“Shootings connected to gang or illegal drug-related activities were excluded from the analyses.” You gotta be kidding me. Is that because of what Bloomberg said?
Let’s be clear. This study analyzed fatal mass shootings and the association between the rates of those shootings and the presence of various firearm laws. It does not pretend to be a study of all violence or gun deaths or violence or even all gun laws or defense strategies. It is focused on mass shootings. That’s it.
What are the death tolls from mass shootings in these few states compared to all other homicides in the country?
Why shouldn’t we focus on the bigger picture?
February 17, 2020 at 1:18 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
Craig- because that would point to the truth, and we can’t have that now can we.
February 13, 2020 at 1:31 pm
Jack says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23
9
When you balance this article with the study done about the same type of “mass killings” prevented by guns with high capacity mags………wait…that wont happen.
I wonder how many ‘mass shootings’ are the result of the media’s hyper coverage of said events ? I guarantee you that a lot of these are idiots that have seen these reports and the coverage received.
I will answer yours, even though you failed to answer mine.
Yes there have been copycat killers. An ill-informed public will not prevent this.
February 14, 2020 at 3:49 pm
JaxAgent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
An ill informed public can’t have copycat killers, dumb dumb.
February 18, 2020 at 11:12 am
Well... says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Name calling. How mature…
Additionally, people of that ilk, aren’t sitting around waiting for a news story to motivate them…dumb dumb.
February 14, 2020 at 12:30 pm
Just Calls About Wedding & Yoga Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
I suggest that people who observe others that are enamored/ intrigued by mass shooting should keep an eye on such potential copycats and report them to law enforcement at the moment when there is more than innocent curiousness.
I agree that the use of red flag laws should be part of the the solution Yogi.
February 14, 2020 at 3:48 pm
JaxAgent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
I didn’t suggest that, you did. Informing the public and turning the event into an over-hyped spectacle are two different things.
In many ways the press glorify these wackos.
Again…I asked a question. It is something that civilized people do when looking for clarity.
Yes there is a difference between informing and hyper-sensationalizing something. That said, what do you feel is the appropriate level of coverage when a mass shooting incident occurs. Local only, statewide, national news? When does a higher level of coverage become warranted?
You seem to have all the answers, but provide no solutions.
February 13, 2020 at 1:43 pm
Armando M. Castellini says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22
7
I have no problem with the government requiring fingerprinting and a license to purchase a handgun, but I do object to any further intrusion and interference with my Constitutional right to “… keep and bear …” arms. This means to own and to carry. No one wants the “bad guys” to readily and easily obtain handguns, even though there is no really effective way to prevent this. But I do not want any governmental unit to prevent me from exercising my rights. We all know that almost all governmental authorities (local police departments and up) do not want people to be able to easily purchase, or get a license to carry, a firearm – all despite the great many occasions each year when a “good guy” with a handgun has prevented a “bad guy” with a gun from wreaking havoc on the population.
I think if you have to obtain a license to drive a car/truck/motorcycle that it’s not unreasonable to think one needs a license to own and carry a firearm.
Driving a car is not a right protected by our Constitution. It’s a ‘privilege’.
I don’t really disagree with you, Andrew, I grew up hunting, shooting etc. then after college went into the Army in the Infantry, so my experience is extensive, but I know that lots and lots of gun owners barely know which end makes the noise.
How about we grandfather certain folks and require new owners …….. hell, I don’t know. My real beef with some of the extreme measures I hear democrat candidates blathering on about is that , despite their best intentions and efforts, the genie is out of the bottle. I feel certain that any attempt to ban and take back weapons of any kind would not be very successful and probably wouldn’t end very well either.
Here is my biggest issue with all of these assumptions. I agree that owning a firearm should be a right as long as you have the training and you are not a danger to yourself or society. I know that bad guys will have guns, but having a good guy with a gun who doesn’t know how to use it is also ineffective to counter that bad guy. Anyone who says that taking guns would work is wrong. It does not make logical sense that it would work in any capacity, but if they restricted future sales and pushed for more voluntary turn in of these weapons, I think that might work more then what most people are saying. One issue is I think the constitution on that portion needs to be updated to modern times regarding firearms, when it was written the weapons were different and our political system was different in the fact that we didn’t have a real army or police departments. Today we have both of these things. And yes the constitution can be changed through constitutional amendments.
Ask the Iranian people about gun restrictions. The Mullahs would have been gone a long time ago if the Iranians people had guns. But since they don’t, they live in poverty and oppression.
People who think the government could never turn on the people are ignorant of history. Happens all the time. Usually, it happens when an autocrat rewards the military and police with special favors to side with the autocrat.
The media constantly claims that Trump wants to subvert democracy. I don’t believe it at all. But clearly, the media believes it is possible. Especially with the coming advances in technology for tracking, facial recognition, recording your every click on your computer or phone, etc.
February 14, 2020 at 7:25 am
Just Calls About Wedding & Yoga Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
11
6
No, the Constitution need not be updated. Regulation of gun ownership should reside with states, similar to auto ownership, and ownership of anything else commonly considered to be dangerous.
Only if an individual is proven to be irresponsible or incapable of owning any potentially dangerous thing should their rights be restricted for the safety of other citizens.
The 2nd Amendment was written as a deterrent to the US government becoming oppressive to its citizens. Removal of that right, even partially and incrementally, will not stand the test of Constitutionality.
February 14, 2020 at 8:47 am
JaxAgent says:
Like or Dislike:
10
4
Sounds like we are on the same page, except that I would not want to see the 2nd Amendment modified…..I believe that it is important to keep the original wording as the framers stated it.
Many 2nd A advocates are zealous in their defense of same as they fear (not without some genuine reasons) that once you start tweaking those rights that it becomes easier and easier to continue down that road. Kind of like a dam that developes a small leak.
So while i applaud those who fight tooth and nail, I am more moderate in my position. I give generously to the NRA and I’m glad they are diligent.
I also agree with your take on a “good guy with a gun who doesn’t know how to use it..” ! I sure don’t want him/her opening up in a crowded room in an effort to stop a bad guy. LOL
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, I think the evidence is clear that armed citizens have created a very successful deterrent effect and reduced crime in those parts of the country where both concealed and open carry are allowed and not thwarted.
February 14, 2020 at 10:05 am
flawedlogic says:
Like or Dislike:
7
6
My biggest issue with your assessment Craig is that you don’t think people know that governments have turned on its people. I mean it happens in Russia and China all of the time. If the American government tries to control the masses through the military, I don’t think there is much people can do against tanks and airplanes equipped with massive weapons.
Now yes not all people in the military will participate, but people believed before that the citizens in the military wouldn’t commit atrocities against their own citizens. I mean I feel like that has happened multiple times throughout history, and people often forget that and are optimistic.
Jax,. I understand your points, but I still think the 2nd amendment needs to be updated for modern times, but I respect your opinion regarding it.
Have an awesome day!
February 14, 2020 at 3:55 pm
JaxAgent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
So by your logic, Just calls about weddings, regulation of free speech should also reside with states ?
These rights that are guaranteed by our constitution should not be left up to the states, if the states (like New York, Illinios, etc) have every intent to trample those rights.
February 14, 2020 at 4:38 pm
flawedlogic says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
I am similar confused Jax. I think it is the wrong way to go with letting gun rights be set by states. You can have extreme lax or over regulation very easily with this method. Polar, can you please explain further why you believe such regulations should come from this level of government?
February 15, 2020 at 9:23 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
States might regulate registration of guns if that is ruled Constitutional by the SCOTUS. States SHOULD legislate safety measures regarding mental health issues that may lead to gun violence or other types of violence by mentally ill people. I was not sufficiently clear by writing a brief comment above.
February 14, 2020 at 4:16 pm
CC says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
You guys hurt my head. Government does not grant rights. Why do so many people think they do?
Well in a sense they do grant rights, or rather protections of certain rights. Just because you are here doesn’t mean you can do anything you want. Can you expand on your overall thoughts on what you said?
February 17, 2020 at 3:26 pm
CC says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
There is just an overall lack of separation between rights and government that bother me. Rights are inherent, regardless of whether or not a government decides to protect it. Once you regulate “rights” to what government allows you to do, you are quickly slipping down the slope that leads to what we see in 1984.
Another recent example is healthcare. So many people are parading around calling healthcare a “human right” and claiming that because it is a right, government should pay for it.
February 13, 2020 at 3:40 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
12
4
Andrew- You do not have to a drivers lic to purchase a car.
I do have to have concealed weapons permit to carry my firearm and a huntling lic to hunt.
The cognitive dissonance displayed by saying that people should be licensed and finger printed just to buy a gun, but then lament that virtually all Gov authorities do everything possible to discourage people from buying a gun is laughable. Look at what is happening in Illinois with their FOID cards- “Oops we don’t have the time or money to issue those cards you need to own a gun- too bad.”
This why those very same rights you claim to wish to protect are incrementally taken (IE “infringed”) every legislative session. Stop letting Leftists weaponize your empathy and handing them the very tools they will use to take your firearms, because when they think you can’t fight back, they will enforce their rule with your blood.
Delete that first sentence, and stop being a useful idiot.
Just what I thought – I googled Daniel Webster name. – YOU left out in this article that he is part of BLOOMBERG public health. BIASED!!!
How much money did they pay you to run this article…… HMMMM
Excluded data from certain states…excluded data from gangs and drug related activities???
Sounds to me like they needed come up with a predetermined conclusion……….
Firearm purchaser licensing laws require a direct application to a law enforcement agency that conducts background checks, often aided by fingerprint-based identity verification of the applicant. I am very much in favor of 2d amendment rights. i do not see how do these laws restrict gun ownership by responsible Americans or infringe rights. Don’t they just keep them out of the hands of people who should not have them? Yes, criminals can still get guns but shouldn’t we make an effort to keep guns out of their hands? I for one am willing to put up with the inconvenience of a background check and fingerprinting. And this is not the only study to show that such laws reduce violence. I would hope people who believe in the 2d amendment would be willing to undergo a little inconvenience to keep it and us all safer. Such laws do not restrict your right to own a firearm unless your background check indicates you are a danger.
States that require no permits have lower shootings than states that require permits. Vermont does not require permits to purchase and has constitutional carry and has had no mass shootings. California requires permits to purchase and allows almost no one a concealed carry permit and has massive amounts of mass shootings.
This article cherry picks data to arrive at a pre conceived result.
How about you let people prove their points rather then pass their opinions as facts. Jax and I just had a great conversation even though we slightly disagree. Be more like Jax, not yourself who isn’t engaging constructively.
Nobody is debating anything with you, Jack … you haven’t said anything that could be researched, verified, discussed or debated in this thread besides “You do not have to a drivers lic to purchase a car” which is correct. All the rest of your comments have been totally subjective in nature.
Flawedlogic was simply asking you give other people a chance to prove their argument with facts and give folks an opportunity to actually discuss things rather than poo-pooing a possible conversation because you don’t think “they” really want to debate facts.
February 14, 2020 at 11:16 am
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
Rosenblatt- I can go online and buy any car i want in a private sale without a driver lic. There is no debating that. It’s a fact.
February 14, 2020 at 11:19 am
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
7
6
Rosen- It’s also a fact IJ will NOT post an article on pro gun- self defense facts.
February 14, 2020 at 11:43 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
I know buddy, I know. That’s why my last post said:
“you haven’t said anything that could be researched, verified, discussed or debated in this thread besides “You do not have to a drivers lic to purchase a car” which is correct. “
I already said you were right when you wrote that. I don’t know why you’re trying to argue with me when I already agreed with you.
February 14, 2020 at 1:57 pm
flawedlogic says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
I disagree with you. I understand your frustration with me because I won’t let you forget your own actions have consequences and how you have used similarly horrendous things to people on here (like Jon did for you, and I did call Jon out on it). Again should we discuss how you claimed Rosen supported the long term pedophilia in gymnastics?
I am not attacking you Craig, but I am pointing out your own hypocrisy. You attack relentlessly like calling me the Ad Hominem queen. Practice what you preach, not tell others what to do and then do the exact opposite. You are too old for those childish games you try to play.
Hm weird that people like myself and Rosen have been able to apologize for being wrong before, and we went after jon’s comments to express how bad they were, but here you are acting so childish again Craig.
Why? Why are you so against realizing when you have made a comment in bad taste that is equally as bad as what Jon has said before. I would argue that the comment you made is on par with Jon’s. horrendous.
Please stop these antics or get off of the site already bud.
All we need to know about the “study” includes Bloomberg, the Anti-Constitutional Mini Mike Bloomberg and his fascination with shredding the 2nd Amendment is clear. Interestingly the study was released in February 2020, right before Super Tuesday Elections he is buying in.
Clearly Mini Mike Bloomberg is an Anti-Constitutionalist & the bias study confirms it!
The Barred owls are giving it the old on/two outside right now. They are very social and we are approaching their mating season. I love hearing them. :-)
“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention
Yeah. OK. I almost stopped reading there. Who thought this guy should be in charge of a study on whether guns should be more regulated? That is literally his job. Confirmation bias much?
Is this “association” between the laws and reduced shootings statistically significant? Kind of a critical thing to be missing.
This study also does not account for the trend in overall crime levels dropping.
You need to be more diligent in stopping the gratuitous name calling. “Liar” seems to be acceptable routinely while off-topic comments are not acceptable? (But truly, thank you for doing something about Jon. The civility has improved since then noticeably.)
I think what flawedlogic was trying to get across was that while Jon obviously makes some posts that are unwarranted and unjustified (for which both FL and myself have called Jon out for doing in recent articles which have since been removed), you are not fault-free in the name-calling department.
February 18, 2020 at 2:04 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
And neither are you. Man up.
February 18, 2020 at 2:19 pm
CC says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Why are you always so hostile Craig?
February 18, 2020 at 5:16 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
I praise civility and immediately get attacked. You tell me.
February 18, 2020 at 5:29 pm
flawedlogic says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Maybe because you attacked others and further criticized that Andrew was not doing enough for those who are arguing with you (sans jon as he was out of line). The issue with your request is that you frequently use deceitful methods and do not admit when you are wrong. you are holding yourself to a different standard then what you are requesting. My comment was not uncivil rather it was a pointed criticism of your additional requested of Andrew and pointing out that you will be held accountable then for the name calling, misleading statements, and your distasteful statements (again when you mentioned the pedo thing for rosen).
“Shootings connected to gang or illegal drug-related activities were excluded from the analyses.” You gotta be kidding me. Is that because of what Bloomberg said?
Wait, you think the gang members were licensed and it might skew the data?
Wait!; You think deaths of/by gang members, by number, and as a percentage of overall deaths by guns, shouldn’t count in gun fatality stats?
Just calls- obviously Bloomberg, the people that did the study and their minions didn’t care.
Let’s be clear. This study analyzed fatal mass shootings and the association between the rates of those shootings and the presence of various firearm laws. It does not pretend to be a study of all violence or gun deaths or violence or even all gun laws or defense strategies. It is focused on mass shootings. That’s it.
Mass shootings in a few states.
What are the death tolls from mass shootings in these few states compared to all other homicides in the country?
Why shouldn’t we focus on the bigger picture?
Craig- because that would point to the truth, and we can’t have that now can we.
When you balance this article with the study done about the same type of “mass killings” prevented by guns with high capacity mags………wait…that wont happen.
Molon Labe
Right on, Jack. Molon Labe ! ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I wonder how many ‘mass shootings’ are the result of the media’s hyper coverage of said events ? I guarantee you that a lot of these are idiots that have seen these reports and the coverage received.
Wait. Is your suggestion that we could prevent mass shootings by not informing the public of mass shootings?
Well….says- Are you saying there has never been copycat killers?
Jack I didn’t say anything. I asked a question.
I will answer yours, even though you failed to answer mine.
Yes there have been copycat killers. An ill-informed public will not prevent this.
An ill informed public can’t have copycat killers, dumb dumb.
Name calling. How mature…
Additionally, people of that ilk, aren’t sitting around waiting for a news story to motivate them…dumb dumb.
I suggest that people who observe others that are enamored/ intrigued by mass shooting should keep an eye on such potential copycats and report them to law enforcement at the moment when there is more than innocent curiousness.
I agree that the use of red flag laws should be part of the the solution Yogi.
I didn’t suggest that, you did. Informing the public and turning the event into an over-hyped spectacle are two different things.
In many ways the press glorify these wackos.
Again…I asked a question. It is something that civilized people do when looking for clarity.
Yes there is a difference between informing and hyper-sensationalizing something. That said, what do you feel is the appropriate level of coverage when a mass shooting incident occurs. Local only, statewide, national news? When does a higher level of coverage become warranted?
You seem to have all the answers, but provide no solutions.
I have no problem with the government requiring fingerprinting and a license to purchase a handgun, but I do object to any further intrusion and interference with my Constitutional right to “… keep and bear …” arms. This means to own and to carry. No one wants the “bad guys” to readily and easily obtain handguns, even though there is no really effective way to prevent this. But I do not want any governmental unit to prevent me from exercising my rights. We all know that almost all governmental authorities (local police departments and up) do not want people to be able to easily purchase, or get a license to carry, a firearm – all despite the great many occasions each year when a “good guy” with a handgun has prevented a “bad guy” with a gun from wreaking havoc on the population.
I think if you have to obtain a license to drive a car/truck/motorcycle that it’s not unreasonable to think one needs a license to own and carry a firearm.
Driving a car is not a right protected by our Constitution. It’s a ‘privilege’.
I don’t really disagree with you, Andrew, I grew up hunting, shooting etc. then after college went into the Army in the Infantry, so my experience is extensive, but I know that lots and lots of gun owners barely know which end makes the noise.
How about we grandfather certain folks and require new owners …….. hell, I don’t know. My real beef with some of the extreme measures I hear democrat candidates blathering on about is that , despite their best intentions and efforts, the genie is out of the bottle. I feel certain that any attempt to ban and take back weapons of any kind would not be very successful and probably wouldn’t end very well either.
Here is my biggest issue with all of these assumptions. I agree that owning a firearm should be a right as long as you have the training and you are not a danger to yourself or society. I know that bad guys will have guns, but having a good guy with a gun who doesn’t know how to use it is also ineffective to counter that bad guy. Anyone who says that taking guns would work is wrong. It does not make logical sense that it would work in any capacity, but if they restricted future sales and pushed for more voluntary turn in of these weapons, I think that might work more then what most people are saying. One issue is I think the constitution on that portion needs to be updated to modern times regarding firearms, when it was written the weapons were different and our political system was different in the fact that we didn’t have a real army or police departments. Today we have both of these things. And yes the constitution can be changed through constitutional amendments.
thoughts?
Ask the Iranian people about gun restrictions. The Mullahs would have been gone a long time ago if the Iranians people had guns. But since they don’t, they live in poverty and oppression.
People who think the government could never turn on the people are ignorant of history. Happens all the time. Usually, it happens when an autocrat rewards the military and police with special favors to side with the autocrat.
The media constantly claims that Trump wants to subvert democracy. I don’t believe it at all. But clearly, the media believes it is possible. Especially with the coming advances in technology for tracking, facial recognition, recording your every click on your computer or phone, etc.
No, the Constitution need not be updated. Regulation of gun ownership should reside with states, similar to auto ownership, and ownership of anything else commonly considered to be dangerous.
Only if an individual is proven to be irresponsible or incapable of owning any potentially dangerous thing should their rights be restricted for the safety of other citizens.
The 2nd Amendment was written as a deterrent to the US government becoming oppressive to its citizens. Removal of that right, even partially and incrementally, will not stand the test of Constitutionality.
Sounds like we are on the same page, except that I would not want to see the 2nd Amendment modified…..I believe that it is important to keep the original wording as the framers stated it.
Many 2nd A advocates are zealous in their defense of same as they fear (not without some genuine reasons) that once you start tweaking those rights that it becomes easier and easier to continue down that road. Kind of like a dam that developes a small leak.
So while i applaud those who fight tooth and nail, I am more moderate in my position. I give generously to the NRA and I’m glad they are diligent.
I also agree with your take on a “good guy with a gun who doesn’t know how to use it..” ! I sure don’t want him/her opening up in a crowded room in an effort to stop a bad guy. LOL
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, I think the evidence is clear that armed citizens have created a very successful deterrent effect and reduced crime in those parts of the country where both concealed and open carry are allowed and not thwarted.
My biggest issue with your assessment Craig is that you don’t think people know that governments have turned on its people. I mean it happens in Russia and China all of the time. If the American government tries to control the masses through the military, I don’t think there is much people can do against tanks and airplanes equipped with massive weapons.
Now yes not all people in the military will participate, but people believed before that the citizens in the military wouldn’t commit atrocities against their own citizens. I mean I feel like that has happened multiple times throughout history, and people often forget that and are optimistic.
Jax,. I understand your points, but I still think the 2nd amendment needs to be updated for modern times, but I respect your opinion regarding it.
Have an awesome day!
So by your logic, Just calls about weddings, regulation of free speech should also reside with states ?
These rights that are guaranteed by our constitution should not be left up to the states, if the states (like New York, Illinios, etc) have every intent to trample those rights.
I am similar confused Jax. I think it is the wrong way to go with letting gun rights be set by states. You can have extreme lax or over regulation very easily with this method. Polar, can you please explain further why you believe such regulations should come from this level of government?
States might regulate registration of guns if that is ruled Constitutional by the SCOTUS. States SHOULD legislate safety measures regarding mental health issues that may lead to gun violence or other types of violence by mentally ill people. I was not sufficiently clear by writing a brief comment above.
You guys hurt my head. Government does not grant rights. Why do so many people think they do?
Well in a sense they do grant rights, or rather protections of certain rights. Just because you are here doesn’t mean you can do anything you want. Can you expand on your overall thoughts on what you said?
There is just an overall lack of separation between rights and government that bother me. Rights are inherent, regardless of whether or not a government decides to protect it. Once you regulate “rights” to what government allows you to do, you are quickly slipping down the slope that leads to what we see in 1984.
Another recent example is healthcare. So many people are parading around calling healthcare a “human right” and claiming that because it is a right, government should pay for it.
Andrew- You do not have to a drivers lic to purchase a car.
I do have to have concealed weapons permit to carry my firearm and a huntling lic to hunt.
The cognitive dissonance displayed by saying that people should be licensed and finger printed just to buy a gun, but then lament that virtually all Gov authorities do everything possible to discourage people from buying a gun is laughable. Look at what is happening in Illinois with their FOID cards- “Oops we don’t have the time or money to issue those cards you need to own a gun- too bad.”
This why those very same rights you claim to wish to protect are incrementally taken (IE “infringed”) every legislative session. Stop letting Leftists weaponize your empathy and handing them the very tools they will use to take your firearms, because when they think you can’t fight back, they will enforce their rule with your blood.
Delete that first sentence, and stop being a useful idiot.
Full Semi Auto- my full semi auto has 100 round clips that shoot 4000 rounds per second. Yours?
Just what I thought – I googled Daniel Webster name. – YOU left out in this article that he is part of BLOOMBERG public health. BIASED!!!
How much money did they pay you to run this article…… HMMMM
We did not leave it out. There are 5 references to the Bloomberg School of Public Health in the article and references.
Excluded data from certain states…excluded data from gangs and drug related activities???
Sounds to me like they needed come up with a predetermined conclusion……….
Bob- proof again, it’s an agenda, not facts.
Please pass a Law making it Illegal to commit a crime with a Gun!
That way I can tell the Criminal with a Gun that they are breaking the Law.
Oracle- why worry about minor details like that when criminals will simply be released in NY without bail?
Firearm purchaser licensing laws require a direct application to a law enforcement agency that conducts background checks, often aided by fingerprint-based identity verification of the applicant. I am very much in favor of 2d amendment rights. i do not see how do these laws restrict gun ownership by responsible Americans or infringe rights. Don’t they just keep them out of the hands of people who should not have them? Yes, criminals can still get guns but shouldn’t we make an effort to keep guns out of their hands? I for one am willing to put up with the inconvenience of a background check and fingerprinting. And this is not the only study to show that such laws reduce violence. I would hope people who believe in the 2d amendment would be willing to undergo a little inconvenience to keep it and us all safer. Such laws do not restrict your right to own a firearm unless your background check indicates you are a danger.
States that require no permits have lower shootings than states that require permits. Vermont does not require permits to purchase and has constitutional carry and has had no mass shootings. California requires permits to purchase and allows almost no one a concealed carry permit and has massive amounts of mass shootings.
This article cherry picks data to arrive at a pre conceived result.
David- they don’t want the facts. Don’t tell them about Unicorns not being real, you will get beat down for truth in this group.
How about you let people prove their points rather then pass their opinions as facts. Jax and I just had a great conversation even though we slightly disagree. Be more like Jax, not yourself who isn’t engaging constructively.
flawedlogic- I will not debate unicorns.
Nobody is debating anything with you, Jack … you haven’t said anything that could be researched, verified, discussed or debated in this thread besides “You do not have to a drivers lic to purchase a car” which is correct. All the rest of your comments have been totally subjective in nature.
Flawedlogic was simply asking you give other people a chance to prove their argument with facts and give folks an opportunity to actually discuss things rather than poo-pooing a possible conversation because you don’t think “they” really want to debate facts.
Rosenblatt- I can go online and buy any car i want in a private sale without a driver lic. There is no debating that. It’s a fact.
Rosen- It’s also a fact IJ will NOT post an article on pro gun- self defense facts.
I know buddy, I know. That’s why my last post said:
“you haven’t said anything that could be researched, verified, discussed or debated in this thread besides “You do not have to a drivers lic to purchase a car” which is correct. “
I already said you were right when you wrote that. I don’t know why you’re trying to argue with me when I already agreed with you.
I disagree with you. I understand your frustration with me because I won’t let you forget your own actions have consequences and how you have used similarly horrendous things to people on here (like Jon did for you, and I did call Jon out on it). Again should we discuss how you claimed Rosen supported the long term pedophilia in gymnastics?
I am not attacking you Craig, but I am pointing out your own hypocrisy. You attack relentlessly like calling me the Ad Hominem queen. Practice what you preach, not tell others what to do and then do the exact opposite. You are too old for those childish games you try to play.
Thanks for raising the gymnast insult again.
Hm weird that people like myself and Rosen have been able to apologize for being wrong before, and we went after jon’s comments to express how bad they were, but here you are acting so childish again Craig.
Why? Why are you so against realizing when you have made a comment in bad taste that is equally as bad as what Jon has said before. I would argue that the comment you made is on par with Jon’s. horrendous.
Please stop these antics or get off of the site already bud.
I know it…. and that he will deny it.
All we need to know about the “study” includes Bloomberg, the Anti-Constitutional Mini Mike Bloomberg and his fascination with shredding the 2nd Amendment is clear. Interestingly the study was released in February 2020, right before Super Tuesday Elections he is buying in.
Clearly Mini Mike Bloomberg is an Anti-Constitutionalist & the bias study confirms it!
TR714- and $1000 says mini Mike’s security has high capacity mags in their pistols and AR15’s in the trunks of their cars.
The Barred owls are giving it the old on/two outside right now. They are very social and we are approaching their mating season. I love hearing them. :-)
“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention
Yeah. OK. I almost stopped reading there. Who thought this guy should be in charge of a study on whether guns should be more regulated? That is literally his job. Confirmation bias much?
Is this “association” between the laws and reduced shootings statistically significant? Kind of a critical thing to be missing.
This study also does not account for the trend in overall crime levels dropping.
A few of you have been posting climate-related comments to this article.
My apologies Andrew for my part in posting off topic comments.
You need to be more diligent in stopping the gratuitous name calling. “Liar” seems to be acceptable routinely while off-topic comments are not acceptable? (But truly, thank you for doing something about Jon. The civility has improved since then noticeably.)
Maybe stop the misleading and deceitful statements, the needless attacks, and just debate normally, or you could be next Craig.
Well, it was more civil for a moment . . .
I think what flawedlogic was trying to get across was that while Jon obviously makes some posts that are unwarranted and unjustified (for which both FL and myself have called Jon out for doing in recent articles which have since been removed), you are not fault-free in the name-calling department.
And neither are you. Man up.
Why are you always so hostile Craig?
I praise civility and immediately get attacked. You tell me.
Maybe because you attacked others and further criticized that Andrew was not doing enough for those who are arguing with you (sans jon as he was out of line). The issue with your request is that you frequently use deceitful methods and do not admit when you are wrong. you are holding yourself to a different standard then what you are requesting. My comment was not uncivil rather it was a pointed criticism of your additional requested of Andrew and pointing out that you will be held accountable then for the name calling, misleading statements, and your distasteful statements (again when you mentioned the pedo thing for rosen).