Yep, which is why there should be universal registration of firearms. You’re either registered or you’re not - clear battle lines.
Secondly, there should be real criminal and/or civil penalties if your registered firearm gets out of your control and is used in a criminal act. In other words, no “gun show” loophole. As long as you are the registered owner of the firearm, then you are criminally liable. Sell it off to a qualified buyer that passes a background check, then it becomes that person’s liability. Give it to your cousin who lends it to a “good friend” who pulls an Orlando, well then your ass goes to jail for being criminally negligent versus being a responsible gun owner. Be a responsible owner, secure your weapon and only transfer it on to the next responsible owner. Apologies in advance, but you are not a responsible gun owner if you do not transfer it legally to someone that can purchase legally. Man up and take real responsibility for a deadly weapon.
crime was declining long before concealed carry permits became a thing. And it’s not my story, it’s statistics. We’ll have to wait and see if violent crime goes up in response to concealed carry, and so far it seems to be doing so. The number of stories of these crazies shooting innocent people and each other seems to be multiplying.
From FBI statistics: The homicide (murder and non-negligent manslaughter) rate in 1960 was 5.0 per 100,000 people. By 1963, it had declined slightly to 4.6. It then climbed without interruption until 1974, at which point it reached 9.7. After that it stayed at a sort of jagged plateau for almost twenty years, declining to 8.6 in 1976, but hitting a new peak of 10.1 in 1980, going back down to 7.9 in 1984, but then reaching a new peak of 9.8 in 1991. In 1993 it was 9.5. The homicide rate then declined–sharply–falling to 5.5 by 2000; in the 2000s the rate of decline has slowed, and there have been a few years where the rate went up–slightly–over the preceding year, but even between 2000 and 2014, the rate has dropped from 5.5 to 4.5. To put it another way, there were fewer total murders and non-negligent manslaughters in the United States in 2014 than there were in 2000, even though the total population of the U.S. increased by over 13%.
Aggravated assault has a broadly similar pattern, starting at 85.4 per 100,000 in 1960, increasing to 441.9 by 1992, then falling to 232.5 by 2014.
Exactly when “concealed carry permits became a thing” is less straightforwardly graphed out. Florida was the first state to really get everyone’s attention, passing a “shall issue” law in 1987, but a number of states had “shall issue” laws before Florida did, in some cases by years and in a few cases by decades. (In Vermont it has been legal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit since the early 20th century; and a few other states were “shall issue” for concealed carry licenses as far back as 1923, in New Hampshire.) Over the course of the late 1980s, the 90s, and the early 21st century, the U.S. went from having fewer than ten (mostly low-population) states where a law-abiding person could expect to be issued a concealed carry permit as a matter of course, to the current situation where over 40 states with over two-thirds of the U.S. population are “shall issue”; or in several states, “constitutional carry”, meaning no permit is required to carry a concealed firearm.
All of which happened during the same time that the murder rate was cut in half, and crime in general is down across the board.
Violent crime is not going up, it is going down… at the same time that gun ownership, the number of guns and the number of people with carry permits is going up.
Not only is there a general trend, there appears to be positive correlation between carry permits and lower crime. From Concealed Carry Permit Report
So, contrary to thy hysteria on the part of anti-gun people, carry permit holders are not only safer than the general public, but preventing violent crime.
The CDC studies car safety, playground safety, and other safety issues that aren’t diseases. They used to study gun safety until the NRA accused them of lobbying for gun control. I don’t think they’re biased, but I’d be willing to hear if there is evidence that they are, but it would have to be from someone more sensible than the NRA.
I’m an engineer and scientifically minded and very much for studies. If there’s a gun control law that seems like common sense, but studies show it doesn’t make any difference in reducing injuries or deaths, then I don’t want any more resources to go to enacting that law in other places. But if studies show that this other action can reduce injuries and deaths, then I would want that to be enacted in more places. If the CDC absolutely can’t do it, then I want some other official organization to hold the studies, and for the studies to be listened to and acted upon.
Registration leads to confiscation. Ask Australians and Californians. Democrats such as Hillary, Obama, and Pelosi can not be trusted with registration lists.
If your car is stolen and is then used as a get-away vehicle for a bank robbery, by your reasoning, “your ass goes to jail for being criminally negligent”. Be sure to tell us how the prison chow is. :rolleyes:
Right, if they suppressed studies that showed that increased gun control doesn’t work, or ran bad studies to prove gun control works, or there was some other evidence like that, then I’d say they were biased and shouldn’t run studies on guns, and I would also question how good any of their other data is.
But if the proof that they are biased is that they ran scientific studies on guns, and from those studies came to the conclusion that certain measures would decrease gun injuries and deaths, and those measures include some gun control, then I’d say that the CDC isn’t biased, and it’s the NRA’s bias that makes them accuse the CDC of being biased. But I would guess that if basically any organization ran a studies on guns and came to any conclusion other than everyone should have lots of guns, the NRA would accuse them of being biased.
I didn’t have much time last night, but the studies which I could find all either lumped suicide in with homicide or were for gun homicides, and wouldn’t give me access to anything but the extract, so I couldn’t check to see if they had a further breakdown.
I have been intending to write a detailed breakdown of the data myself, sometime soon, but I will not have time to do so this weekend. (I was planning to do so before the shooting, not in response to it.)
But I can give you the basic graph of homicide vs. gun ownership, which I did several years ago:
And it looks like I made a gini vs. homicide, but it only seems to include modern nations. A fuller version would be included in my write-up and probably would be more striking.
So, you’re an irresponsible gun owner then are ya? Or do you think it’s your right as a firearm owner to be able to sell, give or loan your firearm out to anyone based on your judgement?
Cars are not generally used as offensive weapons (but I admit it does happen) so that’s a false equivalency. Not only that, give your keys to someone you know is not licensed or is underage, and yes there are criminal and/or civil liabilities. But let’s take your false equivalency one step further, and I think it’s a great idea that all firearm owners have to carry liability and accident insurance.
The have been thousands of instances in which a good guy with a gun had been saved by having one. I’m in my phone, so it’s too hard to do, but I could spend a good hour llinking to pages with accounts of a firearm saving the day. Unfortunately you rarely ever see the media reporting such events.
I conceal carry and I fully admit that my firearm might not save me, but it gives me a fighting chance. I’d much rather go down fighting than curled up in a ball waiting for the end.
It would suffice for me to look at the study to determine whether the researcher’s bias was affecting it. Unless we are going to assume that by definition a lead researcher will queer the research in favor of his preference. But I would not ban the agency from conducting such research at all, I’d ask for measures to ensure the science is done right.
ChickenLegs, with all due respect, the stuff I’ve seen in other threads on these boards about the CDC bias was cherry picked anecdotal information. A lot of smoke and no fire if you will as far as showing significant, real institutional bias by the CDC. I’d be happy to look at a real analysis.
The US now has firearm deaths greater than car accidents, and IMHO it is worth funding to understand why. I think we all agree that fewer firearm deaths would be a positive thing. And if not CDEC, then who?
Of course the CDC guys are going to say that guns should be banned, if the studies they’re running conclude that guns are more dangerous than they’re worth. What’s the point of doing a study, if you’re not going to state a conclusion?
No, that’s not a statistical challenge at all. That’s really easy to interpret: It’s murder. The murderer killed someone who had done nothing wrong, and with no evidence that he was going to do anything wrong. Unless you’re going to argue that being seen carrying a gun is evidence that someone is going to commit a crime?
You are aware that the CDC isn’t the only agency out there doing research, and the only reason it can’t do research on guns is because Congress specifically forbade them to do so? The NIH funds gun violence studies. There are hundreds of published studies on guns, by many different research groups, and they all come to the same conclusion: owning a gun is bad for your health and bad for the health of your family. In Florida, they passed a law forbidding doctors to even ask about guns or suggest that getting rid of guns may improve the health and safety of your family.
Go do a search on Pubmed and see how many gun studies you turn up.
