• After Two Decades, Connecticut's Permit-to-Purchase Law Has Reduced Gun Deaths by 40%
    159 replies, posted
[quote=Washington Post]So in the summer of 1994, lawmakers hustled through a gun control bill in a special session. They hoped to curb shootings by requiring people to get a purchasing license before buying a handgun. The state would issue these permits to people who passed a background check and a gun safety training course. At the time, private citizens could freely buy and sell guns secondhand, even to those with criminal records. Connecticut’s law sought to regulate that market. Even private handgun sales would have to be reported to the state, and buyers would need to have a permit. [...] Now, two decades later, researchers at Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, Berkeley, say that Connecticut’s “permit-to-purchase” law was actually a huge success for public safety. [b]In a study released Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health, they estimate that the law reduced gun homicides by 40 percent between 1996 and 2005.[/b] That’s 296 lives saved in 10 years.[/quote] SOURCE: [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/12/gun-killings-fell-by-40-percent-after-connecticut-passed-this-law/"]Washington Post[/URL]
university of california huh? aint that a coincidence
[QUOTE=Moose;47948950]university of california huh? aint that a coincidence[/QUOTE] Yes, UC Berkeley, one of the most reputable and respected universities in the nation. Try again.
Mandatory background checks to buy a gun? Makes sense. That's about as far as you can take gun regulations though.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;47948967]Mandatory background checks to buy a gun? Makes sense.[/QUOTE] That is not what the law is about if you read the article. CT residents already had to have a permit for public sales and public sales had to be reported to the state. This law expanded those requirements to private sales, as well.
Well this only makes perfect sense. You should have a mandatory background check before buying or owning a gun.
I wish the actual research wasn't paywalled. I would at least like to see the confidence level on that estimate.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47948970]That is not what the law is about if you read the article. CT residents already had to have a permit for public sales and public sales had to be reported to the state. This law expanded those requirements to private sales, as well.[/QUOTE] thats essentially a background check.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47948970]That is not what the law is about if you read the article. CT residents already had to have a permit for public sales and public sales had to be reported to the state. This law expanded those requirements to private sales, as well.[/QUOTE] That's what the intent of the law was meant to be, if you buy a gun you need to have cleared a background check.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;47948993]That's what the intent of the law was meant to be, if you buy a gun you need to have cleared a background check.[/QUOTE] My point was that background checks were already required for public sales.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47949007]My point was that background checks were already required for public sales.[/QUOTE] Not private sales though, this is one way of ensuring that.
I find this deeply flawed. There is so much conjecture and assumptions on the part of this study. Homicide trends for the 90s-now have been going down. Its hard to point at any one law and say it had that effect. But its been pointed out by gun control advocates that a state law doesn't have much effect since they can just go to a neighboring state and purchase a firearm there.
its a backdoor way to regulate private sales basically its also based off a statistic that doesnt account for what could possibly happen in the US in the next 10 years. alot of shit can happen in 10 years and if the economy gets any worse then those people who dont have guns to defend themselves from all those assholes who already have guns long before this bill was passed are in deep shit. sorry thats just life
[QUOTE=Moose;47949057]its a backdoor way to regulate private sales basically its also based off a statistic that doesnt account for what could possibly happen in the US in the next 10 years. alot of shit can happen in 10 years and if the economy gets any worse then those people who dont have guns to defend themselves from all those assholes who already have guns long before this bill was passed are in deep shit. sorry thats just life[/QUOTE] i'm not entirely sure what this post is about
[QUOTE=Rocket;47949109]The study compared Connecticut after the law to a weighted combination of other states is used to estimate Connecticut's homicide rates in the future. The process for creating these weights is summarized in the study. They didn't just make up future statistics for Connecticut, they based them on actual statistics.[/QUOTE] Again, there is a ton of conjecture there. They're assuming that the state would follow national trends. They don't. I can point you to other states, Washington, D.C. where laws have been made tighter but they don't follow that sort of trend.
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949047]I find this deeply flawed. There is so much conjecture and assumptions on the part of this study. Homicide trends for the 90s-now have been going down. Its hard to point at any one law and say it had that effect. But its been pointed out by gun control advocates that a state law doesn't have much effect since they can just go to a neighboring state and purchase a firearm there.[/QUOTE] If you actually read the article, they controlled for violence reduction over time nation-wide by creating a 'synthetic' Connecticut made by compositing the gun violence stats of neighboring states to approximate the gun violence levels of Connecticut before the law, then extrapolated from there to calculate how much Connecticut diverged from its neighbors after the law was passed. It may be conjecture, but it's pretty solid methodology.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation[/url] Please read it, please.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47949150]They considered states that were in a similar position to Connecticut, who were considering a PTP law but did not. DC is not included because PTP laws were implemented. I get that you think that this study is wrong because guns can do nothing bad but I think a peer-reviewed scientific study from a respected university might've taken those concerns into account.[/QUOTE] No, I don't believe that more guns directly leads to safer cities. I believe that the reasons people wish to murder or harm another is the direct cause of violence. For instances, what prevents me from going and murdering someone?
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949167] For instances, what prevents me from going and murdering someone?[/QUOTE] a higher quality of life guess what alot of minimum wage americans dont have?? a higher quality of life
A gun does not increase my chances of being successful in murder. Knifes are fairly effective. A chainsaw would be fairly effective. A car is also quite effective. My fists and feet are effective. There are only two things that would prevent me. Physics, and my desire. I have no desire to go and murder someone. But overall it actually is incredibly easy to do. Physics as in, someone physically stopping me or other such actions. The law is a guideline to people. But it doesn't prevent people from taking any action they choose. It doesn't stop me and tons of other people from speeding down the highway at speeds higher than posted signs. Literally, the only thing that prevents this world from being complete chaos is people's desire for it not to be. And no, "a higher quality of life" doesn't factor into my desire not to go murder people.
im pretty sure if you were a happy guy you wouldnt want to go out killing people
Definitely wouldn't want to live in Connecticut. It's not exactly a gun-friendly state, even before this and the mound of anti-gun legislation that has passed since. And more recently, Sandy Hook probably sealed the deal as far as gun rights go in CT. Having to jump through a bunch of unnecessary hoops to buy a gun even privately isn't something I'm itching to deal with. I'm hoping most of this type of legislation stays in New England and California and plenty far away from me.
[QUOTE=Moose;47949251]im pretty sure if you were a happy guy you wouldnt want to go out killing people[/QUOTE] No. For my thought process it depends on why. All I have to do is justify it to myself a reason to murder someone to do so. That's all you have to do too if you wanted to kill someone for instance.
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949230]A gun does not increase my chances of being successful in murder. Knifes are fairly effective. A chainsaw would be fairly effective. A car is also quite effective. My fists and feet are effective. There are only two things that would prevent me. Physics, and my desire. I have no desire to go and murder someone. But overall it actually is incredibly easy to do. Physics as in, someone physically stopping me or other such actions. ...Literally, the only thing that prevents this world from being complete chaos is people's desire for it not to be.[/QUOTE] The mentally ill and criminally violent should have the right to guns. This is an afront to freedom and our democratic system! Seriously, why are people so opposed to mere background checks? If you're sane you should not even have a problem.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47949322]The mentally ill and criminally violent should have the right to guns. This is an afront to freedom and our democratic system! Seriously, why are people so opposed to mere background checks? If you're sane you should not even have a problem.[/QUOTE] Where did I say I opposed background checks?
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949230]A gun does not increase my chances of being successful in murder. Knifes are fairly effective. A chainsaw would be fairly effective. A car is also quite effective. My fists and feet are effective. .[/QUOTE] Your fists and feet are "effective"? Do you have any idea how hard it is to kill someone with your bare hands if they're fighting for their life?
I really don't get this conclusion. Here's the graph in question: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/i7oqrXu.png[/IMG] The vertical line represents the law passing. How can they attribute the downward trend to the law when the trend started far before the law was even passed and continued at the same rate afterwards? I would love to look at their methodology for the "synthetic connecticut" spike, but I can't find the actual study.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47949323]Killing someone else is like killing yourself: if you're really dedicated, you'll do it, but most people aren't really dedicated. There are some people who really want to kill other people. They will be successful no matter what. But most murders are committed by normal people in heat of the moment situations. They are looking for the fastest way to kill someone, and if they can't find one, they'll usually stop and realize what they're doing. That's why reducing the availability of guns reduces suicide rates. In the time it takes to find and use another method of suicide, you're going to have a second to say "hey, wait, maybe I shouldn't kill myself." There are some people who are able to kill themselves before this happens, and there are some people who just really, really want to kill themselves. Just like for murders. Guns are a really easy way to kill people and it just doesn't give murderers or suicide victims the possibility to think over what they're doing.[/QUOTE] How would that kill myself? Just because a lot of other humans wouldn't like me? You believe too much in guns effectiveness to kill someone. Just because someone gets shot doesn't mean they will die. Most people shot don't die.
[QUOTE=Elspin;47949331]Your fists and feet are "effective"? Do you have any idea how hard it is to kill someone with your bare hands if they're fighting for their life?[/QUOTE] Have you ever heard of the "knockout game?" Or just learning martial arts.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;47948967]Mandatory background checks to buy a gun? Makes sense. That's about as far as you can take gun regulations though.[/QUOTE] Ya but this takes the burden off the sellers, instead its a license by the state saying you passed your background checks and are pre-approved to buy a gun
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.