Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, July 27, 2017

Study Finds Stricter Gun Laws Mean Fewer Fatalities

Study Finds Stricter Gun Laws Mean Fewer Fatalities

A study released last week by JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association): Internal Medicine shows a direct correlation between gun laws and gun-related fatalities. While the study is mainly based on the number of gun laws, not the type (it doesn’t, for example, specify which particular laws are the most effective), it confirms that generally speaking, stricter gun laws result in fewer deaths.

The report, entitled “Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States,” developed a method for rating states depending on the degree of the gun laws in place. How far state laws go to control gun trafficking, effectiveness of a background-check system, focus on child safety, restriction on military-style assault weapons, and whether state laws allow individuals to carry guns in public places were all considered when ranking each state.

The states that come in at the top of the list for strong gun laws are Massachusetts, California, New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. Aside from California, which is closer to the median, these states also have the lowest average of firearms deaths per year. The states on the other end of the list—those with the most lenient gun laws—include Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Utah, all of which have among the highest percentage of deaths per year.

The authors conclude from their data that just owning a gun puts individuals at risk, and the federal government should focus on limiting gun ownership entirely. “One way that firearm legislation may act to reduce firearm fatalities is through reducing firearm prevalence. Studies have shown a strong connection between gun ownership and firearm suicideand firearm homicide,” says the report. “A cross-sectional study of all 50 states from 2001 to 2003 found that higher rates of household firearm ownership were associated with significantly higher rates of homicide.”

The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre has stood adamantly against the implementation of new federal gun laws, citing these measures as an all-out attack on responsible gun owners with a view to taking away their guns, and a complete waste of time since the government fails to enforce laws already in place. LaPierre has completely ignored and opposed proposals that include universal background checks, banning military-style weapons, and outlawing high-capacity magazines. During an interview, the NRA CEO tried to shift blame for growing gun violence when he said, “Look, a gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

At the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), LaPierre said, “Across the board, violent crime in jurisdictions that recognize the right to carry is lower than in areas that prevent it.” During a January Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) repeated this statement nearly verbatim. The problem with this logic is that there are far too many exceptions when piecing together a direct connection between any one lax gun law and a decrease in gun-related violence—other factors in society can trigger an increase or decrease.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo

85 Responses to Study Finds Stricter Gun Laws Mean Fewer Fatalities

  1. Yea it’s working so well in Chicago, DC, New Jersey, New York. Not to mention how well it has worked in the past in other countries Germany, Russia, , China, Cambodia… Yes Britain has less firearm deaths BUT since they virtually banned firearms their violent crime rate has sky rocketed. So I guess getting stabbed or beaten is okay and doesn’t count. Why not study ALL violent crime? or would that expose the out right falsehood of inanimate objects doing crime?

    • Methinks that word salad was the regurgitation.

      Okay, it’s quite simple.

      You’re wrong.

      Even if other forms of death are more frequent, there is no reason AT ALL not to lower this cause of death.

      These studies are not useless because they do not leave it up to common sense, which people frankly ignore most of the time.

      Remember the Birthers, going on and on ad nauseum about President Obama possibly being born in Kenya, despite that having absolutely NOTHING to do with his eligibility to run for, be elected to the office of, or serve as President of the United States of America?

      Despite the fact that his mother’s American citizenship meant Barack automatically could and did run for political office, the ranting continued until proof of his assertion (of birth in the state of Hawaii) was pounded through their thick skulls.

      The gun study was needed.
      The studies proving smoking tobacco cigarettes will cause cancer was needed.

      Just face it.

      • You can make the statement I am wrong all day long, but the facts are the facts and I did not spend a dime on a study. You are right common sense is ignored all the time, again we see it right here.
        If the old saw “if just one life…” is going to be bantered about that’s fine but that holds true for everything not just one subject so let’s bring JAMA into this.
        JAMA is one to talk, they need to clean up their profession before tackling anything else be it guns or anything else but medicine. In 2003 a medical report Death by Medicine, by Drs. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio and Dorothy Smith, 783,936 people in the United States die every year from conventional medicine mistakes.
        I know facts are not going to be allowed to get in the way of a agenda but, these medical deaths are serious and these people are innocent people seeking help and they are being killed en mass. Accident, purposely does not matter.

        • You are pushing the wrong agenda, option! The American people are not with you !

          The last bombast is ridiculous ! Stick to topic or are you out of breath!

        • Dear Lana the TROLL, please tell me dear what civilized the “Old West”, a time when everyone was packing a gun or two? Let me help you dear with the answer coz I am not sure you can read much less understand. Oh, wait, it was the tough gun laws that prevented people from carrying their guns in towns and if they did, they were immediately disarmed by the sheriffs or town constables or if they used their guns and killed someone, well so much for public hangings, swift but sure. We need less guns nor more armed people. I am trained to use weapons and I do not own any. I spent a year using mine and maybe people like yourself need that experience to really understand what a tragedy it is here. The rest of the world is much smarter than we are about guns.

          • Rnv
            You are entitled to your opinion, mis-guided as it may be.
            People who dont have good, supported argument, often resort to name calling.
            Like you trying to degrade Lana.
            And your causes and solution/s to the school killing is?

      • Keep going 31.

        Your analogies are fine. Its your agenda that is the problem.

        Clever of them(the gun control left) using suicides to skew their data to support their agenda.

        I suspect your agenda is like mine – sensible laws to limit the murders but allow for responsible ownership.

        Their agenda(the gun control left) is to dis-arm everyone.
        Emotion has replaced analysis in this discussion.

        • … & yet, by separating it down & down & down, we are divided more along narrower, more individual lines. That way, the lobby & corporation continue enjoying the side-show of the citizenry fighting among itself while nothing gets done – again… Let us ALL agree that this time will be different & what SHOULD be done get DONE this time… & not undone at a later date (i.e., letting the law lapse in 2004)…

          • A ban on assault rifles will have virtually no effect on the killing.
            That is the idea is it not,? Stop the killing?
            Or is the agenda just to ban rifles and magazines?
            Fact is 99% of school killings are done with handguns.
            Why dont we agree on doing things that will actually work to limit the killing?

      • Well said , Daniel. The gun study and the M&M studies of wound ballistics have been blocked by the Nra interests../or defunded through congress at the nra lobbyists behest!

        This was needed..if not, the trolls would not be screeching so loudly!

      • Where and when were those studies done? It is comical that all these studie and polls are done, but most of the public never hear about them until the are “complete and conclusive” So to most average Americans these studies are useless, we are interested in where we live and not where someone choses to do a biased study which is what most of these are. Sure they proved cigarettes killed people, but it was what was in the curing of the tobacco that caused it, Smoking your own home grown tobacco do not have those carcinogens.

        • This study was not done using polls. It was done using data available from, probably, a variety of sources. I suspect, although I do not know for sure, that the researchers looked at homicide numbers and suicide numbers by state and then compared those numbers with the number of gun laws in each state. This is not a matter of interpretation. It is, basically a count-and-compare exercise.

    • Without a study you have your own opinion which may be right, but how would you know for sure? How would you convince others of your opinion?

      With a study we have real documented evidence.

      Also, I hope you realize that every single one of your analogies are inappropriate and false. The study is not about firearms and more firearm deaths it is about gun LEGISLATION and fewer firearm deaths.

      • The whole study is debunked by, NYC, Wash DC and Chicago, they have the toughest anti gun laws in the country.

        What is inappropriate and false about the analogies? Quoting from the article “The authors conclude from their data that just owning a gun puts individuals at risk” Which one of my analogies is false and why, please be precise.

        • I think the suggests that demographic differences that can lead to variations in gun-related deaths. The point is that overall, having fewer gun laws leads to more homicides and suicides.

    • Guns are different from everything else you mentioned. Guns have one purpose, and that’s to kill. (OK, one could be a target shooter, I suppose.) All of the other things on your list of potential killers have legitimate purposes that are not related to killing or ruining one’s health.

        • Are you implying all gun owners are killers or are you blowing smoke our of your anus? If it is the former you must live in fear of all people who might be a gun owner, including everyone you passon the street.

          • No, I’m not implying that at all. The article says that homicides and suicides are more prevalent where there are fewer gun laws. This suggests that it’s not only people who kill people, but it’s also guns that kill people. I agree that the vast majority of gun owners kill no one. But the other simple fact is that where there are fewer guns laws, there are more homicides and suicides. (The article doesn’t mention it, but I would expect to find more accidental shootings where there are fewer gun laws.) And I live in Canada (I’m American), so I’m really not very worried about gun violence.

          • It is hard if not impossible to agree with Lana, but she has a point both Washington D.C. and Chicago have very strict gun laws and high homicide rates. Can not explain this but gun control people don’t acknowlege the fact.
            I live in a city with lots of gun violence.
            Except for the mentally disturbed mass murders, most gun violence is gang related.

          • This study conflicts with most other data sets on the issue.
            So the *facts* are not so simple as you say.

          • The data sets themselves say nothing. The analysis and interpretation of the data says something. When research is peer-reviewed, the reviewers look mainly at the methodology of the research and whether or not it meets expected standards. (Research showing that cats are smarter than dogs would be OK if it followed expected standards of research.) The “facts” are not at issue, only how the “facts” were arrived at. Differences between the study under review and other research on the same topic are often not real since research can be done using different methodologies, all of which may adhere to the standards for such research. Often, a peer-reviewed article will state conclusions that do not really follow from the information presented in the article, and this sometimes gets a pass from the reviewers, but if the methodology is flawed then the article won’t get published. By the way: Facts are not as absolute as you might believe. Facts are invariant. That is, a fact is something that is always the same. (As far as we know, gravity is a fact. Evolution is not a fact, only a theory–but a good one. For creationists, creation is not a theory but a fact–but that’s another issue.) So it is not a “fact” that homicides and suicides are more prevalent where there are fewer gun laws. That is only a relationship, not a fact, and I don’t think the article says that the relationship is a fact.

          • Well you are the one who said it – *But the other simple fact is that where there are fewer guns laws, there are more homicides and suicides.*
            Seems like a variant to me and not *fact*.
            Many other studies and data sets have actually shown inverse results to this one.

          • Unlike those who work with absolutes, the people who put the research together would be the first to admit that the connection they propose is based on crude correlations–number of homicides and suicides vs. number (not strictness) of gun laws. (The article actually says this.) I would suggest that those who support fewer gun laws based on some wacky idea that more guns means less gun violence have not done very good research.

          • I have not done the research or recording necessary to be able to cite specific studies but have seen results (conclusions if you like) that contradict this study. I *have* done some study and data collection of the killing problem in schools.

            From my data – The great majority of the killing has been done with handguns and shotguns. NOT Assault Rifles.
            Also Assault Rifles are but a sub-set of the Larger Group – All Rifles. As for the Group of *All Rifles* the data says only 3-4% of gun crime is done with All Rifles. And Assault Rifles as a sub set is even lower. And I “think” is in the 1% range, maybe even less.

            So – I have been thinking and saying why is there such a big push to ban Assault Rifles when they are used so little in gun crime.
            Seems to me the “push”(from the progressive left) is based on emotion(an emotional response) and not on analysis of what are the causes and what changes will actually help reduce the murders.
            So I have said while their agenda seems to be – Ban Assault Rifles.
            *My Agenda* is to try to reduce the killing.
            That is the real objective is it not?

            My data shows that almost all the mass and especially school killings (the worst ones) have been done by white males 16-27 yrold on one of the new-age anti-depressants, using pistols and shotguns. Seems to me we should concentate on doing things/changes that consider these actual causal factors and what will actually work to mitigate these factors.
            Things like – 1) Provide armed security in schools, for now anyway
            2) Some-how, get this particular drug/mental problem under control.
            I have suggestions/proposals but that is another long letter.
            And who is going to listen to me, a gun owner and competition shooter, anyway?

            ps The school shooting problem started, roughly, in the 1990’s. About the same time the mental institutions were emptied and these new designer drugs were introduced to self medicate young men at home. Now they are housed in jails, then released upon us. And the poor parents of these troubled young men are suffering as much as any in not being able to get help with the problem.
            The drugs associated with the killings keep appearing time and time again – Prozac, Effexor, Zoloft, Luvox, – many more.
            Since I am 65 yo, I remember when all this was not a problem.
            And *Guns* were as prevelant then as now.

            YR School Condition Drug Weapon Killer/Age #Killed *Diagnosed*
            ——– ———— ————– ————— ———– ——-
            1999 Columbine Depression Zoloft, Luvox Pistol/Shotgun
            Male 17/18 12
            2005 Red Lake Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun
            Male 16 9

            2007 VT Depression Prozac Pistol
            Male 23 32
            2008 N. Ill Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun
            Male 27 5
            2009 Germany Depression ukn Pistol
            Male 17 15

            # of School Shootings in USA
            1960’s 1
            1970’s 5
            1980’s 3
            1990’s 15
            2000’s 19
            2010’s 5 so far

          • Hey, at least you have done some investigation. You’re not simply spouting the NRA line.

            You’re probably correct (my opinion only) that these anti-depressants are causing problems. Overall, they are probably helping a lot of people, but there are some who either medicate incorrectly (if one is good then two must be better) or just don’t do well with these anti-depressants. (And who wants to go back to the doctor without medical coverage?) How many people can’t afford to keep taking these drugs, even when the drugs are effective? And how many people simply go cold turkey? That’s not advisable.

            If you asked me about the types of weapons used in most killings, I’d guess that it’s not assault rifles. They’re too easy to spot and too cumbersome. Handguns are much easier to conceal and to use–especially if you don’t care who gets shot.

            I disagree about armed guards at schools. You have to imagine who these guards would be. How many innocent people (parents) would be shot by mistake by some police wannabe who is more than excited about pulling the trigger? How many people taking anti-depressants would end up doing the job? How many children would be accidentally killed by these guards? And how many would actually survive a rare confrontation with an armed intruder intent on killing people?

            I’m about your age, and I remember when we never heard about such violence. I think we’ve reached a critical mass of violent and depressed people who are not under control. That is, they are not being incarcerated (if criminals) and not being treated (if mentally ill). Their families cannot take care of them–or are afraid to–and it is simply too easy for them to obtain firearms.

          • Just do a search on ‘wound ballistics’ — be sure to check out the exit photos and tell yourself this is about sport!

            From the Global Post 3/10/2013.

            The number of US households with guns has dropped 15 percent since the 1970s, from 50 percent the population’s households to 35 percent, according to a new survey.

          • Don’t need to. Eye witness experience. My younger brother joined the army right after high school. did two tours in Nam. Came home joined the police force. Less than six months on the force he stopped a car for speeding, called for backup. Those in the car had just robbed a mom & pop store. One occupant jumped out and unloaded his pistol on my brother. He took six shots to six rounds to the body, going from the left hip to the right shoulder. He Lived, but it was over a week before doctor gining the family his daily update did not start the update with “if he lives”. The police drove my parents to the hospital. When I arrives the chaplain pulled me aside told me the doctors thought he would die in the emergency room, he had taken 16 unites of blood and they were unable to stablize him. The chaplin wanted to know if He should teld my parents. The next I went to work and fell apart, came home and cried I don’t need you are anyone else to lecture me on the damage a gun can doto the human body or the emotional stress it puts on the victims family.

            In response to your second point if the precentage of households with guns has dropped from 50% to 35% as you stated. You made an excellent argument for less gun control!

          • Sorry about your personal experience and the loss. However, I cleanup and sew up the wounds myself in my capacity, as Attending, and pronounce them…more often than I would like.

            The point is that the guns are being purchased by hoarding fearful people with some collectors thrown in! Playing right into the gun makers profit model of scaring the people! It makes no such the article.

          • You have a tough job!
            Yes, if the anti gun zealots would stop wipping up so much antimosity amound gun owners the buying frenzy would end. Both sides have a share of the crazies reacting to each other.

          • I do not see it as the anti gun people whipping up the frenzy but the preponderance of fear mongering is coming from the gun makers lobbyists and the Nra..That has been going on for decades and the slaughters have continued! Not even the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons Ban wanted to amend the 2nd Amendment but that was the frenzy that was sold way back then..The same lies are happening now!

          • Do not disagree. As I said both sides have crazies, zealot, and they play off each other. More gun control group see all events as gun group starting everything and gun group thinks the gun control group started everything.
            I voted twice for President Obama and would do it all over again. However, I believe he like all politians will tell the people whatever he thinks it will take to get what he wants. I purchased a long gun and a hand gun a couple of years ago, frist guns I ever owned. In all my adult life I have always defended the second amendment. For a long time I have heard neighbors, Church groups and others pushing to restrict the second amendement. It was the constant push to restrict the second amendment that moved me to purchase guns. My words are now backed up by my actions. It was the anti gun zealots that moved me to buy a gun not the NRA or gun owning wingnuts.

          • By basic marketing and sales and well just by human nature, you should know that people do not normally buy anything they do not want or feel they need or may need. If you dont believe it try selling anything to people they dont want. It is not the NRA nor the gun makers that are driving sales. It is all this talk of banning guns. Most people I know, feel the ultimate objective of many in here(the progressives), and the current administration is to ban ALL guns ie disarm everyone. Then only the criminals will have them. The Feinstein bill now proposed in congress includes a confiscation component. And I know for a fact(from confirmed reports) the current admin considered it but tabled it as a future desire but not doable right now. But it is a future agenda item to be done asap. They dont have to spend a cent on ads , the demand is so great right now they dont have too. Fear is a component alright. But it is driven by gun ban talk. People fear they will be left without means for self defense, etc.Great as it is, Its a big and at times and places a dangerous country. Many people actually do have to provide for their own self defense/security.

            ps This study conflicts with numerous verified data sets already out there. On that basis alone it should be viewed as highly skeptical.
            Seems it started with a particular gun contol agenda and crafted the results to meet that end. Objective studies on gun crime(the real problem) do not include suicides – which skew the results badly to erroneous conclusions re solutions to the crime and murder problems.
            Or are we going to concentrate on suicides now. I see that as a separate issue to the mass killings we are trying to stop or lessen.

          • Seems you bought the nra lobbyists propaganda..defend!

            No one wants to take your or my weapons for sport or protection..But the culture of fear wins in the already fearful!

            Good luck, I and increasingly most am not buying what the nra is selling !

          • I do live in fear and the reason I do is because I know that there people that have gun carry permits that shouldn’t be allowed within 100 feet of a gun. They are quick to anger, and quick to use their weapons because they have no self control when they are angery and also that a normal person can turn into a killer by getting hit in the head or because of a unknown tumor or bloodclot in their heads that changes the person because of where it is located. Everytime a gun is bought at gunshop or gun show or from a private individual the buyer is subjest to being followed home and the home broken into and robbed because the criminals know that you have a gun or guns in your home and guns is the first thing criminals look for in a break in. I would like to see what the figures are for people killed by their own guns after a break in or home invasion to see if they people that were murdered won’t have been murdered if they hadn’t had guns and were they able to even use them to stop one robber or was the gun or guns just used on the owners. If we could get a truthful number on that and other gun deaths maybe it won’t be so hard to understand why so many are saying enough deaths already, we need gun controls that will work and will be enforced, to many people are dying because of guns that shouldn’t be dying.

          • I feel your pain! That is the most pathic, parinoid rant I have ever read. The Boogy man is under your bed and the sky is falling.

        • I practice shooting about 1,000 rds a month for my sport. But have never killed anyone. And prey I never have too.
          I could well argue that guns also have the fundamental good function of providing for self defense. Especially when facing armed or multiple attackers.
          And more then you may know use them for sporting purposes.
          Which has the side benefit of making one *very* proficient/capable at self defense.
          But acting out killing someone while shooting targets is the last thing I think of. And the last thing I ever want to have to do.
          If that is what you think of then you need to re-evaluate yourself.

        • I practice shooting about 1,000 rds a month for my sport. But have never killed anyone. And prey I never have too.
          I could well argue that guns also have the fundamental good function of providing for self defense. Especially when facing armed or multiple attackers.
          And more then you may know use them for sporting purposes.
          Which has the side benefit of making one *very* proficient/capable at self defense.
          But acting out killing someone while shooting targets is the last thing I think of. And the last thing I ever want to have to do.
          If that is what you think of then you need to re-evaluate yourself.

    • A person intent on suicide will do so with or without a gun. Including suicide makes the study suspect. As Mark Twain is credited with saying “there are three types of lies, lies, damn lies and statistics!” As lerned in an advanced statistics course many years ago. Tell me what you want me to prove and I can develope the sratistics to prove it, all depends on how the information is presented.

      • Of course. Garbage in, garbage out. That’s why I wouldn’t trust an article about gun violence in People magazine, but I would trust one in JAMA, which is peer-reviewed. I would definitely not trust statistics from an organization like the NRA. The keys to trusting published statistical information are validity and bias. Who has an axe to grind about guns? The AMA or the NRA?

        • Both! All studies are slanted to prove the the authors point. Trust neither AMA nor NRA. Yes garbage in, garbage out. But end users believe gospal out if it is inprint. Many JAMA studies have been proven in error.

    • Keep going 31.

      Your analogies are fine. Its your agenda that is the problem.

      Clever of them(the gun control left) using suicides to skew their data to support their agenda.

      I suspect your agenda is like mine – sensible laws to limit the murders but allow for responsible ownership.

      Their agenda(the gun control left) is to dis-arm everyone.
      Emotion has replaced analysis in this discussion.

  2. I read that in JAMA…We need more out there to cancel out the white noise from the Nra lobbyists for the gun makers..We need uniform National laws so the problems of State to state carry and sale are eliminated!

    Now is the time…Stop as much slaughter as possible..nothing is perfect but the multi round clips and trafficking can and must be stopped! Background checks would not have stopped on of the slaughters most recently..Not Aurora, VTech, Ft Hood, or Sandy Hook!

    • This entire debate is pretty funny…one million NRA members & the entire gov’t & it’s citizery fear them as a political bloc.

      Remember…you can’t have slaughter without laughter

        • The gun ban isn’t working anywhere is it. WHY you ask? Because the guns are being purchased in states where there isn’t any regulation & sold for profit in states where there IS regulation.
          Get with the program; you’re either going to organize a lobby for federal laws & eliminate state laws or the oppostion will craft legislation that will totally trash the 2nd amendment.
          ANd when I read rubbish like that being spouted by the wing nuts & the NRA I think it would be best to get the guns out of the hands of THOSE crazies.

          • Gun bans won’t work unless all guns are confiscated–but criminals will still have them and everyone else will be sitting ducks,crazy.

      • The counties and States around and bordering Chicago do not have the ban. That is where the weapons are coming from, ward! Catch up..

        • Criminals will always have guns, law abiding citizens will be defenseless. And as for you, A man who is always making excuses, seldom is good at anything else!!

          • If someone breaks in your house in the night, you’re gonna want to have a gun. If not, you’re not normal. It’s a fact, gun free zones have much more crime. Criminals know their prey are sitting ducks!!!

          • Obama has an excuse for everything–it’s their fault, it’s his fault, it’s her fault. And he sure isn’t good at anything else!!!

        • What a flimisy excuse. You prove the theory that criminals will always be able to get guns. Only the the responsible citizens will not be able to have guns.

          • I am law abiding , own 2 weapons, and am female to boot!
            Have for 40 years and a former member of the nra in Texas!

            No excuses ..just facts!

          • Facts, yes! but still a flimisy excuse. Illinois has strick gun laws. Young kids, gang members, are not going outside Chicago to purchase weapons. They would be unable to do so leagally. The black market is alive and well in Chicago as in most major cities.

          • Again, the surrounding counties and States do not have those gun laws..That is how they come into Chicago..That and Trafficking.

          • Excuses, Excuses. Certainly a lot of murders for them to run across the state lines to get them. This just excuses their murdering.

          • BS BS uninformed..In some instances you can walk across the street or a couple of blocks..Who are you that you spew without even checking ..There is no excuse for slaughter with a weapon. elea!

          • A little late to the table, wayneZ, with your childish attempts to demean someone who gives a ‘zheet’ what you think….to use your term!

        • I don’t believe they are legally getting them in another state, unless they have false ID, and give an address in that state, or easier, just get someone else buy it for them for a little extra cash above the price of the gun. A crazy criminal wanting a gun and you thinks he is going to obey the law? Hell no, they don’t obey it in other ways why would they obey gun laws. I don’t own a gun and probably won’t, but I think all law abiding citizens who want one should have the right to get one through the legal process.

          • Gun shows and trafficking which is getting someone else to buy them for them..Like the girl that bought the weapons for the Columbine killers! ..If you were to read the news would know!

          • Eleanor, when a gun at a crime scene is checked, they’re finding about 28 percent are coming from Indiana which is only about thirty miles away from the southside of Chicago.

        • Gun bans won’t EVER work unless all guns are confiscated–but criminals will still have them and the rest of us will be sitting ducks-catch up!!!

          • Is that you, wayne…? Borrowing from limpbow again, I see!

            You must start where you stand…. NO ONE IS coming TO GET YOUR or MY LEGAL WEAPONS!

          • Have you got anything relevant and original or are you limited to implausible, ignorant, dissembling, edited cut and pastes?

          • It is part of the Old Axiom of truth and reason..We are smart and labeled out of frustration by those who fear education and knowledge as arses.. The rabid righties do not present as smart and are seen by the majority as DUMB arses! Obvious really!

      • Probably those Chicago thugs have already stolen them or bought them on the black market, this proves gun control ain’t stopping them.

  3. quote: The authors conclude … the federal government should focus on limiting gun ownership entirely

    How about that…

  4. “The authors conclude from their data that just owning a gun puts individuals at risk, and the federal government should focus on limiting gun ownership entirely.”

    I disagree. The issue is about individuals having the choice and freedom to own firearms; the risk one takes should be up to them to decide, not the government.

  5. One problem that people seem to be having here is that of ecological correlation. NYC and Chicago are not like Binghamton and Peoria. The study did not look at specific cities. It looked at states. It is expected that cities with high rates of gang violence would have high rates of homicide that are unrelated to the number of gun laws in New York or Illinois. The study went state-by-state, not city-by-city. It’s like global warming. Critics of global warming point to a particularly cold winter in Nebraska and use that as “proof” that global warming is nonsense.

  6. Another issue mentioned in the article is suicide. Suicide is not usually related to gang violence or criminal activity. Where guns laws are few (or weak), guns are more easily available. Where guns are more easily available, they are more easily available to those who want to commit suicide. Yes, people intent on committing suicide will find a way, but it’s just that much quicker to use a gun (and maybe take some family members along).

  7. As a no-brainer, imagine being on mass transit, in the mall or out to dinner and that rude person that just won’t shut up!!! Ignoring them as long as possible, the time comes where they must be told to ‘shut up & be respectful of others right to be peaceably left to…’ & U know the rest; well, this is the no-brainer portion of what we need do w/the NRA/Gun Lobby. Obnoxious. Rude. Inconsiderate. Greedy. Cruel. Thoughtless. What more need we know about them in order to make them behave & to protect our Constitutional RIGHT to be free of both, their physical, as well as psychic (political) ‘threats’ against citizens/autonomous elected officials? We don’t need their approval to ‘FORCE’ them to behave in civil society, so lets do so, by pressuring elected officials pass the laws WE THE PEOPLE deem NECESSARY. NOT laws they (NRA/Gun Lobby) will/won’t OK…

  8. “Studies have shown a strong connection between gun ownership and firearm suicide and firearm homicide” They needed a study to figure that out??? It is pretty self-evident that if you do not have access to a firearm that you shall not use said non-existent firearm to commit suicide. Homicide is another story as even though you may not have a firearm an intruder or mugger probably shall and you could easily end up a firearm homicide victim. By the way, JAMA published a study a few years ago showing that health care providers killed close to 200,000 people in 2011. Consider that in 2011 less than 1,500 people were murdered (25% by rifles) and that there are at least 43 million people (some estimate 60 million) who had firearms and that there were less than a million doctors in 2011 you can see that, statistically, you are far, far more apt to be killed by a doctor than by a firearm owner.

Leave a reply