower rates of violence against women and police was caused by handgun background checks without even attempting to deal with all of the factors that would make the statistics less valid.
One could just as easily come to the opposite conclusion by pointing to the surge in gun sales with a corresponding drop in murders of women over the past 20 years nationwide.
There has been a peer-reviewed study on this topic worth noting. A 2000 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association examined data to see if the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act made a difference. The law was implemented in 1994 and instituted background checks and waiting periods for handgun sales. The study concluded that it was not associated with "reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."
So.....your whole thread is based on anti gun groups and their anti gun fake research which they don't submit for peer review........but make sure to get to people like you and the guy from your first post..........
As we keep pointing out to you....nothing about what you or that guy say makes any sense....since criminals get guns without background checks....and if they are going to shoot a cop...they will do it without a background check for their gun....
The verdict by the fact checker....
The verdict
The source links given by Nevadans for Background Checks do not lead to any independent research on gun background checks, but lead solely back to statements by a gun-control advocacy group that are unsupported and ignore conflicting evidence.
Try reading the article.You're looking at the wrong statistic there. Especially given that suicides are included in "Gun deaths", as are police shootings and shootings in self defense. This means that the statistic you're using is completely meaningless.According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.
Which, as you know, means nothing, as correlation does not prove causation.Guy, if you reread the article in the OP, he is not comparing states with and without comprehensive background checks. He is saying there is about a 40% reduction in those crimes in the state.
According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.
As usual, you seem to be calling information "wrong" because it seems to argue for gun control. But since neither of us has the study being cited (actually, I figured if anyone knew where he got those numbers, you would) you can't really say if it's wrong or right, can you?According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.
And the article is wrong.....I don't remember, is there a link to this research and the reviews of the research.....
in the heat of the moment...how does that have anything to do with wether or not a background check was done...again....criminals use straw buyers to get their illegal guns...so how does that change police deaths?
And of those alleged 5,000 stops.....almost all of them will be found to have been people who were rejected...and then after they cleared up the government screw up....went on to pass the check and get their gun....
Nothing you or that article says about background checks has any bearing in reality........
I've already told you umpteen times I understand that correlation does not PROVE causation. It may well be RELATED, though, and indicate a relationship, when gun control measures lead to a reduction in crime. It is certainly not "utter nonsense" to remark on the correlation, especially since gun deaths fell in three different areas after comprehensive background checks were instituted. SOMETHING caused the rates to fall.The irony, this statement from someone that does not the have the intelligence to understand a post hoc fallacy and its implications.I'll stop ignoring your inane questions if you will explain in English what in hell you're talking about. If you haven't the energy or the intelligence to explain your argument, I feel no compunction to try to counter it.Why do you not understand this is a post hoc fallacy?According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths
Why do you not understand that, as a post hoc fallacy, any conclusion that stems from it is unsound?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You argue that since crime fell after the introduction of the background checks, the background checks caused the reduction in crime -- thus your claim that "background checks work".
Thus is, of course, utter nonsense, as correlation does not prove causation.
Do you understand now, or do I need to make it simpler?
Some will. Some won't. Those who wish for a gun right now and shouldn't have one are able to purchase one legally by using an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, through an ad in the Weekly Swap Sheet or through a friend/neighbor.Background checks only affect those who obey the law; those that do not can and will get guns w/o any background check whatsoever.Specifically, not having a GUN.
You cannot prove any such relationship - all you can say is that they enacted these law and then this happened.I've already told you umpteen times I understand that correlation does not PROVE causation. It may well be RELATED, though, and indicate a relationship, when gun control measures lead to a reduction in crime.The irony, this statement from someone that does not the have the intelligence to understand a post hoc fallacy and its implications.I'll stop ignoring your inane questions if you will explain in English what in hell you're talking about. If you haven't the energy or the intelligence to explain your argument, I feel no compunction to try to counter it.Why do you not understand this is a post hoc fallacy?According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths
Why do you not understand that, as a post hoc fallacy, any conclusion that stems from it is unsound?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You argue that since crime fell after the introduction of the background checks, the background checks caused the reduction in crime -- thus your claim that "background checks work".
Thus is, of course, utter nonsense, as correlation does not prove causation.
Do you understand now, or do I need to make it simpler?
Someone who cannot legally buy a gun can NEVER legally buy a gun -- and so, no, they are NOT buying them legally at gun shows or anywhere elseSome will. Some won't. Those who wish for a gun right now and shouldn't have one are able to purchase one legally by using an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, through an ad in the Weekly Swap Sheet or through a friend/neighbor.Background checks only affect those who obey the law; those that do not can and will get guns w/o any background check whatsoever.Specifically, not having a GUN.
About 40% of people who should not own a weapon purchase one LEGALLY by using the loopholes.
Which one? The 40% of sales not requiring a background check came from several articles I've read on the subject. BUT I double checked that just now by going to Politifact and they say a lot of those studies are outdated and it is now 22% and less if family purchases are removed. So I will stand corrected on that.Do you have any actual SOURCE for that number?
Not all people selling guns are required to perform background checks. That is the problem.Someone who cannot legally buy a gun can NEVER legally buy a gun -- and so, no, they are NOT buying them legally at gun shows or anywhere elseSome will. Some won't. Those who wish for a gun right now and shouldn't have one are able to purchase one legally by using an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, through an ad in the Weekly Swap Sheet or through a friend/neighbor.Background checks only affect those who obey the law; those that do not can and will get guns w/o any background check whatsoever.Specifically, not having a GUN.
About 40% of people who should not own a weapon purchase one LEGALLY by using the loopholes.
And, for the zillionth time:
It is impossible to legally avoid the background checks specified by federal law -- thus, there is no loophole.
If you call them a criminal or not is up to you. I am more concerned that they can buy a gun without any difficulty or any background check from numerous sellers who are not required to do this. Internet, newspaper ads, gun sales. It is the SELLER who should be required to run one, regardless.Someone who cannot legally buy a gun can NEVER legally buy a gun -- and so, no, they are NOT buying them legally at gun shows or anywhere elseSome will. Some won't. Those who wish for a gun right now and shouldn't have one are able to purchase one legally by using an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, through an ad in the Weekly Swap Sheet or through a friend/neighbor.Background checks only affect those who obey the law; those that do not can and will get guns w/o any background check whatsoever.Specifically, not having a GUN.
About 40% of people who should not own a weapon purchase one LEGALLY by using the loopholes.
And, for the zillionth time:
It is impossible to legally avoid the background checks specified by federal law -- thus, there is no loophole.
you would think, the NRA and gun dealers in gun stores, would support this....making the playing field of sales, level....fair...where all who sell guns need to get a background check on the buyer and not just the retail stores singled out for it...?Not all people selling guns are required to perform background checks. That is the problem.Someone who cannot legally buy a gun can NEVER legally buy a gun -- and so, no, they are NOT buying them legally at gun shows or anywhere elseSome will. Some won't. Those who wish for a gun right now and shouldn't have one are able to purchase one legally by using an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, through an ad in the Weekly Swap Sheet or through a friend/neighbor.Background checks only affect those who obey the law; those that do not can and will get guns w/o any background check whatsoever.Specifically, not having a GUN.
About 40% of people who should not own a weapon purchase one LEGALLY by using the loopholes.
And, for the zillionth time:
It is impossible to legally avoid the background checks specified by federal law -- thus, there is no loophole.
Guy, if you reread the article in the OP, he is not comparing states with and without comprehensive background checks. He is saying there is about a 40% reduction in those crimes, comparing before and after the comp. background checks.According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.
And here we have the evidence that shows you and your link are wrong....
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/13/fact-checker-gun-background-check-claims-true/15153955/
• Background checks for all handgun sales make women and police safer: The group cites a different report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
In this one, the group uses FBI data to come up with its own conclusions. It does this by compiling data from states with mandatory handgun background checks and those without to arrive at the claim that women and police are about 40 percent less likely to be killed with a handgun in states with mandatory checks.
Fact Checker started re-creating the finding about women but soon stopped after the first four states examined. New Hampshire and Vermont, which have no background check at shows, had much lower rates of women being killed by men than New York and New Jersey, which do require background checks on handguns at gun shows.
But that wasn't the reason Fact Checker stopped this line of inquiry.
The homicide statistics come from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports — and the FBI cautions againstpeople comparing places based on the statistics because not all law enforcement agencies submit their data and there are other factors that can also skew comparisons, such as more densely populated areas vs. more rural places.
Further, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns report was not peer reviewed, it doesn't share the numbers used to reach its conclusions, and it treats correlation as causation, strongly implying that lower rates of violence against women and police was caused by handgun background checks without even attempting to deal with all of the factors that would make the statistics less valid.
One could just as easily come to the opposite conclusion by pointing to the surge in gun sales with a corresponding drop in murders of women over the past 20 years nationwide.
There has been a peer-reviewed study on this topic worth noting. A 2000 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association examined data to see if the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act made a difference. The law was implemented in 1994 and instituted background checks and waiting periods for handgun sales. The study concluded that it was not associated with "reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."
So.....your whole thread is based on anti gun groups and their anti gun fake research which they don't submit for peer review........but make sure to get to people like you and the guy from your first post..........
As we keep pointing out to you....nothing about what you or that guy say makes any sense....since criminals get guns without background checks....and if they are going to shoot a cop...they will do it without a background check for their gun....
The verdict by the fact checker....
The verdict
The source links given by Nevadans for Background Checks do not lead to any independent research on gun background checks, but lead solely back to statements by a gun-control advocacy group that are unsupported and ignore conflicting evidence.
Which one? The 40% of sales not requiring a background check came from several articles I've read on the subject. BUT I double checked that just now by going to Politifact and they say a lot of those studies are outdated and it is now 22% and less if family purchases are removed. So I will stand corrected on that.Do you have any actual SOURCE for that number?
Then it shows up in the NCIS when you try to purchase. Which we've done for many years. That's why I suggested you go and buy a gun so you'd learn something.People with prior DV convictions and ex-felons aren't supposed to get guns. Some people with mental illness (if it is considered dangerous by the doctor).Who shouldn't have a gun? Fuck, you are dense.Specifically, not having a GUN.You typically speak in generalities and offer your opinion as fact. It doesn't work that way. What SPECIFICALLY prevents a dv shooting?According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.
If you call them a criminal or not is up to you. I am more concerned that they can buy a gun without any difficulty or any background check from numerous sellers who are not required to do this. Internet, newspaper ads, gun sales. It is the SELLER who should be required to run one, regardless.Someone who cannot legally buy a gun can NEVER legally buy a gun -- and so, no, they are NOT buying them legally at gun shows or anywhere elseSome will. Some won't. Those who wish for a gun right now and shouldn't have one are able to purchase one legally by using an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, through an ad in the Weekly Swap Sheet or through a friend/neighbor.Background checks only affect those who obey the law; those that do not can and will get guns w/o any background check whatsoever.Specifically, not having a GUN.
About 40% of people who should not own a weapon purchase one LEGALLY by using the loopholes.
And, for the zillionth time:
It is impossible to legally avoid the background checks specified by federal law -- thus, there is no loophole.
And, that is not a loophole in the law.Not all people selling guns are required to perform background checks. That is the problem.Someone who cannot legally buy a gun can NEVER legally buy a gun -- and so, no, they are NOT buying them legally at gun shows or anywhere elseSome will. Some won't. Those who wish for a gun right now and shouldn't have one are able to purchase one legally by using an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, through an ad in the Weekly Swap Sheet or through a friend/neighbor.Background checks only affect those who obey the law; those that do not can and will get guns w/o any background check whatsoever.Specifically, not having a GUN.
About 40% of people who should not own a weapon purchase one LEGALLY by using the loopholes.
And, for the zillionth time:
It is impossible to legally avoid the background checks specified by federal law -- thus, there is no loophole.
