No evidence that Gun background checks save lives

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
One of the most commonly agreed upon gun control measures put forth by Obama yesterday has been the expansion of background checks for all gun purchases. Many, even in the NRA, think this is a "common sense" measure to keep guns out of the hands of bad people.

After the Brady gun law was passed in 1994, it created the opportunity to find out just how effective this gun control measure would be.


Do gun laws save lives? Hard to tell from the data

When the United States started requiring background checks in 1994 for people buying handguns from dealers, it was a rare chance to see whether a gun-control measure really worked.

Some states already required background checks, so researchers could conduct a real-life experiment: comparing homicide rates in those states with rates in ones where the requirement was new.

The result? No difference. Homicides went down by a similar amount in both groups during the ensuing four years, suggesting that other factors - not the background checks - were at work.

The background checks did appear to reduce the rate of gun suicides in men over 55, though the data suggested some men were able to substitute another method when a gun was unavailable.

The findings, reported in 2000 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, reflect a messy truth about most of the measures designed to reduce gun violence: There is little direct evidence they save lives.

Philly.com

It seems that closing the gun show and private sale "loopholes" probably won't do much to save lives and will just make it more difficult for private sellers. Probably the real motivation for this provision is to ensure that each and every gun sale in the US is tracked and, more importantly, taxed by our ever more greedy government. They can't tax what they don't see and making sure everyone who sells a gun, even to a friend or relative has to go through the government to do it is a good way to ensure those taxes are collected.

This would also be a boon for the gun shops who would probably have to act as a middleman in all gun transactions from now on, after charging a reasonable fee of course
.

It seems to me that the interests being served here is to collect more revenues for the government and the gun sellers with a measure that has been proven to do little for public safety. The bottom line is; if a bad person wants to get a gun to commit a crime, there is nothing to stop them from using illegal means to get their guns and, like all laws, background checks will only make life more complicated for law abiding citizens while doing little to protect the public.

Interestingly enough, the article does point out one gun control measure at the very end that has proven very effective and probably could get even the endorsement of the NRA and the most hard-core consrvatives.


Another is under way in Philadelphia, where the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society has removed trash and planted grass in thousands of vacant lots. Branas, the Penn researcher, led a team that found the greened lots appeared to act as a deterrent for gun crimes when compared with lots that were not cleaned up.

In a paper in the American Journal of Epidemiology, the team proposed several explanations for that phenomenon. Among them: when a lot is cleared of trash and rubble, there is nowhere to hide a gun.


Its funny how cleaning up empty lots seems to have a more tangible effect on reducing gun crime than one of the most popular provisions being advanced by the gun grabbers.




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
It's like wishing. If they just do it hard enough then it will work.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Adam Lanza was prevented from buying a gun by the background check system (altho he got his gun from his mother's gun cabinet or safe apparently). On the other hand, James Holmes (Aurora) was able to get thru it.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
This will never work because there are people out there that dont have a police record.So how do they know if some gun owners are going to go mental and shoot people?They dont!So the best to do is just ban them from the public and get over it.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Never would have thought that a cleaned up lot could deter crime but then again... it only makes sense. Cleaned up neighborhoods: less places to hide a gun. But maybe also subconscious message of "we are a nice neighborhood and we will do something about you"? Because a cleaned up neighborhood also tends to have lower knife crime rates, car thefts, etc. Which I've seen that at work in downtown Jacksonville, Florida.

This post also makes me think maybe the so-called gun problem is being approached the wrong way. Instead of going after the guns as a crime by itself the demographics should be looked at. Stop funneling money to band-aid the overall crime problem and funnel it into cleaning up entire areas instead.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
No evidence? There's plenty, but it never gets mentioned in the MSM.

Here's a perfect example of how a 3-day delay could have prevented another gun-related murder (in this case a triple murder).

Three Killed In Kentucky With Gun Bought Hours Earlier

12-year-old girl becomes third to die from shooting at Hazard college

A man is distraught over his pending divorce and custody hearing. He has a planned meeting with his soon-to-be ex and her family. He "snaps" (as he claims) and goes buys a gun hours before the meeting - then uses it to shoot dead his wife, her uncle, and her uncle's 12-year old daughter who just happened to come along.


The man accused of killing the three bought the gun that he allegedly used just hours earlier and only one day after he and one of the victims had a court hearing in a dispute over custody of their son.


Had this guy had a few days (or better yet, a couple weeks) to mull over his decisions, he most likely wouldn't have "snapped" and shot these people dead.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


It's evidence to the contrary:


Stidham passed the required NICS background check and the owner, Mr. Woods, said he did not look “strangely.


A background check is not a waiting period. Is this thread about waiting periods?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
As you would suspect, people who legally purchase and register firearms generally don't turn around and use them to commit crime. Hence the background check, while is a minor annoyance that I don't have an issue with, is nearly irrelevant to preventing gun crime.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Any tinkerer can walk into Home Depot and buy a Concrete Nail Gun that uses .22 blanks.......and build himself a firearm able to kill people.

Ain't exactly rocket science to build a firearm yourself.

BackGround checks don't do squat.

If somebody wanted a firearm to go and kill someone....all they have to do is look up that map recently published showing all the gun owners in 2 New York counties. The Google Map shows exactly where to find firearms with the peoples names and addresses....and the Google Map even showing the color of their home.

It's so easy for criminals to get firearms now...they now know which homes have guns in them so they can go steal them.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Here is information that Illustrates better what you just said:


Japan
0.06 guns for every 100 people (lowest of nations)
0.07 Gun related Deaths for every 100,000 people

Chile
10.7 Guns for every 100 people (10+ more than Japan)
0.06 Gun related deaths for every 100,000 people (0.01 less than Japan) - (Lowest of all nations)

United States
88.8 Guns for every 100 people (88 times more than Japan, so we should have at the very least 80 gun related deaths for every 100,000 people)

10.2 gun related deaths every 100,000 people (not quite the numbers you will expect if guns were the issue)

El Salvador
5.8 Guns for every 100 people (1/2 of weapons than Chile — 15 times less than the US)
50.36 gun related deaths every 100,000 people (5+ more than in the US)

I also found that in the US 26 % of the population has some kind of mental issues... That to me is the problem we are not addressing.



links to info:

www.nimh.nih.gov...

www.gunpolicy.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Do these people know ANYTHING about the ghetto; where background checks are not needed; where money talks and B.S. walks? What planet do our mighty "leaders" live on? Do they know what "reality" means or where it resides?


Oh, iiiiiiii geeeeeeet it. This isn't about "gun control"; it's about POPULATION CONTROL!



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by spearcarrier
Never would have thought that a cleaned up lot could deter crime but then again... it only makes sense. Cleaned up neighborhoods: less places to hide a gun. But maybe also subconscious message of "we are a nice neighborhood and we will do something about you"? Because a cleaned up neighborhood also tends to have lower knife crime rates, car thefts, etc. Which I've seen that at work in downtown Jacksonville, Florida.


I think its more of a psychological thing where they recognize they're someplace nice and don't want to mess it up. Its been proven that when you clean up a neighborhood, crime tends to flee.


The broken windows theory is a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-social behavior. The theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments in a well-ordered condition may stop further vandalism and escalation into more serious crime.

Wiki

Its outside the box thinking like this that has the best probability of improving the quality of life here in America. If we keep banning things we don't like, eventually life here won't be worth living.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Had this guy had a few days (or better yet, a couple weeks) to mull over his decisions, he most likely wouldn't have "snapped" and shot these people dead.


You went through all that trouble to not even realize that the shooter from your story has already passed his background check? Come on Black....you can do better than this...


Stidham passed the required NICS background check and the owner, Mr. Woods, said he did not look “strangely.


Also, if he were denied what would have stopped him if he was so hell-bent on committing the act to utilize a different "armament"?

The OPs assertion is valid as there is no way to get empirical evidence or a clear connection on the issue.

ETA: Thisguy or is it Thatguy....I am confused. He beat me to it. Good catch
edit on 17-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
3

log in

join