Hb 4774 mi

[shootingthebreeze]

http://www.citylab.com/politics/201...ween-gun-safety-laws-and-firearm-deaths/4902/

Even medical reports line up with this article showing a significant decrease of gun deaths with more stringent gun laws. Look at the map.

 

[barnbwt]

From the link;
"The study, by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Public Health, uses a measure of state-by-state "legislative strength" of gun control policies tracked by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence"

Moving along...

"The study found that states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides, though it notes that these findings are limited to associations and could not determine precise cause-and-effect."

So, the study sounds pretty much inconclusive already...

"Gun-related deaths were measured per 100,000 people for both homicides and suicides based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"
Which no doubt rolls in justifiable homicide as per usual --the good 'ol Brady statistician trademark


That map basically matches our guns per capita expectations*. I would submit there is a much more strongly correlated relationship between gun laws and reduced firearms ownership, than there is with a reduction in violence.

*Which are suspiciously hard to find on web searches. There's about a billion versions of the same "gun deaths per capita" map that show up everywhere, and then nothing but plots of various gun laws by state. I can't find even a single estimation of gun ownership or NICS checks by state, which is an astonishingly important figure missing from the 'debate'.

More astonishing since there are another billion copies of the "Guns per capita" nation-level world maps out there...but not a one broken down by state level

 

[barnbwt]

I did find one non-vetted, Reddit-sourced infographic that purports to show guns/capita


It is somewhat disturbing to see so much of only one view on the web, though, and of only a single dataset, no less (the all-encompassing "gun crime by state" chart). May be related to the NRA not having anywhere near the establishment resources at its beck and call to generate data for infographics as the government-aligned (if not officially affiliated) anti-gun groups like VPC (Brady) or MAIG (Bloomberg).

Which is why I'll renew the query I've made a few times; "does the NRA have a think tank actively researching gun issues that could help us to easily support arguments the way the anti's do?". I personally think an overlay of gun laws and ownership would be shockingly correlated, especially if animated chronologically and broken down to county or city level. That's a whole lot of research grant money, though.

TCB

 

[vamo]

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013...m-deaths/4902/

Even medical reports line up with this article showing a significant decrease of gun deaths with more stringent gun laws. Look at the map.

Any study that list suicides and accidents a long side murders is inherently flawed. Of course states with less firearms per capita are going to have less gun accidents and people wishing to take their own life will find some other means.

The problem of violence is unfortunately one that will not be solved overnight. People are just not going to wake up one day and decide to stop killing each other. However, we are doing better every year we become less and less violent, (10 years now since the AWB expired).

I am still failing to see the logic of you argument that "restrictions will in the long run protect the 2nd amendment. As if the people who hate guns today will decide that background checks, registration, training reqs, safe storage, etc. will be enough. No, so long as no history of violence Joe Average can own almost any gun he wants for any purpose these groups will not sleep. So neither can we. We cannot afford to give them even the smallest victory without getting somethin in return.

Why is it the "middle ground compromise" always involves us losing a previously held right and getting nothing in return.

 

[Spats McGee]

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013...m-deaths/4902/

Even medical reports line up with this article showing a significant decrease of gun deaths with more stringent gun laws. Look at the map.

Problem #1: So what?

More specifically: We're talking about a fundamental, individual right. Statistics are a terrible way to try to determine who gets which fundamental, individual rights. I can virtually guarantee you that if we eliminated the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, conviction rates would rise and crime rates would drop. Do you think that makes it a good idea?

Further, we're talking about my right to own the weapons with which to defend my home and my family. Given that I've never shot anyone, you're talking about restricting my rights based on what other people did. I have a problem with that.

Problem #2: The study starts with Brady numbers. That's hardly an independent source. You do know that Brady used to be called "Handgun Control, Inc.," right?

Brady is notorious for skewing the numbers. If I remember correctly, they like to measure "gun deaths." For purposes of their studies, a "gun death" is a "gun death" is a "gun death." That means that a violent home invader who is shot and killed by a little old lady defending her home counts exactly the same as a small child caught in a drive-by shooting. And those are counted the same as suicides.

You also have to dig down into their definitions to see how they get their numbers. I can't seem to find it right now, but there's at least one "study" that they've done on "children killed by guns," in which their definition of a "child" included anyone up to age 25. Think about that. Age 25. In that "study," someone who could get married, have children, drive, buy beer, vote, join the army, and be tried as an adult was treated as a "child."

 

[benEzra]

There is some funny business with their rating of "legislative strength"---which, given that this is a news-magazine graphic based on gun-control-lobby rankings, doesn't surprise me. For instance, they show Maine being 3 out of 4 on the "harsh gun laws" scale, and New Hampshire and Vermont as 2 out of 4 (when Vermont doesn't even require a carry license to carry concealed), but they put Georgia at only 1 out of 4.

It is also sheer chutzpah to say that "assault weapon bans" cause lower homicide rates, when less than 3% of murders are committed with *any* type of rifle, never mind AR's and AK's.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

@shootingthebreeze, do you support restrictions on civilian "assault weapons"? If so, why? And you support restrictions or confiscation of over-10-round magazines?

FWIW, lumping in suicides with homicides in order to obscure the trends (or lack thereof) in homicide data is a staple of gun-control agitprop, and of course they never mention that the U.S. suicide rate is comparable to Europe's, or that the combined murder-suicide rate in the gun control paradise of Japan is considerably higher than the combined murder-suicide rate in the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

 

[hso]

STB,

You should look directly at the FBI UCR and the CDC data. Also, discount suicides since psychologists have consistently pointed out that suicidal individuals use any means available to them and the availability, or lack of availability, of a firearm isn't going to reduce the rate of suicides to within the error of sampling. Simply put, the study cited is flawed because total rates of suicides wont change and laws requiring background checks, registration, training, etc. won't impact suicides, even with a firearm, anyway. Homicides vs. restrictions is the issue.

 

[Midwest]

It may not grow at the Federal Level but we are seeing a lot more scrutiny at the state level. We are seeing this all over the country as states are taking a hard look at gun laws in existence.

No it isn't the states that are looking at the gun laws, it is anti-gun groups funded by Bloomberg that are "taking a hard look at gun laws". A lot of people worked hard to get restrictions lifted so the public can protect themselves in more locations. Remember what the second amendment is really about. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting paper targets.

"Reasonable Restrictions" and compromises...And what happens when most of the people approve of "reasonable gun restrictions"? This happens.......





.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Laws don't prevent crimes, they only define crimes.
Last year, or maybe 2012, the handgun registry was on the cropping block, having passed the Senate, and the House and was sitting on Snyder's desk waiting to be signed into oblivion. The ONLY reason it exists is because Snyder got all weak on us and folded to the pressure of the MSP lobbying to keep it.
With pistol registration on its deathbed only a year or so ago, I have serious doubts of adding all other firearms to a pointless and purposeless bureaucratic mess. Gun rights in Michigan have been increasing over the past decade. Shall issue, legalized machine guns, DDs, and AOWs, legalized suppressors, legalized SBRs and SBSs. Legislation to allow CC in PFZs with additional training, which only died because of the MSP lobbying again on false data. The crime rate in the entire state has been dropping, and the pistol registry has not been the reason behind it.

Look at Detroit, always been high crime rate. In the past few months, how many home invasions have ended with the homeowner defending themselves? People are standing up and saying we're not going to take this crap anymore. His exactly is making it harder to defend oneself going to reduce crime? The guns are out there, criminals will get them, registration and background checks or not. Its the law abiding that won't be able to get them.

Gun control is about people control. Take away the ability for people to fend for themselves, they are forced to rely on government for protection.

 

[DT Guy]

"I'm a gun owner" or "I have a concealed carry license" is the new version of, "but I have a black friend."

OP, you're a gun-grabber; you may or may not be admitting it to yourself, but you are; in fact, you embody the single most common element of the 'grabber' in your basic premise, the belief that YOU should own a gun but unnamed, undefined 'others' should not.

Give up all of your (imaginary?) guns, and then talk about limiting mine. Until then, why not go back to the Huff Post or Democratic Underground? I come here to talk to other pro-gun people, not hear more gibberish using 'data' shown long ago to be political crap.

Larry

 

[Midwest]

Instead of people posing as they are one of us while reading from the anti's playbook of "reasonable restrictions" , "mag limits", "UBC" and other nonsense while promoting and/or supporting anti-gun groups like Mom's funded by rabid anti-gun Bloomberg.

I just wish people would admit straight out that they are anti-gun and then we could have a real honest debate here no holds barred with just the facts. No shouting, no finger pointing. Our facts versus their facts.

Of course that won't happen, because in my opinion they don't have a leg to stand on.

.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

DT Guy, Midwest, what do you want me to do? Publish my firearm serial numbers?
That's not going to happen. As I SAID before (gosh you are all hard headed) anytime someone has views about better gun safety and better gun laws in the US one is labeled as a "gun grabber."
That is not the case with me. E mail me. I'm quite a relaxed person and easy to talk with. If you're civil then I will reciprocate. My comment about you being hard headed is the strongest comment I have made I never attack another person because of their views.
I have my opinions as a gun owner. They differ from your opinion. I respect your stand-respect mine. But what really angers me is the inference that I lie. That makes me quite angry. E mail me, then I'll give you my private e mail and I'll even take a pic of a few of my handguns (don't like to on a public forum like this) but don't infer that I lie. That really is disrespectful. It's like saying I never served 20 years in the military-I did so that you and I can express themselves freely.

 

[pezo]

What rubbed me the wrong way? It was the assumption the average shooter/gun enthusiates would take seriously or subscribe to the fallacy that any groups like moms demand action had any other agenda than to restrict a guaranteed right in the constitution. Based on false belief it would benefit society. When I want advice on gun safety I look to a group educated on the topic (like the NRA). Not a hoplo phobic group of mis guided people supported by a billionaire extreme leftest. 99 percent of the shooting community I'd almost bet doesn't support your views on the issue and many people of the non shooting community who actually thinks about the issue probably won't agree with you. So you can have your opinions. Just don't think for a second your opinions are main stream among gun owners. When we had a horrific crime occur that involved the murder of several school children. Inst Instead of real solutions to protect our kids, like allowing cpl in schools or at least some armed protection. We instead were given proven non effective gun control legislation. That was an insult and a slap in the face. Being an ex military man you claim to be you should re alize the importance of maintaining our rights and the effectiveness of armed protection.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That is not the case with me. E mail me. I'm quite a relaxed person and easy to talk with. If you're civil then I will reciprocate.

Then why are you ignoring all the posters who quite civilly addressed points that YOU brought up (gun deaths per state as linked to gun ownership, etc.)? Why did you skip right to the few people you felt attacked you and ignore all the other comments?

 

[DT Guy]

Perhaps you do own guns, STP; after all, Nancy Pelosi and Jane Fonda both do.

But anyone-ANYONE-who reads the Moms Demand Stuff propaganda and can support it is a 'gun grabber', plain and simple, admonitions to the contrary notwithstanding.

I don't want to email you, dialogue with you or look at your point of view, anymore than I need to revisit communism, fascism, religiously based government....they're all flawed and immoral ideologies, just like gun control.

So no, I don't want to 'open a dialogue', 'see your point of view' or have a 'common sense discussion' about gun control. I want to oppose it, and oppose those who propose it; that's what you can expect from most gun rights activists. If you don't want opposition, stop proposing rehashed gun control lines.


Larry

 

[Sam1911]

STB, I appreciate that you've stayed engaged and not tossed out a few hand grenades of anti-gun talking points and then disappeared. Sticking around to at least consider the replies is a start.

But I would ask that you take the time to answer the folks who have answered YOU.

The statistics you quote are not showing what you've been lead to believe they are.

The plans you've espoused are demonstrably and quite logically unable to produce the positive ends you're seeking -- and have equally demonstrably been fundamental parts of sucking freedom down the drain in places that have become "failed states" from a gun rights standpoint.

In the face of astronomical gun ownership growth, and the steady erosion of strict gun control laws over the last 20 years, gun accidents and crime rates have FALLEN.

So, do you accept that you were mislead, swallowed bad propaganda, or found yourself where you are at through your own mistakes of reasoning? Or do you bull ahead anyway supporting the same things in defiance of fact and wiser counsel?

This is a test.

 

[zeek96]

Shootingthebreeze, you have you beliefs and reasons and if you want volunteer to register your firearms with state or federal agencies and anyone else that has the same concerns about their guns should do the same. Believing every gun owner should have to and looking to make it law for everyone in my opinion should not be forced on us. Look at New York State as an example. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and crime is everywhere involving guns specifically handguns. You do not have any right to touch or own a handgun in that state. You do t have that right, nor does any citizen that lives outside that state. There is not option. You would have to reside in the state and take the ccw course, go I front of a judge and state your case as to why you need a ccw, wait and see if the judge allows you the right to own a handgun and if you have the right to carry it. There are two options ownership and right to carry concealed. Then if you are allowed to own a handgun go pay for one take the recite while leaving the handgun at the store. Go to the county office to have serial number put on your permit after a background check is do e then go pick your permit up and paper stating you are allowed to have it and then pick up the handgun you purchased previously at the store. Guess what criminals don't for some reason do this. I am not sure why but they don't. They steal guns from breakins or get them from other criminals and use them to break more laws. Now a legal resident citizen would take the 6-8 months to obtain the permit and hope the privilege is given to them by the judge to carry concealed to protect them selves. Now the state and the moms organization and Bloomberg and others want even stricter control because crime is still a problem with the use of handguns and other firearms. Where does it end? It ends when they are all gone. Everyone of them and that's what the politicians want and these organizations for it is never enough. It is fine for a politician or the rich to pay for body guards carrying what they declare assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and other items citizens of this country cannot posses in that state or the country. Ask yourself why are they allowed this safety and we are not? They are more important to the masses? Only in their own mind. Registration is the beck I g of a path that has only one ending, confiscation wether now are later that is what it will be used for. NY started with handguns, now it is shot guns and rifles that have a pistol grip and fire one round at a time But do t need to use a hand action to load the next bullet. Hundreds of thousand of legal citizens are now considered felons because their grandfathers shotgun is now an assault rifle. You say it won't go farther you are wrong for the next step are firearms that can shoot a certain distance accurately for they are sniper weapons. Your 270 you shot would be classified as a banned rifle as well and you for touching and using it would be a felon as well. It won't stop. And buying into the propaganda that they will stop at a point is utter foolishness. There are plenty of examples in this country to prove this point. If you want to stop crime and violence why not join a group that mandates all people be checked by government approved agencies for mental illness and force everyone to go through a mandatory yearly exam. I am sure they would find many people that would do harm to others and then incarcerate them before they can hurt anyone. There is a real solution. Just imagine the lives that would be saved. It is the same theory your organization is saying and Bloombergs group is spouting but done for all. If people oppose that idea they must be crazy like the rest of us opposing further laws against law biding gun owners.

 

[barnbwt]

As I SAID before (gosh you are all hard headed) anytime someone has views about better gun safety and better gun laws in the US one is labeled as a "gun grabber."

The prevailing view is that those who support gun-grabber laws/legislation/theory, are gun grabbers. I respect that you have an opinion, I expect you understand that it is completely at odds with those of us who wish to promote the free exercise of our 2nd Amendment rights. Since I have yet to see a participant of either side of the debate with committed views actually land in the middle (seems we always sort ourselves into gunnies & grabbers), that is why I and probably most others are unsure of where you actually sit as compared to what you claim.

The perceived duplicity is that you put forth the policies --which you now quite plainly admit you agree with-- as something tolerable you disagreed with, but... that the rest of us should all accept grudgingly in the hopes of protecting what little of the right to keep and bear arms we maintain. Maybe you didn't realize it yourself, but your support of HB4774 was kind of put forward under false pretenses or at least illogical pretenses (that you support it in a misguided effort to protect the RKBA)

We've had anti-gun folks on here before (search for the dialogues with timmy4 which were mostly very intelligent and useful to both him and us, aside from occasional forum trolls that would come along and periodically shout him down --our side isn't infallible when it comes to debating, either)
Why Keep Bringing Up the 2nd Amendment
Why I am in Favor of a Ban on High Capacity Gun Magazines

He was open, up front, and plain about where he was coming from, and then put forth his arguments. He was also very honest about areas of the issue he lacked knowledge (as was I in saying I don't know for sure how gun control tracks with gun ownership, but merely suspect there is a strong correlation) and in fact said this was his reason for posting, rather than to try and convert the opinions of obviously opinionated people. As I recall, he did learn quite a few things, and we all learned quite a few things about how anti's arrive at their points of view (and IIRC, he basically switched his view on magazine bans, but still supported BGCs when he ceased posting)

"STB, I appreciate that you've stayed engaged and not tossed out a few hand grenades of anti-gun talking points and then disappeared."
Likewise, this has been an interesting discussion with some points I'd not heard before. FWIW, I don't think you're a troll, or anything (rather, a valuable poster on handgun/CCW stuff in your area), but perhaps not as committed or resolved (as in having solved all the questions) a proponent of the RKBA as you might think. Discussion like this helps everyone clear and organize their views, which is why I find them so useful and enjoyable.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

""places that have become "failed states" from a gun rights standpoint."
Among other standpoints (almost uniformly). That's a national plot I want to see

Jeez, Zeke; paragraphs, please

My example for where the American Gun Control Rabbit Hole leads is Washington DC before the most recent court rulings there. The guns were banned. Period. And, now that they're being drug back from that point, kicking and screaming, claws flailing, The Next Great Hope is a system so onerous that poor black people in the horrifically crime-ridden ghettoes will be unable to meet the cost/time/training requirements. That gun control is historically pegged, not "correlated" with racial motives is also reason enough to be highly skeptical of it ('those people' can't be trusted with guns because they're scarcely people at all)

TCB

 

[shootingthebreeze]

I did a half hour ago post a long response to various members because I had time but the site blocked me posting even though I had signed in. A glitch.
Now not having any more time I just would like to say that HB 4774 will probably die due to Republican blocking in the Michigan legislature. Does that bother me? No. I never get bothered about that because I deeply respect out form of government. I know some people who are livid at that prospect but I never consider failed bills a failure, actually I consider all failed bills a success because they represent our checks and balances and a healthy government system.
HB 4774 will never pass in Michigan presently. If a Democratic shift occurs perhaps and I say perhaps because that still is not guaranteed some Democrats could vote against. Does that upset me? Again no. Why? Because it's how are system works and it works very well (though it's messy at times).
Lets see if this loads.

 

[barnbwt]

So what's your point? If the MI government is "inevitably" swung (more) firmly back toward Democrats & assorted gun-banners, what does ceding ground now buy us? If you agree/disagree with the text of the bill, why would you not care about its passage/failure? I can't tell if you're walking back what you said previously, or if you even had a real opinion in the first place, as opposed to a feeling.

*BTW, never, not never do anything to reload a screen on this site without copying the text box your message is in in its entirety. On real long stuff, I just type it in Notepad in another window. Too many posts lost in the sea of electrons.

TCB

 

[Leanwolf]

There is an old saying I heard many times when I was growing up. "Life is hard by the yard but it is a cinch by the inch."

The anti-gun crowd knows very well they can not ban and confiscate our firearms all in one fell swoop, so they practice the inch-by-inch-by-inch, or step-by-step-by-step strategy. A new "common sense" law here, a new "common sense" law there, and then another and another and another ad infinitum, ad nauseum, until they have achieved their final goal, overall confiscation.

Two laws they MUST have over and above all others, is complete registration of all the firearms by all (honest) citizens, and the other is Universal Background Checks by Big Brother before giving permission for anyone to buy, sell, trade, or gift a firearm of any kind.

Once those two laws are in place, their final goal is only a matter of time. Big Brother knows where the guns are and then as Sen. Dianne Feinstein stated on CBS 60 Minutes teevee, "Turn them in, Mr. and Mr. America, or we'll come get them!"

Shootingthebreeze, I am surprised you're unable to comprehend this. I am also surprised you are unable to understand Human Nature as it applies to those power mad politicians and mega-wealthy individuals who seek ultimate control over us, the worker peasants and serfs. (And that is precisely how they think of us.)

Even though there are already more than 23,000 anti-guns laws on the books now, Federal, State, and local, for the gun grabbers, there are never, ever, enough laws. More and more and more laws will finally lead us to Their Brave New Utopia... whether we like it or not.

Just my thoughts on Bloomberg's and George Soros' "common sense" laws.

L.W.

 

[3D's]

More stringent gun laws are doing a fine job in Chicago, aren't they?

 

[barnbwt]

"Human Nature as it applies to those power mad politicians and mega-wealthy individuals who seek ultimate control over us, the worker peasants and serfs."
Ironically, it's not "evil" human tendencies so much as ambition driving this. Think about it this way; you're the head of an advocacy group (or gunning to be one), and you've just won a big victory for your supporters. Now what? Do we claim victory, plant the flag, and dissolve the group now that there's no work left to be done? No. We double down, find or invent new reasons to keep the goods from the supporters flowing, and to maintain the reputation we built through so much arduous labor.

The gun rights groups haven't calling the shots long enough to have much opportunity to reach a Zealous Escape Velocity or whatever you want to call it, but if we keep winning battles it will surely happen. Legitimately radical or controversial proposals to make gun ownership/carry mandatory, demand ammo/gun subsidization, and seek to export our gun culture/laws to foreign nations or allies (placing an embargo or tariffs on Japanese arms until they make their laws more "reasonable", for instance ). We're not there yet, but it will happen, and a lot of people that blindly follow gun rights leaders will fall for it, same as what happened with anti gun people who kept right on truckin' after the Brady Bill which was the whole reason for their existence got passed.

TCB

 

[Walkalong]

(gosh you are all hard headed)

Why, because we won't swallow the baloney your pushing?

You were challenged to answer questions but again just posted how good a person you were instead of answering a single question.

I'm glad you believe in our system, if only you could believe in the 2nd amendment and the people, instead of thinking the people are too irresponsible to be trusted with weaponry.