Notice From My Cold Dead Hands......

Nearly 300,000 lives could be saved in the next decade if states followed California’s example on gun laws, study says

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/us/everytown-study-us-gun-safety-rankings-2023/index.html

 

So rates of firearm related homicide dropped, but what does it say about overall homicide?

Looks like California's overall homicide rates dropped for a decade or so, but shot back up and by 2021 they were right about where they were in the early 2000s...

Looks like Oregon, who enacted strict gun control about a decade later saw about the same trend. As did states who didn't enact strict gun control, or even those who expanded gun rights.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm

It's almost like gun laws aren't a significant factor in overall homicide rates...

 

Why the fuck does it matter. I am all for making homicide harder.

The end of the day is in the number of lives saved they predict. If it is right or not, I am not in position to judge, but the simple logic of of making it harder to cause harm seems like a good idea.

 

It matters because these restrictions don't actually appear to impact homicide rates or violent crime rates.

Violent crime rates and murder rates persist regardless of gun laws

So nobody is actually safer. No lives are actually saved. They just get stabbed, bludgeoned, poisoned, run over, or any of millions of other ways to murder someone.

That's the point. Since violent crime and murder rates persist there are no lives actually saved. They just die in different ways.

It's misleading to the point of being dishonest.

What it really means is that there *MAY* be fewer shootings, but there is no evidence that any lives will actually be saved at all.

 

Let's forget about the violent crime rates because they are not addressed in this study so bringing them is unnecessary and counter-productive to the discussion.

Your conclusion is 180 degrees opposite to the conclusion of the study that tells you that 300,000 lives would be saved.

If the after that change, there are 300,000 lives that are saved, the homicide rates would certainly be lower that if these changes would not be made.

Your argument based on historical data is that if no changes were made, the homicide rates would not have grown more which seems to be unfounded by the results of this study. Your conclusions make the assumption that if there were no additional laws that were introduced - there would be no change at all - which seems unreasonable when your argument is that there are other measures that will help with the problem. (You choose to ignore "other changes" that happened when comparing historical data but put all your eggs in these "other changes" as a solution for the future).

The reality is that there are multiple measures that needs to be made to solve the problems and lax gun laws are certainly one of them, to ignore that seems unreasonable and illogical to me.

 

True. Because these changes that California adopted did not result in reductions in homicide rates when compared to states which did not adopt those changes.

That's clearly not the case when you compare California to most other states. There may be 300,000 fewer lives lost to gun homicide, but there is no evidence that there would be 300,000 fewer lives lost to homicide.

No, my argument is that since California's changes were proven to be no more effective at reducing homicide than other states which did not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, or even states who expanded the rights of law abiding citizens, we should look to less restrictive solutions before considering the kinds of restrictions California adopted.

No, this isn't my conclusion at all. There are states which made no changes, but which also saw their homicide rates change, both increasing, as well as decreasing.

This is not my argument. My argument is that we should try less restrictive measures which appear to be more effective in all countries and areas rather than keep coming back to restrictions which have shown no consistency in reducing overall homicides across many different and similar countries and areas.

I have only pointed out gun laws which appear to get diminishing returns, punish responsible people unnecessarily, or don't appear to be effective, as well as I have suggested alternatives which appear to be more effective, less restrictive, and/or easier and cheaper to adopt.

By doing so, I have very clearly not ignored the need for multiple measures to further reduce the loss of life in this country.

While I don't know what your definition of "lax" is, many of the states with the lowest homicide rates have what are generally considered to be "lax gun laws". To ignore that seems unreasonable and illogical to me.

 

It certainly doesn't prove gun control works, either.
It does show that the impact of gun control is fairly limited when compared with a person's desire for violence.

If gun control doesn't have a broad impact on the overall homicide rate then it is not very effective, IMO. Certainly not enough to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens in a country as dangerous and with police as unresponsive as the US.

 

All of these gun restriction laws, and gun free zones are pure bullshit.

They will reduce gun violence the same way reducing NBA game scores can be achieved by taking away defensive tools, and, making areas of the court no defense zones. Both only make it easier for players to score more, or, easier to commit more gun violence.

Q. Under what conditions are the least number of violent gun crimes committed?

A. When an armed law enforcement officer is within sight of the criminal.

The real problem is, LEOs jobs over the years have changed. Their motto of serve and protect is history. Today, we are on our own to protect our family and friends.

So what is the answer?

The answer is staring everyone in the face. But everyone is too sensitive, or trying to fit in with the crowd to say the truth.

This will shock many of you. But I believe the answer is to make it illegal to carry concealed weapons. But only if it also requires people that qualify to carry a CW, to carry it in the open, when they do carry.

Everyone will know who is carrying a weapon, and trained to use it to protect others, when neccesary.

Want to stop school shootings and classroom violence? Have some of the teachers wearing a holster with a loaded 9mm semi auto pistol in the classroom. BAM instant respect and a well behaved group. Plus it is protection for the students if a nut case still wants to make trouble.

Same goes for all public places were some of the crowd are wearing holsters that everyone can see.

Will this stop all gun violence? No. But it will reduce the number of innocent people hurt, or worse.

The world is rapidly becoming a far more dangerous place for families. Making it more difficult to defend families from harm is fucking stupid!!!!!

 

Well, we've tried a ton of gun restrictions and I have yet to see evidence that any gun restriction has made much of an impact on homicide rates, or even violent crime rates.

The best I've seen is drops in "gun" crimes. Which means pretty much nothing unless your goal is to be opposed to guns.

I try to avoid circular logic whenever possible.

 

Yes, solid point. However, I'm not interested in punishing everyone because somebody might commit suicide or accidentally hurt themselves.

And, as has already been mentioned, I'm not interested in restricting the ability of lawful people to defend themselves without evidence that the restriction significantly impacts violent crime or homicide.

However, the changes I have suggested would address all of that without further restricting law abiding citizens anywhere in the country.

Over the same 10 year period there will likely be around 15 million defensive gun uses.

Quick math says you're 50 times more likely to turn to a gun to assist in your self defense than you are to be killed by a gun. And you might be able to double that to 100x as likely since only around half of US houses even have guns...

 

True. Because they've done nothing wrong, the infliction or imposition of the penalty is not considered a punishment. However, people who have done nothing wrong are indeed subject to the imposition of considerable delay and the penalty of increased expense enforced by the government in what amounts to retribution for exercising their constitutionally protected 2nd amendment rights.

That you don't consider it a punishment doesn't change the fact that many of these laws impose financial and time intensive hardships for gun owners.

I'm not generally opposed to "gun control" or efforts to reduce "gun deaths" which don't impose further restrictions on law abiding citizens.

Also, no gun control can be very effective unless it is enforced nationwide. And the current suggested

They are not mutually exclusive, agreed. However, my proposals do not further restrict law abiding citizens, and I will not support any which do without bullet-proof evidence that they significantly reduce overall homicide rates.

And the current proposals being pushed by most gun control advocates will not be supported by most states in this country. So it's literally a waste of political capital that is only being used to further divide the country.

Yes. All over the place, but generally exponentially higher than gun deaths. 1.5 million is one of the more conservative and most legitimate conclusions I've seen.

 

There is no constitutional right to harvest whatever you want from, or do whatever you want on, public land.

This is covered in the 16th Amendment of the US Constitution.

I am 100% opposed to bridge tolls on public roads and bridges. It is an undue, unnecessary, and regressive burden on the population. But even this is not as clear as gun rights.

The constitution is pretty clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Correct. I said that in my original response.

It's actually just trying to make people who aren't dangerous and have done nothing wrong pay extra and have a more difficult time engaging in a constitutionally protected act.

There is no need for that, other than to prevent the poor (which conveniently includes higher rates of minorities) from engaging in this constitutionally protected expression of American awesomeness.

We can prevent the known dangerous people from getting guns, probably more effectively, without putting that burden on law abiding people.

And we can more effectively find people who need treatment in less invasive ways as well

 

'The predictions weren't right,' Yost says of study examining impact of permitless concealed carry in Ohio



TOLEDO, Ohio — The Center for Justice Research on Wednesday released findings from a study measuring the effects of the state's permit-less concealed carry law a year and a half after Ohio's legislature passed the legislation in June 2022.

The study, conducted in a partnership between the Ohio Attorney General's Office and Bowling Green State University, concluded that crime incidents involving a gun in the state have declined after the law was passed.

Speaking with WTOL 11 Thursday, Ohio AG Dave Yost said the study was created after the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, multiple Ohio mayors and others expressed concerns that permitless concealed carry could increase shootings and put police at risk.

The study analyzed police reports, ShotSpotter data and other factors from June 2021 to June 2023, a year before and after the law took effect.

Their research found that six of the eight major cities in Ohio, including Toledo, Akron and Columbus, all had a decline in the "rates per 1,000 people of crime incidents involving a firearm before and after permitless carry took effect," with Toledo in particular showing an 18.2% decline. Cincinnati and Dayton were the only two cities that showed increased rates.

Yost said the study is not trying to imply that the legalization of permit-less carry is the reason for the decline saying there are likely many factors, but he said what it does prove is that a large increase in crime did not happen.

"The predictions weren't right, we didn't have the Wild West, crime didn't go off the charts, at least gun crime, in fact, went down," Yost said. "I think this study is an important benchmark in showing that the law-abiding Second Amendment folks aren't the problem here."

The attorney general also said the study is only short term and more research should be done in the future, but he said for now it's an indicator to his office that this law isn't an issue they need to worry about.