'The' Gun Thread (Page 5)

A new study from Childrens' Hospital in Boston finds that the rate of deaths from firearms is lower in states with a greater number of gun laws on the books. I've seen this pop up on my FB feed from groups such as the Brady campaign and other folks, using this to argue for an increase in legislation. I don't think that anti-gun people such as myself can necessarily make that jump from this specific study. The study says that number of gun laws and number of gun deaths are correlated. It doesn't draw a causal relationship.

That said, I do think this study provides some ammunition, play on words intended, for those who argue against the NRA's very effective political strategy of opposing any and all efforts to conduct research into gun safety and legislation. I think that some objective party ought to try and find out the real reason for this correlation, which then might provide a non-emotional basis for further action.

I think you hit on the key point about causal relationship.  Gun laws have been going up everywhere (some places more than others) but also gun ownership has been going up everywhere.

For me, I think it's more telling that with a massive increase in gun ownership over the past 20 years that homicides have gone down significantly.

Intelligent, reasoned answer.

Answer which seems angry and causes many gun owners, right or wrong, to be painted with the broad brush of "gun nuts."

It might be, and for others, other factors might be more telling. All I'm saying is that I don't think suppressing research efforts is a good way to go about solving the problem. I don't know what the truth is, but I do believe that more objective research is needed.

I disagree with your premise entirely.  You opine that it isn't "they" that are trying to take guns away, it is "he" or "she".  When the "he" or "she" are in a position of power, and specifically an elected official and that person uses their elected position to take the extraordinary step of introducing legislation which, if passed, would in fact result in the confiscation of legally owned firearms, then the "he" or "she" is more than the opinion of some pundit on T.V.

I may agree with you if the Mo. legislation was viewed in a vacuum, however this piece of legislation isn't the only one out their.  First, the D.C. legislation that actually went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was the subject of the Heller decision, made it, for all intents and purposes, illegal to posses a handgun in persons own home.  Second, the Mo, legislation isn't the only "proposed" legislation by individual "he's" and "she's" in legislative bodies.  Minn, Fla, NY., Ill., Ca., and Colorado all have such legislation that would require surrender of previously legally owned firearms and make it a crime to continue to posses those firearms.  And it looks very much like the Colorado bundle of firearms laws will pass.

Third, the Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban, while containing a grandfather clause for banned weapons that are legally owned at the time of the passage of the Act, specifically prohibits their future transfer or sale in almost all circumstances, thus within a generation "confiscating" those firearms and magazines.  The grandfathered in owner must register the firearm federally and then cannot sell, or transfer the firearm at anytime.  Upon the death of the legal owner the firearm must be surrendered or made inoperable.

So the fact is that elected officials, both on an individual State and on the Federal level have an anti-gun ideology, and are attempting to use their political position in an attempt to pass legislation to realize that personal ideology.  This is done, too often, with either ignorance of the Constitution, or outright disregard for the Constitution.

I don't agree with the notion that because the legislation doesn't have a chance of passing, it means that therefore isn't an attempt to strip people of their right to personally posses firearms.  To the contrary, the proof is in the legislation.  Additionally, when the Colorado bills were initially introduced, the discussion, at least nationwide, was that because of the State's hunting and outdoor enthusiast background, they didn't stand much of a chance of passage....well....different result.

It should make citizens horrified that legislatures, elected officials, would have total disregard for the Constitution.  if the 2nd Amendment today, what right tomorrow?

On your point about liability insurance, I totally disagree with you on that.  There is no other Constitutionally guaranteed right, in which you have to have insurance prior to being able to exercise that right.

You probably know already, but Midway has CCI Blazer on backorder due 6/29. The 500s are due 5/9.

I'm going to go with the .22 blanks. I'd prefer the 209 primer version, but with the run on ammo I can't find any primers of any kind available anywhere.  That's amazing.  Who knows how long this will go on.  I don't blame anyone though for stocking up on reloading supplies.

The .22 blanks seem readily available.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Homicide rates directly track teen birth/pregnancy rates too.  So you are saying increased gun ownership lowers teen birth rates too? 

I certainly get where you're coming from and with most thing's conducting studies for appropriate restrictions makes perfect sense.  If we're studying the impact of speed limits on the highway, or drinking and driving, it's one thing.  Those are valid dangers to society that we determine acceptable levels based on risk (65 on the highway .08 BAC driving etc...).  People will still die while driving at 65 and with a .08 BAC.  However, neither of them are constitutionally protected things.

Now a more proper comparison would be with free speech, which is a constitutionally protected right.  People get sued for slander and libel all the time because of their abuse of the free speech, but nobody wants to ban them from speaking because it's their constitutionally protected right.  We just put consequences in place for the abuse of that right, which is perfectly legal.

Obviously with firearms the consequences of people misusing their right are potentially far graver, but it is still a constitutionally protected right that garners the same treatment.  It is perfectly acceptable to put laws in place to punish people who misuse their 2A right, and there's no question there are a lot of those laws on the books.

Well, there are more fathers cleaning there guns when their daughters boyfriends come over.  So there could be...

All kidding aside.  I do agree, that the causation of adding more guns into society doesn't necessarily mean that adding guns into society has decreased homicide rates, but I will counter that it makes it a lot more difficult to say the opposite.  Most of the anti-gun politicians claim that having more guns in society is a bad thing and leads to more crime, but the statistics (causation or not) don't seem to support that argument.

Well speaking as a father of three daughters...it's a distinct possibility

Hey, where did you find that......I'd like to see the data.  I can have some fun with it.

On your other point.....you may be right that "correlation doesn't imply causation" but you sure as hell can't argue that more guns has caused MORE homicides.

in JAMA today - more gun laws = fewer gun deaths. the states with the most laws had 42% fewer deaths.

they took into account poverty etc

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

There's that dang causation thing again. 

www.gun-deals.com has pretty up to date deals and pricing for ammunition both on-line and in some stores. 

They do currently have a really good deal on Winchester .45 ACP Ranger LE JHP (both the regular and +P versions).  Really good for the current market, anyhow.

fixed that for ya

But still.....we can be pretty certain that more guns....ALOT more guns...hasn't caused violent crime to rise.