Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Auld Phart]

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

Why do you oppose universal?

useless.

Keeps honest people honest, keeps criminals laughing

Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

How would it be either?

Gangbangers don't worry about background checks

I’m not talking about gang bangers

I’m not talking about gang bangers

oh....

you want universal checks, except for gangbangers?

When are you people going to get in into your little minds, universal isn't going to work?

 

[cnm]

no----if a person really wants to kill ------he will find a way------that's why they are called "criminals"

Absolutely. They'll attack you with a swimming pool. Imagine the drownings if the garlic shooter had used a swimming pool instead. Titanic!

 

[cnm]

now - limit AR15s to 15 round mags and we're cool, right? gun now equals good? something tells me you're about change up the definition AGAIN and AGAIN proving my point.

Because the AR15 can take large capacity removable mags it should be severely restricted, as should all the other military style semi auto rifles that can similarly take large capacity removable mags. And yes, mags greater than 10 rounds for the Ruger should be banned.

 

[Blues Man]

As for population..well yes..it is easier to enforce a law in a smaller population...just as a matter of logistics and expense.

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

Lawful owners do not have to register guns so the police can take them away from criminals

 

[Blues Man]

now - limit AR15s to 15 round mags and we're cool, right? gun now equals good? something tells me you're about change up the definition AGAIN and AGAIN proving my point.

Because the AR15 can take large capacity removable mags it should be severely restricted, as should all the other military style semi auto rifles that can similarly take large capacity removable mags. And yes, mags greater than 10 rounds for the Ruger should be banned.

We don't care what you think about the USA and its laws because you don't live here

tend to your own yard and we'll tend to ours

 

[Blues Man]

no----if a person really wants to kill ------he will find a way------that's why they are called "criminals"

Absolutely. They'll attack you with a swimming pool. Imagine the drownings if the garlic shooter had used a swimming pool instead. Titanic!

Knives, clubs, axes, hammers baseball bats, cars, rocks, bricks, bare hands etc etc etc etc

The list of things that can be used to kill is literally endless

 

[2aguy]

great. so before we go changing things, how about some research instead of emo-grandstanding.

Did you know around half of US homicides were committed with handguns? I found that out by researching it.

how many laws do we have?
why are they not working?
what laws would you suggest that would have stopped any known mass shooting in the last decade?

The way you frame the question is par for the course. If an action won't stop shootings it's to be ridiculed. The idea that actions can reduce shootings is dismissed as nonsensical. When the experience of other countries is put forward the exceptional USA excuse is trotted out immediately. Fair enough, it's not my country, I just giggle at the loons.

The way to reduce the US firearm homicide and mass shooting rates is to severely limit the numbers of handguns and military style semi automatic rifles in circulation.

I understand you don't want to do that, rather you happily accept the current consequences. No worries.

Your theory.....to reduce gun crime we reduce the number of guns...

You just posted that, that is your theory.....

26 years, the opposite happened....More Americans went out, bought guns, own them and carry them....according to your theory, gun crime goes up.

That is your theory, not mine....

The actual result...

over that 26 years....

Gun Crime down 75%.

Gun murder down 49%

Violent Crime down 72%

So, again, your theory....more guns = more gun crime

actual experience....more guns .....gun murder, gun crime, violent crime went down 50%, 75%, 72%.

In science....when you propose a theory...you implement the theory, and the exact opposite of that theory happens. .......in Science that means your theory is wrong.

I've seen you mention this point a few times now. The variable that this doesn't account for is time. As time has passed in those 26 years, I assume the norms have changed or law enforcement has improved, or something culturally has happened to reduce those homicides. Now I'm sure you'll credit that to more guns = less crime, to which we'll just disagree.

But how about we try looking at something different? Let's try removing that time variable just to see what happens. I looked at gun ownership rates by state and gun-related homicides by state. There was a positive correlation of approximately 0.7, which would be considered a moderate to strong correlation. That is, generally speaking the more armed citizens there are, the more gun homicides there are.

I'm curious what your take on this is, because it goes directly against what you have been claiming. More guns = more death.

Here are the links that I used. I just did a little spreadsheet with the values.

Gun ownership by state
Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Your point has been brought up before. The theory by anti-gun activists is that regardless of those other factors......More Guns = More Gun crime. That is where they hang their hat.

So.....the point they miss, and I think you miss....is that over those 26 years.....whether or not normal people owning guns was a factor in reducing gun crime.....

More Guns in the hands of law abiding people did not increase the gun crime rates...

So over that 26 years.....more Americans own and actually carry guns....17.25 million Americans from about 4 million actually being able to legally carry guns.....and the gun crime rates went still went down.

So the core theory is wrong....More Guns did not = More gun crime.

Now, it is true that various factors made the murder rate go down, more police, smarter police tactics and so on.......but that isn't their argument or their point.......

Also, for one thing........if you are being attacked, and you use a gun to stop the attack....that crime didn't happen to you....

Then, I have actual research from various researchers who state that there is a correlation to decreases in interpersonal crime when more people own and carry guns...for example, there are more home invasions in Britain than here in the U.S....why? When researchers ask criminals in prison, they state they go into empty houses in the U.S. because they don't want to get shot. In Britain, the criminals don't care about people being home, because they don't have guns...and since they don't have guns, they can be tied up and questioned about where their belongings are...

 

[iceberg]

now - limit AR15s to 15 round mags and we're cool, right? gun now equals good? something tells me you're about change up the definition AGAIN and AGAIN proving my point.

Because the AR15 can take large capacity removable mags it should be severely restricted, as should all the other military style semi auto rifles that can similarly take large capacity removable mags. And yes, mags greater than 10 rounds for the Ruger should be banned.

but that's banning the mag, not the gun.

like i said, when you are confronted with how illogical your statements are, you get all emo and change it up a bit and keep pushing that pile of shit around. i showed you where your definition didn't fit and what do you do? change it up.

this is why i said it can't be easily defined. you went out and tried and got shot out pretty damn quick. now you went from capacity to "military style" to targeting the AR cause it looks mean. yet you can't cite a single trait it has that other guns NOT the AR also share.

so keep replying to me. with every reply you prove me right and yourself wrong.

you can't define this to just a few weapons w/o taking out a vast majority of them. proven. next up you'll start getting more emo and telling me i want kids to die.

 

[iceberg]

great. so before we go changing things, how about some research instead of emo-grandstanding.

Did you know around half of US homicides were committed with handguns? I found that out by researching it.

how many laws do we have?
why are they not working?
what laws would you suggest that would have stopped any known mass shooting in the last decade?

The way you frame the question is par for the course. If an action won't stop shootings it's to be ridiculed. The idea that actions can reduce shootings is dismissed as nonsensical. When the experience of other countries is put forward the exceptional USA excuse is trotted out immediately. Fair enough, it's not my country, I just giggle at the loons.

The way to reduce the US firearm homicide and mass shooting rates is to severely limit the numbers of handguns and military style semi automatic rifles in circulation.

I understand you don't want to do that, rather you happily accept the current consequences. No worries.

Your theory.....to reduce gun crime we reduce the number of guns...

You just posted that, that is your theory.....

26 years, the opposite happened....More Americans went out, bought guns, own them and carry them....according to your theory, gun crime goes up.

That is your theory, not mine....

The actual result...

over that 26 years....

Gun Crime down 75%.

Gun murder down 49%

Violent Crime down 72%

So, again, your theory....more guns = more gun crime

actual experience....more guns .....gun murder, gun crime, violent crime went down 50%, 75%, 72%.

In science....when you propose a theory...you implement the theory, and the exact opposite of that theory happens. .......in Science that means your theory is wrong.

I've seen you mention this point a few times now. The variable that this doesn't account for is time. As time has passed in those 26 years, I assume the norms have changed or law enforcement has improved, or something culturally has happened to reduce those homicides. Now I'm sure you'll credit that to more guns = less crime, to which we'll just disagree.

But how about we try looking at something different? Let's try removing that time variable just to see what happens. I looked at gun ownership rates by state and gun-related homicides by state. There was a positive correlation of approximately 0.7, which would be considered a moderate to strong correlation. That is, generally speaking the more armed citizens there are, the more gun homicides there are.

I'm curious what your take on this is, because it goes directly against what you have been claiming. More guns = more death.

Here are the links that I used. I just did a little spreadsheet with the values.

Gun ownership by state
Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Your point has been brought up before. The theory by anti-gun activists is that regardless of those other factors......More Guns = More Gun crime. That is where they hang their hat.

So.....the point they miss, and I think you miss....is that over those 26 years.....whether or not normal people owning guns was a factor in reducing gun crime.....

More Guns in the hands of law abiding people did not increase the gun crime rates...

So over that 26 years.....more Americans own and actually carry guns....17.25 million Americans from about 4 million actually being able to legally carry guns.....and the gun crime rates went still went down.

So the core theory is wrong....More Guns did not = More gun crime.

Now, it is true that various factors made the murder rate go down, more police, smarter police tactics and so on.......but that isn't their argument or their point.......

Also, for one thing........if you are being attacked, and you use a gun to stop the attack....that crime didn't happen to you....

Then, I have actual research from various researchers who state that there is a correlation to decreases in interpersonal crime when more people own and carry guns...for example, there are more home invasions in Britain than here in the U.S....why? When researchers ask criminals in prison, they state they go into empty houses in the U.S. because they don't want to get shot. In Britain, the criminals don't care about people being home, because they don't have guns...and since they don't have guns, they can be tied up and questioned about where their belongings are...

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

oops on that argument.

 

[2aguy]

great. so before we go changing things, how about some research instead of emo-grandstanding.

Did you know around half of US homicides were committed with handguns? I found that out by researching it.

how many laws do we have?
why are they not working?
what laws would you suggest that would have stopped any known mass shooting in the last decade?

The way you frame the question is par for the course. If an action won't stop shootings it's to be ridiculed. The idea that actions can reduce shootings is dismissed as nonsensical. When the experience of other countries is put forward the exceptional USA excuse is trotted out immediately. Fair enough, it's not my country, I just giggle at the loons.

The way to reduce the US firearm homicide and mass shooting rates is to severely limit the numbers of handguns and military style semi automatic rifles in circulation.

I understand you don't want to do that, rather you happily accept the current consequences. No worries.

Your theory.....to reduce gun crime we reduce the number of guns...

You just posted that, that is your theory.....

26 years, the opposite happened....More Americans went out, bought guns, own them and carry them....according to your theory, gun crime goes up.

That is your theory, not mine....

The actual result...

over that 26 years....

Gun Crime down 75%.

Gun murder down 49%

Violent Crime down 72%

So, again, your theory....more guns = more gun crime

actual experience....more guns .....gun murder, gun crime, violent crime went down 50%, 75%, 72%.

In science....when you propose a theory...you implement the theory, and the exact opposite of that theory happens. .......in Science that means your theory is wrong.

I've seen you mention this point a few times now. The variable that this doesn't account for is time. As time has passed in those 26 years, I assume the norms have changed or law enforcement has improved, or something culturally has happened to reduce those homicides. Now I'm sure you'll credit that to more guns = less crime, to which we'll just disagree.

But how about we try looking at something different? Let's try removing that time variable just to see what happens. I looked at gun ownership rates by state and gun-related homicides by state. There was a positive correlation of approximately 0.7, which would be considered a moderate to strong correlation. That is, generally speaking the more armed citizens there are, the more gun homicides there are.

I'm curious what your take on this is, because it goes directly against what you have been claiming. More guns = more death.

Here are the links that I used. I just did a little spreadsheet with the values.

Gun ownership by state
Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Other researchers have done the same thing and found the opposite....and then you get into the chicken and egg problem.....

Are more people getting legal guns, which are different from criminals getting guns, because of the violent crime...or is gun ownership driving up the gun crime rate....

You have to think, that coming from your thought, that normal people having guns, means they are then using those guns for crime....which doesn't make any sense. Criminals drive the gun crime rate, not normal people.

Here are papers that show that concealed carry permits actually help reduce crime.....not by huge amounts, but they do lower the crime rate....interpersonal crimes...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

===============

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

=============

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract
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).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..



Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.

 

[pismoe]

no----if a person really wants to kill ------he will find a way------that's why they are called "criminals"

Absolutely. They'll attack you with a swimming pool. Imagine the drownings if the garlic shooter had used a swimming pool instead. Titanic!

---------------------------------------- the swimming pool is just an example and you know it . Death by cars , vehicles , swimming pools , guns , knives are just the way things sometimes go ME , i'm not crying about the vehicle deaths and drownings in swimming pool that will happen today . Some death just happens and I don't want to restrict FREEDOM in the USA to Stop those deaths CNM .

 

[2aguy]

great. so before we go changing things, how about some research instead of emo-grandstanding.

Did you know around half of US homicides were committed with handguns? I found that out by researching it.

how many laws do we have?
why are they not working?
what laws would you suggest that would have stopped any known mass shooting in the last decade?

The way you frame the question is par for the course. If an action won't stop shootings it's to be ridiculed. The idea that actions can reduce shootings is dismissed as nonsensical. When the experience of other countries is put forward the exceptional USA excuse is trotted out immediately. Fair enough, it's not my country, I just giggle at the loons.

The way to reduce the US firearm homicide and mass shooting rates is to severely limit the numbers of handguns and military style semi automatic rifles in circulation.

I understand you don't want to do that, rather you happily accept the current consequences. No worries.

Your theory.....to reduce gun crime we reduce the number of guns...

You just posted that, that is your theory.....

26 years, the opposite happened....More Americans went out, bought guns, own them and carry them....according to your theory, gun crime goes up.

That is your theory, not mine....

The actual result...

over that 26 years....

Gun Crime down 75%.

Gun murder down 49%

Violent Crime down 72%

So, again, your theory....more guns = more gun crime

actual experience....more guns .....gun murder, gun crime, violent crime went down 50%, 75%, 72%.

In science....when you propose a theory...you implement the theory, and the exact opposite of that theory happens. .......in Science that means your theory is wrong.

I've seen you mention this point a few times now. The variable that this doesn't account for is time. As time has passed in those 26 years, I assume the norms have changed or law enforcement has improved, or something culturally has happened to reduce those homicides. Now I'm sure you'll credit that to more guns = less crime, to which we'll just disagree.

But how about we try looking at something different? Let's try removing that time variable just to see what happens. I looked at gun ownership rates by state and gun-related homicides by state. There was a positive correlation of approximately 0.7, which would be considered a moderate to strong correlation. That is, generally speaking the more armed citizens there are, the more gun homicides there are.

I'm curious what your take on this is, because it goes directly against what you have been claiming. More guns = more death.

Here are the links that I used. I just did a little spreadsheet with the values.

Gun ownership by state
Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Your point has been brought up before. The theory by anti-gun activists is that regardless of those other factors......More Guns = More Gun crime. That is where they hang their hat.

So.....the point they miss, and I think you miss....is that over those 26 years.....whether or not normal people owning guns was a factor in reducing gun crime.....

More Guns in the hands of law abiding people did not increase the gun crime rates...

So over that 26 years.....more Americans own and actually carry guns....17.25 million Americans from about 4 million actually being able to legally carry guns.....and the gun crime rates went still went down.

So the core theory is wrong....More Guns did not = More gun crime.

Now, it is true that various factors made the murder rate go down, more police, smarter police tactics and so on.......but that isn't their argument or their point.......

Also, for one thing........if you are being attacked, and you use a gun to stop the attack....that crime didn't happen to you....

Then, I have actual research from various researchers who state that there is a correlation to decreases in interpersonal crime when more people own and carry guns...for example, there are more home invasions in Britain than here in the U.S....why? When researchers ask criminals in prison, they state they go into empty houses in the U.S. because they don't want to get shot. In Britain, the criminals don't care about people being home, because they don't have guns...and since they don't have guns, they can be tied up and questioned about where their belongings are...

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

oops on that argument.

I am grabbing that link...thanks...

 

[Defiant1]

now - limit AR15s to 15 round mags and we're cool, right? gun now equals good? something tells me you're about change up the definition AGAIN and AGAIN proving my point.

Because the AR15 can take large capacity removable mags it should be severely restricted, as should all the other military style semi auto rifles that can similarly take large capacity removable mags. And yes, mags greater than 10 rounds for the Ruger should be banned.

You want to ban boxes with springs in them?

 

[2aguy]

As for population..well yes..it is easier to enforce a law in a smaller population...just as a matter of logistics and expense.

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

And yet history and experience shows the exact opposite....the Germans registered guns in the 1920s.....for safety purposes....they had no intention of confiscating guns.....then the national socialists took over and used those registration lists to confiscate guns......that was in a period of about 15 years.....

Britain...registered guns and decades later, banned and confiscated them using the lists created by the registration.

Australia, dittos....

New York....registered long guns stating they were only doing it to know how had them....then they banned them, used the lists to know who had them .......

Canada...dittos....France, dittos....

Actual real world experience shows you are wrong...... and anti-gun extremists in the democrat party have made it clear they will ban whatever they want when they get the power to do it......

 

[pismoe]

yep , FREEDOM is much more important than SAFETY CNM !!

 

[2aguy]

As for population..well yes..it is easier to enforce a law in a smaller population...just as a matter of logistics and expense.

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

 

[2aguy]

Based on... what?

You do understand the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table - right?

Based on the experience of developed nations.

The Constitution has been amended before and can be again. There is not the will to do so as a sky high firearms homicide rate and regular mass shootings are considered to be an acceptable price to pay for easy access to handguns and assault style rifles.

The mechanism to do so is perfectly accessible as soon as the will is there.

You have no idea what you are talking about in any way shape or form. The countries you look at have a different cultural history than the U.S....they were devestated by 2 World Wars which set back their societal development for decades......While the Great Society was destroying minority families here, creating young males without fathers for decades....Europe was recovering from World War 2.....they are now catching up and their welfare states are creating the same violent environment we had going into the 1960s when violent crime spiked here in the U.S.....

You blame guns...it isn't guns...it is the culture of single teenage girls raising young children without fathers....you are now seeing this in Britain where there children are knifing each other all over the place.....that will turn into gun violence in the future...as the British police state they can't stop the flood of illegal guns into the country.

 

[2aguy]

Australia.....1st world country.

With a very low rate of firearms homicides and mass shootings. A fraction of that of the US.

They are behind us in the destruction of the family.....we had high gun ownership and low violence rates going into the 1960s....then the democrat party "Great Society" happened, and single teenage girls began to raise children without fathers.....which led to the spike in crime and violence that didn't end until the mid 1990s......Europe is now entering that phase...their welfare states have now created the same climate we had going into the 1960s.....as seen by their growing rates of violence among their young men.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

First...you keep saying Military style..

Military style you invincibly obtuse gun nut.

It isn't ....those rifles are not military weapons...and, by the way, military weapons are protected by the U.S. Constitution as explained in the Heller and Miller Decisions as well as the Caetano decisions at the Supreme Court.

What you are saying is that taking the engine out of a Honda Leaf....putting it in an army Humvee body , makes it a military engine......and that is just fucking stupid.

 

[2aguy]

now - limit AR15s to 15 round mags and we're cool, right? gun now equals good? something tells me you're about change up the definition AGAIN and AGAIN proving my point.

Because the AR15 can take large capacity removable mags it should be severely restricted, as should all the other military style semi auto rifles that can similarly take large capacity removable mags. And yes, mags greater than 10 rounds for the Ruger should be banned.

Magazines have no bearing on the deaths and injuries in a mass shooting....as you have been shown by the actual research....

Russian Polytenic Shooting....20 killed with a 5 shot shotgun.

The reason a mass shooter can kill a lot of people isn't the gun, it is the freedom to kill that they have in a gun free zone where no one can shoot back...you twit. As soon as someone can point a gun at them....they run away, surrender, or kill themselves.......the time difference allows the killing, not the magazine...you doofus.