General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe new gun safety study that gun nuts don’t want you to hear about
A law requiring people to apply for a permit before buying a handgun helped Connecticut quietly reduce its firearm-related homicide rate by 40 percent, according to a new study out from Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. And this week, announced in conjunction with the research, lawmakers from Connecticut introduced a measure to encourage other states to adopt their own permit programs.
Connecticut’s “permit to purchase” law, in effect for two decades, requires residents to undergo background checks, complete a safety course and apply in-person for a permit before they can buy a handgun. The law applies to both private sellers and licensed gun dealers.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins reviewed the homicide rate in the 10 years before the law was implemented and compared it to longitudinal estimates of what the rate would have been had the law not be enacted. The study found a 40 percent reduction in gun-related homicides. Bolstering what researchers say is the correlation between the permit law and the drop in gun homicides, there wasn’t a similar drop in non-firearm homicides.
The relationship between tighter regulations around handguns and fewer gun-related homicides is in keeping with previous research out of Johns Hopkins on what happened after Missouri repealed its own permit law.
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/this_is_the_nras_worst_nightmare_the_new_gun_safety_study_that_gun_nuts_dont_want_you_to_hear_about/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ileus
(15,396 posts)
eggplant
(3,911 posts)And your 99% comment makes no sense.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)What other rights should I have to have a license for?
First amendment license to comment freely on interweb forums come to mind.
But, plans to control web content are in the wings, and that's scary. Some think a level of control is needed on web content to bar what they don't like to see/hear but, what happens when people who like an opposite view get into office ? The worm turns.
Lotsa room for 'camels nose in the tent flap' when infringement of rights starts on a small scale with a 'its for your own good' suggestion.
ie: compared to 1980's how different is it getting on a plane compared to today ? Are a few rights trampled ? 1st/4th amendments are given up as soon as you get in a TSA line. Try talking to a friend in line but don't say 'that movie was the bomb' if you actually want on a flight.
Whole different world John.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
mitch96
(13,907 posts)Drivers lic. Pilots lic. Items that need a certain degree of proficiency to be done safely.. Hell even cops and soldiers shoot off a toe every once in a while and they are extensively trained to shoot a weapon.
Like the article says they are not denying you of the right, just show you know what you are doing and be able to trace the weapon.
Like a car/plane/boat registration.
Me personally, I don't have a problem with that… If you are bound and determined to kill someone a lead pipe works as well as a Glock 19 with a 33 round magazine …
Ironically I was at a gun show during one of the "frenzies" and this guy selling bulk ammo shocked the shit out of me. He said he hated Obama but since he has been in office his ammo business has been flourishing. He states he is a staunch TeaParty 'publican but he voted for OBAMA cause it was good for 'bidness… Will wonders never cease.
m
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)driving and piloting are not a constitutional right.
Cars and boats do not need to be registered to own.
mitch96
(13,907 posts)but you get my drift. Then again there were no cars and planes back when the constitution was written..
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)whereas, owning a firearm is, so why should I be required to be licensed to own a firearm?
mitch96
(13,907 posts)how would you fix the problem? Not to be offensive, just curious…
m
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)do the background check, take possession of the firearm, no license required, as it should be.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)And thus you are ok with the government limiting your rights to own one.
Or am I missing something?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and because I'm a law abiding citizen, my right to own a firearm isn't being infringed, but having to pay for a Constitutionally protected right is an infringement on my right.
...if the license was free and the safety course was free, then you would be fine with it?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but a license to exercise a Constitutionally protected right? NO!!!
eggplant
(3,911 posts)...any more than a background check or passing a safety course?
And why don't you complain about sales taxes on guns?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)How about a license to exercise your right to vote?
How about a license for a woman to exercise her right to an abortion?
eggplant
(3,911 posts)You are arguing semantics.
You are ok with requiring a background check.
You are ok with requiring a safety course.
What if the "license" was simply the certificate you got after passing the safety course?
and since you were arguing earlier that things like cars, etc, aren't mentioned in the constitution, neither is abortion. So you can let that strawman argument go.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and if owning a firearm were predicated on that certificate, then I would oppose that too.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)...
When Chicago law requires a permit to protest, and the First Amendment does not excuse the absence of a permit, protesters without a permit might be arrested or prosecuted.
The 2A isn't somehow more absolute than the 1A. Reasonable constraints apply to both. The government is allowed to restrict speech.
You are ok with a background check. This is a constraint that is not mentioned anywhere in the 2A. So I take this to mean that you are fine with *some* government-imposed restrictions. And it is perfectly reasonable that you are ok with some but not other restrictions. But claiming that the 2A precludes such restrictions while not claiming that background checks would also be precluded is disingenuous.
Either there can be restrictions or there can't. If the 2A is absolute, then it is absolute. And if background checks are ok, then that opens the door to other reasonable restrictions. Once you agree with that statement, then a reasonable discussion of *which* restrictions are ok can proceed.
Either that, or you have to back off from your "background checks are ok" claim.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You can't because I never did, the SCOTUS has said that the 2A is subject to reasonable restrictions, but who determines what those "reasonable" restrictions are?
The gun control orgs? The NRA?
I wouldn't trust either with the 2A.
My opposition to requiring a license is that I don't feel that I should be required to obtain a license to own a firearm, which is a protected right, now, to carry that weapon in the public, then a license is required in most states in the form of a CHL, which I have no opposition to, in my state, we don't have to have one unless we want to travel to other states who have a reciprocity agreement with AZ, I chose to go through the course and get one.
mitch96
(13,907 posts)And it does not work, still lots of gun death. I think the article shows what happens in one state with more control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
I still would like to see a way of lowering gun death and still have someone explain to me how it would work. We don't have to re invent the wheel here, just see what works someplace and make it fit to our needs…
m
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)3 things would drastically lower the firearms deaths.
1. End the War on Drugs, that alone would have a huge impact on the homicide rate, and,
2. Better mental health services, after all, 2/3 of firearms deaths are suicide.
3. Universal background checks.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)But have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I answered.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)it was another poster.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)We know.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)There are those here who are reasonable and worth debating with, then there are those who just hurl insults, declare victory or use the ignore function.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Many are great and we just disagree on the issue. A minority spew insults and the childish sexual references. I have to say I have never seen anyone from the pro-control side say something like I just stated about the DU members that support RKBA. We are almost always called "gun humpers", "ammosexuals", "delicate flowers", "future murderers" among many other things.
Here is one example from this thread.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026833028#post19
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)And responding to me as if i agree with everything every gun control proponent has ever said?
Maybe it's you that thinks your side and mine are monolithic.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it was a private discussion between just you two. Do you want me to self delete?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)firearms deaths will never be completely "fixed"
Myself, I do not have a major problem with having to get a permit at little to no cost that requires at least minimal training and background checks.
I would open current NICS for private sales. In effect UBC.
I would fully fund and enforce current laws.
I would give out free gun locks and subsidize gun safes with some kind of tax credit.
I have no problem removing weapons from people CONVICTED of domestic abuse.
I would much better fund mental heath as this is the leading cause for gun deaths.
I can even go for magazine limits to say 20 rounds but it will make little difference as billions are out there and it is just a box with a spring inside.
I would prefer all states have the same standard for CCW and weapon transport.
If you have this license, you should very well be able to buy weapons in other states just like cars.
I am not for bans
I think NFA registry should be reopened
I think sound suppressors should not be an NFA item
I am sure I can think of more, that is just off the top of my head for now.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)transport. So again another fail, sorry to say.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So, first amendment rights can require a permit, but not second amendment rights?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)have to get a permit to exercise a Constitutionally protected right.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And that's false.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Does not seem so. Sorry to say another failed analogy.
Previous Section: Overview of the fundamental right to protest
On the other hand, the First Amendment generally bars government from requiring a permit when one person or a small group protest in a park, or when a group of any size protest on a public sidewalk in a manner that does not burden pedestrian or vehicle traffic. Such non-permitted protests might involve speeches, press conferences, signs, marches, chants, leaflets, expressive clothing, and efforts to speak with passersby. The absence of a permit for such protests simply does not burden any legitimate government interests. Thus, the Chicago Park District does not require a permit for gatherings in parks of fewer than 50 people. Likewise, the Chicago ordinance regulating public assembly does not require a permit for gatherings and marches on sidewalks that do not obstruct the normal flow of pedestrian traffic.
Moreover, if protesters gather in response to breaking news, the First Amendment requires an exception from the ordinary deadlines in the government’s permit process. Thus, in the Chicago ordinance requiring permit applications 15 days before a parade, and notice to the City five days before a sidewalk demonstration that would impede pedestrian traffic, there is an exemption for spontaneous responses to current events.
http://www.aclu-il.org/aclu-report-when-can-government-require-a-permit-to-protest/
This is about Chicago, but is true in most if not all cities.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and not groups. Heck, there's this whole "free assembly" part that points to it applying to groups too.
Keep shouting. Maybe someone will think you aren't being hypocritical.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)on that, but we do agree on the constitutional RKBA
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)constitutional rights can be limited. When the groups cause problems with safety yes, rights can be limited. I do have serious issues with the so-called "free speech" zones, I do not think they are constitutional. This is the same with weapons. You can not be a prohibited person to exercise that right. You have to be of a certain age, you can not be a criminal, you can not be a drug abuser. So I am not being hypocritical. It seems to be the ones around here that say anyone can legally own any weapon they want and just go down to the Walmart and pick it up.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Except you are arguing against the any process that is used to show you are not prohibited.
A gun permit is, fundamentally, a document that says "I am not in the prohibited group". You can't rely on someone showing their "I am prohibited card" when they go to buy a gun - they'll just lie.
So you need a positive document showing you are not prohibited. AKA a permit. Will there be fake ones? Sure. Just like there are fake driver's licenses. With drivers licenses, it's a small enough number that the overall system is effective.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I just am for UBC and the NICS instant system. It should be open to the public and have better data that is updated. I said I do not have a great issue with a permit to purchase. You just posted one problem, fake permits. What about a status change such as a drug or domestic violence conviction, I still have my permit I had prior to that change and show it for a weapons purchase. Guess I could get my firearm, right?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You realize they don't always take physical possession of the license, right?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That revocation of the license is in a state database. Of course that is not checked if you want to buy a car either.
They also do not take away your car. I just think the instant check with an updated database ids the best way. Mental health records in that database could become a sticky issue but I think it could be worked out.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I prefer to force people to create more forgeries in order to get around those restrictions.
If there is just a computer check, then they only need a fake ID. If there is a physical permit too, then they need a fake permit and a fake ID that matches the fake permit.
A permit database would also cover the mental health HIPAA leak your concerned about. The database that could be searched by the background check would just show there is no permit. The reason why there is no permit would not have to be there.
Just like the lack of a drivers license does not reveal you are blind or have epilepsy.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)if they can't understand "well regulated" then they won't understand what you're saying.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It does not mean the same thing now as when written.
jmowreader
(50,559 posts)There is a very loud, very small minority in this country that thinks "freedom to travel" - a Constitutionally-guaranteed right - means you are allowed to drive a car without a license so long as you are not in commerce when you do it.
This is as crazy as it sounds.
Damansarajaya
(625 posts)It's tied intimately with "a well-organized militia," which we haven't had ever since the US had a standing army, which the Founders vehemently opposed.
If any and all arms are my right, then sheeit, I want a goshdarn fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun . . . and a goldurn bazooka to go with it.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)Background checks, training, and permits all seem reasonable for a well regulated militia as opposed to any yahoo who wants a gun.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)means well equipped at the time the second amendment was written. Not any yahoo can get a gun either. You can not legally be a prohibited person.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)Even at the time of the 2nd Amendment "Well Regulated" did not just mean well equipped. It also meant well trained, well disciplined and with a lawful chain of command.
The government can and should regulate what type of weapons are permitted. That is reasonable.
The government can and should regulate who is legally prohibited and enact regulations that prevent them from obtaining firearms. That is reasonable.
If the "militia" is not well trained, it is nothing more than a danger to itself, our nation and its citizens. This should be blindingly obvious.
If there is not a lawful chain of command, the so-called militia can be just an armed mob, a dangerous pack of vigilantes, or an angry nut with a grudge.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Firearm ownership is a Constitutionally protected right, so, again, why should I have to have a license for a Constitutionally protected right?
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Many states now put more restrictions on voting than they do on owning a gun while voting is a right described in the original Constitution. The right to vote is a more primary right than the right to own a gun in my opinion.
As a practical matter now voting requires a license of some sort with the restrictive voter ID laws that have been passed.
If no license is needed for gun ownership, why is ID required to vote?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)from exercising their fundamental right to cast a vote.
And there are over 20,000 fed., state, local firearms laws on the books in this country, how many more do you want?
Maybe if TPTB start enforcing those laws, it would make a difference.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)They should have to carry insurance for those killing machines too.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)How many died because he was elected by those exercising their constitutional right to vote?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)happens quite often by bullying
Orrex
(63,213 posts)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)just does not make the national news
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Are you seriously suggesting that 11,000+ people commit suicide annually because of online bullying?
Even if that's true, how many of those 11,000+ kill themselves with guns?
Over the years I've a heard a lot of crazy shit meant to justify this crazy nation's crazy rampant gun fetish, but your post just might take the cake: "pens are more dangerous than guns because 11,000+ people kill themselves annually because of unreported bullying."
If ever you're inspired to argue seriously as a gun advocate, you should really consider outsourcing the job to someone else.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and attribute it to me, I think you are better than that.
This is the post I was responding too, notice no numbers but a question.
And this is the post from you I responded too, notice again that 11,,000+ number has never been used, correct?
So how did you make the leap to this from what I stated?
Even if that's true, how many of those 11,000+ kill themselves with guns?
To me it seems you fail at posting the facts and it just makes you look bad. You might want to actually post true content and not falsehoods or outright exaggerations/distortions.
Ones again, I do believe thousands of people out of some 300 million people have committed suicide over bullying. I am sure some have been by guns too, but many have been by hanging and drugs. So yes there is another right that can be used to kill your neighbor, as I was asked in the original question and provided my answer.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Here is the progression that you seem not to be understanding:
Post 139, from Politicalboi:
What did you mean in post 147, if not that it's "quite probably" true that "the pen or online comments" lead to deaths "thousands of times per year?" Did you not read those posts?
Since I've now posted those facts, you can perhaps understand my concern in this regard.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)"thousands of times per year?" is not the same a 11,000+ that you posted I said.
Bullying and Suicide
There is a strong link between bullying and suicide, as suggested by recent bullying-related suicides in the US and other countries. Parents, teachers, and students learn the dangers of bullying and help students who may be at risk of committing suicide.
In recent years, a series of bullying-related suicides in the US and across the globe have drawn attention to the connection between bullying and suicide. Though too many adults still see bullying as "just part of being a kid," it is a serious problem that leads to many negative effects for victims, including suicide. Many people may not realize that there is also a link between being a bully and committing suicide.
The statistics on bullying and suicide are alarming:
Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people, resulting in about 4,400 deaths per year, according to the CDC. For every suicide among young people, there are at least 100 suicide attempts. Over 14 percent of high school students have considered suicide, and almost 7 percent have attempted it.
Bully victims are between 2 to 9 times more likely to consider suicide than non-victims, according to studies by Yale University
A study in Britain found that at least half of suicides among young people are related to bullying
10 to 14 year old girls may be at even higher risk for suicide, according to the study above
According to statistics reported by ABC News, nearly 30 percent of students are either bullies or victims of bullying, and 160,000 kids stay home from school every day because of fear of bullying
Bully-related suicide can be connected to any type of bullying, including physical bullying, emotional bullying, cyberbullying, and sexting, or circulating suggestive or nude photos or messages about a person.
http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-and-suicide.html
You fail to realize what this whole sub-thread was over conveniently, and tried to make it about me. Sorry but it was a big fail on your part.
It was this.........
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Your assertion was that thousands of suicides are due to pen- or online bullying. The bullet-points that you cite do not support this, though they're presented in away that's cleary meant to suggest that they do.
Let's take a look at them:
If the claim is that bullying is a problem nationwide that needs to be addressed, then these bullet-points support that claim quite strongly. If the claim is that bullying proves that the first amendment is as dangerous as (or more dangerous than) the second amendment, then those bullet-points really don't support that claim at all.
I'm sure that you knew this, of course, because it's pretty obvious.
What other Constitutional right can you kill your neighbor with?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Orrex
(63,213 posts)We can continue to debate whether or not you're silly, but at the end of it you still won't believe it, and you'll still be silly.
I think I'll leave it at that, since the entirety of your position has been reduced to one syllable.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Have a great weekend 
Logical
(22,457 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)And where do you get that Scalia is my hero?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I think that was just another personal insult directed from the pro-controller side. Seems a little childish in my opinion, but if it makes them happy. 
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and I've made it clear every time I vote how opposed I am to it.
marym625
(17,997 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)on science and data. The statistical evidence that gun control saves lives has been around for a long time, but no amount of data is going to change the minds of gun nuts.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)You’d think that the American public would not be so easily duped about the consequences of climate change. Or, for that matter, about the dangers of cigarettes, asbestos, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, or any number of a host of hazards to our species.
And yet as the new documentary Merchants of Doubt makes clear, distorting science to favor corporate interests is a simple matter of the media quoting the right – or wrong — industry-funded think tank spokesperson. The result? Scientific truth is twisted, and left twisting the wind.
Directed by Robert Kenner (who also made the Academy Award-nominated Food, Inc. and Two Days in October), Merchants of Doubt plots this journey into the dark heart of spin. The film, which has been rolling out this spring in selected theaters across the U.S., peeks behind the curtain of charismatic pundits who are hired by the very industries under fire for posing a hazard to the public—from dioxin to pesticides to flame retardants in furniture.
Sold to the media as “experts,” these authorities’ main purpose is to sow doubt in the public mind. The technique dates back to the 1950’s, when the tobacco industry realized the mounting, irrefutable evidence that smokes were carcinogenic would cut into profits. All their lawyers and PR wizards had to do was create doubt, to keep the debate about the safety of smoking alive.
http://boingboing.net/2015/06/12/meet-the-scientific-storytelle.html
Skittles
(153,164 posts)when the second amendment was written, they could never envision the stupid assholes of today using it as an excuse to cover THEIR FEAR AND PARANOIA
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)One that fooled many here, big time
Rachel Maddow - Powerful anti gun ad panics gun rights groups
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017253473
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=1017253473&info=1#recs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628516
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=12628516&info=1#recs
With lots of effusive praise from the best and the brightest of DU gun control advocates...
Turns out that those "first time gun buyers" that just "happened" to go into
the store were actors:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=168674
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=272051
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=271286
UPDATE: It was a fake from start to finish- the 'customers' were really actors
Most of y'all got played, and played hard...
Thanks to beevul for posting this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168674
In an exclusive, the Shooter’s Log has learned that actors were used to portray customers in a fake gun shop “public service announcement” produced by States United Against Gun Violence earlier this year.
The New York City Mayor’s Office of Media has confirmed these facts in its response to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request submitted in March.
“States United To Prevent Gun Violence opens a ‘gun store’ in NYC as a hidden camera social experiment to debunk safety myths,” the CeaseFire USA project claimed in its description of the video. The “social experiment,” like the “gun shop” itself, was pre-arranged, permits approved by the city indicate.
“Actors are interviewed on camera in a fake gun store,” the permits’ scene descriptions reveal.
It had previously been known that the “gun store proprietor” behind the counter was an actor—and one who has previously made a living glorifying fake “gun violence”—but up until now, speculation about if the “customers” were also plants has been just that.
http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/group-actors-nyc-gun-store-facade/
March FOIL Request:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/266265840/NYC-FOIL-Request-Transcript-Electronically-Submitted-to-Records-Access-Officer
May FOIL Response:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/266266021/NYC-Foil-Cover-Email
PSA Permit, March 10:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/266266993/PSA-Permit-310
PSA Permit, March 11:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/266267126/PSA-Permit-311
PSA Permit, March 12:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/266267307/PSA-Permit-312
PSA Project Information:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/266267519/Gun-Control-PSA-Project-Information-Redacted
Certificate of Insurance:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/266268035/Rival-School-Pictures-Guns-With-History-Clientst-Certificate-of-Insurance-Redacted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mote, meet beam...
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Listen.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot or killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
beevul
(12,194 posts)No thanks.
Until you folks start out by recognizing that it is in fact a right we are discussing rather than a privilege, and proceed from that standpoint, why should any of us get behind anything you propose?
Sancho
(9,070 posts)The rights of unstable people, criminals, and children to possess guns does not supersede the rights of the rest of the world.
Our right to be safe is not a privilege!! There are LIMITS to the "right" to possess and use guns.
Licenses, carry permits, Connecticut's purchase license, and similar permits are all reasonable and constitutional. Background checks are reasonable and legal. Restricting some types of weapons is legal. Requiring training is legal.
We have a right to live without being shot by the emotionally ill, violent people, children with guns, untrained people overloaded with stupidity, and unstable teenagers.
Read "The Second Amendment: A Biography" by Michael Waldman
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
Note that the first case cited was from thoroughly antigun DC...
Sancho
(9,070 posts)SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt Second Amendment supporters a major defeat today by refusing to hear an appeal filed by San Francisco gun owners seeking to overturn that city's requirement that all handguns kept at home and not carried on the owner’s person be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock." Today’s action by the Court leaves that gun control ordinance on the books.
If the facts of the San Francisco case sound familiar it is because they correspond so closely to the facts at issue in the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that decision, the Court voided not only D.C.'s ban on handguns, it also voided D.C.'s requirement that all firearms kept at home be "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." According to Heller, the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
In other words, the San Francisco gun control law would appear to be plainly unconstitutional under Heller. Yet the Court still refused to hear the case. As is customary, the justices gave no explanation for their denial of the appeal.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The case was about whether the S.F. regulations were permissible under the Second Amendment.
And FWIW, I happen to agree with the majority of the Supremes in this case that they are.
Of course, if you do have some example of a court asserting a "right to be safe",
I would be most interested in seeing it/them
Until such a thing does happen, it remains merely Waldman's (and yours) theory
Sancho
(9,070 posts)meanwhile, my license includes various test cases that would prevent dangerous people from possessing and using guns - which keeps me safe.
It also includes cases where people are subjected to background checks of different sorts - which keeps me safe.
It also includes required training or passing a test of knowledge and skill - which keeps me safe.
It also includes waiting periods- which keeps me safe.
It also includes limits on some types of weapons - which keeps me safe.
It also includes transportation and storage requirements - which keeps me safe.
We can go on and on about the rights of the public to be free from various harms, but it boils down in layman terms to keeping the public safe within practical reason.
I'm sure you are aware there are limits on "constitutional rights" like the classic: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
All of the above "limits" on the 2nd amendment are enacted to prevent public harm. There are conflicts and debates, even among the SC justices and different interpretations over the years. The "right" to possess a gun can be limited. In my license, the major limit has nothing to do with the type of gun (for example). I simply limit the PEOPLE who are likely dangerous from possessing guns, at least easy possession is restricted. The license is a tool. The 2nd does not say, "No license or permit will be issued."
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Will these work as well as laws preventing people from possessing and using
alcohol, cannabis, methamphetamine, and heroin?
Even a fundie-religious quasi-police state like Iran can't stop people from
doing 'bad' things:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/06/09/iran-is-opening-150-alcoholism-treatment-centers-even-though-alcohol-is-banned/
The Iranian government is stepping up its attempts to tackle alcoholism, a senior Health Ministry official told the Iranian Students' News Agency on Monday, with more than 150 outpatient alcohol treatment centers slated for opening in the near future, six of which will also have facilities for inpatient detoxification.
For a country with more than 77 million inhabitants, it may seem a relatively modest move. It's more remarkable, however, when you consider that alcohol has been banned in Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. In fact, drinking alcohol is classified as a crime against God in the country, punishable with lashings (allowances are made for non-Muslim citizens, who can make but not sell their own beverages). Repeat offenders can even – in theory, if not so much in practice – face the death penalty.
As anyone with any knowledge of the Prohibition-era United States will tell you, however, a ban on alcohol doesn't mean no one is drinking it: people are willing to go to some extraordinary lengths to get a drink. And in Iran, where alcohol was long a part of the culture and where evidence has been found of winemaking in the region dating as far back as 5400 B.C., the habit has proven hard to leave behind...
...Exactly what lies behind the Iranian drive to drink is hard to say, but it certainly appears that some young Iranians see it as an escape from their daily lives and the restrictions placed upon them. And while alcohol may be seen as a scourge by the Iranian government, it may be a lesser evil compared to harder drugs. Iran's Drug Control Headquarters estimates that 3 million people in Iran are addicts, even though drug trafficking is punishable by death.
So, no, I don't believe your clever plans have a chance in hell of working...
Sancho
(9,070 posts)If you think that laws don't work and want to live in anarchy, then maybe you should head for some lawless African country. Meanwhile, Bernie certainly believe in laws, rules, and regulations - from bank restrictions to minimum wages to whatever.
Meanwhile, I believe stronger laws to keep unstable people, children, and criminals from easy access to gun possession is logical. Even our crazy, right-wing SC seems to be going along.
I think a license is the best tool. Connecticut's "license to purchase a gun" is a step in the right direction.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I live in a state (Massachusetts) that is well known for having strict gun laws
The only one that I think problematic is the one giving some politician-in-a-uniform
veto power over otherwise qualified license applicants
Would you have a problem with a "Opinion Permit" being required to post online?
If not, you are most definitely on the wrong site
If you do, you're a 'cafeteria Constitutionalist' and/or a hypocrite...
Sancho
(9,070 posts)if opinions from unstable people or untrained people or children would kill others.
Guns have a different consequence than posted opinions. That's why road rage, people pretending to be cops, people angry at the polices, etc. should be cleared in order to possess a gun. If people just yelled insulting opinions, no one would care!
What you seem to be defending is that it's ok for unstable people, children, untrained people, and criminals to easily possess and use guns. You seem to be saying that there is no way to restrict dangerous people from killing others to the tune of thousands each year in the US - this year more than killed in auto accidents.
If you are so smart, how would you keep the dangerous from easy access to guns other than some kind of license? Point of sale "background checks" don't work and that means every clerk in the country has to have connection to all kinds of records or a national database. A license means your background is private, but you are cleared to buy and use guns. Go to the range, show a license. Buy some bullets, show a license. No big deal.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines
The station's name is French for "One Thousand Hills Free Radio and Television", deriving from the description of Rwanda as "Land of a Thousand Hills". It received support from the government-controlled Radio Rwanda, which initially allowed it to transmit using their equipment.[1]
Widely listened to by the general population, it projected racist propaganda against Tutsis, moderate Hutus, Belgians, and the United Nations mission UNAMIR. It is widely regarded by many Rwandan citizens (a view also shared and expressed by the UN war crimes tribunal) as having played a crucial role in creating the atmosphere of charged racial hostility that allowed the genocide to occur. A study by a Harvard University researcher estimates that 9.9% of the participation in the genocidal violence was due to the broadcasts. The estimate of the study suggests that approximately 51,000 deaths were caused by the station's broadcasts.[2]
Your last paragraph...
...begs several very important questions:
1. Despite your many earnest assurances, you've not demonstrated that your ideas will work.
2. What makes your Prohibition 3.0 more publicly palatable (or workable) than the previous
ones for alcohol and cannabis?
3. How would you stop the black market? What methods would work where the methods
used against alcohol and in The War Against (Some) Drugs didn't?
Sancho
(9,070 posts)It's true that no one has tried a comprehensive license like I've proposed - only bits and pieces so far. I don't doubt some would slip through any system, but right now gun deaths in the US are a major problem.
Instead of getting taking away your guns as some propose, I'm proposing that we limit easy access to guns for likely dangerous people.
Instead of universal databases at the point of sale or use, I'm proposing a license good for purchases and use at the shooting location.
Instead of defining different types of weapons and size of magazines, I'm proposing the person is trained and cleared.
Actually, my license would be less intrusive than many other proposals floating around right now.
I put the insurance requirement into the license for one main reason - insurance companies like to collect data on what works and what predicts problems. The "gun insurance" companies would quickly figure out things.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Fine words won't make it any more palatable- or effective for that matter
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Has nothing to do with the Patriot act. You can prevent shooting by making easy access to guns harder for dangerous people. I suppose the license could also screen to see if you were on a terrorist watch list. 
Thanks, I may add that!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And there it is. Pardon me, but NO FUCKING WAY.
I'll give you this, you managed to couch your authoritarian bent in honeyed words and mild phrasing
quite well-right up until now, that is...
beevul
(12,194 posts)No thanks.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Except that you and others like you don't seem very interested in keeping your focus on "dangerous people".
Exhibit A:
Your purported "terrorist watchlist" example, would have flagged Ted Kennedy.
No Thanks.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)in response to the gunnery post!
You still don't get it, do you?
beevul
(12,194 posts) Yes, you tripped and put the idea/lightbulb smiley there to indicate sarcasm.
I know "walking it back" when I see it, so does anyone else paying attention.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)I personally knew a 15 year old who was screened as emotional in school, sent to counseling with professionals, and well-known to juvenile justice.
I was in the courtroom when a psychologist told the judge he was potentially dangerous. He had not committed a violent crime YET, so the judge did not hold him. A month later he shot an upstanding father and social worker to death in front of the family.
Criminal laws simply can't deal with unstable people, children, untrained people or even some who are potentially violent who have not committed the big felony yet. These dangerous people have easy access to guns.
A license is a simple answer. It's much less difficult that confiscating guns, defining what different guns are legal or how many bullets one can have...
If you have a license by completing reasonable steps, you can show it to buy guns, ammo, enter a range, hunt, or transport a gun. Otherwise, you'll be turned away. You can't get the license until you meet your state's standards.
It's not a big problem, except the automatic aversion to ANY gun legislation is off the top.
beevul
(12,194 posts)If permission is required to exercise it, its not being treated like a constitutionally protected fundamental right.
Its being turned into a privilege.
No thanks.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)READ THE BOOK!! Your inflated "right" is a recent manufactured interpretation. The book is a very good and scholarly history of the 2nd, including the cases and arguments. Lots of footnotes and references too. Sorry, but you can't be more wrong or uninformed. I'd send you my copy, but I have it on the Kindle. If you have an interest in the 2nd, then learn about it.
The Second Amendment: A Biography Hardcover – May 20, 2014
http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434397480&sr=8-1&keywords=2nd+amendment+books
By the president of the prestigious Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.
At a time of renewed debate over guns in America, what does the Second Amendment mean? This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.
The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the 20th century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.
The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.
In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Even the op ed with covers you cite there, has nothing on the preamble:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
Your author pretends the above does not exist, just like the rest of the "collective right" conspiracy theorists.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)"You seem to be saying..." I say you have not demonstrated the need, political ability
to bring about, or the efficacy what you want.
You've posted your gun control ideas many, many times. Repitition has not made them any more valid,
and never will. "Argument by repeated assertion" is a logical fallacy:
https://www.google.com/search?q=argumnt+by+assertion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=argument+by+assertion
Sancho
(9,070 posts)if you don't want a license, how do you propose that guns are kept from the hands of dangerous people?
Simply allowing the school and movie shootings is unacceptable to me and many others. Accidental discharges at weddings, 3-year olds killing themselves or a kid in a grocery cart killing mom are unacceptable. Letting someone under court order for domestic abuse buy guns and kill the ex doesn't do it for me.
You have to screen people at some point. You have to document who is ok and who is not.
The visible result is a license.
It's not rocket science if you accept that people, not guns, are the problem. Isn't that the famous bumper sticker?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)These things aren't 'allowed' any more than the Charle Hebdo shootings were 'allowed',
or Breivik's terrorist spree in Norway was 'allowed'
The visible result is a license.
Or criminals simply acquiring enough cash to make a black-market purchase...
Sancho
(9,070 posts)You can't put a dead 3 year old in jail.
You can prosecute criminals until the cows come home, and that's one benefit of a license - it would also make it harder for criminals to buy guns.
The license would make it more difficulty for unstable people, children, untrained people, or dangerous people of any legally determined screening to possess guns.
Most of the time, these are not your Bonnie and Clyde criminals.
The continued call for criminalization won't solve anything - unless it's a crime to possess a gun without a license!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Sancho
(9,070 posts)for everyone else it would make possessing and using guns routine and painless. Those with a license could use guns and buy guns simply by producing the license.
Those who were not able to obtain the license would find it difficulty to buy a gun, buy ammo, go to a range, hunt, or carry a gun.
Meanwhile, it would prevent unnecessary deaths.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)The State, the Feds, Local LEO's? Will the rules be written by those who only know as little as you do?
Sancho
(9,070 posts)It's not my idea, but consistent with law and research. States already have permits and licenses that are legal. They work. I'm simply suggesting a more comprehensive license.
Nothing is original. If you want to find out about the 2nd, read. Then you will owe me an apology for your ignorance.
------------------------------------------
"The Second Amendment: A Biography"
By the president of the prestigious Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.
At a time of renewed debate over guns in America, what does the Second Amendment mean? This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.
The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the 20th century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.
The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.
In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.
From Booklist
Given the murkiness of the language of the Second Amendment and worries about armed citizens from the era of the Revolutionary War to the Civil War, from the settling of the western frontier to the gangsterism of the Prohibition era, the U.S. Supreme Court has generally ruled against the constitutional right to own a gun. In 2008 that all changed. Legal scholar Waldman examines the political forces behind that change, including the growing influence of the National Rifle Association and how gun rights play into the culture wars. Waldman offers historical perspective on the fierce debate to decide how much militia the nation should support and then goes on to trace the violent history of gun use in the U.S. and the increasingly contentious debate about crime and safety, all against the backdrop of debates about “originalism” as applied to the Constitution. This is a lively and engaging exploration of the radically different perspectives of the Founding Fathers, worried about the nation’s ability to protect itself yet fearful of a powerful military, and contemporary politicians fretting over culture wars and the role of government and the rights of individuals. --Vanessa Bush --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Review
“Waldman relates this tale in clear, unvarnished prose and it should now be considered the best narrative of its subject.” (Publishers Weekly)
“Waldman offers historical perspective on the fierce debate…A lively and engaging exploration.” (Booklist)
“Thoughtful, accessible...useful to anyone arguing either side of this endlessly controversial issue.” (Kirkus Reviews)
“The ongoing debate about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms continues to set off multiple explosions in the blogosphere. Waldman's new book will not make the most zealous NRA advocates happy, but for anyone who wants his or her history of the Second Amendment straight-up, this is the most comprehensive, accessible, and compelling version of the story in print.” (Joseph J. Ellis, author of Founding Brothers)
“From the founding of the Republic to the Newtown massacre of elementary school children, and beyond, Michael Waldman vividly portrays the evolution of a nation's passionate debate over the right to keep and bear arms. Activist, conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court may have thought they ended that debate in 2008, but with rich detail and crisp narrative, Waldman shows how it continues to reverberate across the landscape with important lessons for all Americans.” (Marcia Coyle, author of The Roberts Court)
“Through most of American history, the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to be a citizen-soldier, not an individual vigilante. With wit and erudition, Michael Waldman tells the story of how the Amendment’s meaning was turned upside-down and inside-out.” (David Frum, author of The Right Man: An Inside Account of the Bush White House)
“Michael Waldman gives us the turbulent life story of the Second Amendment. If one clause of the Constitution better deserved a quiet retirement, it is our right to keep and bear arms, a vestige of the Founding Fathers' concern with the role of the militia in a republican society. Yet today the Second Amendment has become one of the feistiest, most disputed clauses of the Constitution, and Waldman vividly explains why this obscure, minor provision has become so controversial.” (Jack Rakove, author of Original Meanings)
“Partisan pseudo-histories of gun regulation and the Second Amendment abound. Michael Waldman's excellent book slices through the propaganda with candor as well as scholarship. It advances an authentic and clarifying history that will surprise and enlighten citizens on all sides of the issue. Here is a smart and cogent history that performs a large public service.” (Sean Wilentz, author of The Rise of American Democracy)
“Anyone interested in the hot button issue of guns and their place in our society will find this book a helpful tool for ongoing discussion.” (Decatur Daily (Alabama))
“The Second Amendment is a smart history of guns and the US . . . his calm tone and habit of taking the long view offers a refreshing tonic in this most loaded of debates.” (Los Angeles Times)
“Waldman’s detractors would do well to read the book, which focuses less on taking a position on gun control and more on explaining what the Founding Fathers intended when they approved the amendment and how subsequent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere have transformed that intent. . . . Seeing the subject discussed and dissected in untypically calm, scholarly tones, then, is a refreshing development.” (Miami Herald)
“Rigorous, scholarly, but accessible book.” (New York Times)
“Compelling” (Washington Post)
“An insightful look at both the historical foundation of the Second Amendment . . . a welcome re-injection of historical context into the present debate over the rightful role of guns in American culture.” (Chicago Tribune)
“A welcome addition to the ongoing debate over gun rights and gun control in America.” (The Buffalo News)
“Terrific” (Nicholas Kristoff New York Times)
beevul
(12,194 posts)#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.
Strait from the anti-gun talking point manual.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If I trust someone with a gun, I pretty much trust them with any gun. If I don't trust them with a gun, I don't care what kind of gun they have.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)restrictions. He had a history of mental illness, yet the NRA and gun rights activists want to protect his right to keep and bear assault weapons with no background checks. It is really indefensible, which is proven by what they try to do to defend it. But hey, in Texas collage students can go to class packing now. Watch for an overall rise in GPA, "Professor, I really don't think I deserved the D- you gave me." He said while fingering the trigger on his Desert Eagle 45!
Gun enthusiasts have been brainwashed to believe that ANY gun restriction will lead to banning firearms, so they oppose them all.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and pass local, state and federal background checks. Also requires mandatory training. Just a couple of things to put your post in some kind of context.
So explain why something like that hasn't happened in the states and college's that allow for CCW on campus?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)They tend to run away when facts are presented they can not dispute.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Every time I ask this question, I get this:
hack89
(39,171 posts)and make that information available as many people as possible. Is that inline with what you are thinking?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
Another reply in that thread
Well no kidding people are unaware of the dramatic nationwide drop in all violent crime --- The Controllers have treated them like mushrooms.*
* Kept them in the dark and fed them sh*t
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)The researchers compared CT to comparable states during the same period (not national averages which would be a coarser comparison) and used statistical methods to measure. IOW, it's a bit more rigorous than the armchair reviews based on national trends in that thread.
Methods. Using the synthetic control method, we compared Connecticut’s homicide rates after the law’s implementation to rates we would have expected had the law not been implemented. To estimate the counterfactual, we used longitudinal data from a weighted combination of comparison states identified based on the ability of their prelaw homicide trends and covariates to predict prelaw homicide trends in Connecticut
Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302703
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)OK
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Using comparative data is more rigorous than using broad means and determining which states are comparative would involve identifying the set of comparative values and listing them in the methodology report, specifically so that knowledgeable reviewers can assess whether the compararatives are valid ( IOW, to check that they weren't cherrypicking to bolster weak data.)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)simple question
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Simple answer.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)If you are not a subscriber, you can purchase this article online through any offer listed below:
Pay For Admission (Access to all journal content on this site)
$35.00 for 24 hours to read online and download
Pay Per View (Access to this single article)
$22.00 for 24 hours to read online and download
For all pay per view purchases, please enter the exact address information in the exact address fields. Also when entering credit card information, it must match the billing address. Customers have 24 hours to view and download the content. The 24-hour period starts after the purchase is made. Thank you for your assistance.
All sales are final for eproducts.
So once again, can YOU answer my question?
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Hint: the comparative was based on existence of PTP law in 1995.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Round file in the politicially-motivated studies trash heap.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Conveniently funded by some poor guy named Bloomberg, makes you think if there could be some kind of slant in that study.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)flamin lib
(14,559 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's being proven right here in this thread.
Just sayin'
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)except for a few instances, this has been a remarkably insult free thread with robust debate, probably why it hasn't been locked by the hosts.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)am I correct?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)That is one fucking amazing law that not only did connecticut see a 40% drop in gun homicides, the US as a whole saw a 40% drop.
The only conclusion I can come to is that every single criminal in the country was traveling to Connecticut (which is not exactly centrally located) to buy guns, then when this law passed criminals gave up, in all 50 states.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Explain to me again why any gun homicides are acceptable? Why it's okay that toddlers kill each other or themselves or a parent when they find a gun?
Would you feel the same way if it was your toddler?
Oh, I see. So long as you can have a gun you don't give a flying fuck what happens to anyone else.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)it's ok that toddlers kill each other or themselves or a parent when they find a gun?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)the gun apologists here jump back in with the reduction of homicides, totally overlooking the fact that real, innocent people are killed, and more are maimed I'm sure, from guns. Somehow those deaths are invisible or don't count. Oh, the gun apologists have been known to shed crocodile tears over these things, but fall right back on their inalienable right to own a gun -- because THEY are all responsible, not like those idiots out there -- and once again cite the fewer homicides.
I'm sorry, but not a single random gun death is justified. Other countries manage quite well without so many guns. Oddly enough, they have fewer gun deaths. Can't quite figure out the connection, but I'm sure I will someday. (sarcasm intended)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)has said that it's ok that toddlers kill each other or themselves or a parent when they find a gun?
Not with standing your rant, please link to one person saying that.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)the firearms owners here never defend and actually condemn the negligent actions of those people. I know I and many others have called for them to be charged. Part of being a firearms owner is responsibility around children. Just like we childproof our houses against poisons, medicines and electrical outlets.
If you would like a free Project ChildSafe Safety Kit, which includes a cable-style gun lock and safety instructions, click on the map below to find a distribution partner in your state. Be sure to contact the partner to verify that supplies are available.
- See more at: http://www.projectchildsafe.org/safety/get-a-safety-kit#sthash.He62O4jA.dpuf
I have put this link out many times, how are those so called "gun safety" groups in programs like this? How often are the pro -controller side working and publicizing programs like this, bet it's fricken crickets time again.
I call bull
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Unfortunately, far too many gun owners aren't responsible.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Are always lumped in with this, don't you agree?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)They have dropped nationwide, and that is a great thing.
Since you brought up Toddlers and guns, what is your solution to get that number down to 0? Ban every single gun in America? The supreme court would never allow it. Plus there would still be homicides.
I would be devastated if my kid got a hold of my gun. I keep it in a safe where it can not be accessed. I realize there is a danger in having a gun in the house, but I also own a pool, drive a car, live on a busy street, have lots of toxic chemicals in the house (weed killer, bug spray etc), and I have taken steps to minimize the risk from all of those as well.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)The problem is that far too many gun owners do not safely lock up their guns. Recently a toddler shot and killed his mother because mom had her loaded gun inside her purse -- one specifically designed for a gun, if I recall correctly. From what I read, the mom was reasonably safety aware and all that. She's still dead.
Cars, weed killer, and other such things have many purposes other than to kill living things. Plus, we need to be licensed to drive cars, their are sanctions if we do so badly, but guns? Anyone can buy one. The restrictions on felons are laughable at best.
The sheer numbers about how far the presence of a gun in a household raises the chance of being killed or injured by one ought to be the only statistic anyone needs. Not the crap about how gun deaths have fallen.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That would not be true
You need a license to operate a vehicle on a PUBLIC road, not to own or drive.
but guns? Anyone can buy one. The restrictions on felons are laughable at best.
Another factually incorrect statement
243 pages of regulations, maybe you should read and learn some things. I think the existing laws need to be fully enforced on felons. I also have no problem opening NICS to private sales.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)an unlicensed car at someone and kills them with it.
Because of the lack of public transportation in most of this country, most people need a car to get to work, to buy groceries, to visit friends. No one needs a gun for such things.
I am totally sick of the comparison of guns to cars. Why don't we compare baseball bats? Or peaches? Or knitting needles? Or furry woodland creatures.
Guns exist to kill. Period. If we are supposed to be a civilized society then ordinary citizens do not need something whose only purpose is to kill.
The pious argument that gun laws need to be enforced has been around forever, and the NRA helps keep that enforcement in check. Plus, private gun sales make a mockery of most laws.
Strict licensing, requiring that all owners carry a liability insurance, they report any gun thefts and remain responsible if that gun is used in a crime later. Those are just the beginning.
Meanwhile, I'm just waiting for the next breathless report of a toddler shooting another toddler, and watch with disgust as everyone pretends this is highly unusual, instead of something that happens weekly, if not daily.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Should I be held responsible if my car is stolen and used in a crime. No, and insurance will be very cheap as criminal use is not covered. The insurance issue will just line the pockets of the dreaded NRA.
mitch96
(13,907 posts)Bullets!!!
m
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Very funny bit!
Work as well as control of ink for the first amendment, unconstitutional
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Thanks
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)He's a stallward supporter of gun related violence reduction.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Gun makers just wanna sell more guns. They do not care about the consequences.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)They have to be very careful about the courses they certify for this kind of thing. The "gun safety" course I took was a joke. The idiot instructor was waving the gun around like it was a toy, frequently pointing the mizzle at the class. Yikes!
valerief
(53,235 posts)11 replies are from likely ammosexuals I've already put on Ignore!!!
malaise
(269,025 posts)NRA? 
mountain grammy
(26,622 posts)in case it's locked here and you wish to comment. This cannot appear in GD because it is "offensive" to those who think there should be no restrictions on gun ownership. It's quite alright if many of us are offended by 3 year olds who shoot themselves or someone else. It's ok if we are offended by violent or unstable people who can buy a gun on a whim and shoot up a school, or shoot themselves. After all, guns don't kill people.
I guess if we want to report breaking news of violence that includes firearms, we just have to leave out the fact the the 3 year old picked up a gun. The headline must read, "Three year old dies by his own hand" with no mention of a gun, or you must be a member of the group to discuss it.
This post should just discuss the effect of laws in Connecticut, but no guns allowed in GD. Damn, I only wish we had such good restrictions in the real world for gun ownership.
I know this post makes no sense, but neither does the policy.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)in case it's locked here and you wish to comment. This cannot appear in GD because it is "offensive" to those who think there should be no restrictions on gun ownership.
WRONG!!! This can't appear here because the Admins have said it's not appropriate for GD, if you have a problem with the rule, you need to take it up with skinner and company.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)The OP appears to be discussing efforts to strengthen gun control laws?
the discussion also follows a very high profile news event ...?
News stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about efforts to strengthen or weaken gun control legislation in any jurisdiction in the United States, national news stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about high-profile gun crimes, and viral political content from social media or blogs that would likely be of interest to a large majority of DU members are permitted under normal circumstances.
Local stories about gun crime and "gun porn" threads showing pictures of guns or discussing the merits of various firearms are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted in the Gun Control and RKBA Group.
Open discussion of guns is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)they're the one's who set the policy, and forum hosts enforce that policy.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I assume that their SoP r/t guns is their policy ....?
edited to add the link to the SoP for GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Yes? Then lock this thread.
No? Then it isn't up to you to decide what "the rule" says.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)this one is generating enough traffic so it probably will not as long as it stays civil and the name calling is not prevalent. I have noticed it has started one one side though.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and the hosts have been pretty consistent in locking gun related threads in GD, which I predict this one will be locked eventually.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Nor do I care what you "predict."
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Lets all be polite please
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
And regardless if you asked or didn't ask, I gave it.
Because I detest "authority" pretenders.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)It never fails to shine thru.
I'm not intimidated.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
Wasn't trying to intimidate you, so why would you think I was?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Gun bullies NEVER do that.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)like the gun control faction here does. (hint, hint)
99Forever
(14,524 posts) GGJohn
(9,951 posts) Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Why do you feel the requirement to insult people?
Can't we just have a civil and polite discussion?
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... has been that the majority of hosts try to apply the SoP fairly and evenly to all posts regardless of their personal feelings or positions.
The majority of hosts read and reread the Sop in order to ensure that they are following it.
I would guess that approximately half of all "gun' posts are locked and those that are locked are generally lacking substance (as outlined in the SoP) and generally fall into the realm of "guns good/ guns bad."
With only a few exceptions, the hosts act to follow the SoP and not their personal feelings. The hosts are looking at the OP as it relates to the SoP (not looking at responses like 'ammo-sexuals"
I would suggest volunteering to be a host ... you will see, first hand, how the vast majority of hosts struggle to be fair and follow the SoP (only)
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)conversely the benefits. No one should be standing in the way of this. Knowledge is power.
Sadly, this seems to be a big right wing issue: squashing the research. one has to wonder if gun ownership is such a good thing, why would one try to "kill" the discussion and research?
We should all be embracing national research
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/
Congress has continued to block dedicated funding. Obama requested $10 million for the CDC’s gun violence research in his last two budgets. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced bills supporting the funding. Both times the Republican-controlled House of Representatives said no. Maloney recently said she planned to reintroduce her bill this year, but she wasn’t hopeful.
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx
In 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues, “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home,” which presented the results of research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide. The article concluded that rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Kellerman was affiliated at the time with the department of internal medicine at the University of Tennessee. He went on to positions at Emory University, and he currently holds the Paul O’Neill Alcoa Chair in Policy Analysis at the RAND Corporation.
The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”
packman
(16,296 posts)Brings them out of the shadows to shout "second" amendment (like all laws are so fucking precious to them). Most sane, responsible Americans know that the Second amendment needs a long overdue fixing.
Notice the number of posting of those arguing against control. Seems to indicate they have a very select reason for posting on this very liberal blog.
Frankly, I wish they would just go away and settle in with another blog where they can find a nice, warm spot among all the shit being spewed about the sacred right of gun ownership.
Guns = violence and we see that every day be it from deranged citizens, sovereign citizens, or abusive police. Why argue with that fact?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
You just can't stand the fact that skinner allows pro 2A dems to post their opinions here can you?
Why don't you write a sternly worded post to the Admins demanding that pro 2A dems be banished from this board?
I'm quite sure they'll listen to you.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)in "bansalot" tried that and lost. The consolation prize was a "safe haven" for them.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That's never been in question.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/president-obama-believes-second-amendment-he-also-believes-common-sense
We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)Then crawl back into their pit and slather each other with gun oil for the celebratory orgy.
That would be this group.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262
beevul
(12,194 posts)The laws that limit government exercise of power are ALL great.
Some refer to them as amendments, and they can be found in the bill of rights.
You do like being free of government compulsion to testify against yourself, and not potentially quarter soldiers in your home, and officers of government not being able to break down your door and toss your things without a warrant, and having government restricted from interfering with your speech, and things of that nature, right?
How exactly is the number indicative of anything, except that a number disagree with you?
What a bullshit claim.
Heres how easy it is to disprove:
There are roughly 300 million firearms in America.
There are 80+ million Americans that own guns.
There are roughly 30 thousand gun deaths yearly.
That means that roughly 0.0375 percent of gun owners are involved in a gun death, annually.
It also means that .01 percent of all guns are involved in gun deaths, annually.
99.9 percent of gun owners will not commit gun violence, in the context used in this discussion, annually.
99.9 percent of guns will not be involved in gun violence in the context used in this discussion, annually.
That's a far far cry from guns = violence, at the opposite end of the spectrum in fact.
packman
(16,296 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
beevul
(12,194 posts)How quaint:
#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665
This is where I get to say "anti-gun talking point strait from the book", because that's precisely what it is.
I will dismiss this talking point with no more or less self righteousness than you folks display, when accusing others of using "nra talking points".
packman
(16,296 posts)to discuss this " emotional and value-driven"issue with them?
How droll-
And your "Pro-gun" points is strait (like the jacket, I presume) from the same book.
Frankly, your type bore and sadden me so I will walk away from the Ping-Pong table and let you play with yourself
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
beevul
(12,194 posts)How predictable.
No, that book contains ONLY anti-gun talking points:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf
#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS
#2: TELL STORIES WITH IMAGES AND FEELINGS.
#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.
And so on...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Link to the mythical NRA talking points. Like the sexual reference there, very childish in my opinion.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)on Ignore. Probably because they're ammosexuals. I'll bet most of the posts I can't see are refuting the OP.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The two arguments being made are:
"Becuz freeeeedom!"
"What do scientists know, anyway!"
I doubt this is much of a surprise to you.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts) DanTex
(20,709 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Let me guess your next repy?
Yes, it is, to which I reply, No, it isn't, at which time, you come back with, Yes, it is.
BTW, how's your baseball team doing?
Our Diamondbacks really suck this year.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)How's your baseball team doing this year?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Currently following the women's world cup, but for sure the most exciting sports event of the week was LeBron James accidentally flashing his junk.
most hilarious moment in sports.
But was it really "accidental"?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)he'd be a good spokesperson for Trojan.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)hands like bicycle wheels. Did anyone doubt he had it going on downstairs?
OK, better stop this, or might be risking a hide...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts) DanTex
(20,709 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)my wife, bless her heart, swooned when she saw that, I thought to myself, thanks Lebron, now I have to measure up to you.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)for gun related posts in GD
First comes the name calling, notice from which side it is coming from. Hint, it is not from the RKBA side.
Next will be the childish sexual references if things tend to go as usual.
Seems to happen when you do not have an argument on the facts.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)StoneCarver
(249 posts)I don't understand. All handguns purchased from a FFL dealer require a annual "handgun purchase permit" issued by the police or sheriff's department. This includes a week long wait for the background check to be done. (Unless, in my state, you have a CC permit and you're good for 5 years.) Long guns only require an instant background check done at the FFL place of purchase. Muskets can be purchased through the USP service mail, with no checks. Please explain?
Stonecarver
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Most states have the instant background check system in place, there are still a handful of states that do have a waiting period, but most states, you can walk in, fill out the 4473 form, the dealer makes a phone call to confirm that the sale can go through, and, voila, you walk out with your firearm, long gun or handgun..
My state, there is no "handgun purchase permit", very few states have these.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)"Well regulated"' two of the three words that DU ammosexuals cannot comprehend.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Another one that just can not help themselves, I guess. Notice it is only one side in this thread that is posting insults directed at fellow DU members. Makes ones argument much less believable.
Well regulated at the time meant "well equipped". The militia needed military grade weaponry at a moments notice.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)full of them to sleep at night. Waste of time. They'll rationalize everything bad about gunz, cheer the Zimmermans of the world, and convince themselves that gunz are good for our society. Rather disgusting if you ask me.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Doesn't one have to get a permit to shoot certain animals? Including ducks?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts) Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)So, what's the big deal about getting permit?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)FYI, I do not hunt, that name is for something else.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)MANY states have had permit applications before buying a handgun for MORE than 2 decades. Florida started with a "3 day cooling off period" back in the 80's. At one time in the early to mid 80's, they had a murder rate of 4 people per day, if memory serves correctly.
Why don't you find something that compares ALL States, instead of cherry picking one small State, and get back with us.
Criminals don't follow laws... they are going to get their hands on a gun even if they have to steal one..
Peace,
Ghost
-none
(1,884 posts)Why gun owners, of course. The more gun owners there are and the more guns the gun owner owns, the easier it is to find a gun owner and a gun or guns to steal from.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts).... There have also been stories of soldiers sending home weapons one piece at a time. If a criminal steals from a legal owner, you blame the owner, you blame the criminal. All a lock does is keep an honest man honest, they don't deter criminals.
Do you think we should go back to cutting the hands off of thieves? Get caught twice, they would never steal again, unless it was something they could grab with their mouth. They sure as hell couldn't fire a weapon though, could they?
Hell, we had a bunch of guns stolen from the National Guard Armory a few years ago. Should our troops go without weapons??
You're blaming the victim of a crime instead of blaming the criminal...
Peace,
Ghost
-none
(1,884 posts)Most people do not feel they need to be armed when out in public.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)freezer and save on groceries. The only time a gun leaves my property is if I am going hunting somewhere else. I have a pistol I carry in my pocket when I'm checking out my property, but it's for poisonous snakes and the occasional coyote, wild dog or feral hog that pop up once in a while.
Now when I lived in Miami?? Different story altogether. I never left the house without a .44 Magnum revolver and a 9mm. I also never sat in a place with my back to the door or window, either. That was due to the lifestyle I lived back then, but I have turned my life around a full 180 degrees. People who knew me back then wouldn't even know me today.
Peace,
Ghost
beevul
(12,194 posts)People have decided to and own do things you don't do yourself, or own yourself..
And it isn't just guns.
And it will continue.
Get.Over.It.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Of my three favorite CC firearms, only one has a manual safety, the other's a DA/SA with decocker, and a DAO.
I suppose you can say I have the only gun safety study I need already, and I didn't even have to read anything from Salon.com.
