More "freedom" going on - doesnt rate a mention

[Coyote]

For every murder that is stopped with a gun....many times that number are committed with a gun.

Yeah....no.....

On Average, Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent attack.....

criminals used guns to commit murder 11,004 times in 2016....and of those, 70-80% of the victims are other criminals.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

That table says nothing about using guns to stop homicides...in fact, this study in a recent article says differently.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

And you are wrong....again...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

S

You can’t possibly have read my source and put together this cut and paste in just two minutes. This an article looking at as many as 30 different studies...printed in October 2017.

They cite Kellerman at the beginning of the article.......

So what does the research say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In one, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and then collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

This Guy.......so no, that research is already crap........and I gave you actual, peer reviewed papers that say you are wrong...

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

From the article...

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

She could have easily killed them driving into a bridge abutment.

Ban cars and bridges.

She could have easily killed them driving into a bridge abutment.

Yet that is not the method she chose. That she chose to shoot them is about as clear an indicator of the root problem with gun possession: guns are simply too convenient a means for effecting fatal harm to others.

Then the question becomes how does one place greater restrictions on obtaining firearms that’s consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

I would love to see someone argue that mentally ill individuals be rightly due unfettered authorization to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Any such person should be laughed out of the public sphere, and maybe even committed to a mental facility solely on account of their advancing such a line of persuasion.

Mental illness is a quality of part of the state of being, namely the part called one's mind, in and with which one exists, not the result of one's having chosen to be mentally ill or mentally deficient. People may have the will to own a firearm and they may harbor the will to use it unlawfully. What people don't do is determine to achieve a state of mental infirmity or dysfunction of any measure.

 

[2aguy]

You can stop murder...with a gun...this British family didn't have a gun...and were murdered by a homeless man with a knife....

Chilling CCTV shows homeless killer lurking in family's garden before murders

Chilling CCTV shows a homeless man 'dressed as a ninja' crawling through a family's garden before launching a brutal knife attack that left a mum and her son dead.

The footage shows Aaron Barley lurking outside the home and emerging as dad Peter Wilkinson took the family's dog for a walk.

Hmmmm...this same scenario...but in the U.S....

Attacker with knife flees after woman reveals her concealed carry gun, police say

A woman in Illinois was reportedly able to protect herself with her concealed carry firearm after a stranger with a knife jumped into her car.

Police said a woman who was parked near a shopping mall in Moline on Sunday was attacked by a man who fought his way into her car, according to WQAD 8.

During the fight, the man reportedly slashed the woman’s arm with a knife. He then ordered the woman to drive to Rock Island County, a rural area, according to police.



Fatal Lawndale shooting ruled self-defense, woman not charged

A woman who shot a man after he stabbed her multiple times Thursday afternoon in Lawndale acted in self-defense and will not be charged, police said.


Deputies: Mass Stabbing Suspect Stopped When Fourth Target Pulled a Gun - Breitbart

Deputies say a suspect who allegedly stabbed three people in Seminole, Florida, stopped when a fourth individual pulled a gun on him.
The incident occurred Sunday afternoon in broad daylight.
According to The Patch, the incident began when witnesses alleged they saw 49-year-old Bobby Martin Watson trying to rob a woman in a Publix parking lot. Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office deputies indicate that the woman–44-year-old Rosanna Lynn–struggled with Watson and he stabbed her.
Watson then ran and a witness–44-year-old Christopher McMann–approached, only to get stabbed as well.
Deputies said a second good Samaritan–31-year-old Travis Jones–then chased and tackled Watson, only to be “stabbed in the abdomen during the struggle that ensued.” Forty-year-old Donald Rush saw what was happening, grabbed his gun from his vehicle and ran at Watson. He was able to take away the knife “and held [Watson] at gunpoint until deputies arrived.”
Rush did not have to fire his gun. The sight of the brandished firearm was enough to stop the attack.
Watson was booked into the Pinellas County jail. He faces charges of “armed robbery and three counts of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.”

For every murder that is stopped with a gun....many times that number are committed with a gun.

Yeah....no.....

On Average, Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent attack.....

criminals used guns to commit murder 11,004 times in 2016....and of those, 70-80% of the victims are other criminals.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

That table says nothing about using guns to stop homicides...in fact, this study in a recent article says differently.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

And you are wrong....again...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

S

You can’t possibly have read my source and put together this cut and paste in just two minutes. This an article looking at as many as 30 different studies...printed in October 2017.

They also cite Hemenway's "Research" and cite the use of the National Crime Victimization Survey....he uses the NCVS because it is the only research that has a low defensive gun use number.......because they never directly ask about defensive gun use, and gun isn't a word in the study...

So...your Scientific American article names two, rabid, anti gun researchers who have slanted their work against gun ownership.......thanks, but no thanks,

Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

 

[Coyote]

For every murder that is stopped with a gun....many times that number are committed with a gun.

Yeah....no.....

On Average, Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent attack.....

criminals used guns to commit murder 11,004 times in 2016....and of those, 70-80% of the victims are other criminals.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

That table says nothing about using guns to stop homicides...in fact, this study in a recent article says differently.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

And you are wrong....again...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

S

You can’t possibly have read my source and put together this cut and paste in just two minutes. This an article looking at as many as 30 different studies...printed in October 2017.

They also cite Hemenway's "Research" and cite the use of the National Crime Victimization Survey....he uses the NCVS because it is the only research that has a low defensive gun use number.......because they never directly ask about defensive gun use, and gun isn't a word in the study...

So...your Scientific American article names two, rabid, anti gun researchers who have slanted their work against gun ownership.......thanks, but no thanks,

Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

And your rabid pro gun sources...?

 

[2aguy]

Yeah....no.....

On Average, Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent attack.....

criminals used guns to commit murder 11,004 times in 2016....and of those, 70-80% of the victims are other criminals.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

That table says nothing about using guns to stop homicides...in fact, this study in a recent article says differently.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

And you are wrong....again...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

S

You can’t possibly have read my source and put together this cut and paste in just two minutes. This an article looking at as many as 30 different studies...printed in October 2017.

They cite Kellerman at the beginning of the article.......

So what does the research say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In one, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and then collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

This Guy.......so no, that research is already crap........and I gave you actual, peer reviewed papers that say you are wrong...

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

From the article...

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

Funny how they don't link to any of that research......

and they also cite donahue...another rabid anti gunner with a history of lying in his research...

The flawed and misleading Donohue, Aneja, & Weber Study claiming right-to-carry laws increase violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

The bottom line is pretty clear: Since permit holders commit virtually no crimes, right-to-carry laws can’t increase violent crime rates. You can’t get the 1.5 to 20 percent increases in violent crime rates that a few of their estimates claim with only thousandths of one percent of permit holders committing violent crimes. To put it differently, states would have to be miss reporting 99%+ of crimes committed by permit holders for their results to be possible.

And here....

Confirming More Guns. Less Crime | Instrumental Variable | Statistics

Abstract

Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annualreductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent 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 fromreduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.

Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results. Their own most generalizedspecification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-by-year basis shows large crimereducing benefits. Virtually none of their claims that their county level hybrid model impliesinitial significant increases in crime are correct. Overall, the vast majority of their estimatesbased on data up to 1997 actually demonstrate that right-to-carry laws produce substantial crimereducing benefits. We show that their models also do an extremely poor job of predicting thechanges in crime rates after 19

 

[2aguy]

Yeah....no.....

On Average, Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent attack.....

criminals used guns to commit murder 11,004 times in 2016....and of those, 70-80% of the victims are other criminals.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

That table says nothing about using guns to stop homicides...in fact, this study in a recent article says differently.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

And you are wrong....again...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

S

You can’t possibly have read my source and put together this cut and paste in just two minutes. This an article looking at as many as 30 different studies...printed in October 2017.

They also cite Hemenway's "Research" and cite the use of the National Crime Victimization Survey....he uses the NCVS because it is the only research that has a low defensive gun use number.......because they never directly ask about defensive gun use, and gun isn't a word in the study...

So...your Scientific American article names two, rabid, anti gun researchers who have slanted their work against gun ownership.......thanks, but no thanks,

Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

And your rabid pro gun sources...?

Nope.......clinton hired 2 rabid anti gunners...and got defensive gun use number of 1,500,000......obama put his Centers for Disease control on the case in 2013....spending 10 million dollars to do it...and got defensive gun use numbers 500.00- 3 million.......

Lott was an anti gunner before he started his research.

Gary Kleck was an anti gunner before he started his research.

Both have suffered for their research on gun control issues...

You don't know what you are talking about....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah....no.....

On Average, Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent attack.....

criminals used guns to commit murder 11,004 times in 2016....and of those, 70-80% of the victims are other criminals.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

That table says nothing about using guns to stop homicides...in fact, this study in a recent article says differently.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

And you are wrong....again...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

S

You can’t possibly have read my source and put together this cut and paste in just two minutes. This an article looking at as many as 30 different studies...printed in October 2017.

They also cite Hemenway's "Research" and cite the use of the National Crime Victimization Survey....he uses the NCVS because it is the only research that has a low defensive gun use number.......because they never directly ask about defensive gun use, and gun isn't a word in the study...

So...your Scientific American article names two, rabid, anti gun researchers who have slanted their work against gun ownership.......thanks, but no thanks,

Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

And your rabid pro gun sources...?

Here....some of the papers not protected by pay walls...

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..


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

 

[2aguy]

You lie.

Do you even know WHO is committing those murders and other gun crimes? How does violating their Second Amendment prevent a gun crime?

If you are going to accuse me of lying then disprove what I said.

What specific action is violating someone’s 2nd Amendment Rights?

California New York and Massachusetts have openly violated the Right to keep and Bear arms.....magazine bans, concealed carry bans, and may issue laws, as well as assault weapon bans.....licensing, registration, also violate the right...

None of that violates the right. No right is unrestricted.

Can they purchase a firearm?

Yes...it does....according to your logic, Poll Taxes and Literacy tests for voting...which democrats used against blacks, do not violate the Right to Vote, neither does censorship of books........

They can't buy magazines over 10 rounds, they can't buy civilian rifles, and they can't carry guns without permits which those states refuse to give out.....

Poll Taxes and Literacy tests violate the Right, even if blacks were still allowed to vote...

Poll taxes and literacy tests prevent people from voting.

Requiring registration does not disenfranchise anyone.

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either. It isn’t an unlimited right. You can still purchase many firearms. Conceal carry is not a right.

Thus far the only groups deprived of that right are felons and mentally ill...correct?

Only law abiding citizens are required to register guns....criminals, due to the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. United States are not required to register their illegal guns....which is a violation of the Constitution right there....

Gun registration leads to confiscation....we know the history.....Germany, Britain, Canada, Australia, California, New York, Hawaii....

Carrying a gun is a Right as explained in Heller...and California bars any form of carry with their may issue rules....

Any form of fee on owning or carrying a gun is unConstitutional...as ruled by the Supreme Court in Murdoch...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

[2aguy]

You lie.

Do you even know WHO is committing those murders and other gun crimes? How does violating their Second Amendment prevent a gun crime?

If you are going to accuse me of lying then disprove what I said.

What specific action is violating someone’s 2nd Amendment Rights?

California New York and Massachusetts have openly violated the Right to keep and Bear arms.....magazine bans, concealed carry bans, and may issue laws, as well as assault weapon bans.....licensing, registration, also violate the right...

None of that violates the right. No right is unrestricted.

Can they purchase a firearm?

Yes...it does....according to your logic, Poll Taxes and Literacy tests for voting...which democrats used against blacks, do not violate the Right to Vote, neither does censorship of books........

They can't buy magazines over 10 rounds, they can't buy civilian rifles, and they can't carry guns without permits which those states refuse to give out.....

Poll Taxes and Literacy tests violate the Right, even if blacks were still allowed to vote...

Poll taxes and literacy tests prevent people from voting.

Requiring registration does not disenfranchise anyone.

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either. It isn’t an unlimited right. You can still purchase many firearms. Conceal carry is not a right.

Thus far the only groups deprived of that right are felons and mentally ill...correct?

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either


We already have "reasonable restrictions" on the Right to bear arms...

1) you cannot use a gun to commit a crime.

2) you cannot be a felon or dangerously mentally ill and own a gun.

Those are the only 2 we need......allowing us to disarm dangerous people....

The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow Reasonable Limits as defined by those trying to suppress the Right......and we already know what is reasonable from the ruling in Heller....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------



We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

 

[2aguy]

You lie.

Do you even know WHO is committing those murders and other gun crimes? How does violating their Second Amendment prevent a gun crime?

If you are going to accuse me of lying then disprove what I said.

What specific action is violating someone’s 2nd Amendment Rights?

California New York and Massachusetts have openly violated the Right to keep and Bear arms.....magazine bans, concealed carry bans, and may issue laws, as well as assault weapon bans.....licensing, registration, also violate the right...

None of that violates the right. No right is unrestricted.

Can they purchase a firearm?

Yes...it does....according to your logic, Poll Taxes and Literacy tests for voting...which democrats used against blacks, do not violate the Right to Vote, neither does censorship of books........

They can't buy magazines over 10 rounds, they can't buy civilian rifles, and they can't carry guns without permits which those states refuse to give out.....

Poll Taxes and Literacy tests violate the Right, even if blacks were still allowed to vote...

Poll taxes and literacy tests prevent people from voting.

Requiring registration does not disenfranchise anyone.

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either. It isn’t an unlimited right. You can still purchase many firearms. Conceal carry is not a right.

Thus far the only groups deprived of that right are felons and mentally ill...correct?

Nothing supports your positions on the 2nd Amendment....not truth, facts or reality........the Supreme Court has ruled against you, and 41 years of research shows you are wrong.....

the fact....the fact....that as more Americans have purchased and now have permits to carry guns...and our gun crime rates have gone down, show you don't know what you are talking about...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

htt

 

[2aguy]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

She could have easily killed them driving into a bridge abutment.

Ban cars and bridges.

She could have easily killed them driving into a bridge abutment.

Yet that is not the method she chose. That she chose to shoot them is about as clear an indicator of the root problem with gun possession: guns are simply too convenient a means for effecting fatal harm to others.

Then the question becomes how does one place greater restrictions on obtaining firearms that’s consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

I would love to see someone argue that mentally ill individuals be rightly due unfettered authorization to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Any such person should be laughed out of the public sphere, and maybe even committed to a mental facility solely on account of their advancing such a line of persuasion.

Mental illness is a quality of part of the state of being, namely the part called one's mind, in and with which one exists, not the result of one's having chosen to be mentally ill or mentally deficient. People may have the will to own a firearm and they may harbor the will to use it unlawfully. What people don't do is determine to achieve a state of mental infirmity or dysfunction of any measure.

Tell that to the ACLU....laugh them and the other 23 mental health groups out of the public sphere...

Gun Control Laws Should Be Fair

But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.

The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular.

To the contrary, studies show that people with mental disabilities are less likely to commit firearm crimes than to be the victimsof violence by others.

--------------------------
The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns. Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

Flor De Maria Pineda Canas went into the psych ward at San Jacinto Methodist Hospital last year.

I wonder if she would have found another method had the gun not been available. Is it just possible?

Charlotte police: Mother kills two children, self in double murder-suicide

How about the one above? Or does it not count because it interferes with your "message".

While I realize that guns are an awesome political football, the common denominator in the vast majority of these shootings is mental illness. It isn't taken seriously in the US. It's damn sure not taken seriously in Texas.

Its shocking isnt it. You will never eliminate murder but you can make it less likely.

By disarming law abiding citizens?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

Freedom must be consistently acknowledged and protected in order for freedom to have any value or meaning.

The American Constitution is not a ‘cafeteria plan,’ one cannot pick and choose the rights he likes and ignore the rights he doesn’t like.

Conservatives in the United States are infamous for this: they oppose the states placing restrictions on firearms yet support states’ efforts to compel a woman to give birth against her will, or denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense; seeking to place an undue burden on the right to obtain a firearm violates the Second Amendment.

Just as those who oppose abortion must find a way to end the practice which comports with 14th Amendment jurisprudence and the right to privacy, so too must those wishing to end gun violence find the means to do so which is consistent with the Second Amendment.

The freedom Americans enjoy is the freedom to find real, actual solutions to problems that do not jeopardize the rights and protected liberties of the people – a freedom unique to our Constitutional Republic, and lacking in most democracies.

Im not an expert on the US constitution but wasnt there a reference to a "well regulated militia" ?
You dont hear much about these organisations.

Yes you do.

Our well regulated militia are those who are able bodied and armed.

You know... Those Veterans that are plentiful in the United States.

 

[monkrules]

In the photo you can see that the wuss holding the gun is in Heaven being able to act like a "tough" guy.

Much of the infatuation with gun ownership is probably driven by the fact that a gun can instantly make someone feel like a "man". It's far easier to go into a gun store and buy a pair of balls than to go out into the world unarmed and earn a pair, the way most men do. Guns seem to provide an imaginary feeling of manhood for dooshes like the guy in the photo.

Without the gun the wuss would quickly have his face rearranged, and he knows it. Not all people who own guns are cowards, but, in my experience, a great many of them are.

 

[Lastamender]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

She could have easily killed them driving into a bridge abutment.

Ban cars and bridges.

She could have easily killed them driving into a bridge abutment.

Yet that is not the method she chose. That she chose to shoot them is about as clear an indicator of the root problem with gun possession: guns are simply too convenient a means for effecting fatal harm to others.

Hitler figured that out too.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

Freedom must be consistently acknowledged and protected in order for freedom to have any value or meaning.

The American Constitution is not a ‘cafeteria plan,’ one cannot pick and choose the rights he likes and ignore the rights he doesn’t like.

Conservatives in the United States are infamous for this: they oppose the states placing restrictions on firearms yet support states’ efforts to compel a woman to give birth against her will, or denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense; seeking to place an undue burden on the right to obtain a firearm violates the Second Amendment.

Just as those who oppose abortion must find a way to end the practice which comports with 14th Amendment jurisprudence and the right to privacy, so too must those wishing to end gun violence find the means to do so which is consistent with the Second Amendment.

The freedom Americans enjoy is the freedom to find real, actual solutions to problems that do not jeopardize the rights and protected liberties of the people – a freedom unique to our Constitutional Republic, and lacking in most democracies.

Im not an expert on the US constitution but wasnt there a reference to a "well regulated militia" ?
You dont hear much about these organisations.

Yes you do.

Our well regulated militia are those who are able bodied and armed.

You know... Those Veterans that are plentiful in the United States.

Who regulates them ?

 

[Coyote]

That table says nothing about using guns to stop homicides...in fact, this study in a recent article says differently.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

And you are wrong....again...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

S

You can’t possibly have read my source and put together this cut and paste in just two minutes. This an article looking at as many as 30 different studies...printed in October 2017.

They cite Kellerman at the beginning of the article.......

So what does the research say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In one, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and then collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

This Guy.......so no, that research is already crap........and I gave you actual, peer reviewed papers that say you are wrong...

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

From the article...

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

Funny how they don't link to any of that research......

and they also cite donahue...another rabid anti gunner with a history of lying in his research...

The flawed and misleading Donohue, Aneja, & Weber Study claiming right-to-carry laws increase violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

The bottom line is pretty clear: Since permit holders commit virtually no crimes, right-to-carry laws can’t increase violent crime rates. You can’t get the 1.5 to 20 percent increases in violent crime rates that a few of their estimates claim with only thousandths of one percent of permit holders committing violent crimes. To put it differently, states would have to be miss reporting 99%+ of crimes committed by permit holders for their results to be possible.

And here....

Confirming More Guns. Less Crime | Instrumental Variable | Statistics

Abstract

Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annualreductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent 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 fromreduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.

Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results. Their own most generalizedspecification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-by-year basis shows large crimereducing benefits. Virtually none of their claims that their county level hybrid model impliesinitial significant increases in crime are correct. Overall, the vast majority of their estimatesbased on data up to 1997 actually demonstrate that right-to-carry laws produce substantial crimereducing benefits. We show that their models also do an extremely poor job of predicting thechanges in crime rates after 19

Well...since we're into bashing sources here, let's look at yours. John R. Lott, Jr. - a rabid pro-gunner with...hmmm....a history of making up research???

Disputed survey

In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999–2000,[67][68] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[68] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[69] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[70] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[71]

So what exactly makes his claims against Donahue credible?

The Scientific American article also notes another survey by Douglas Wiebe, in 2003 (U. Penn) that adjusted for the variables that were criticized in the Kellerman study, and confirmed the results.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Why would you agree to give up your right to self defense, because some idiot murders others?

Tommy is a Limey they happily gave up their right to own firearms awhile back if they even had it at all.

 

[Coyote]

If you are going to accuse me of lying then disprove what I said.

What specific action is violating someone’s 2nd Amendment Rights?

California New York and Massachusetts have openly violated the Right to keep and Bear arms.....magazine bans, concealed carry bans, and may issue laws, as well as assault weapon bans.....licensing, registration, also violate the right...

None of that violates the right. No right is unrestricted.

Can they purchase a firearm?

Yes...it does....according to your logic, Poll Taxes and Literacy tests for voting...which democrats used against blacks, do not violate the Right to Vote, neither does censorship of books........

They can't buy magazines over 10 rounds, they can't buy civilian rifles, and they can't carry guns without permits which those states refuse to give out.....

Poll Taxes and Literacy tests violate the Right, even if blacks were still allowed to vote...

Poll taxes and literacy tests prevent people from voting.

Requiring registration does not disenfranchise anyone.

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either. It isn’t an unlimited right. You can still purchase many firearms. Conceal carry is not a right.

Thus far the only groups deprived of that right are felons and mentally ill...correct?

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either


We already have "reasonable restrictions" on the Right to bear arms...

1) you cannot use a gun to commit a crime.

2) you cannot be a felon or dangerously mentally ill and own a gun.

Those are the only 2 we need......allowing us to disarm dangerous people....

Really....?

Are you going to sell guns in Toys R Us?

How about a suitcase nuke? (nukes are arms too)

A rocket launcher?

If we're going to be very literal, we should look at what were considered arms in the 1770's and stick with that.

 

[Coyote]

Nothing supports your positions on the 2nd Amendment....not truth, facts or reality........the Supreme Court has ruled against you, and 41 years of research shows you are wrong.....

the fact....the fact....that as more Americans have purchased and now have permits to carry guns...and our gun crime rates have gone down, show you don't know what you are talking about...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

htt

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​