This study is BS. note “It is important to note that our study was ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship,” the authors comment” I love these Jama guys, no relevent statistc or matrix, just believe what they Jama says.
The study is not BS. It was conducted by people who value scientific reasoning and who are working on a not-unlimited budget. Conclusions drawn from the study may or may not be BS. That is an entirely different issue, and is why they put the comments in about methodologies. Since you are so ‘anti-JAMA’, I can only assume that when you get ill you visit your priest or local conservative politicians to find treatment. No reasoned debate about this issue ever concludes with the affirmation that more guns = less killing. Are there point statistics that support this conclusion? Yes, but reasoned debate shows that they are outliers. For example, the ‘Chicago’ argument ignores the fact that Chicago borders the state of Indiana, with very lax gun control laws, which virtually eliminates the ‘limiting access’ effect of gun control, leaving only the ‘punishment’ aspect of those laws in place, and we all agree that gun control based upon punishment alone does not work. The real problem is that no one (absolutely no one) on the pro-gun side ever wants reasoned debate. If you try to move the discussion in that direction they always end the debate by screaming about freedom and the second amendment. Their arguments are ‘faith-based’ (not religion, but faith) which means that in their minds there are inviolable laws which can not be questioned upon which the debate hinges. These types of arguments can never be concluded with reasoned debate.
DougW–NIce try but we’re not buying. The pro-gun side never wants reasoned debate? Yeah right…maybe that’s because after every shooting by an individual nutjob, those who are anti-gun (these are elected officials) call NRA members Nazis, accuse us of supporting the killing of children, etc.
Sorry, studies showing guns reduce crime are not outliers. Any study showing to the contrary are typically emotion-based (the faith you mention is faith in criminals not to get guns), and can’t be duplicated with study (i.e., it’s not science).
When we bring up that Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, and other cities controlled by liberals that are anti-gun have terrible crime stats, we receive a gnashing of teeth blaming all that “freedom” in other states for letting guns be brought into their lovely cities.
Drop your sanctimonious position that you, and only you and those like you, want reasoned debate. Anti-gun people are pathetic. There are thousands of gun laws on the books that liberal prosecutors and soft judges routinely waive/ignore at sentencing. Try enforcing current laws before punishing the innocent and then you’ll have more credibility (not to mention positive results in reducing crime).
Comrade: Well, no one knows if you’re paying a compliment or if that is an insult. Given LaPierre has given the only fresh ideas in this entire conversation (and took a week off to grieve before pouncing like the liberals to be the first to a microphone), I’ll take it as a compliment (even though you likely didn’t mean it that way).
March 7, 2013 at 9:28 am
Courtney says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The ‘study’ is just another liberal smear campaign. It is based on feelings, not facts. Most gun crime is by gang members in big cities. Mexico has the world’s strictest gun controls, yet is one of the most violent countries.
This study offers little relevance because it includes two population segments where one dilutes the results from the other. It would be like comparing skin cancer rates and saying that Florida has a higher rate than Maine – of course it does, there are exponentially more people who are exposed to the sun in FL. Or comparing car accident fatalities between New York and Rhode Island – there will be more fatalities in NY because there are more drivers. Furthermore, evaluation of the impact of laws only accounts for law-abiding citizens. Criminals who disregard the law are included in these results but would not be impacted by the laws of their state.
Pathetic article. The use of the word “may” should be avoided. This also means “may not” so read that entire article that gun laws (does that mean “pro gun laws as well?) may NOT indicate a darn thing when it comes to this lame story.
sure, it may be true… i guess it statically makes sense that the more you regulate something the more you can attempt to control its results. But of course that leaves out the fact that there could be a gazillon other things that result in lower gun crime.
Who said anything about lower crime? This article specifically DOESN’T say that. That in itself should indicate the intended bias that they want you to buy into.
Of course if you limit the access to guns fewer people are going to commit suicide with them. Now, all you need to do is eliminate high-rise buildings and bridges and suicides from those will dramatically decrease as well.
Some of the information they used was obtained from the Brady group. No bias there. When you already know what you want your study to say and then build your case towards that you lose all credibility. I can take a poll from like minded people and get results I want too. I asked 1000 people what they thought and that somehow translates to what 300 million believe?
Typical lies from the left. Twist the numbers to “FORWARD” your agenda. Come and take mine! Do ya feel lucky punk? That was my best dirty Harry for you young whiper snapers.
AJ, I like – “Go ahead, make my day”. I love those movies and will still watch them when they come on the tube. Eastwood’s popularity is tied to triumph of good over evil. This is appealing to most of us except for the girly guy’s on the left.
I love Clint Eastwood films. “Pale Rider” and “Unforgiven” might be my favorites. Really, outside of “Bridges of Madison County”, I don’t think there is an Eastwood film I don’t enjoy.
Haven’t seen it yet but it is in my Netflix queue. He’s a great actor and director. I was just watching “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot” yesterday. Funny to see Jeff Bridges so young, too. Looks very little like The Dude. Jeff Bridges is also very talented.
March 7, 2013 at 1:38 pm
CT resident says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
This is bunch of nonsense. Connecticut has some of the most strident gun control laws in the country and we just we just had our first major disaster involving guns. Unfortunately the man that committed the atrocity was mentally deranged. Thats the issue. Not the guns. Of course then we have a govenor who lets criminals out of jail early and then they commit a murder with a gun as soon as their out…..
I hear you, this bias is almost as bad as Fox News. Boil ’em down and you can’t trust either. Just like Public Enemy says, “Can’t trust it…oh no, no, no!”
Though, what cannot be denied is the correlation between the gun violence in Japan and Australia, for example, and their regulation of firearms. Things that make you go hmmm. And, now I have 2 hip hop references in the same post. Word.
Check the facts, and the methodology. Fox news reports on areas no other station even covers.
Such as the hiring of a goldman sach’s mand the the treasury, and then the treasury hired Goldman Sach’s. It happened. Fox news is about the only agency that reported on it.
Fox news on the $700 some billion cuts from medicare reimbursements: The only honest station out there.
Paul Ryan and Romney were not advocating the “same” cuts. They were being distinctly different in where the cuts were made and how. Taking them away from medical reimbursements lowers the quality of care.
Every liberal station actually managed to lie and hide the huge cut to medicare. Fox News is the only credible source out there when it comes to many lines of information. And it can be checked on it’s facts against MSNBC on the facts that lead to their conclusions. The conclusions are not always right.
But when MSNBC’s numbers line up to the numbers in the conclusion, Fox is right. You can’t dismiss it because it is “fox”.
The Old One says:
Hogwash. What were the statistics from the City f Chicago which has some of the toughest if not the toughest gun laws in the country? They only kill 600 – 700 per year with guns. I don’t think the guns go off by themselves.
Actually Ben, you are headed for 700 this year at the current rate. It is not as if Dead Fish is doing anything about the gangs doing all these murders.
This study offers little relevance because it includes two population segments where one dilutes the results from the other (firearm owners vs non firearm owners). It would be like comparing skin cancer rates and saying that Florida has a higher rate than Maine – of course it does, there are exponentially more people who are exposed to the sun in FL. In states like Utah, there may be a lower population, but far more firearm owners than compared to California. Furthermore, evaluation of the impact of laws on firearm fatalities only accounts for law-abiding citizens. Criminals who disregard the law are included in these results but would not be impacted by the laws of their state.
Why don’t they study Alpharetta, Ga? They require that every head of household have a gun for protection unless mentally impaired. They have the lowest incidence of gun violence for a city their size in the nation. Chicago leads the nation by a wide margin with their strict laws. It doesn’t seem to slow the thugs down, does it? It only makes it easier to prey on the citizens who can’t defend themselves.
Over 200,000 a year are killed by automobiles, and they aren’t designed to kill,yet no mention of removing them from society. You really have to question the intellengence of any individual that blames in in adamant object for a crime of any kind. Keep that in mind the next time you’re in the voting booth!
This story is complete BS. I live in Los Angeles, and there have been 3 shootings on my block this year. New York (strict gun control) has (on average) more then 1 murder per day. Chicago (also strict gun control) is almost as bad. England (very strict gun control) has 4 times more violent crime then the US (per capita) Even france has more violent crime per capita then America.
Insurance, you left off “Thugs with guns kill people”. 84 Million gun owners didn’t kill anyone today. This study is as useless as the environmental study a few years ago that said Global Warming was going to kill all the Polar Bears within a few years. Guess what, the Polar Bear population has increased dramatically. They seem to like all that balmy weather up there in the Arctic.
According to the website Polar Bears International, only one location, M’Clintock Channel, has had an increase in population from 2005 to 2009. Eight locations have experienced a decrease, three are listed as stable and seven locations are “Data deficient.” The Polar Bear population has not “increased dramatically.”
They disqualified the study in their own press release –
“It is important to note that our study was ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship,” the authors comment.”
This is a joke study. I love busting studies – Who gonna call? – Studybusters!!!
A great many years ago a state insurance regulator told me that “… figures don’t lie, but liars can figure …”. He was, of course referring to company premiums written, claims paid, and loss ratios. I guess this same old but true adage can now be applied to people who purport to be objective, but are not – because they want to make a point that is politically motivated. It is appalling how much made-up fiction is poured out by the anti-gun folks. Give me real and true facts in my insurance magaziine.
I agree. There was a story on the internet that a “Democratic” politician in Florida is introducing a bill in the legislature that would require anyone purchasing ammunition to complete an Anger Management class. Really? Us hunters are really angry at those deer and after taking the course, we will feel real sorry we were going to shoot Bambi. These liberal politicians are so afraid we may take action against them, they want to ban or control everything we do.
No, actually, I could care less if you own a gun or 100 guns. I don’t live my life in fear of you or anyone else. I also don’t want to control what you do.
On another note, I see your post about Alphretta, GA. Agent, I’m so old I can remember you saying government shouldn’t be allowed to mandate you purchase something (health coverage). I guess it’s okay to mandate the purchase of something as long as you agree with it. Typical of the conversations I have with conservatives.
Nice of Roger Ailes to show his racist colors to us all, by the way. Not a shocker there. At least we all know who we are dealing with when talking about Ailes.
Actually, it is very much The Constitution. You’ll have to go back to 1790, 1792, and 1798 to find the first Congressional mandates equal to that of the PPACA. Yes, George Washington days. Founding Fathers days. The purchase of muskets for one and 2 healthcare mandates. But, I wasn’t the one out here screaming “unconstitional”. Those were words uttered by the likes of Agent and other conservatives. Maybe even yourself, Jim, I don’t know.
I really don’t care if this little town in Georgia wants to make this mandate. I simply won’t move there. More power to them. In this case, fire power.
Planet, this is a public safety issue and it is a fact that cities and states that have strict gun controls and want to confiscate weapons from the citizens are the most dangerous places to live in the country because the thugs know that people cannot protect themselves. If one of these thugs broke into your house and threatened you, your wife and new baby, would you get your scissors out to protect your family like a lot of liberals want you to do? Not a wise move Planet. Criminals do not like to leave witnesses.
In the highly unlikely event my house is broken into, our beast of a dog will alert us. I will call 911 because my cell phone is next to me and serves as my alarm clock. My family has a plan in place to safely evacuate in said event. Same goes for fires and tornadic activity. Further, a state trooper lives behind us and 2 other local police officers live in front of us. There are also such devices as alarm services, they seem to protect houses effectively. Finally, by not having a gun in the house, there is no way I can shoot an innocent bystander, a family member, or a friend; which statistically, happens much more frequently than having to protect oneself from, as you put it, a ‘thug’. If you want a gun, Agent, I think you should be able to own one, or again, 100. I really don’t care. I just think it’s time for a conversation about gun control of some sort, that’s all.
March 8, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And before you say anything, Agent, I’m not saying we evacuate in case of a tornado. You seem to twist my words. I’m saying we have emergency plans in place.
March 11, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Planet, You may have emergency plans in place, good for you. The Police are 15 minutes away. They come in and do an investigation and carry you and your family away on a stretcher. Your dog is merely an annoyance to a thug and can be dispatched immediately. You should keep a pair of scissors close to the bed and perhaps that would work to scare the perps away like many of your liberal friends wants you to do.
March 8, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Jim says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Planet:
First of all, you imply that laws from the 1700’s show republicans in current time are hypocrites? I’m sorry Planet, that does not “fly”.
Moving on:
Those are not equivalents. Note: It required shipmen, at huge risk of death, to have insurance. Not for the whole united states to have insurance for being alive. That is not equivalent, just because you say it is.
Moving on to muskets: So you think it’s so horrible people had to buy muskets, you may as well use that horrible circumstance to say it’s ok? It’s not. End of story.
We’re going to stay consistent here: The government isn’t forcing me to buy a gun, and if they do / did, it’s not consitutional, and some jack managed to pass it (probably someone similar to Obama).
Conservative are not hypocrites on this issue. We have always tried to get in the way when someone has attempted to make a federal law, applicable to all U.S. citizens, requiring them to buy something, (all of them). It is inantely different to have people buy insurance when they buy a car. You might not see that, but it is. Or to buy insurance when you go out to sea, and everyone is basically dying in that time period doing that same action.
The only one of any validity is the gun one, which I agree was wrong. And you should as well, rather than using that incident in order to say that the health care law (which is wrong morally) is ok. It’s not. We are basically forcing people to buy insurance, who cannot afford it, and are inflating the costs of said insurance.
And whether you want to admit it or not, the people who couldn’t afford insurance before got it through state assistance. The people we are harming now are the middle class who don’t want to, or cannot afford, to pay $3,500 to $4,500 a year per person.
In Washington state, if you have a family of four, you can get assistance all the way up to 300% of poverty level.
A family of 4 through the new law, gets a subsidy, yes, but who exactly?
Your premiums have to exceed 9.5% of income. And that has to be your share. And you have to be buying it yourself, not through your company.
Do you see the problems with that? And you have to be ineligible for medicare.
Bottom line: People are being pushed into medicare assistance who don’t make much. And you may like that, but when simultaneously Obama cut $700 billion from medicare, 1/3 of it coming from doctor reimbursments, and 1/3 coming from medical supplies reimbursements, I don’t think I do like that.
Let’s say I make $30,000 a year. I’m single. The subsidy applies to 9.5% of my income. Oops. That’s lower than my premium. I don’t get assistance.
Do I get help from medicare? No. I’m beyond the threshold.
Obama’s law has officially had no effect.
But what do I get hit with? A 10% increase in insurance premiums, as rated by CBO. In my income of $30,000 a year, $350-$450 increases are a big hit.
Now how many people of the 36 million uninsured (varying by year) do you believe are in this bracket? This bill is not helping the middle class, and is applying force in a way that should not be.
-premiums have to exceed 9.5% of income to get a subsidy.
– if annual income = $30,000 then 9.5% is $2,850….
is the $2,850 the MOST you have to pay or the LEAST you have to pay for the year?
March 8, 2013 at 9:25 am
uct says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The simple fact is this; There are MANY more unregistered guns than there are registered. Even if the Govt. attempts to collect the guns, or outright bans them, they will be fortunate to collect 30%. The guys I hunt with have several unregistered guns for each one the Govt. has on file. When they come for the guns, there will be a war. These guys, including myself, have never shot a human. It’s an absurd thought. This story was likely created by the people who also calculate the combined ratios of the Carriers AFTER they release hundreds of millions in reserves.
Well, what this tells me is that the content or intent of gun laws have nothing to do with firearm fatalities, only the number of gun laws on the books.
I guess this means that if we pass 1,000 new gun laws which regulate things like the color of the guns, the model names of the guns or even that “new gun smell” we all love so much that we will see an end to all firearms fatalities in the U.S.
If an additional regulation saves just 1 life, isn’t that life worth it? Before you answer, that 1 life is your wife’s, your child’s, or even yours. Who cares if people have guns? I really don’t. I just want to make sure gun ownership is as safe as possible. Obviously, it isn’t and these most recent incidents involve legal gun ownership. It’s certainly time for a conversation. No one wants to take your guns and if the government really did, your personal aresnal or combined arsenal of thousands of Americans can’t compete with the most powerful military force in the world.
If the regulation saves one life, and is not maintainable no.
Take a look at that inflated police forces and costs. What happens when they bankrupt the government, and we have a depression, AND the government has no money to help anyone?
Basically, million die. Unsustainble regulations, as well as supposed laws to “help” will do this if not kept in check.
We have an obligation to only put in place regulations with a high ratio of lives affected to the cost to put in place. Otherwise, we are literally killing people in the higher potential areas of where we could take action.
Planet, the kind of regulations you are in favor of will cost more lives. Anytime a government disarms their citizens, it results in much more violent crime and in some cases, the government eliminates their opponents. Stalinist Russia is one of the biggest examples. Stalin executed about 30 million of his opponents during his reign. There are many other examples such as China, Cambodia and many other dictatorships.
Agent,
You don’t even know what regulations I’m in favor of, how can you blindly leap into assumptions about me wanting to disarm citizens? We haven’t even had the conversation. I don’t want to disarm citizens. Pro tip – not all left leaning Independents think alike. Also, you’re comparing apples to dictatorships. We don’t live in a dictatorship.
Dictatorships are very hard to establish when the citizens are able to offset the power of the potential ruler. 2nd Amendment is one reason we don’t live in a dictatorship. Guns are the reason.
March 11, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Planet, If the gun control freaks win this battle and the citizens are disarmed, we will have a true dictatorship in this country. It has happened many times in history. Perhaps you haven’t studied what happened. Take Nazi Germany. They disarmed their citizens so they could not resist and we ended up with the Holocaust and the worst world war in history. Wake up and smell the coffee.
March 11, 2013 at 4:10 pm
uct says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The issue isnt’ that we ARE living under a Dictatorship, it’s that if you disarm us, we MAY then be living under one. This is the exact reason why we WILL NOT give up our arms. The 2nd Amendment is law. If you change the law, tough. The Coastal areas may comply, but come to the Midwest and South and try taking away the guns. Not going to happen.
March 11, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, what part of “I don’t want to disarm citizens” do you not understand? I’m not calling for disarming anyone! And, as far as I can tell, neither are the “gun control freaks”. The US doesn’t allow anyone to own nuclear weapons, so there is a line not to be crossed, right? All I’m suggesting is we take another look at that line. Keep those out there with whatever weapons grandfathered in, perhaps. Again, what’s wrong with having a conversation? Did you really just invoke Godwin’s Law again? You have to stop doing that. I suppose you think President Obama is like Adolf Hitler, huh?
March 15, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Captain:
You’ve spelled out that you’re in favor of the new law limiting clips of ammo and the such from Obama.
Despite…That this would not affect the murderers who would kill someone with multiple clips of ammo.
When people have ammo stockpiled, they tend to be criminals. And criminals will have ammo whether the law is passed or not.
That law is restrictive. And it is the type of law that will lead to disarmorment.
March 11, 2013 at 11:03 am
Matthew says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The one life cannot be measured or identified. The same regulation could cause one life to be lost on the other end of the spectrum. Don’t try to sell this crap by saying if “one life could be saved”. Not realistic. The fact is that guns are here to stay. Criminals will always have guns. Law abiding citizens with brains need guns to protect themselves from all forms of antagonists.
If you figured it out so quickly, and you quite reading, how did you respond to two posts or more that you thought were me?
I’m looking through and am spotting this everywhere.
I know you don’t like reading what shows that you are an idiot. But really, if you’re a “liberal” learn to understand the other side. I’m the other side. While I debate the crap out of you (because you are so insanely wrong on 99% of all topics, see my latest sources showing how wrong you are, from poltifact, which I love using against you) I don’t cower or ignore comments from anyone.
It give me more experience, something you liberals claim you have.
If you’re so smart and so open minded, you’ve got to learn how to use more sources, not less. I’m more expansive than you for using politifact, and you’re less for not using Fox News, heck you could do it and prove a liberal point. I’ve done it myself in regards to mandated 401k’s contributions that you have to opt out of when talking with Libby. Fox didn’t like that, and reported on it. But I for one like it. Thusly, something I used when I talked with Agent.
Because you know, I’m not a pompous one sided punk like you.
If you don’t like my words, don’t hop the bunny line.
This is not an accurate article. Guns can be dangerous but you are better off with the ability to defend yourself than you are without that ability whether it be for defending from a criminal or your potentially tyrannical government. After all the 2nd amendment is for protection against government as much as anything.
I like to paint the following example for gun haters to argue against. Scenario 1::: I am walking down the street in Chicago and a thug looks at me as a target for mugging. He knows I am likely unarmed because I appear to be a law abiding citizen. He attacks me and beats me possibly kills me. I was unable to defend myself and there was no fear in his system because of the laws. Scenario 2: I am walking down street in a conceal carry state and a thug looks at me. He thinks about whether he can get away with attacking me. He realizes I may be armed and he could get shot or hurt severely if he attempts harm on me. The result is no one gets hurt. This is as simple as balancing a household budget. No pun intended toward the liberal readers.
Just a thought but I’d say the law that could save just one life is most likely already on the books and just isn’t enforced. Nothing was more clear to me than when our government stated they don’t have time to enforce the laws on the books now while at the same time trying to create new laws. The conversation should be why the government doesn’t enforce the laws they have now rather than why they feel the need to create more laws they won’t have time to enforce.
“More than 30,000 people die annually in the United States from injuries caused by firearms.”
Including suicides, police shootings, and shootings of miscreants in self defense. More people are beaten to death with hands than are murdered with rifles, but what’s a fact to a bunch of libtards?
John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime proves that crime goes down and remains low in every single county that has must-issue concealed carry permits.
So Al, I saw on the internet that the goofy ex-astronaut husband of Gabby Gifford went out and bought an AR-15 last week and a semi-automatic pistol. He says he did it to show how easy it was to get an assault weapon and planned to turn it in to the Sheriff. Why wouldn’t an ex astronaut be able to pass muster on a background check? If he is clean and a citizen, no wonder he was approved. If he was a criminal, he wouldn’t have passed. Citizens should be able to buy what they need to protect their family. I do applaud him for donating his new weapon to the Sheriff. They can use it on the bad guys. If I were him, I would strap that Glock on my hip to protect myself and wife in public given what she went through.
As someone pointed out, there’s a lie, a dam lie and a statistic.
Chicago has the highest rate of murders in the nation and tries to ban citizens from owning guns.
It does not seem to put much emphasis on reducing criminal activity.
Switzerland everyone possesses a gun and has a very low violent crime rate.
After all it is not the second amendment these various pressure groups are after it’s the first and seem to consider the second the Achilles heel of the “Bill of Rights.”
This study is BS. note “It is important to note that our study was ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship,” the authors comment” I love these Jama guys, no relevent statistc or matrix, just believe what they Jama says.
The study is not BS. It was conducted by people who value scientific reasoning and who are working on a not-unlimited budget. Conclusions drawn from the study may or may not be BS. That is an entirely different issue, and is why they put the comments in about methodologies. Since you are so ‘anti-JAMA’, I can only assume that when you get ill you visit your priest or local conservative politicians to find treatment. No reasoned debate about this issue ever concludes with the affirmation that more guns = less killing. Are there point statistics that support this conclusion? Yes, but reasoned debate shows that they are outliers. For example, the ‘Chicago’ argument ignores the fact that Chicago borders the state of Indiana, with very lax gun control laws, which virtually eliminates the ‘limiting access’ effect of gun control, leaving only the ‘punishment’ aspect of those laws in place, and we all agree that gun control based upon punishment alone does not work. The real problem is that no one (absolutely no one) on the pro-gun side ever wants reasoned debate. If you try to move the discussion in that direction they always end the debate by screaming about freedom and the second amendment. Their arguments are ‘faith-based’ (not religion, but faith) which means that in their minds there are inviolable laws which can not be questioned upon which the debate hinges. These types of arguments can never be concluded with reasoned debate.
DougW–NIce try but we’re not buying. The pro-gun side never wants reasoned debate? Yeah right…maybe that’s because after every shooting by an individual nutjob, those who are anti-gun (these are elected officials) call NRA members Nazis, accuse us of supporting the killing of children, etc.
Sorry, studies showing guns reduce crime are not outliers. Any study showing to the contrary are typically emotion-based (the faith you mention is faith in criminals not to get guns), and can’t be duplicated with study (i.e., it’s not science).
When we bring up that Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, and other cities controlled by liberals that are anti-gun have terrible crime stats, we receive a gnashing of teeth blaming all that “freedom” in other states for letting guns be brought into their lovely cities.
Drop your sanctimonious position that you, and only you and those like you, want reasoned debate. Anti-gun people are pathetic. There are thousands of gun laws on the books that liberal prosecutors and soft judges routinely waive/ignore at sentencing. Try enforcing current laws before punishing the innocent and then you’ll have more credibility (not to mention positive results in reducing crime).
Reasoned debate? Two words. Wayne LaPierre.
Comrade: Well, no one knows if you’re paying a compliment or if that is an insult. Given LaPierre has given the only fresh ideas in this entire conversation (and took a week off to grieve before pouncing like the liberals to be the first to a microphone), I’ll take it as a compliment (even though you likely didn’t mean it that way).
The ‘study’ is just another liberal smear campaign. It is based on feelings, not facts. Most gun crime is by gang members in big cities. Mexico has the world’s strictest gun controls, yet is one of the most violent countries.
This study offers little relevance because it includes two population segments where one dilutes the results from the other. It would be like comparing skin cancer rates and saying that Florida has a higher rate than Maine – of course it does, there are exponentially more people who are exposed to the sun in FL. Or comparing car accident fatalities between New York and Rhode Island – there will be more fatalities in NY because there are more drivers. Furthermore, evaluation of the impact of laws only accounts for law-abiding citizens. Criminals who disregard the law are included in these results but would not be impacted by the laws of their state.
Insurance Jouranl posting a liberal bias article? Say good bye to 90% of your readers. This article is very wrong. Look at Chicago…
Pathetic article. The use of the word “may” should be avoided. This also means “may not” so read that entire article that gun laws (does that mean “pro gun laws as well?) may NOT indicate a darn thing when it comes to this lame story.
sure, it may be true… i guess it statically makes sense that the more you regulate something the more you can attempt to control its results. But of course that leaves out the fact that there could be a gazillon other things that result in lower gun crime.
Who said anything about lower crime? This article specifically DOESN’T say that. That in itself should indicate the intended bias that they want you to buy into.
Of course if you limit the access to guns fewer people are going to commit suicide with them. Now, all you need to do is eliminate high-rise buildings and bridges and suicides from those will dramatically decrease as well.
Really? Duh! Stupid article.
Everyplace like Chicago that has kept restricted firearms has had in increase in gun related violence….that the real fact.
Chicago has some of the most restrictive firearm laws…they also have extremely high murder rates.
Some of the information they used was obtained from the Brady group. No bias there. When you already know what you want your study to say and then build your case towards that you lose all credibility. I can take a poll from like minded people and get results I want too. I asked 1000 people what they thought and that somehow translates to what 300 million believe?
Typical lies from the left. Twist the numbers to “FORWARD” your agenda. Come and take mine! Do ya feel lucky punk? That was my best dirty Harry for you young whiper snapers.
AJ, I like – “Go ahead, make my day”. I love those movies and will still watch them when they come on the tube. Eastwood’s popularity is tied to triumph of good over evil. This is appealing to most of us except for the girly guy’s on the left.
I love Clint Eastwood films. “Pale Rider” and “Unforgiven” might be my favorites. Really, outside of “Bridges of Madison County”, I don’t think there is an Eastwood film I don’t enjoy.
The baseball film – Curve Ball was the latest and is excellent as well.
Haven’t seen it yet but it is in my Netflix queue. He’s a great actor and director. I was just watching “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot” yesterday. Funny to see Jeff Bridges so young, too. Looks very little like The Dude. Jeff Bridges is also very talented.
This is bunch of nonsense. Connecticut has some of the most strident gun control laws in the country and we just we just had our first major disaster involving guns. Unfortunately the man that committed the atrocity was mentally deranged. Thats the issue. Not the guns. Of course then we have a govenor who lets criminals out of jail early and then they commit a murder with a gun as soon as their out…..
Let me guess. My first post didn’t get approved because Insurance J doesn’t like the 1st Amend either.
I hear you, this bias is almost as bad as Fox News. Boil ’em down and you can’t trust either. Just like Public Enemy says, “Can’t trust it…oh no, no, no!”
Though, what cannot be denied is the correlation between the gun violence in Japan and Australia, for example, and their regulation of firearms. Things that make you go hmmm. And, now I have 2 hip hop references in the same post. Word.
You’re delusional. Too much kool-aid.
You cannot dismiss an entire station due to bias.
Check the facts, and the methodology. Fox news reports on areas no other station even covers.
Such as the hiring of a goldman sach’s mand the the treasury, and then the treasury hired Goldman Sach’s. It happened. Fox news is about the only agency that reported on it.
Fox news on the $700 some billion cuts from medicare reimbursements: The only honest station out there.
Paul Ryan and Romney were not advocating the “same” cuts. They were being distinctly different in where the cuts were made and how. Taking them away from medical reimbursements lowers the quality of care.
Every liberal station actually managed to lie and hide the huge cut to medicare. Fox News is the only credible source out there when it comes to many lines of information. And it can be checked on it’s facts against MSNBC on the facts that lead to their conclusions. The conclusions are not always right.
But when MSNBC’s numbers line up to the numbers in the conclusion, Fox is right. You can’t dismiss it because it is “fox”.
The Old One says:
Hogwash. What were the statistics from the City f Chicago which has some of the toughest if not the toughest gun laws in the country? They only kill 600 – 700 per year with guns. I don’t think the guns go off by themselves.
Roland, I agree with you but being from Chicago the total for 2012 was 506. 600-700 is a bit exxagerated.
Yeah–big exageration, Ben. He was off by 94.
AKA over 25%.
That is off by quite a bit.
Actually Ben, you are headed for 700 this year at the current rate. It is not as if Dead Fish is doing anything about the gangs doing all these murders.
Frank, Steve, Wayne, Roland: DITTO!
This study offers little relevance because it includes two population segments where one dilutes the results from the other (firearm owners vs non firearm owners). It would be like comparing skin cancer rates and saying that Florida has a higher rate than Maine – of course it does, there are exponentially more people who are exposed to the sun in FL. In states like Utah, there may be a lower population, but far more firearm owners than compared to California. Furthermore, evaluation of the impact of laws on firearm fatalities only accounts for law-abiding citizens. Criminals who disregard the law are included in these results but would not be impacted by the laws of their state.
Why don’t they study Alpharetta, Ga? They require that every head of household have a gun for protection unless mentally impaired. They have the lowest incidence of gun violence for a city their size in the nation. Chicago leads the nation by a wide margin with their strict laws. It doesn’t seem to slow the thugs down, does it? It only makes it easier to prey on the citizens who can’t defend themselves.
Over 200,000 a year are killed by automobiles, and they aren’t designed to kill,yet no mention of removing them from society. You really have to question the intellengence of any individual that blames in in adamant object for a crime of any kind. Keep that in mind the next time you’re in the voting booth!
This story is complete BS. I live in Los Angeles, and there have been 3 shootings on my block this year. New York (strict gun control) has (on average) more then 1 murder per day. Chicago (also strict gun control) is almost as bad. England (very strict gun control) has 4 times more violent crime then the US (per capita) Even france has more violent crime per capita then America.
guns don’t kill people…guns with people kill people
Insurance, you left off “Thugs with guns kill people”. 84 Million gun owners didn’t kill anyone today. This study is as useless as the environmental study a few years ago that said Global Warming was going to kill all the Polar Bears within a few years. Guess what, the Polar Bear population has increased dramatically. They seem to like all that balmy weather up there in the Arctic.
According to the website Polar Bears International, only one location, M’Clintock Channel, has had an increase in population from 2005 to 2009. Eight locations have experienced a decrease, three are listed as stable and seven locations are “Data deficient.” The Polar Bear population has not “increased dramatically.”
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org
What’s with the dislikes? They’re polar bears. How can you not like polar bears?
I only stated facts that can be proven. Scientists count the number of polar bears in the artic. There are fewer now than there used to be.
They disqualified the study in their own press release –
“It is important to note that our study was ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship,” the authors comment.”
This is a joke study. I love busting studies – Who gonna call? – Studybusters!!!
Insurance Journal may as well as come out and endorse Obummer. They certainly love to post anything pertaining to one of his newest lies as a fact.
It’s sunny and cold in St. Louis today. We “may” get hit with a meteor around 7 though.
Being in St. Louis, I guess you would understand gun violence better than just about any of us.
A great many years ago a state insurance regulator told me that “… figures don’t lie, but liars can figure …”. He was, of course referring to company premiums written, claims paid, and loss ratios. I guess this same old but true adage can now be applied to people who purport to be objective, but are not – because they want to make a point that is politically motivated. It is appalling how much made-up fiction is poured out by the anti-gun folks. Give me real and true facts in my insurance magaziine.
I agree. There was a story on the internet that a “Democratic” politician in Florida is introducing a bill in the legislature that would require anyone purchasing ammunition to complete an Anger Management class. Really? Us hunters are really angry at those deer and after taking the course, we will feel real sorry we were going to shoot Bambi. These liberal politicians are so afraid we may take action against them, they want to ban or control everything we do.
No, actually, I could care less if you own a gun or 100 guns. I don’t live my life in fear of you or anyone else. I also don’t want to control what you do.
On another note, I see your post about Alphretta, GA. Agent, I’m so old I can remember you saying government shouldn’t be allowed to mandate you purchase something (health coverage). I guess it’s okay to mandate the purchase of something as long as you agree with it. Typical of the conversations I have with conservatives.
Nice of Roger Ailes to show his racist colors to us all, by the way. Not a shocker there. At least we all know who we are dealing with when talking about Ailes.
The goverment mandating you purchase something for being alive, is outside of the realm of the constituion.
It’s not hypocrite in any way, at all, when the circumstances are weighed at par regarding conservatives.
Actually, it is very much The Constitution. You’ll have to go back to 1790, 1792, and 1798 to find the first Congressional mandates equal to that of the PPACA. Yes, George Washington days. Founding Fathers days. The purchase of muskets for one and 2 healthcare mandates. But, I wasn’t the one out here screaming “unconstitional”. Those were words uttered by the likes of Agent and other conservatives. Maybe even yourself, Jim, I don’t know.
I really don’t care if this little town in Georgia wants to make this mandate. I simply won’t move there. More power to them. In this case, fire power.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2012/jan/13/einer-elhauge/harvard-law-professor-says-early-congress-mandated/
Planet, this is a public safety issue and it is a fact that cities and states that have strict gun controls and want to confiscate weapons from the citizens are the most dangerous places to live in the country because the thugs know that people cannot protect themselves. If one of these thugs broke into your house and threatened you, your wife and new baby, would you get your scissors out to protect your family like a lot of liberals want you to do? Not a wise move Planet. Criminals do not like to leave witnesses.
In the highly unlikely event my house is broken into, our beast of a dog will alert us. I will call 911 because my cell phone is next to me and serves as my alarm clock. My family has a plan in place to safely evacuate in said event. Same goes for fires and tornadic activity. Further, a state trooper lives behind us and 2 other local police officers live in front of us. There are also such devices as alarm services, they seem to protect houses effectively. Finally, by not having a gun in the house, there is no way I can shoot an innocent bystander, a family member, or a friend; which statistically, happens much more frequently than having to protect oneself from, as you put it, a ‘thug’. If you want a gun, Agent, I think you should be able to own one, or again, 100. I really don’t care. I just think it’s time for a conversation about gun control of some sort, that’s all.
And before you say anything, Agent, I’m not saying we evacuate in case of a tornado. You seem to twist my words. I’m saying we have emergency plans in place.
Planet, You may have emergency plans in place, good for you. The Police are 15 minutes away. They come in and do an investigation and carry you and your family away on a stretcher. Your dog is merely an annoyance to a thug and can be dispatched immediately. You should keep a pair of scissors close to the bed and perhaps that would work to scare the perps away like many of your liberal friends wants you to do.
Planet:
First of all, you imply that laws from the 1700’s show republicans in current time are hypocrites? I’m sorry Planet, that does not “fly”.
Moving on:
Those are not equivalents. Note: It required shipmen, at huge risk of death, to have insurance. Not for the whole united states to have insurance for being alive. That is not equivalent, just because you say it is.
Moving on to muskets: So you think it’s so horrible people had to buy muskets, you may as well use that horrible circumstance to say it’s ok? It’s not. End of story.
We’re going to stay consistent here: The government isn’t forcing me to buy a gun, and if they do / did, it’s not consitutional, and some jack managed to pass it (probably someone similar to Obama).
Conservative are not hypocrites on this issue. We have always tried to get in the way when someone has attempted to make a federal law, applicable to all U.S. citizens, requiring them to buy something, (all of them). It is inantely different to have people buy insurance when they buy a car. You might not see that, but it is. Or to buy insurance when you go out to sea, and everyone is basically dying in that time period doing that same action.
The only one of any validity is the gun one, which I agree was wrong. And you should as well, rather than using that incident in order to say that the health care law (which is wrong morally) is ok. It’s not. We are basically forcing people to buy insurance, who cannot afford it, and are inflating the costs of said insurance.
And whether you want to admit it or not, the people who couldn’t afford insurance before got it through state assistance. The people we are harming now are the middle class who don’t want to, or cannot afford, to pay $3,500 to $4,500 a year per person.
Well I’ll just spell it out for you Captain:
In Washington state, if you have a family of four, you can get assistance all the way up to 300% of poverty level.
A family of 4 through the new law, gets a subsidy, yes, but who exactly?
Your premiums have to exceed 9.5% of income. And that has to be your share. And you have to be buying it yourself, not through your company.
Do you see the problems with that? And you have to be ineligible for medicare.
Bottom line: People are being pushed into medicare assistance who don’t make much. And you may like that, but when simultaneously Obama cut $700 billion from medicare, 1/3 of it coming from doctor reimbursments, and 1/3 coming from medical supplies reimbursements, I don’t think I do like that.
Let’s say I make $30,000 a year. I’m single. The subsidy applies to 9.5% of my income. Oops. That’s lower than my premium. I don’t get assistance.
Do I get help from medicare? No. I’m beyond the threshold.
Obama’s law has officially had no effect.
But what do I get hit with? A 10% increase in insurance premiums, as rated by CBO. In my income of $30,000 a year, $350-$450 increases are a big hit.
Now how many people of the 36 million uninsured (varying by year) do you believe are in this bracket? This bill is not helping the middle class, and is applying force in a way that should not be.
Forgive me, for I am blonde. I’m lost.
-premiums have to exceed 9.5% of income to get a subsidy.
– if annual income = $30,000 then 9.5% is $2,850….
is the $2,850 the MOST you have to pay or the LEAST you have to pay for the year?
The simple fact is this; There are MANY more unregistered guns than there are registered. Even if the Govt. attempts to collect the guns, or outright bans them, they will be fortunate to collect 30%. The guys I hunt with have several unregistered guns for each one the Govt. has on file. When they come for the guns, there will be a war. These guys, including myself, have never shot a human. It’s an absurd thought. This story was likely created by the people who also calculate the combined ratios of the Carriers AFTER they release hundreds of millions in reserves.
Well, what this tells me is that the content or intent of gun laws have nothing to do with firearm fatalities, only the number of gun laws on the books.
I guess this means that if we pass 1,000 new gun laws which regulate things like the color of the guns, the model names of the guns or even that “new gun smell” we all love so much that we will see an end to all firearms fatalities in the U.S.
If an additional regulation saves just 1 life, isn’t that life worth it? Before you answer, that 1 life is your wife’s, your child’s, or even yours. Who cares if people have guns? I really don’t. I just want to make sure gun ownership is as safe as possible. Obviously, it isn’t and these most recent incidents involve legal gun ownership. It’s certainly time for a conversation. No one wants to take your guns and if the government really did, your personal aresnal or combined arsenal of thousands of Americans can’t compete with the most powerful military force in the world.
If the regulation saves one life, and is not maintainable no.
Take a look at that inflated police forces and costs. What happens when they bankrupt the government, and we have a depression, AND the government has no money to help anyone?
Basically, million die. Unsustainble regulations, as well as supposed laws to “help” will do this if not kept in check.
We have an obligation to only put in place regulations with a high ratio of lives affected to the cost to put in place. Otherwise, we are literally killing people in the higher potential areas of where we could take action.
Planet, the kind of regulations you are in favor of will cost more lives. Anytime a government disarms their citizens, it results in much more violent crime and in some cases, the government eliminates their opponents. Stalinist Russia is one of the biggest examples. Stalin executed about 30 million of his opponents during his reign. There are many other examples such as China, Cambodia and many other dictatorships.
Agent,
You don’t even know what regulations I’m in favor of, how can you blindly leap into assumptions about me wanting to disarm citizens? We haven’t even had the conversation. I don’t want to disarm citizens. Pro tip – not all left leaning Independents think alike. Also, you’re comparing apples to dictatorships. We don’t live in a dictatorship.
Dictatorships are very hard to establish when the citizens are able to offset the power of the potential ruler. 2nd Amendment is one reason we don’t live in a dictatorship. Guns are the reason.
Planet, If the gun control freaks win this battle and the citizens are disarmed, we will have a true dictatorship in this country. It has happened many times in history. Perhaps you haven’t studied what happened. Take Nazi Germany. They disarmed their citizens so they could not resist and we ended up with the Holocaust and the worst world war in history. Wake up and smell the coffee.
The issue isnt’ that we ARE living under a Dictatorship, it’s that if you disarm us, we MAY then be living under one. This is the exact reason why we WILL NOT give up our arms. The 2nd Amendment is law. If you change the law, tough. The Coastal areas may comply, but come to the Midwest and South and try taking away the guns. Not going to happen.
Agent, what part of “I don’t want to disarm citizens” do you not understand? I’m not calling for disarming anyone! And, as far as I can tell, neither are the “gun control freaks”. The US doesn’t allow anyone to own nuclear weapons, so there is a line not to be crossed, right? All I’m suggesting is we take another look at that line. Keep those out there with whatever weapons grandfathered in, perhaps. Again, what’s wrong with having a conversation? Did you really just invoke Godwin’s Law again? You have to stop doing that. I suppose you think President Obama is like Adolf Hitler, huh?
Captain:
You’ve spelled out that you’re in favor of the new law limiting clips of ammo and the such from Obama.
Despite…That this would not affect the murderers who would kill someone with multiple clips of ammo.
When people have ammo stockpiled, they tend to be criminals. And criminals will have ammo whether the law is passed or not.
That law is restrictive. And it is the type of law that will lead to disarmorment.
The one life cannot be measured or identified. The same regulation could cause one life to be lost on the other end of the spectrum. Don’t try to sell this crap by saying if “one life could be saved”. Not realistic. The fact is that guns are here to stay. Criminals will always have guns. Law abiding citizens with brains need guns to protect themselves from all forms of antagonists.
Einhorn is Finkel and Bob is Jim. Nice try, figured it out pretty quickly, actually. And, of course, quit reading. Next.
Matthew Jim-Bob – you aren’t fooling anyone. Just go by your original name, man.
????
I am surprised I didn’t notice this.
Captain, you really are an idiot. I use stupid, moron, and extremely colorful wording all the time.
I’ll mock myself now for it: I often will throw in a “you’re saying” and then add exclamation points waaaaayyyy over exageratting what was said.
Matthew is luke warm compared to me…Believe it or not, I AM NOT MATTHEW.
Captain:
If you figured it out so quickly, and you quite reading, how did you respond to two posts or more that you thought were me?
I’m looking through and am spotting this everywhere.
I know you don’t like reading what shows that you are an idiot. But really, if you’re a “liberal” learn to understand the other side. I’m the other side. While I debate the crap out of you (because you are so insanely wrong on 99% of all topics, see my latest sources showing how wrong you are, from poltifact, which I love using against you) I don’t cower or ignore comments from anyone.
It give me more experience, something you liberals claim you have.
If you’re so smart and so open minded, you’ve got to learn how to use more sources, not less. I’m more expansive than you for using politifact, and you’re less for not using Fox News, heck you could do it and prove a liberal point. I’ve done it myself in regards to mandated 401k’s contributions that you have to opt out of when talking with Libby. Fox didn’t like that, and reported on it. But I for one like it. Thusly, something I used when I talked with Agent.
Because you know, I’m not a pompous one sided punk like you.
If you don’t like my words, don’t hop the bunny line.
Who was the idiot that chose that one?????????
This is not an accurate article. Guns can be dangerous but you are better off with the ability to defend yourself than you are without that ability whether it be for defending from a criminal or your potentially tyrannical government. After all the 2nd amendment is for protection against government as much as anything.
I like to paint the following example for gun haters to argue against. Scenario 1::: I am walking down the street in Chicago and a thug looks at me as a target for mugging. He knows I am likely unarmed because I appear to be a law abiding citizen. He attacks me and beats me possibly kills me. I was unable to defend myself and there was no fear in his system because of the laws. Scenario 2: I am walking down street in a conceal carry state and a thug looks at me. He thinks about whether he can get away with attacking me. He realizes I may be armed and he could get shot or hurt severely if he attempts harm on me. The result is no one gets hurt. This is as simple as balancing a household budget. No pun intended toward the liberal readers.
Just a thought but I’d say the law that could save just one life is most likely already on the books and just isn’t enforced. Nothing was more clear to me than when our government stated they don’t have time to enforce the laws on the books now while at the same time trying to create new laws. The conversation should be why the government doesn’t enforce the laws they have now rather than why they feel the need to create more laws they won’t have time to enforce.
After reading these comments it’s easy to see why they call them “gun nuts.”
If it is so easy please explain what you see to those of us who are gun nuts. Maybe you should get glasses or have lasik surgery.
“More than 30,000 people die annually in the United States from injuries caused by firearms.”
Including suicides, police shootings, and shootings of miscreants in self defense. More people are beaten to death with hands than are murdered with rifles, but what’s a fact to a bunch of libtards?
John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime proves that crime goes down and remains low in every single county that has must-issue concealed carry permits.
This site is a freaking leftist joke.
So Al, I saw on the internet that the goofy ex-astronaut husband of Gabby Gifford went out and bought an AR-15 last week and a semi-automatic pistol. He says he did it to show how easy it was to get an assault weapon and planned to turn it in to the Sheriff. Why wouldn’t an ex astronaut be able to pass muster on a background check? If he is clean and a citizen, no wonder he was approved. If he was a criminal, he wouldn’t have passed. Citizens should be able to buy what they need to protect their family. I do applaud him for donating his new weapon to the Sheriff. They can use it on the bad guys. If I were him, I would strap that Glock on my hip to protect myself and wife in public given what she went through.
Complete baloney. Made up statistics to get brainless Americans to give up their 2nd Amendment rights.
http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-brady-campaign-violence-is-lower-in.html
Even the Brady Commies admit they’re full of it.
Oh, and did you notice? IJ took down the website field so we can’t suggest conservative web sites to one another anymore.
As someone pointed out, there’s a lie, a dam lie and a statistic.
Chicago has the highest rate of murders in the nation and tries to ban citizens from owning guns.
It does not seem to put much emphasis on reducing criminal activity.
Switzerland everyone possesses a gun and has a very low violent crime rate.
After all it is not the second amendment these various pressure groups are after it’s the first and seem to consider the second the Achilles heel of the “Bill of Rights.”
Mark Twain said that. :)
IT IS PURE LIBERAL BS ! See attached shortcut for the truth. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/feb/01/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-jurisdictions-strictest-gun-laws-hav/
How did Captain Planet attain the rank of Captain?
He took me out back and shot me for the good of the public.