The FBI and CDC Datasets Agree: Who Has Guns—Not Which Guns—Linked to Murder Rates

The FBI and CDC Datasets Agree: Who Has Guns—Not Which Guns—Linked to Murder Rates

...mirrored analyses of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) homicide data serve to double down on evidence that controlling who has access to guns has much more impact on reducing gun-related homicides than controlling what guns people have.

...

"...the truth is that we have a pretty good grasp at what’s going on. People who shouldn’t have access to guns are getting access.”

Siegel’s latest study, published July 30, 2019, in the Journal of Rural Health, reinforces previous research findings that laws designed to regulate who has firearms are more effective in reducing shootings than laws designed to control what types of guns are permitted. The study looked at gun regulation state by state in comparison with FBI data about gun homicides, gathered from police departments around the country. Analysis revealed that universal background checks, permit requirements, “may issue” laws (where local authorities have discretion in approving who can carry a concealed weapon), and laws banning people convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths.

Huh. Some science worthy of discussion.

I haven't seen this posted here yet.

I'm a 2A supporter and think it is a vital ingredient to our individual protection. But that is not to say I think people with verifiable violent histories should have one.

Seems the science points in the direction of some potentially reasonable solutions, imo.

a reply to: loam

I appreciate data. I guess my biggest issue in this argument is based upon removing "inienable rights."

I wrestle with taking guns from felons too. As much as I understand why we want to, who has the right to remove protective capacity from any other hairless apes?

I think the death penalty, nationwide will fix alot of #@%$

This is why data is so important.

I will argue that "May Issue" is a violation of the Second Amendment, however, that does not mean that "Shall Issue" is a free-for-all either. You still need to meet the standard of legal standing to be issue a CCW in "Shall Issue" states. "May Issue" states end up being defacto carry ban states and that isn't helpful to people who have a right to protect themselves with guns.

a reply to: projectvxn

Ive had the "pleasure" of ccw in both "may issue" (Ohio) and "shall issue" (Oregon)

Frankly, theres no difference, at least between those two...FBI background check, about a month to get the license.

a reply to: BlueJacket

If the felonies are non-violent and the punishment served, I agree with you. In fact, I also agree that in those instances the right to vote should be returned.

But I do not believe our bill of rights are plenary. Certain personal decisions which are designed to bring substantial harm to others should have grave consequences.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: BlueJacket

If the felonies are non-violent and the punishment served, I agree with you. In fact, I also agree that in those instances the right to vote should be returned.

But I do not believe our bill of rights are plenary. Certain personal decisions which are designed to bring substantial harm to others should have grave consequences.

I cant argue with that. At least from a societal point of view

a reply to: BlueJacket

The difference is in the arbitrary nature of the issuing authority. There is no standard but the discretion of the chief law enforcement officer for the county.

This is a no-brainer, but unfortunately there are a lot of people with no brains so it is necessary.

You could put the most lethal weapon in existence in the hands of a man who respects life, his fellow man, and the law and nothing will happen. Or, you could put just about anything in the hands of a man who has no respect for life, his fellow man, or the law and he will find a way to kill you with it.

Its not about the tools. Its about the people who use them. It has always been that way. That is why we will never find a solution in legislation that targets the tools and not the people using them.

a reply to: projectvxn

Yes sir, I have come to appreciate the Sheriffs office a great deal. They are elected, not a product of beauracracy like the state police.

a reply to: loam

What I find interesting is in several of these mass shooting cases of the past decade or two that though the firearms were obtained legally it was only because their records as minors had been sealed so nothing showed up on their background checks. I understand why the records of minors have been sealed upon reaching adulthood (kids do some really dumb sh# that they sincerely regret upon reaching understanding as adults and the courts don't want to ruin their lives) but I'm beginning to wonder if that is wise any more- at least as far as the most violent crimes are concerned such as violent rapes and assaults, murders and attempted murders.

I understand that it could be a slippery slope but it might help so long as what could legally be revealed is of an extremely narrow scope and only in specific circumstances such as background checks for firearm purchases only. I don't know, just musing...

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

I absolutely agree there is much room for refinement there.

I don't remember the 2nd Amendment saying anything about "except this type or that type of person".

It said the "right of the people", and if I'm a people, it doesn't matter what any of you think. I always have a right to self-defense and to form or take part in a militia.

The mere fact that this nation allowed the tyrant's foot in the doorway with laws restricting certain types of individuals, like felons, permit requirements, etc - allowed this downhill erosion of rights. Give them an inch they'll take a mile.

Yeah well I don't believe in certain rights for certain people. If they are a felon so what? Most all of you are felons you just never got caught. Ever heard of "Three Felonies a Day" ??

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.

All of you are felons, basically. Just wait till they want to take your Rights away. Then you'll finally wake up and smell the rotten corpses of our forefathers rolling over in their graves.

Here's how it's suppose to work - you do the crime you do the time. Then you should be Free after that. As in, no infringements on your Rights, considering you paid your debt to society already.

This nation has been surrendered to the tyrants in exchange for a false sense of security. Now no one is secure. And it will only go downhill from here, mark my words.

Just wait till you're the next target. Then there will be no one left to speak for you.

The fact that any of you are buying into these restrictions is reprehensible and lamentable.

I am ashamed to call myself your countryman.
I can't believe you're allowing the erosion to continue by compromising with tyranny.

Who gets to determine which people are the "People who shouldn’t have access"?

I don't own any firearms; probably never will. I just have a hard time getting behind statements like "People who shouldn’t have access" ... one day "those people" could be anyone those in power don't like.

Does the alternative mean that I must live with the possible but statistically very unlikely chance that I or a loved one might be become a victim of gun violence? I guess it does ... I'll just choose not to live in fear.

originally posted by: projectvxn
This is why data is so important.

I will argue that "May Issue" is a violation of the Second Amendment, however, that does not mean that "Shall Issue" is a free-for-all either. You still need to meet the standard of legal standing to be issue a CCW in "Shall Issue" states. "May Issue" states end up being defacto carry ban states and that isn't helpful to people who have a right to protect themselves with guns.

You can bring up all the facts and figures in the world but it doesn't justify allowing the erosion of our 2nd Amendment. When it was written every single man had a Right to bear arms. That includes ex-cons.

We ALL had the right to carry weapons until 1934.

In 1791, the United States Bill of Rights were ratified which included the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which stated that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In 1934, with the abundance of gang related crime, such as the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, the National Firearms Act ("NFA") was signed into law under President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Administration. The NFA is considered to be the first legislation to enforce gun control in the United States, imposing a $200 tax, equivalent to nearly $4,000 in 2019, on the manufacture and transfer of Title II weapons. It also mandated the registration of machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, suppressors, and disguised or improvised firearms.

So since that sad moment in history, our gun Rights have been eroding slowly. "Because of criminals" bla bla bla. Now look at where we are. Giving up EVEN MORE step by step, slowly but surely, we will have no gun Rights left. Only the super special elitists will retain weapons.

originally posted by: loam

The FBI and CDC Datasets Agree: Who Has Guns—Not Which Guns—Linked to Murder Rates

...mirrored analyses of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) homicide data serve to double down on evidence that controlling who has access to guns has much more impact on reducing gun-related homicides than controlling what guns people have.

...

"...the truth is that we have a pretty good grasp at what’s going on. People who shouldn’t have access to guns are getting access.”

Siegel’s latest study, published July 30, 2019, in the Journal of Rural Health, reinforces previous research findings that laws designed to regulate who has firearms are more effective in reducing shootings than laws designed to control what types of guns are permitted. The study looked at gun regulation state by state in comparison with FBI data about gun homicides, gathered from police departments around the country. Analysis revealed that universal background checks, permit requirements, “may issue” laws (where local authorities have discretion in approving who can carry a concealed weapon), and laws banning people convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths.

Huh. Some science worthy of discussion.

I haven't seen this posted here yet.

I'm a 2A supporter and think it is a vital ingredient to our individual protection. But that is not to say I think people with verifiable violent histories should have one.

Seems the science points in the direction of some potentially reasonable solutions, imo.

There is a subset here, that touches near every PUBLICIZED mass shooting event... (about 90% of which are done by black folks against black folks... but the FBI Statistics don't support the approved narrative, so there's that)...

The REASON media avoids bringing it up at all, is it will piss off one of, if not their largest, industry advertising group... the Pharmaceutical Industry. SSRI and other psychotropic drugs, and their INARGUABLE CONNECTION to violence, generally, and gun violence in particular.

But here's the thing... these meds will cause someone who has a minor issue or temporary life crisis, to become completely completely unmoored internally, and decide to kill themselves and others.

Nearly 100 percent of the large mass casualty shootings, are by people who are either on these drugs, or have gone off them recently without the care of a physician. You can NOT just stop taking these drugs cold turkey.

The medical lobby's campaign contributions to politicians certainly dwarf the gun industry's. Pharmaceutical sales are the highest profit corporate segment on earth.

In other words... "SHUT UP AND DON'T TALK ABOUT HOW MASS SHOOTERS ARE ALMOST ALL ON THESE DRUGS... OR WE'LL PULL OUR ADS."

a reply to: muzzleflash

Im gonna roll over, because you said what I believe, yet was too timid to completely voice.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Who gets to determine which people are the "People who shouldn’t have access"?

I don't own any firearms; probably never will. I just have a hard time getting behind statements like "People who shouldn’t have access" ... one day "those people" could be anyone those in power don't like.

Does the alternative mean that I must live with the possible but statistically very unlikely chance that I or a loved one might be become a victim of gun violence? I guess it does ... I'll just choose not to live in fear.

We need to eliminate ALL gun control laws of every shape and form.
No taxes on firearms, their parts, their manufacturing, or the ammo.
No permits, none of this!

It's all an infringement and tantamount to tyranny.

a reply to: dasman888

I believe much of that is worthy of consideration as well.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: muzzleflash

Im gonna roll over, because you said what I believe, yet was too timid to completely voice.

Well it's time to step up to the plate brother.

This is a battle we cannot, and must not, lose.
We can turn this around but YOU are needed.