1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

More BS, these people are sick! -As proponents of stronger gun laws point out, the pr

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by WAGCEVP, Jul 13, 2003.


    WAGCEVP Active Member

    May 26, 2003
    the SOB"s are using our statements only in reverse........... SICK Lieing rat :cuss: bas :cuss: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    As proponents of stronger gun laws point out, the proof is in the numbers.
    "If the gun lobby's argument that giving everybody guns would make us a
    safer society were true, America would be the safest place on earth," said
    Jacques of the Massachusetts Senate. "And it's not."

    Our statement:
    If gun control worked places like Mass, NJ , CA, etc would be the safest place in US, yet they have the highest crime rates


    Gun Laws Get Credit for Homicide Declines

    Feature Story
    by Dick Dahl

    Total gun deaths in the U.S. have been dropping steadily since 1993, when
    they peaked at nearly 40,000, to around 28,000 annually 1999 through 2001.
    Although firearm suicides have remained fairly constant at over 16,000 per
    year, the decrease in gun homicides has accounted for the bulk of the
    decline. A variety of explanations have been offered to account for the
    decline in gun homicides, but recent research has demonstrated that strong
    gun laws should be considered a leading reason.

    An article published by the American Journal of Public Health last
    December showed that the six states with the highest rates of gun
    ownership--Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and
    Wyoming--had homicide rates that were three times higher than the four
    states with the lowest rates of gun ownership--Hawaii, Massachusetts, New
    Jersey, and Rhode Island. The study's lead author, Matthew Miller of the
    Harvard School of Public Health, concluded that "guns, on balance,
    lethally imperil rather than protect Americans." Combined with a 2000
    assessment of gun laws around the nation by the Soros Foundation, the data
    also show that lax gun laws imperil Americans. That's because the Soros
    scorecard listed each of the six high-homicide states among the bottom
    third of states with the weakest gun laws, and it listed the four
    low-homicide states among the top 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

    According to Soros, the state with the strongest gun laws is
    Massachusetts, and according to 2000 data from the Centers for Disease
    Control, Massachusetts residents enjoy the lowest rates of gun violence in
    the nation. According to CDC, Massachusetts's overall death rate from guns
    in 2000 was 2.84 per 100,000 people, well ahead of second-place New
    Jersey's 4.16 and nearly one fourth of the national average, 10.41.

    The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, which compiles FBI crime data,
    reports that there were 125 homicides in Massachusetts in 2000 and that
    47.5 percent of them were committed with a gun. By contrast, the 2002 FBI
    data for Louisiana, a state with a population one third smaller than
    Massachusetts, recorded 560 homicides, 73.7 percent of which were
    committed with a gun.

    "It's no coincidence that we have the toughest gun-safety laws the lowest
    gun-death rate in the country," said Massachusetts State Senator Cheryl
    Jacques, a longtime leading force for stronger gun laws in the state. In
    addition to enjoying the lowest overall firearms death rate in the
    country, Massachusetts also has the lowest gun-crime rate of any nonrural
    industrialized state, she said.

    Jacques points specifically to a sweeping law that Massachusetts passed in
    1998 with the help of a coalition of groups such as Boston-based Stop
    Handgun Violence, that increased criminal penalties for illegal gun use,
    toughened licensing procedures for background checks and renewals,
    tightened screening requirements, and banned assault weapons. In addition,
    the attorney general's office has begun exercising its consumer-protection
    powers to regulate handguns.

    Within a year of the 1998 law's passage, "we saw a more than 80 percent
    reduction in unintentional shootings involving individuals age zero to
    19," said Jacques' chief of staff Angus McQuilken, "and we saw a more than
    20-percent reduction in suicides by firearms without a corresponding
    increase in suicides by other methods." In addition, gun homicides in
    Massachusetts have continued to drop.

    There's only one problem being the state with the strongest gun laws and
    low gun death rates. "While Massachusetts has the security of knowing we
    have the toughest gun laws in the nation, we're surrounded by states that
    have some of the weakest laws: Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire," Jacques
    said. "So ultimately, federal protections are very much needed because
    guns know no borders or boundaries."

    While gun-homicide rates have been dropping steadily since the early
    1990s, opinions have varied on the reasons for the decline. Typical
    explanations have focused on an improved economy, the decline of urban
    crack-cocaine markets, improved policing, tougher sentencing-and tougher
    gun laws.

    "It's largely the laws, but it's the laws combined with education on
    responsible gun ownership, safe storage, efforts at working with young
    people and teaching them life skills like conflict resolution, anger
    management, and things of that nature," said John Shanks, director of
    law-enforcement relations for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
    "When you add up all those things and add in the fact that we have a
    better background-check system, all of these things as a group result in a
    lower homicide rate."

    The degree to which gun laws are responsible for keeping gun-homicide
    rates down, however, has remained largely unmeasured. And according to Jon
    Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and
    Research, it is a question that begs for extensive research. Not that
    conclusive findings about gun laws' effects don't exist, he said. For
    instance, Vernick said, evaluations of bans on cheap handguns (often known
    as "Saturday-night specials") and assault weapons and prohibitions on gun
    ownership by people who have committed domestic violence have shown them
    to be effective.

    Another area of gun laws that need careful evaluation in Vernick's opinion
    includes "the broad effort to focus on illegal gun trafficking." That
    effort includes such specific measures as "one gun a month" purchasing
    limitations, federal law-enforcement efforts to tighten enforcement of
    gun-trafficking violations, and the Brady Act's increasing of federal
    license fees for dealers.

    "In the field of evaluating gun laws, you can tick off the well-conducted
    evaluations on just a few fingers," he said. Among those evaluations, he
    said, are the recent research by law professors John Donohue and Ian
    Ayres, which contradicted the research conclusions of economist John Lott
    that permissive concealed-handgun laws deter crime; and the work of
    Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor of Duke University and James A. Mercy of CDC,
    who found that laws prohibiting domestic abusers from having guns are

    The general decline in gun homicides and gun violence over the last 10
    years is the result of many factors, Vernick said. "But I haven't seen the
    grand unified theory that plugs all these things in and explains the
    various contributions to the reduction in homicide. I think knowing which
    of these things really were reasons for the decline would be tremendously
    important from a public-policy perspective because we want to know which
    to replicate and which we should get rid of."

    Any efforts to examine how sensible laws might better reduce gun violence
    will encounter opposition from the gun lobby, of course. In Colorado,
    where more than 70 percent of the state's residents voted in a 2000
    referendum to close a loophole which allows people to buy firearms at gun
    shows without a background check, the gun lobby is pushing a bill to do
    away with the loophole closure. "Why is the gun lobby so against the voice
    of the people?" asked an exasperated Shanks.

    As proponents of stronger gun laws point out, the proof is in the numbers.
    "If the gun lobby's argument that giving everybody guns would make us a
    safer society were true, America would be the safest place on earth," said
    Jacques of the Massachusetts Senate. "And it's not."
    :cuss: :banghead: :rolleyes: :barf:
  2. benewton

    benewton Active Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    New Hampshire
    This would be Senator Jacques, rhymes with fakes...

    Author of several bills, the only two I remember being to require margarine be served with butter in resturaunts, since the sheeple have high cholesteral levels and can't possibly assert themselves, even if the know better and care, and the outright ban of, if I remember, crossbows, though it may have been simply bows, after an altercation got somebody shot with one.

    As for the "research", I doubt that you need more than a nanosecond to see who produced it to know that its hand picked trash. Mr. Lott could probably tell you more...

    SSDD, and no cause for worry.
  3. P95Carry

    P95Carry Moderator Emeritus

    Jan 3, 2003
    South PA, and a bit West of center!
    As ever ...... ''massage'', convolute'' ........ yek!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
  4. glocksman

    glocksman Active Member

    Apr 6, 2003
    Evansville, IN

    The 'study' forgot to control for one thing.

    Region of the country.

    The northeast has the lowest homicide average of any area in the country. The lax gun law states listed are in the south and west, which have higher homicide rates. For the study to be even remotely worthwhile, you'd have to compare homicide rates for states within the same region.

    Like this:

    Lax Gun Law States:

    Brady Firearm Law Grade: F
    Firearm Homicide Rate: .87
    Total Homicide Rate: 1.43

    New Hampshire:
    Brady Firearm Law Grade: D+
    Firearm Homicide Rate: .65
    Total Homicide Rate: 1.23

    Brady Firearm Law Grade: D+
    Firearm Homicide Rate: .66
    Total Homicide Rate: 1.83

    Tight Gun Law States:

    Brady Firearm Law Grade: A-
    Firearm Homicide Rate: 1.08
    Total Homicide Rate: 1.97

    Brady Firearm Law Grade: A-
    Firearm Homicide Rate: 1.85
    Total Homicide Rate: 2.88

    Rhode Island:
    Brady Firearm Law Grade: B-
    Firearm Homicide Rate: 2.71
    Total Homicide Rate: 3.92

    New York:
    Brady Firearm Law Grade: B+
    Firearm Homicide Rate: 3.29
    Total Homicide Rate: 5.42

    New Jersey:
    Brady Firearm Law Grade: B
    Firearm Homicide Rate: 2.10
    Total Homicide Rate: 3.90

    The flaw in the comparison above is that it isn't controlled for population density and ethnicity, but it's more (dare I say it?) scientific than the one cited in the story.

    Data sources: All homicide data comes from the US CDC's WISQARS database. The year used was 2000.

    The Brady Grade information comes from here.
    Year 2000 grades used.

    Brady Grade criteria here.
  5. benewton

    benewton Active Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    New Hampshire

    Nice, fast, and concise, not to mention valuable data.

    Still, while I admire your effort, it had to have cost far more than the nanosecond that the whole article deserved.

    As I said, SSDD.

    But, to ensure that you don't think this is a criticism, good job.
  6. glocksman

    glocksman Active Member

    Apr 6, 2003
    Evansville, IN
    It would't make a dent in a Brady supporter, but it comes in useful when refuting their 'data' when discussing the issue with someone who is either neutral or leans anti, but is willing to listen.

    Something else that works for me is pointing out how the Brady's stretch the truth and use misleading statistics.
    Here's an example.

    From here.

    That's true on it's face.

    The CDC does indeed show that 83 people ages from newborn through 19 died by gunfire.
    But the implication is that we're dealing with children, as the text of the paragraph in which they present their data deals with protecting 'children from gun violence'.

    Not true.

    The data for newborns through 17 years (18 and you're a legal adult, not a child) shows that 44 people (not 83) died from gunfire in Indiana.

    The next time some million moron marcher bleats on about all of the 'children', ask her if she considers a 19 year old to be a child.

    Of course with the average MMM, you're :banghead:
  7. Monkeyleg

    Monkeyleg Mentor

    Dec 25, 2002
    Decatur, AL
    >>"Why is the gun lobby so against the voice
    of the people?" asked an exasperated Shanks.<<

    Which "people" is she referring to? The people as a whole, or the "people" that she thinks should run the country?
  8. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Why, better people, of course: people just like herself who are better educated and more culturally and intellectually sophisticated than mere commoners.
  9. Ryder

    Ryder Senior Member

    Dec 31, 2002
    Great post glocksman. That's how to compare apples and apples!
  10. Greg L

    Greg L Senior Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Northern KY
    A good follow up would be to dig and see how many of those 44 that are left were killed while participating in some sort of illegal activity or a victim of illegal activity.

    Also it would be interesting to see how many of those 44 were under 11-12 years old and true ND/AD cases (rather than murder). Less than 3-5 would be my guess.

    However even with the true statistics broken down and printed out don't expect any headway with any true MMMs. Truth and logic have no impact on their feelings :rolleyes:


Share This Page