- Messages
- 257
- Reactions
- 282
Won't be long before CA has gone to all of these so that means all gun deaths will suddenly stop...proof that educated doesn't actually mean intelligent.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@Joe Link (this graph may be copyrighted, let me know if it needs to be removed)
Interesting! I went and found the full text of the article. The states it used for ammunition background checks are IL, MA and NJ (this includes having an existing permit). They used statistical analysis to estimate effects on the rest of the country if these state laws were in effect. They did a valid analysis
The best part of their analysis though, which they dont mention in their conclusion, were the laws that lead to increased firearm related deaths. The top 3 are mandatory firearm locks, Assault weapon bans and a tie of mandatory theft reporting and bulk purchase limitations (like limiting one handgun per month). THere are also a pile of laws that made no effect on firearm related deaths like closure of the "gun show loophole"
So if you choose to discuss this article, make sure you use their own data as an argument to promote getting rid of these laws and opposing assault weapons bans because this study shows they actually increase firearm related deaths.
everything in the middle to the right of the line is neutral or made things worse. All of those are useless laws.
@Joe Link (this graph may be copyrighted, let me know if it needs to be removed)
I have no idea what the rules are. The article has a Copyright 2016 on it. I'm looking at the full article on www.clinicalkey.com If you want, I can delete it and type a summary when I get home.I appreciate the heads up. Any way we can confirm it?
I have no idea what the rules are. The article has a Copyright 2016 on it. I'm looking at the full article on www.clinicalkey.com If you want, I can delete it and type a summary when I get home.
And this will help reduce suicides, which by far accounts for the most gun deaths? Or do they only include those numbers when it's convenient for them?
This sounds suspiciously like a Bloomberg funded study. Smaller soft drinks won't make you fat.
And this will help reduce suicides, which by far accounts for the most gun deaths? Or do they only include those numbers when it's convenient for them?
Good point. Someone did have to fund this. I cannot find any mention, though, of where their funding came from.
the study says it was unfunded.
Does that not sound a bit suspicious? So all of these people just volunteered their time?
My experience is that PhD's and MD's do not work for free.
Hmm, I could find a record that Bloomberg gave Columbia University's Medical Center $25 Million 3 years ago.
But I cannot find any other specifics that would link him to these two colleges. I don't see any comprehensive info about all of his donations listed anywhere. Although his own website states that he has donated $4.3 Billion to date, with $510 Million of that being made in 2015 alone.
.
There is no such thing as a valid statistical analysis when it merely plugs numbers into your proposed agenda.
This sounds suspiciously like a Bloomberg funded study. Smaller soft drinks won't make you fat.
We all know states with the same laws often have severely different gun crime rates (like a southern border state compared to a New England state). What method did they use to account for differences in population density, population dispersement, population diversity, social class, employment rates, incarceration rates, gang crime rates, and so on before comparing states?Interesting! I went and found the full text of the article. The states it used for ammunition background checks are IL, MA and NJ (this includes having an existing permit). They used statistical analysis to estimate effects on the rest of the country if these state laws were in effect. They did a valid analysis
We all know states with the same laws often have severely different gun crime rates (like a southern border state compared to a New England state). What method did they use to account for differences in population density, population dispersement, population diversity, social class, employment rates, incarceration rates, gang crime rates, and so on before comparing states?
Also, how did they break down the individual state crime rates to determine what percentage of those crimes would have been prevented by such laws?
Interesting! I went and found the full text of the article. The states it used for ammunition background checks are IL, MA and NJ (this includes having an existing permit). They used statistical analysis to estimate effects on the rest of the country if these state laws were in effect. They did a valid analysis
The best part of their analysis though, which they dont mention in their conclusion, were the laws that lead to increased firearm related deaths. The top 3 are mandatory firearm locks, Assault weapon bans and a tie of mandatory theft reporting and bulk purchase limitations (like limiting one handgun per month). THere are also a pile of laws that made no effect on firearm related deaths like closure of the "gun show loophole"
So if you choose to discuss this article, make sure you use their own data as an argument to promote getting rid of these laws and opposing assault weapons bans because this study shows they actually increase firearm related deaths.
Summary of results - I copied the list of laws. Increase means increased risk of firearm related death. No change means no effect on rate of firearm related deaths. use of 'slight' and 'significant' are my own interpretation.
Bold means the state laws has no effects on deaths
Gun dealer licence -slight decrease
Record keeping and retention - slight decrease
Report records to state - no change
Mandatory theft reporting - increase
Gun store security precaution - slight decrease
Police inspection - slight increase
Bulk purchases limitation - increase
Firearm identification - significant decrease
Owner theft reporting - decrease
Universal background checks - decrease
Fingerprinting - no change
Safety training - decrease
Extension of background checks limit - slight increase
Permit law involvement - decrease
Closure of gun show loophole - no change
Ammunition purchaser records - no change
Ammunition background checks - significant decrease
Firearm locks - significant increase
Child handgun restrictions - no change
Child access - no change
Juvenile handgun purchases - no change
Assault weapon ban - increase
Large magazine ban no change
Discretion allowed when issuing concealed-carry permits - slight increase
Stand-your-ground no change
Edit. Just to say it again, their study showed BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS INCREASES FIREARM RELATED DEATHS. This is huge