New studies on gun control.

teratos · Dec 4, 2018

This gem was done by UC Davis and the Bloomberg School of Public Health. They cite some reasons for failure of their gun control scheme including the need to "fix NICS". Sound familiar?

https://health.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/13362

Here is a study which shows what happens when the opposite occurs. When gun laws become less restrictive. Interestingly.....nothing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubm...65Y86Qo7EpfCRacZCmieB3amwHYKS5GyCNpCRXwkha-Lo

BeoBill · Dec 4, 2018

Notable that the second study was conducted by NIH.

j_h_smith · Dec 4, 2018

Don't bother them with the truth. It's a concept they know nothing about.

MJD438 · Dec 4, 2018

Nope, they will just ignore this in favor of Daniel Webster's "unbiased, but paid for by Bloomberg" studies.

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Dec 4, 2018

It's not about facts to the Left...it's about control, politics and hate.

DutchV · Dec 4, 2018

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
It's not about facts to the Left...it's about control, politics and hate.

They really know how to twist things. For all the supposed tolerance, fairies and unicorns they're a miserable, spiteful bunch.

Jim12 · Dec 4, 2018

I hope somebody makes sure all our allies as well as open-minded fence sitters in the General assembly have annotated copies of all helpful materials, now, for bedside reading, before the session starts.

teratos · Dec 4, 2018

MJD438 said:
Nope, they will just ignore this in favor of Daniel Webster's "unbiased, but paid for by Bloomberg" studies.

It IS a Bloomberg study!!! That’s the beauty! Too bad we can’t cross examine Dr. Webster.

Mark75H · Dec 4, 2018

teratos said:
This gem was done by UC Davis and the Bloomberg School of Public Health. They cite some reasons for failure of their gun control scheme including the need to "fix NICS". Sound familiar?

https://health.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/13362

Here is a study which shows what happens when the opposite occurs. When gun laws become less restrictive. Interestingly.....nothing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubm...65Y86Qo7EpfCRacZCmieB3amwHYKS5GyCNpCRXwkha-Lo

The "Conclusions" of the original document also say that the lack of significant suicide decrease may be that the restrictions in the laws are not strong enough. They just couldn't leave it at 'the laws are ineffectual', they had to add that they think that more gun purchase and ownership restriction is the answer.

teratos · Dec 4, 2018

Jim12 said:
I hope somebody makes sure all our allies as well as open-minded fence sitters in the General assembly have annotated copies of all helpful materials, now, for bedside reading, before the session starts.

Yessir. These are both important studies.

teratos · Dec 4, 2018

Mark75H said:
The "Conclusions" of the original document also say that the lack of significant suicide decrease may be that the restrictions in the laws are not strong enough. They just couldn't leave it at 'the laws are ineffectual', they had to add that they think that more gun purchase and ownership restriction is the answer.

Right. And also, basically, that criminals don’t follow the law, and we need to fix NICS. “We” have made those points a lot.

The study on reducing onerous restrictions is an excellent contrast to the Davis/Bloomberg study.

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Dec 4, 2018

teratos said:
It IS a Bloomberg study!!! That’s the beauty! Too bad we can’t cross examine Dr. Webster.

You better try and cross examine him before he gets the NY/NJ form of Arkanside...found in a field tied up, a dozen bullets in him with a suicide note pinned to his chest.

MigraineMan · Dec 5, 2018

Must have been painful for the left-leaning NIH to grunt that one out -

BACKGROUND: In 2016, firearms killed 38,658 people in the United States.

Yeah, just like ladders killed 113 people in 2011.

CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of an association between the repeal of comprehensive background check policies and firearm homicide and suicide rates in Indiana and Tennessee.

Would suggest that the folks being background-checked generally aren't the ones committing the homicides, or that *anyone* is subject to emotional overload. [/me heads to the kitchen to drink tea with Kermit]

teratos · Dec 5, 2018

MigraineMan said:
Would suggest that the folks being background-checked generally aren't the ones committing the homicides, or that *anyone* is subject to emotional overload. [/me heads to the kitchen to drink tea with Kermit]

This is, I think, the most important take-away point. We can look at the number of 2A-infringing bills in the name of "public safety" vs. the number of bills seeking to better address actual criminal behavior and see where their priorities lie.

pcfixer · Dec 9, 2018

https://www.ishn.com/articles/10566...higher-risk-of-death-from-five-leading-causes

https://www.ishn.com/articles/84408-workplace-homicides-fastest-rising-cause-of-on-the-job-deaths

Human resource managers: Examine and improve hiring practices; implement prescreening techniques; utilize background checks; encourage employees to report threats or violent behavior; establish termination policies; provide post-termination counseling.

Not_an_outlaw · Dec 9, 2018

My concern is that if our group of 2a supporters go to science, and science along, we could end up backing ourselves into a corner. Because if there is a small correlation between background checks and reduction of murder rates, we may have it thrown in our face. At some point, you'll have to argue that the right to bear is in fact a right regardless of some minor correlation.

For example, without background checks, the fatality rate increases from .4 in 100,000 to .5 in 100,000 with the removal of background checks. To me, that is really a nothing burger. But, it may be a provable number.

Occam · Dec 9, 2018

The founders didn't gather stats on the efficacy of journalism or public gatherings when the wrote the 1A, and they didn't compare stats about farmers defending themselves on their land vs asking the redcoats to do it after their personal firearms were banned. We can't make this a debate about stats, because we cannot ever win up against the theatricality and media presence the antis own.

You can START a conversation with stats, though. Why fall into the trap of talking about statistically insignificant changes in crime as a function of more intense background checks on law abiding buyers (and thus split hairs over a tiny number of lives impacted one way or the other) ... when you can instead cite the CDC study that shows individuals using firearms AT LEAST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES A YEAR to defend their own lives and the lives of others. The number of averted or mitigated crimes with personally owned firearms in the mix dwarfs any delta you'll see in the discussion above. So use THAT stat to defang the usual claims, and also as a segue into talking about self defense generally, and why the founders considered that to be a sacred right, just like speech.

teratos · Dec 9, 2018

Not_an_outlaw said:
My concern is that if our group of 2a supporters go to science, and science along, we could end up backing ourselves into a corner. Because if there is a small correlation between background checks and reduction of murder rates, we may have it thrown in our face. At some point, you'll have to argue that the right to bear is in fact a right regardless of some minor correlation.

For example, without background checks, the fatality rate increases from .4 in 100,000 to .5 in 100,000 with the removal of background checks. To me, that is really a nothing burger. But, it may be a provable number.

The reason the lefties can’t use stats is that the facts are on our side. We should use them.

Jim12 · Dec 9, 2018

The Left in its scholarly fashion loves to use studies and statistics to bolster its case, ignoring such things as "correlation is not causation," and the "law of small numbers." Of course, if the studies are funded and supported by their own biased sources they're credible, while, e.g. studies about climate funded by oil companies are dismissed from the starting gate.

Be assured that the Left is adept at cherrypicking and building biases into "statistics" to bolster their case. Lying with statistics. There's at least one "how to" book that was very popular at one time.

boothdoc · Dec 9, 2018

The problem I see is that the other side doesn’t need logic or reasoning. Neither of which will work in their favor anyway.
They strictly have been winning on emotional means. They go straight for the heart strings and use them well.
Once we overcome that then we can fight off that is the way we will win

New studies on gun control.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

My hair is amazing

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

My hair is amazing

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

My hair is amazing

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

My hair is amazing

Let Freedom Ring

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics