Gun Control Doesn't Work

[nafod]

We can be sure that Nafod's figure of 2,700 "children" is false.
.

That is not the assertion I made. Go back and read mister fact checker.

Youths shot by cops...how often do cops shoot unarmed youth? Those numbers count. Plus, that is just the number killed. For every mort there are two to three that are "just"shot, to include maimings, paralysis, vegetative state, using a colostomy bag for the rest of their lives, etc.

What was the number for 1 to 14 killed? Figure another 2x that were shot, assuming the mortality rate for children is higher. If not, increase the number.

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to carbon dioxide last summer, but i am sure i was right

Turd, the problem with suicide by guns I'd that they are so effective. Success rates with other methods are far lower.

DDL, i have been in at least three wars and stuff stretching over 27 years. I love liberty too and have put my ass on the line to defend it. I know what threatens my family and I'll not stop fighting to protect them.

[Grandpa's Spells]

The NRA is almost comically tone deaf. Yes, bring the president's kids into this:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t2

[johno]

The NRA is almost comically tone deaf. Yes, bring the president's kids into this.

I like it. A lot.
Check out my new sig.

[Grandpa's Spells]

The NRA is almost comically tone deaf. Yes, bring the president's kids into this.

I like it. A lot.
Check out my new sig.

Johno, bringing the family into it is pretty disgusting, especially since they deal with assassination threats. It's not like the protection is a luxury.

[johno]

No one is attacking Obama's kids. They are illustrating his hypocrisy.
No doubt, the left-leaning media will cry foul. But Obama has Sandy Hook-impacted children lined up as props for his Gun Control pronouncements today.

So who is exploiting The Children?

[Turdacious]

Re the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."[7] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[8]

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[9] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[10]

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[11] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[12] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[13] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[14] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As ... t_on_crime

[Pinky]

I'll have to dig it up later, but the most serious anti-gun researchers I know of sent an open letter to Biden, along with a lot of other signatures, arguing that the only thing we should do now is more research into what would actually reduce gun violence. It's at least implied that we should not pass new regulations until we know more. I doubt they will be listened to.

[Grandpa's Spells]

I'll have to dig it up later, but the most serious anti-gun researchers I know of sent an open letter to Biden, along with a lot of other signatures, arguing that the only thing we should do now is more research into what would actually reduce gun violence. It's at least implied that we should not pass new regulations until we know more. I doubt they will be listened to.

Please post when you locate it.

[nafod]

I'll have to dig it up later, but the most serious anti-gun researchers I know of sent an open letter to Biden, along with a lot of other signatures, arguing that the only thing we should do now is more research into what would actually reduce gun violence. It's at least implied that we should not pass new regulations until we know more. I doubt they will be listened to.

This is interesting. I don't know the history myself. Cites legislation to block just such research.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=1487470

[Grandpa's Spells]

No one is attacking Obama's kids. They are illustrating his hypocrisy.

It's not remotely hypocritical to provide armed guards to the President's children but not every child in America.

[The man in black]

Just out of curiousity, what is the opposition to universal background checks? I have heard this restricts father to son transfers of guns, but certainly family relations could be written in as an exception. Certain exceptions already exist when transfering property within a family.

[johno]

I'm all for protecting the President's children. But I object to his indifference to the threats to other people's children. Like children in Chicago School hellholes & hoods. They may be more at risk than are Obama's kids.
Are their lives less valuable?

And guns are acceptable to protect Sasha & Malia - why not to protect other people's kids?

[johno]

universal background checks?

I wouldn't object, if transaction records were instantly destroyed.

[Turdacious]

I'll have to dig it up later, but the most serious anti-gun researchers I know of sent an open letter to Biden, along with a lot of other signatures, arguing that the only thing we should do now is more research into what would actually reduce gun violence. It's at least implied that we should not pass new regulations until we know more. I doubt they will be listened to.

Researchers wanting more research funding-- shocking.

[Lewis Medlock]

We can be sure that Nafod's figure of 2,700 "children" is false.
.

That is not the assertion I made. Go back and read mister fact checker.

Youths shot by cops...how often do cops shoot unarmed youth? Those numbers count. Plus, that is just the number killed. For every mort there are two to three that are "just"shot, to include maimings, paralysis, vegetative state, using a colostomy bag for the rest of their lives, etc.

What was the number for 1 to 14 killed? Figure another 2x that were shot, assuming the mortality rate for children is higher. If not, increase the number.

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to carbon dioxide last summer, but i am sure i was right

Turd, the problem with suicide by guns I'd that they are so effective. Success rates with other methods are far lower.

DDL, i have been in at least three wars and stuff stretching over 27 years. I love liberty too and have put my ass on the line to defend it. I know what threatens my family and I'll not stop fighting to protect them.

I was going to try and ignore all that has been going on. But after reading yours and others post as of today I am now a member of thr NRA. Last time I joined was in the 90s, but I could see it was time to rejoin.

[Grandpa's Spells]

I'm all for protecting the President's children. But I object to his indifference to the threats to other people's children.

This is the kookiest of talk. All of these efforts, misguided or not, are specifically to address threats to kids.

And guns are acceptable to protect Sasha & Malia - why not to protect other people's kids?

Their circumstances have nothing to do with those of other children, the measures are in place to protect them from completely different threats other children face, and the protection is at a level that nobody is endorsing for other kids.

[tough old man]

This is probably the most bullshit list since my 1975 letter to Santa.

Below is a White House-provided fact sheet listing his "executive actions."

Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions

Today, the President announced that he and the administration will:

Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
Nominate an ATF director.
Provide law enforcement, first responders and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
Launch a national dialogue led by [Human Services Secretary Kathleen] Sebelius and [Education Secretary [Arne] Duncan on mental health.

[Blaidd Drwg]

And guns are acceptable to protect Sasha & Malia - why not to protect other people's kids?

Their circumstances have nothing to do with those of other children, the measures are in place to protect them from completely different threats other children face, and the protection is at a level that nobody is endorsing for other kids.

Every private schools I've seen outside of the US has armed guards, whether that's a private middle class school in Switzerland, or a school for children of ex-pats in Tanzania or the the schools that serve upper middle class families in Quito.

The threats may be different in scale but not kind.

[johno]

This is probably the most bullshit list since my 1975 letter to Santa.

Below is a White House-provided fact sheet listing his "executive actions."

Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions

Today, the President announced that he and the administration will:

Blah, blah, blah.

Fairly noncontroversial moves. Politically smart - the legislative burden falls to Congress. As it should.

[Pinky]

I'll have to dig it up later, but the most serious anti-gun researchers I know of sent an open letter to Biden, along with a lot of other signatures, arguing that the only thing we should do now is more research into what would actually reduce gun violence. It's at least implied that we should not pass new regulations until we know more. I doubt they will be listened to.

Researchers wanting more research funding-- shocking.

I know. It's especially shocking coming from economists, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

The letter is here

The tragedy of gun violence is compounded by the fact that the usual methods for addressing a public health and safety threat of this magnitude—collection of basic data, scientific inquiry, policy formation, policy analysis and rigorous evaluation—are, because of politically-motivated constraints, extremely difficult in the area of firearm research. A blue-ribbon commission appointed by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that very little is currently known about effective ways to reduce gun violence. One consequence is that our current approach of “muddling through” has led to little long-term progress in addressing this problem....

We also summarize two key recommendations for immediate actions that command broad and deep consensus within the violence-prevention research community.
RECOMMENDATION ONE: We call for the removal of the current barriers to firearm-related research, policy formation, evaluation and enforcement efforts.
RECOMMENDATION TWO: We call on the federal government to make direct investments in unbiased scientific research and data infrastructure.

[milosz]

Just out of curiousity, what is the opposition to universal background checks? I have heard this restricts father to son transfers of guns, but certainly family relations could be written in as an exception. Certain exceptions already exist when transfering property within a family.

I don't really give a shit (I prefer to sell via consignment to a dealer or similar now, just so that I don't have to deal with bullshit later on), but it's a feel-good law that won't do much - there are 250 million guns in the US that are somewhat untraceable. No telling when or where they've been bought and sold - so if you enact background checks on July 1, 2013, what's the to keep me from selling stuff I already own after that date and just saying it was before the cut-off?

It also raises some interstate commerce flags - it's already illegal to sell a gun to someone in another state without going through a FFL. Face to face transactions occur between residents of the same state.

[buckethead]

I was going to try and ignore all that has been going on. But after reading yours and others post as of today I am now a member of thr NRA. Last time I joined was in the 90s, but I could see it was time to rejoin.

Ooohh, you're so cool.

[Turdacious]

I'll have to dig it up later, but the most serious anti-gun researchers I know of sent an open letter to Biden, along with a lot of other signatures, arguing that the only thing we should do now is more research into what would actually reduce gun violence. It's at least implied that we should not pass new regulations until we know more. I doubt they will be listened to.

Researchers wanting more research funding-- shocking.

I know. It's especially shocking coming from economists, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

The letter is here

The tragedy of gun violence is compounded by the fact that the usual methods for addressing a public health and safety threat of this magnitude—collection of basic data, scientific inquiry, policy formation, policy analysis and rigorous evaluation—are, because of politically-motivated constraints, extremely difficult in the area of firearm research. A blue-ribbon commission appointed by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that very little is currently known about effective ways to reduce gun violence. One consequence is that our current approach of “muddling through” has led to little long-term progress in addressing this problem....

We also summarize two key recommendations for immediate actions that command broad and deep consensus within the violence-prevention research community.
RECOMMENDATION ONE: We call for the removal of the current barriers to firearm-related research, policy formation, evaluation and enforcement efforts.
RECOMMENDATION TWO: We call on the federal government to make direct investments in unbiased scientific research and data infrastructure.

The Harvard professors in the group would be best served to walk across campus and talk to an experienced practicioner before writing letters.

I'm not opposed to the research being done-- it's a good idea. However, because of the sensitivity of the data and it's implications, it should probably be done in house. Data sharing between CDC, DOJ, etc... to build these data infrastructures and analysis tools is a good idea. A model would be the BLS, Census, and IRS cooperation for economic microdata collection. The microdata collection is not released, even to politicians-- for good reason.

[kreator]

The NRA is almost comically tone deaf. Yes, bring the president's kids into this.

I like it. A lot.
Check out my new sig.

Johno, bringing the family into it is pretty disgusting, especially since they deal with assassination threats. It's not like the protection is a luxury.

More average American children have died as a result of bullying, directly or indirectly, than assassinations.

I don't think the names of the President's children need to be mentioned, nor does it need to be the President's children specifically - that school has more lawmaker and ambassador parents than just about any. The point remains the same: the children of the wealthy aren't afforded the same protections as the children of the not-so-wealthy, and making a law which is unenforceable doesn't solve the problem.

[Lewis Medlock]

I was going to try and ignore all that has been going on. But after reading yours and others post as of today I am now a member of thr NRA. Last time I joined was in the 90s, but I could see it was time to rejoin.

Ooohh, you're so cool.

That I am. To cool to ask about long johns on the world wide web.