Dueling statistics on gun control and background checks

So, while perusing the Science Daily site for my fix of science news, I came across these two seemingly conflicting studies. One this month saying the the repeal of the Missouri background checks resulted in an increase in gun related homicides, while one only one month earlier saying the extreme restrictions for CCW licenses resulted in an increase of gun related murders.

Restrictive concealed weapons laws can lead to an increase in gun-related murders

Repeal of Missouri's background check law associated with increase in state's murders

So, it seems the most reasonable and apparently successful reduction of gun related deaths may be a COMPROMISE solution. Whereas these studies show that either extreme can result in more deaths, then logically the middle ground (i.e. bell curve) is the "sweet spot" in this area. Therefore I ask ATS where is that compromise? At what point does it not infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights while rationally keeping guns from the hands of those willing and capable of irresponsibly using these tools to harm others?

IMO, there is no "silver bullet" here, and a rational and non-emotional discussion.

I open this thread for that type of discussion, and ask the membership to please try to refrain from name calling and other unsavory responses to each other. We have enough of that in our nations capitol, we don;t need it here.

reply to post by Krakatoa

I've come to the conclusion that any debate on gun control ... is an argument FOR gun control.

The Bill of Rights acknowledges the ownership of firearms in not up for debate. Without the Bill of Rights it is highly doubtful the Constitution would have been ratified (took long enough as it was). Without the Constitution the United States wouldn't be united. And there you have it.

I'm about tired of control by Rule of Law. I'm taxed ... but I don't feel represented. One day it's going to get pushed too far and a lot of people are going to vent their frustrations all at the same time. That will not be a good day to find oneself labeled. Certain folks are fairly outspoken, and I consider many of my friends a silent unseen majority. In terms of OTHER crimes that are carried out by criminals in possession of firearms ... they're other crimes. The slick talkers who want to make it a 'gun thing' are being named to lists ... silently.

Wow ... I did that without name calling. 'Bout bit my tongue off twice.

reply to post by Snarl


reformed-theology.org...

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Well, you proved you can copy-paste others thoughts. But, how about your own thoughts on the issue. I'm sure we all would love to hear them from you.

Gun Laws only affect the law abiding citizen.

"Lawless" types don't care whats written on that paper.

reply to post by Krakatoa


Did it ever occur to you that either one or both of the studies are biased?

reply to post by Krakatoa


No, I think I'll keep quoting conservatives:

nymag.com...

reply to post by Krakatoa


All these studies are there to make people confused then when their confused enough they try to sneak in some B.S. law to keep the people from their god given right.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

Did it ever occur to you that either one or both of the studies are biased?

Yes it did, isn't that obvious by their apparent juxtaposition? All statistics are biased based upon the collectors ultimate goals. This particular pair of studies is glaring proof. So, we have two polarized positions, and the only logical solution is somewhere in the middle.

The saying "mhden agan" was inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Delphi. It means "nothing in excess". As true then as now IMO.

FyreByrd
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

No, I think I'll keep quoting conservatives:

nymag.com...

Then you have no original thoughts on the matter at all? I can;t believe that. I do wish to hear your own thoughts....honestly.

Krakatoa

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

Did it ever occur to you that either one or both of the studies are biased?

Yes it did, isn't that obvious by their apparent juxtaposition? All statistics are biased based upon the collectors ultimate goals. This particular pair of studies is glaring proof. So, we have two polarized positions, and the only logical solution is somewhere in the middle.

The saying "mhden agan" was inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Delphi. It means "nothing in excess". As true then as now IMO.

That isn't necessarily true either. One of the studies' conclusions could be 100% correct, but due to the biased nature of the study we'd never know.

Krakatoa
Yes it did, isn't that obvious by their apparent juxtaposition? All statistics are biased based upon the collectors ultimate goals. This particular pair of studies is glaring proof. So, we have two polarized positions, and the only logical solution is somewhere in the middle.

Careful now. I'm of the opinion that the bias of that publication leaves you no recourse but to draw such a conclusion. There is no middle here. Middle is a movement of the goalposts. TPTB do this over and over to erode rights.

There is only one form of gun control to which I can subscribe: The use of both hands.

I'm all for background checks. I would even go as far as making people take a gun safety class to get a CPL (I like how some pro gun folks would think this totally unreasonable and some anti gun folk would be shocked that I said 'go as far'). I'm pro gun and love that I live in a shall issue state, but really if you're carrying a handgun you should be required to prove you're semi competent. I think a 2 day weekend course with testing on the most basic marksmanship (you can at least hit paper), gun and self defense laws and biggest of all gun safety is appropriate. Make sure it's not hugely expensive or inaccessible, but $100 and 8 hours doesn't seem all that intrusive. If you are already knowledgeable you don't have to take the class, just pass the tests. I get the slippery slope argument, and think it's a valid one. I just don't think not being a Felon is good enough. That's like giving someone a drivers license because they've never gotten in trouble, I know driving is a privilege yadda yadda. I don't particularly like knowing that someone who has never even held a gun can get a CPL.

Not sure how I feel about waiting periods. Not a huge fan (WA doesn't have them on long guns unless you have an 'Uh oh' name). In some situations I completely get why people are against them. Say you haven't owned a gun for awhile but lately people have been breaking into your house/threatening your life. You shouldn't have to wait two weeks to be able to mount a defense. I also just don' find handguns more 'murdery'. If you want to kill someone you can do it with a rifle. Or a compound bow. Or a knife. Or with a pointy stick.

I would like every state to be shall issue (with or without some sort of required curriculum/testing). It's bogus to only allow high profile people (looking at you California). I'm pretty much OK with the Federal laws. I'd like to see the tax stamps lowered on suppressors and SBR. Also think every state should allow suppressors and SBR.

I'd like to see some of the asinine laws get sorted out and become more reasonable. There are too many vague things that can land someone in deep poo. I seem to recall something about owning an AR pistol and an AR being fine and dandy, but not being able to have them disassembled at the same time because *gasp* you COULD make a SBR. Well, you COULD do that with a hacksaw.

Really the only thing I think is going to help curb violence (especially gun violence) is education, a more sound way of dealing with those that are suffering from mental issues and harsher penalties for those that use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Taking guns out of the hand of law abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents isn't going to halt the violence. There is no way to recall all the guns, and if those that would do us harm are aware we law abiding good people can no longer effectively protect ourselves, I fear violent crimes would skyrocket. One of my greatest fears is ever having to use lethal force. One thing that eclipses that fear is being powerless if that sort of force is being used against me or those I love.

I read the paper today, (yes I still read a newspaper) and five men were in a shoutout at four in the morning in Fort Wayne Indiana. All are in serious or critical condition at a local hospital. This was a gang related car chase/shoot out.
Now if we had more gun control they would be in the morgue not the hospital.

thesaneone
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

All these studies are there to make people confused then when their confused enough they try to sneak in some B.S. law to keep the people from their god given right.

'God given right' - seems to be the Jewish Bible and the Christian - says something about 'not killing' and leaving 'vengence' to god.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Have anything to say about the topic or just trolling for a fight?

reply to post by Krakatoa


corollation does not automatically equate to causation

reply to post by thesaneone


Not at all.

But "God given right". Am I supposed to take that seriously.

Domo: I ask your forgiveness up front. Puh-lease ... take everything below out of context. I'm just funnin' for effect and to FyreByrd's chagrin. I don't think the T&Cs prevent a bit of on-topic, over-the-top, dry humor.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Can't say I much cared for: Mr. I am not a crook; Mr. Trickle Down ... I'm not peeing on your back; or even Mr. Read My Lips. Not one of them would survive their initial 20 posts on ATS.

I'm all for background checks.

Me too ... the NSA has pre-qualified everyone by now. What's that fee for again?

I just don't think not being a Felon is good enough.

Nothing wrong with felons having access to firearms. They probably need them more than most law-abiding citizens. In fact, I think we ought to test a prison system where we issue a gun and a thousand rounds to every inmate upon incarceration.

I'd like to see the tax stamps lowered on suppressors and SBR. Also think every state should allow suppressors and SBR.

Firearms are inherently loud. If they were manufactured with matching suppressors ... wait a sec ... better stop right there before the gun control lobby figures out how much sense this could make.

*gasp* you COULD make a SBR. Well, you COULD do that with a hacksaw.

Or buy a S&W Governor and have a legal sawed-off shotgun and a .45 SBR all-in-one.

One of my greatest fears is ever having to use lethal force.

It's only hard the first time, and even then ... easier than you'd think. I recommend a tour in Afghanistan before that dries up and playing lots of first-person shoot 'em-up games like Call of Duty. You'll know you're ready for anything when you can dodge IEDs and hackzors.


One of my greatest fears is ever having to use lethal force.

pah ! - one of my greatest fears is being on the wrong end of someone-elses use of lethal force