Virginia - This Is Only The Beginning

[bigrebnc1775]

View attachment 295329

View attachment 295330

Do you actually think that the entire population of these "sanctuary counties" supports these gangs? The people forming these gangs are not in any position to interpret the Constitution. I doubt that any of these people could stand up and make a serious constitutional argument.

If I've got a question about the Constitution, should I flag down the nearest patrol car and ask the officer in it? Or perhaps go to a local school and find a teacher?

When the Virginia House and Senate have had republican majorities, were we not expected to obey their laws? If gillespie and his republican thugs had won, would you have expected us to obey them?

I guess you think that those in republican controlled states need not acknowledge and obey anything the legislature says. All of us, of whatever demographic group, will bear that in mind.

a lot of words salad to say you think nobody understands the Constitution other than lawmakers. who actually do not understand the Constitution

You don't understand what it takes to make a legal argument based on precedent, do you? Try writing a brief, with footnotes. From your comment, I take it that you think that lawmakers in republican-controlled states don't understand the Constitution. I probably would agree with you there. Lawyers, rather than lawmakers, study to understand the Constitution. If I want an answer to a question about the Constitution, I'll turn to an expert, somebody like Laurence Tribe.

Same goes for other issues. For example, if I need an answer to a medical question, I'll go to the organizations of medical professions. If I need an answer to a question about structural engineering, I'll turn to societies of professional engineers.

You seem to want a society that is operated by some beer-drinkers sitting in the back of Charlie's garage somewhere who have no background in anything.

The US Constitution was written so all could understand not so the political elite could create laws for us and different ones for them. You're full of shit to think otherwise

 

[Blues Man]

The democrat party. Everytown for gun safety. Mom's Demand Action. The Violence Policy Center......Gifford's group....

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

Then we should make everyone pay for training and a permit for every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Want cops to obtain a search warrant? GEt a permit for your 4th amendment rights

Want to vote? Take a class and get a permit.

So I'll put you in the column of 'not interested in reducing gun violence'. I guess not *all* want to end gun violence.

I'm pretty sure fewer than 40,000 people a year die from voting.

Gun violence is not a problem with 99.99% of gun owners.

If you want to reduce gun violence then advocate for something that actually target criminals.

And Suicides die from committing suicide not from gun violence.

You want to know what really works to reduce gun crimes?

It's been done before

Virginia Project Exile

Program Goals
Project Exile was a crime reduction strategy launched in 1997 in Virginia, by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as a result of the spike in violent crime rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During these years, Richmond, Virginia consistently ranked among the top 10 U.S. cities in homicides per capita. Specifically, in 1994, Richmond was ranked 2nd for homicides per capita, with a homicide rate of 80 per 100,000 residents. Overall, the goal of the project was to deter felons from carrying firearms and decrease firearm-related homicides through both sentence enhancements for firearm-related offenses and incapacitating violent felons (Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer 2005).

Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile
Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

When laws that target criminals are enforced and prosecuted crime rates drop

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 295329

View attachment 295330

Do you actually think that the entire population of these "sanctuary counties" supports these gangs? The people forming these gangs are not in any position to interpret the Constitution. I doubt that any of these people could stand up and make a serious constitutional argument.

If I've got a question about the Constitution, should I flag down the nearest patrol car and ask the officer in it? Or perhaps go to a local school and find a teacher?

When the Virginia House and Senate have had republican majorities, were we not expected to obey their laws? If gillespie and his republican thugs had won, would you have expected us to obey them?

I guess you think that those in republican controlled states need not acknowledge and obey anything the legislature says. All of us, of whatever demographic group, will bear that in mind.

do you actually think they will roll over and say "hey, take my guns and take my rights. we trust you to take care of us"?

you are one of the massive idiots i was referring to in my post above. you want to trivialize the issue and insult those protecting their rights as if they're hicks or "gangs" (btw, never saw you refer to anti-fa as a gang. how...like you).

if you have a question on the constitution ask ted cruze. you may not like him (pretty sure you don't and will laugh and giggle and insult) - while i'm not really a huge cruze fan, the man does know the constitution better than anyone else i've seen talk about it. why in the WORLD would i go ask a teacher when these days you'll get the liberal brainwashing bullshit answer in many cases. certainly not fair to all teachers but the profession itself does come across as pushing liberal agendas, not letting kids figure things out for themselves and just teaching them how.

i guess you think whatever you FEELZ the rest of us should hush and comply and obey all you say we should.

we will bear that in mind as well.

Cruze has argued and won cases before the Supreme Court.....

 

[2aguy]

The democrat party. Everytown for gun safety. Mom's Demand Action. The Violence Policy Center......Gifford's group....

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

Yes...they do.....it you think they don't you are really stupid.

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 295329

View attachment 295330

Do you actually think that the entire population of these "sanctuary counties" supports these gangs? The people forming these gangs are not in any position to interpret the Constitution. I doubt that any of these people could stand up and make a serious constitutional argument.

If I've got a question about the Constitution, should I flag down the nearest patrol car and ask the officer in it? Or perhaps go to a local school and find a teacher?

When the Virginia House and Senate have had republican majorities, were we not expected to obey their laws? If gillespie and his republican thugs had won, would you have expected us to obey them?

I guess you think that those in republican controlled states need not acknowledge and obey anything the legislature says. All of us, of whatever demographic group, will bear that in mind.

a lot of words salad to say you think nobody understands the Constitution other than lawmakers. who actually do not understand the Constitution

You don't understand what it takes to make a legal argument based on precedent, do you? Try writing a brief, with footnotes. From your comment, I take it that you think that lawmakers in republican-controlled states don't understand the Constitution. I probably would agree with you there. Lawyers, rather than lawmakers, study to understand the Constitution. If I want an answer to a question about the Constitution, I'll turn to an expert, somebody like Laurence Tribe.

Same goes for other issues. For example, if I need an answer to a medical question, I'll go to the organizations of medical professions. If I need an answer to a question about structural engineering, I'll turn to societies of professional engineers.

You seem to want a society that is operated by some beer-drinkers sitting in the back of Charlie's garage somewhere who have no background in anything.

The democrat party. Everytown for gun safety. Mom's Demand Action. The Violence Policy Center......Gifford's group....

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

Bullshit. Like “stay out of our bedrooms” never became letting old men into bathrooms with little girls in just a few short years.

There has NEVER been any Leftard who has drawn a line on gun grabbing.

And allowing parents to use hormone blocking chemicals against their young children....

 

[2aguy]

The comments are the most interesting part. I believe Northam and friends truly do not realize what they will awaken.

Dems deliver how-to lesson in 'quid pro quo' ... on guns - WND

I'm a supporter of gun control AND civil liberty. I think a compromise is very possible, here's what I'd propose:

1. The sanctuary counties can enact whatever rules they want, inside the borders of that county.
   
2. The sanctuary counties will NOT interfere with or undermine other Virginia counties' gun control measures.

In practice the sanctuary counties can have open carry, no registration, bump stocks, etc., within their counties even if they violate state rules. They'd have to comply with state gun sales regulations for non-county citizens. Any county gun owner must comply with all state and local county regulations when they take their firearms out of their sanctuary counties. Any county gun owner who moves from their sanctuary counties to another VA county must bring their firearms into compliance with their new county rule.

In summary, you can do what you want in your county so long as you do what I want in my county.

the problem is i don't see the left *wanting* a compromise. they've demonized guns and their owners for so long they likely feel their way or the highway. writing bills that simply more or less ban semi-automatic guns period isn't going to fly.

but it does fall in line with almost every single gun debate i've been involved in with people who don't understand guns.

AR15S ARE ASSAULT RIFLES!
can you define why
THEY FIRE REALLY FAST
all semi-automatic guns fire as fast as you can pull the trigger
BUT THESE ARE AUTOMATIC
no. you need the feds up your hineyhole to get a license for that and you can't buy those in the store like you can an AR15 or other rifles
BUT THEY LOOK LIKE THE M16
and? a VW can look like a Porsche but it ain't

now let me ask you - what makes the AR different from a .22 rifle, outside the size of the bullet?

when they finally realize they can't name a single trait of the AR15 that isn't shared with many other guns and there simply isn't a good way to differentiate the AR by law other than to just start banning them by name cause you hate them, they *do* to a T resort to simply banning semi-automatic rifles cause they all fire fast.

then their head explode as i play a video of a man shooting a 6 shooter revolver, 12 rounds in like 3 seconds.

so they don't want a compromise. they want them gone as if that will fix our violence issues.

re: "the problem is i don't see the left *wanting* a compromise"

Well I don't see the other side wanting a compromise: Dickey Amendment

The Dickey Amendment....? Do you even understand what that was? Obviously not.

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 295329

View attachment 295330

Do you actually think that the entire population of these "sanctuary counties" supports these gangs? The people forming these gangs are not in any position to interpret the Constitution. I doubt that any of these people could stand up and make a serious constitutional argument.

If I've got a question about the Constitution, should I flag down the nearest patrol car and ask the officer in it? Or perhaps go to a local school and find a teacher?

When the Virginia House and Senate have had republican majorities, were we not expected to obey their laws? If gillespie and his republican thugs had won, would you have expected us to obey them?

I guess you think that those in republican controlled states need not acknowledge and obey anything the legislature says. All of us, of whatever demographic group, will bear that in mind.

a lot of words salad to say you think nobody understands the Constitution other than lawmakers. who actually do not understand the Constitution

You don't understand what it takes to make a legal argument based on precedent, do you? Try writing a brief, with footnotes. From your comment, I take it that you think that lawmakers in republican-controlled states don't understand the Constitution. I probably would agree with you there. Lawyers, rather than lawmakers, study to understand the Constitution. If I want an answer to a question about the Constitution, I'll turn to an expert, somebody like Laurence Tribe.

Same goes for other issues. For example, if I need an answer to a medical question, I'll go to the organizations of medical professions. If I need an answer to a question about structural engineering, I'll turn to societies of professional engineers.

You seem to want a society that is operated by some beer-drinkers sitting in the back of Charlie's garage somewhere who have no background in anything.

did you not watch the video of the lady who co-sponsored a bill on mag capacity and has zero idea how they work?

you need a big cup of shut the fuck up this morning.

She knows enough about the results, mass murder in an instant, and that these weapons have no peaceful use in U.S. society, or in any society for that matter. This doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Except for self defense.......

Bicycles kill more people every single year than the 18 million AR-15s in private hands do you doofus......do you want to ban bicycles?

Deaths by AR-15s in 2018 mass public shootings? 33. ( 18 million AR-15s in private hands....)

Deaths by bicycle? 345.

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 295329

View attachment 295330

Do you actually think that the entire population of these "sanctuary counties" supports these gangs? The people forming these gangs are not in any position to interpret the Constitution. I doubt that any of these people could stand up and make a serious constitutional argument.

If I've got a question about the Constitution, should I flag down the nearest patrol car and ask the officer in it? Or perhaps go to a local school and find a teacher?

When the Virginia House and Senate have had republican majorities, were we not expected to obey their laws? If gillespie and his republican thugs had won, would you have expected us to obey them?

I guess you think that those in republican controlled states need not acknowledge and obey anything the legislature says. All of us, of whatever demographic group, will bear that in mind.

a lot of words salad to say you think nobody understands the Constitution other than lawmakers. who actually do not understand the Constitution

You don't understand what it takes to make a legal argument based on precedent, do you? Try writing a brief, with footnotes. From your comment, I take it that you think that lawmakers in republican-controlled states don't understand the Constitution. I probably would agree with you there. Lawyers, rather than lawmakers, study to understand the Constitution. If I want an answer to a question about the Constitution, I'll turn to an expert, somebody like Laurence Tribe.

Same goes for other issues. For example, if I need an answer to a medical question, I'll go to the organizations of medical professions. If I need an answer to a question about structural engineering, I'll turn to societies of professional engineers.

You seem to want a society that is operated by some beer-drinkers sitting in the back of Charlie's garage somewhere who have no background in anything.

did you not watch the video of the lady who co-sponsored a bill on mag capacity and has zero idea how they work?

you need a big cup of shut the fuck up this morning.

She knows enough about the results, mass murder in an instant, and that these weapons have no peaceful use in U.S. society, or in any society for that matter. This doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Mass shootings with weapons...

Gilroy..... AR-15 with magazine...3

Navy Yard shooting with 5 shot, pump action shotgun...12

Russian polytechnic shooting....5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun....20 killed 40 injured...

She doesn't know what she is talking about...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

 

[Weatherman2020]

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

still gotta come back to your proposal of letting counties dictate their own laws and not messing with other counties. it amazes me you don't see what is obvious to me so let me ask -

county a - allows guns. they go "whole hog" and allow fully automatic gun sales. they don't want to use background checks or follow federal laws.

county b - no guns at all. period.

is this what you're suggesting "could" be a compromise? i am NOT saying this IS what you're saying, i'm trying to get the boundaries of that post and how you would see it playing out.

Not accurate. No VA county can violate Federal law. Period.

better example:

county a - no age limit on owning guns
county b - you have to be 21 to own a gun

county a gun dealers can't sell guns to residents of county b that are under 21

This isn’t about Federal law. Trump isn’t grabbing our guns.

doesn't seem he was talking about federal law. seems he was talking about local restrictions. so far he's not mentioned trump in all this.

“No VA county can violate Federal law. Period.”

why doesn’t it seem he’s not talking about Federal law?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Seeing a lot of green. Democrats have awakened a sleeping tiger.

View attachment 295358

http://gunrightswatch.com/news/2019...ojFX_5LIafZqOIvrt3YW-OAPTxOuBNe82pAxEG1BUlPmY

the right can be pretty apathetic at times and the left can be overbearing, at times.

we seem to be coming to a head where the overbearing went too far and woke up the right who's saying ENOUGH.

where we go from here isn't likely to be pretty.

Bull. The Left are trying to take away something we’ve had since our nation was Founded.

 

[2aguy]

The democrat party. Everytown for gun safety. Mom's Demand Action. The Violence Policy Center......Gifford's group....

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

The missouri lie? Again?

Comment on Webster Et Al. (2014) Study of the Impact of the Repeal of Missouri's Handgun Permit Law on Homicide by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Abstract
Daniel Webster and his colleagues (2014) tried to estimate the effect of Missouri (MO) repealing its handgun permit-to-purchase (PTP) law in 2007, using an unsuitable research design, misspecified statistical models, and a biased sample of states.

They also examined simple trends in homicide rates in MO and in comparison states. They concluded that the repeal caused an immediate (and astounding) increase of 25% in the firearm homicide rate. They attributed this result at least partially to increased “illegal gun diversion” (a term they never defined). Their results cannot be relied upon to indicate whether the repeal actually caused any homicide increase, or increased movement of guns into criminals’ possession. This comment explains why.

-----Webster et al. Failed to Establish Any a Priori Plausibility for the Hypothesis Before reviewing the flaws in Webster et al.’s empirical work, it is worth considering the a priori plausibility of the claim that repealing MO’s PTP could cause a 25% increase in firearm homicide, as Webster et al. hint. They seriously suggest that a single trivial change in the details of MO gun law could, all by itself, cause a 25% increase in gun homicide. The authors use purely associational language in describing their results (e.g., the repeal was “associated with” a 25% increase in firearm homicide), but read in context, the implied meaning of a causal effect is unmistakable. Here is why the revision was trivial.

Repealing the PTP law did not eliminate background checks on firearms; all gun transfers by licensed gun dealers continued to be subject to a background check.


Webster et al. argue that the key change produced by repeal of the PTP law was that it “eliminated mandatory background checks for handguns sold by unlicensed sellers.” Whether this change was likely to be consequential, however, depends entirely on how often background checks on private transfers were performed before the PTP repeal, and how many blocked a gun transfer.

If very few or no such transfers were blocked before the repeal, there is no reason to expect that getting rid of them would have a measurable effect on criminal gun possession, and thus on homicide.

Webster et al. did not cite a single scrap of evidence that any private gun transfers were blocked under the old PTP system, and show no signs that it even occurred to them that it was important for them to do so. As far as readers can tell, no nondealer transfers of handguns to criminals had been blocked before the PTP repeal, so there is no

 

[iceberg]

Seeing a lot of green. Democrats have awakened a sleeping tiger.

View attachment 295358

http://gunrightswatch.com/news/2019...ojFX_5LIafZqOIvrt3YW-OAPTxOuBNe82pAxEG1BUlPmY

the right can be pretty apathetic at times and the left can be overbearing, at times.

we seem to be coming to a head where the overbearing went too far and woke up the right who's saying ENOUGH.

where we go from here isn't likely to be pretty.

Bull. The Left are trying to take away something we’ve had since our nation was Founded.

and i've said as much in regard to guns quite often. not sure your attack vector here but dont' really care.

 

[2aguy]

The democrat party. Everytown for gun safety. Mom's Demand Action. The Violence Policy Center......Gifford's group....

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

Then we should make everyone pay for training and a permit for every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Want cops to obtain a search warrant? GEt a permit for your 4th amendment rights

Want to vote? Take a class and get a permit.

So I'll put you in the column of 'not interested in reducing gun violence'. I guess not *all* want to end gun violence.

I'm pretty sure fewer than 40,000 people a year die from voting.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop violent criminal attack.....you doofus.......

And again....

Over the last 26 years, 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 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...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.


The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

 

[rightwinger]

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

Then we should make everyone pay for training and a permit for every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Want cops to obtain a search warrant? GEt a permit for your 4th amendment rights

Want to vote? Take a class and get a permit.

So I'll put you in the column of 'not interested in reducing gun violence'. I guess not *all* want to end gun violence.

I'm pretty sure fewer than 40,000 people a year die from voting.

Gun violence is not a problem with 99.99% of gun owners.

If you want to reduce gun violence then advocate for something that actually target criminals.

And Suicides die from committing suicide not from gun violence.

You want to know what really works to reduce gun crimes?

It's been done before

Virginia Project Exile

Program Goals
Project Exile was a crime reduction strategy launched in 1997 in Virginia, by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as a result of the spike in violent crime rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During these years, Richmond, Virginia consistently ranked among the top 10 U.S. cities in homicides per capita. Specifically, in 1994, Richmond was ranked 2nd for homicides per capita, with a homicide rate of 80 per 100,000 residents. Overall, the goal of the project was to deter felons from carrying firearms and decrease firearm-related homicides through both sentence enhancements for firearm-related offenses and incapacitating violent felons (Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer 2005).

Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile
Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

When laws that target criminals are enforced and prosecuted crime rates drop

Most of that 99.99 percent of gun owners will not be affected by comprehensive background checks and a ban on large capacity magazines

 

[Lysistrata]

Now problems have arisen as to whom this government is representing. The orange whore and pigpence and the rest of the republicans are not representing the rest of us. Should we all get this weaponry now and form militias to protect our communities from them?

ABSOLUTELY!!!! Yes, you should!!!

Were you expecting a different response?

.

Those of us who are decent, ethical, patriotic, non-violent Americans do not want to go this route. I don't know how to proceed against these filthy thugs who have no regard for anything.

well since you have no regard for their rights, this is what they do. in effect, you're being the very person you hate.

that would explain quite a bit actually.

They are the ones who have no regard for anyone else's rights.

I grew up in NJ with guns in the house. We shot them. Rifle, pistols. But this did not extend to weapons of war, and everyone was responsible and respectful of their neighbors. Now we are facing people who not only want to own war weapons, but also make statements that indicate aggression toward their fellow citizens and that raise the specter of vigilantism and attacks on Americans who are not like them, and we have modern history of the misuse of these weapons that has resulted in mass casualties of innocent people.

I am reminded of that awful video a few years ago of some rogue police chief in Pennsylvania shooting a rapid-fire weapon into the air while screaming something about "they!" "they!" Who did he mean by "they"? What "they" would attack the middle of Pennsylvania? Canadians? North Koreans?

 

[alang1216]

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

Yes...they do.....it you think they don't you are really stupid.

So I should ignore what they say about themselves and listen to you say about them instead? Sorry, I'm not that stupid.

Maybe you should be in the conspiracy room?

 

[Blues Man]

we *all* want to end gun violence but like you're not going to fix drunk driving by banning cars, you won't cure violence by banning guns.

now - why don't you prop up some "common sense" gun laws and show me YOUR version of it? that would at least give us a baseline.

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

link

Then we should make everyone pay for training and a permit for every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Want cops to obtain a search warrant? GEt a permit for your 4th amendment rights

Want to vote? Take a class and get a permit.

So I'll put you in the column of 'not interested in reducing gun violence'. I guess not *all* want to end gun violence.

I'm pretty sure fewer than 40,000 people a year die from voting.

Gun violence is not a problem with 99.99% of gun owners.

If you want to reduce gun violence then advocate for something that actually target criminals.

And Suicides die from committing suicide not from gun violence.

You want to know what really works to reduce gun crimes?

It's been done before

Virginia Project Exile

Program Goals
Project Exile was a crime reduction strategy launched in 1997 in Virginia, by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as a result of the spike in violent crime rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During these years, Richmond, Virginia consistently ranked among the top 10 U.S. cities in homicides per capita. Specifically, in 1994, Richmond was ranked 2nd for homicides per capita, with a homicide rate of 80 per 100,000 residents. Overall, the goal of the project was to deter felons from carrying firearms and decrease firearm-related homicides through both sentence enhancements for firearm-related offenses and incapacitating violent felons (Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer 2005).

Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile
Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

When laws that target criminals are enforced and prosecuted crime rates drop

Most of that 99.99 percent of gun owners will not be affected by comprehensive background checks and a ban on large capacity magazines

Why should the 99.99% of gun owners who will never commit any crime never mind murder be told they can't have a certain rifle or a certain magazine?

It does not matter what a person owns it only matters what the person does with what he owns.

So if you want to reduce gun violence then do something that targets the criminals.

We've done it before with excellent results.

 

[2aguy]

Except not one of those groups want to ban all guns from private citizens. They all want to end gun violence and advocate for common sense gun laws. Are you in favor of gun violence and against common sense?

Yes...they do.....it you think they don't you are really stupid.

So I should ignore what they say about themselves and listen to you say about them instead? Sorry, I'm not that stupid.

Maybe you should be in the conspiracy room?

You really are stupid then. They want to ban all guns, and will slowly try to get them one gun, one bullet, one magazine at a time....

 

[2aguy]

Now problems have arisen as to whom this government is representing. The orange whore and pigpence and the rest of the republicans are not representing the rest of us. Should we all get this weaponry now and form militias to protect our communities from them?

ABSOLUTELY!!!! Yes, you should!!!

Were you expecting a different response?

.

Those of us who are decent, ethical, patriotic, non-violent Americans do not want to go this route. I don't know how to proceed against these filthy thugs who have no regard for anything.

well since you have no regard for their rights, this is what they do. in effect, you're being the very person you hate.

that would explain quite a bit actually.

They are the ones who have no regard for anyone else's rights.

I grew up in NJ with guns in the house. We shot them. Rifle, pistols. But this did not extend to weapons of war, and everyone was responsible and respectful of their neighbors. Now we are facing people who not only want to own war weapons, but also make statements that indicate aggression toward their fellow citizens and that raise the specter of vigilantism and attacks on Americans who are not like them, and we have modern history of the misuse of these weapons that has resulted in mass casualties of innocent people.

I am reminded of that awful video a few years ago of some rogue police chief in Pennsylvania shooting a rapid-fire weapon into the air while screaming something about "they!" "they!" Who did he mean by "they"? What "they" would attack the middle of Pennsylvania? Canadians? North Koreans?

The bolt action, deer hunting rifle is an actual weapon of war in use by all Branches of the U.S. military as a sniper rifle.

The 5 shot, pump action shotgun is in current use by the U.S. military in all Branches.

The AR-15 is not used by any branch of the U.S. military.....

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

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Now problems have arisen as to whom this government is representing. The orange whore and pigpence and the rest of the republicans are not representing the rest of us. Should we all get this weaponry now and form militias to protect our communities from them?

ABSOLUTELY!!!! Yes, you should!!!

Were you expecting a different response?

.

Those of us who are decent, ethical, patriotic, non-violent Americans do not want to go this route. I don't know how to proceed against these filthy thugs who have no regard for anything.

If, by "filthy thugs" you mean politicians and government hacks, you can proceed by arming up and being prepared. Mere preparedness is enough 99.99% of the time, when it comes to keeping tyranny in check (and yes, that goes for anybody in public office or government, including Orange Man).

But, I must know---are you suggesting that people who are forming militias to protect their communities are NOT decent, ethical, patriotic, non-violent Americans?


.