Connecticut's strict gun law linked to large homicide drop

Great article. Obviously if people don't have guns, you won't have as many shootings, because not everyone gets guns by stealing, unlike what the right wing would have you believe.

www.cnn.com...

Connecticut's strict gun law linked to large homicide drop

a reply to: CB328

Good luck with this thread .

Massachusetts passed a gun law more recently, in 1998, and the number of firearm-related homicides reportedly increased after the law. However, this law did not really change how people buy guns in the state because a law requiring background checks had already been in place for decades, Webster said.

yep, good luck...

And yet it didn't prevent Sandy Hook.

How about that.

BS

FBI homicide chart

Oh look, violent crime peaked around that time and dropped precipitously in that 10 year span nationwide.

I'd also like to know how much higher the drop was in that state compared with other states. I notice that the article doesn't specify, which means that it's probably a ridiculous amount because it if was actually significant, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would've been reported.

Here's a Washington Post article about Chicago's drop in crime after the handgun ban was overturned.

Oh look, but isn't that weird. Shouldn't it be the same across the board? Shouldn't there never be a drop, anywhere, ever? Shouldn't we have expected the crime rates to explode?

Maybe, just maybe, it's not about guns. Maybe it's about criminals. And, let's be honest, I can kill somebody with a brick, a pipe, a knife, a toaster wrapped in a bedsheet, etc. The only thing that guns do is equalize the force for vulnerable people like myself.

a reply to: CB328

A rebuttal of the "research".

Not so fast...

Seems there may have been, not was, but may have been a bit of cherry picking goin' on in the research??? Maybe?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: CB328

A rebuttal of the "research".

Not so fast...

Seems there may have been, not was, but may have been a bit of cherry picking goin' on in the research??? Maybe?

Yeah, Cherry picked specific years to try to show results that are not there in the long term.
crimepreventionresearchcenter.org... censing-law/

Their results are also extremely sensitive to the last year that they pick. The firearm homicide rate in 2006 was actually back up to 2.62. Indeed, with the exception of just one year from 2006 to 2010, there is only one year where the ratio of Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate to that for the US as a whole is lower than it was in 1995.

To see another way how sensitive the results are to the dates chosen, while it is true that Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate fell by 40% from 1995 to 2005, it only fell by 12.5% between 1995 and 2010. Meanwhile from 1995 and 2010, the US firearm homicide rate fell by 39% and the Northeast firearm homicide rate fell by 31%.

So considering the information above... In a 15 year period, Connecticut dropped a whopping 12.5% while the rest of the nation dropped 39%.

Not as pretty as the cherry picked years

a reply to: CB328
"Gun control" does nothing but make more victims. Do you know what most mass shooting has in common? They took place in gun free zones. An armed society is a polite society.
Take Kennesaw Georgia, for instance. It's mandatory for every head of household to own a gun:


Here are crime rates for Kennesaw.

Compare that to the national average.
Here is something more:

Try doing a little homework.

Oh, you noticed that I put gun control in quotes? That's because gun control starts with common sense, not legislation.

originally posted by: CB328
Great article. Obviously if people don't have guns, you won't have as many shootings,

Well yeah, that's a duh moment.

Next will be knives, then hammers, then what?

Murder is already a crime.

originally posted by: CB328
Great article. Obviously if people don't have guns, you won't have as many shootings, because not everyone gets guns by stealing, unlike what the right wing would have you believe.

www.cnn.com...

Connecticut's strict gun law linked to large homicide drop

Good luck with this CORRECT observation on this forum ATS..

Deny Ignorance is their motto but the gun nutters are some of the most ignorant and idiotic when it comes to their explanations for guns. They will ignore any FACT and good sense over their corrupted view.

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: CB328
Great article. Obviously if people don't have guns, you won't have as many shootings,

Well yeah, that's a duh moment.

Next will be knives, then hammers, then what?

Murder is already a crime.

Think of it this way. We border a narco state. Drugs flow into the country by the TONS.

Does anyone really think that criminals will not get guns? They are as easy to get as illegal drugs.


Here is how I see it. Gun Control is a freaking joke and a non-issue if you cannot even control the flow of illegal drugs and people into the country. Nobody in their right mind would even consider it without locking down the flow of illegal "imports".

The only purpose for "gun control" is to do the usual "register, document owners, force a turn in, confiscation" just as we have seen in other Western Nations.

That is why we must fight any infringement. The END GAME is complete disarmament for the common man, then only the Authorities and Criminals will be armed.

No thanks.

Everyone who supports gun control only needs to take a look at Mexico. Seriously. They have strict gun control.... doesn't seem to affect their narco gangs does it? The general population is at their mercy.

a reply to: projectbane

Cherry picking stats that agree with your position is correct? Really?

They will ignore any FACT and good sense over their corrupted view.

Pot, meet kettle.

a reply to: CB328

And here is a graphic example of Common Sense Gun Control and Compromise:

a reply to: infolurker

Would a good compromise be requiring safety courses and licenses for all guns in exchange for removing background checks and waiting periods? Just show the license for the class of firearm and you walk out of the store with whatever toy you wanted in that same visit.

I think something like that would be better for everyone. Less hassle for the gun enthusiast and decreased gun-related accidents.

a reply to: CB328

Since you a so adverse to people owning guns, move to mexico, their gun laws are very strict...I have heard it is working out great for the common law abiding citizens...

a reply to: CB328

www.theguardian.com...

Some interesting reading above . Australia is a much safer place because of gun control . It goes on to say there is no one solution for all situations . It worked for us , perhaps not eslewhere .

originally posted by: jackjoedoe

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: infolurker

Would a good compromise be requiring safety courses and licenses for all guns in exchange for removing background checks and waiting periods? Just show the license for the class of firearm and you walk out of the store with whatever toy you wanted in that same visit.

I think something like that would be better for everyone. Less hassle for the gun enthusiast and decreased gun-related accidents.

How about you stick your "coprimise" where the sun doesn't shine, and I will keep my constitutional rights as an American citizen...

Or... you could keep that attitude and eventually keep losing ground.

What I suggested would get rid of nearly every gripe people have with the hassle of getting a gun. You want a rifle, you take one course and that's it. You can buy all the rifles you want after that, no waiting, no tracking, no hassle. You want a hand cannon? Same thing. You want a shotgun? Same thing. How is that something to react to with "shove it up your ass"?

There have always been restrictions on guns, even when the amendment first got penned. Whether it was restricted by location or by your skin color, there was always some sort of restrictions on gun ownership.

Reaching a place where all that is required is proof you understand how to operate it safely would actually be as free as the 2nd amendment has ever been.

It was just a question, anyway. Apparently you'd be happier with background checks, waiting periods, and complicated location-specific bans.