Jump to content

Gun Laws Equal Less Deaths.

Recommended Posts




States with more gun laws have considerably fewer gun-related deaths than states with laxer rules, a new study carried out by Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health found this week, adding to the current US gun control dialogue.


The study, published in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal, was conducted in all 50 US states, and analyzed US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics ranging from 2010 to to 2007.


Researchers created a "legislative strength" score by looking at five categories of laws, then measured the score against the gun mortality rates. The highest possible score a 28, given to Massachusetts, while the lowest was a flat zero, doled out to Utah.


The study concluded that legislation against firearms and lower rates of both firearm suicide and firearm homicides were linked to one another, indicating that states with the strongest laws saw 6.4 fewer deaths per 100,000 than those that restricted firearms less extensively.


Study authors stressed that the findings did not constitute a cause and effect relationship, and added that "further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association."


"Our motivation was really to understand what are the interventions that can be done to reduce firearm mortality," said lead study author, pediatrician, and researcher at Boston Children's Hospital of the study, wrote CBS News.


"Policy makers can really draw no conclusion from this study," emergency physician and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis to USA Today, noting that the study provides little insight into what laws work, and what laws do not.







Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, what happened to "I'm so tired of talking about gun control all of a sudden...why, I just don't know why, I do declare


I shant talk about it any more"




Seriously, now.

1. The assault weapon ban idea was tried by Clinton and Feinstein back in 1994. It was a failure.

To get it passed, they had to accept it as only a ten year bill. Clinton's AG, Janet Reno, issued

a request to the Urban Institute, a well respected left leaning think tank in D.C., to do a study

on the effectiveness of the ban. The study was another condition of the bill they had to accept to get it passed.

The Urban Institute's report came out in 2004, and was published by the National Institutes of Justice,

the research arm of the Justice Dept....

They found that the ban had zero beneficial impact. No reduction in homicides, no reduction in the number of shots

fired during crimes, no reduction in deaths of police officers. There was a slight impact on the kind of weapons criminals used

in crimes, but the change of models had NO benefit in terms of reduced crime or injury. The ban outlawed the sale of

new magazines that held more than ten rounds. Again, NO discernible benefit.



so, why support an assault ban now, since it is a failed "solution" ?

2. In the mid 1960's, New York City had rapidly rising street crime. The hoodlums mugging Central Park visitors,

and robbing liquor stores, etc, were not the law abiding citizens of NYC. But, the NYC council passed gun registration.

It did nothing to stop crime at all. They said the registration would only cost a few bucks, and if it didn't work, it would not

hurt anything. Crime got worse. The city was becoming very dangerous, even unlivable, so, in 1991, they passed

a ban on "assault weapons". Crime got worse, so the NY state police conducted raids/inspections on every gun owner's house

whose registered gun had been outlawed by the last bill. They forced gun owners to take their guns out of the city, or turn them over to the gov.

Crime still got worse.



Why? Why think that gun registration, bans that only affect law abiding citizens, will do anything to stop crime?

3. In 1977, Pete Shields, former president of the Brady Campaign said:

"The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.


'The second problem is to get all handguns registered"


The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, police, licenses security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and

licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." *



Why doubt that talk of registration of guns leads to gun confiscation ? Why deny it?


4. During WWII, gun registration rolls in the Weimar Republic in Germany, and the Third Republic in France, fell into the hands of Nazis,

then in all the countries they conquered. In Germany, all guns were confiscated from the Jews, and anyone else who was considered to

be utterly obedient to the Nazis. Then, guns were confiscated from everyone in other countries. If a family could not produce a registered firearm

that was registered to anyone in the family...to surrender it to authorities.... the entire family would be executed on the spot.



The Soviets confiscated all guns in the Soviet Union, and all Eastern European countries that the Soviets took over after WWII using gun registration lists.



In 1993, Congress set up the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It required that once the background checks were completed, the records

of the sale would be destroyed.

QUESTION: Do you understand why registration is very serious, and dangerous, and does no good at all? And, so you understand why background checks must

be destroyed afterwards?

5. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, published his book, Point Black: Guns and Violence in America , That book was awarded the highest honor

by the American society of Criminology... The Michael J. Hindelang book award "for the greatest contribution to criminology in a three year period." He studied

many years of crime date from the 75 largest cities in the U.S. The study controlled variables such as poverty, race, arrest rates etc.

His study found NO crime-reductive benefits from gun registration.

QUESTION: Do you still support gun registration, and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting piece.


60/40 split on Sui/Homicides.



Breaking down the data by cities (which Vapor & I did a while back) paints a much different picture. Not sure why this study stopped at states when more detailed data is/was available.



I'd also be curious to see of the homicides, what percentage was narcotics/ narcotics trafficking related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting piece.


60/40 split on Sui/Homicides.



Breaking down the data by cities (which Vapor & I did a while back) paints a much different picture. Not sure why this study stopped at states when more detailed data is/was available.



I'd also be curious to see of the homicides, what percentage was narcotics/ narcotics trafficking related.



It's a pretty small study all in all. Only the feds could really do a realistic one but it has some interesting findings that bear looking into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...