• After Two Decades, Connecticut's Permit-to-Purchase Law Has Reduced Gun Deaths by 40%
    159 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ridge;47951216]I'm pretty sure federal laws would still be in effect, meaning background checks be completed before the sale?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure there isn't actually a federal law mandating background checks before the sale of a firearm, at least not person-to-person sales. In Maine for example, you as a private citizen aren't obligated to get a background check on them before selling to them. [QUOTE=GunFox;47951367]Soooo let's see. We can already tell this report is fucking worthless because it is comparing "gun deaths" to fucking anything. I give zero fucks about what tool was used to kill someone if, at the end of the day, the same number of people are dead. There is no more damning evidence for gun control than to see a decline in gun deaths, and a stagnant murder rate. This should, fortunately be easy to prove! National homicide rate in 2013 was 4.6 per 100,000 people. National homicide rate in 1995 was 8.2 per 100,000 people. A 44 percent national reduction. [url]https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995#disablemobile[/url] [url]https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-16/table_16_rate_by_population_group_2013.xls[/url] Connecticut's murder rate in 2013 was 2.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. Connecticut's murder rate in 1995 was 4.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. A 47 percent reduction in state wide murder rate. [url]http://www.dpsdata.ct.gov/dps/ucr/ucr.aspx[/url] Their murder rate has declined at almost exactly the amount of the national rate. So, in spite of increasingly relaxed laws at a national level (look up the history of concealed carry laws and the assault weapons ban for examples), the murder rate in the US has halved over the past two decades. Meanwhile Connecticut's rate has done the same in spite of increasingly restrictive laws. Meanwhile a mountain of evidence will gladly show you that things like education and poverty are strongly linked the violent crime. What does it fucking take to convince people that guns aren't the problem? How is it such a hard sell to say things like "instead of passing laws to restrict things, let's fund education and make everyone's life better." Education works! Really! I promise! Connecticut spends more on education than the national average and, surprise, has lower overall homicide rates.[/QUOTE] That's actually really interesting, and I have to say thank you for pointing out that crime is hugely influenced by socioeconomic factors and about a million other things.
Soooo let's see. We can already tell this report is fucking worthless because it is comparing "gun deaths" to fucking anything. I give zero fucks about what tool was used to kill someone if, at the end of the day, the same number of people are dead. There is no more damning evidence for gun control than to see a decline in gun deaths, and a stagnant murder rate. This should, fortunately be easy to prove! National homicide rate in 2013 was 4.6 per 100,000 people. National homicide rate in 1995 was 8.2 per 100,000 people. A 44 percent national reduction. [url]https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995#disablemobile[/url] [url]https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-16/table_16_rate_by_population_group_2013.xls[/url] Connecticut's murder rate in 2013 was 2.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. Connecticut's murder rate in 1995 was 4.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. A 47 percent reduction in state wide murder rate. [url]http://www.dpsdata.ct.gov/dps/ucr/ucr.aspx[/url] Their murder rate has declined at almost exactly the amount of the national rate. So, in spite of increasingly relaxed laws at a national level (look up the history of concealed carry laws and the assault weapons ban for examples), the murder rate in the US has halved over the past two decades. Meanwhile Connecticut's rate has done the same in spite of increasingly restrictive laws. Meanwhile a mountain of evidence will gladly show you that things like education and poverty are strongly linked the violent crime. What does it fucking take to convince people that guns aren't the problem? How is it such a hard sell to say things like "instead of passing laws to restrict things, let's fund education and make everyone's life better." Education works! Really! I promise! Connecticut spends more on education than the national average and, surprise, has lower overall homicide rates.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47951352]Anything vaguely questioning people's rights to own the most dangerous handheld weapons on Earth must be looked over closely and questioned to its fullest extent by the fedora brigade.[/QUOTE] *And defended by the SJWs.* (NOTE: THIS IS SARCASM) See I can sarcastically insult you too!
[QUOTE=GunFox;47951367] National homicide rate in 2013 was 4.6 per 100,000 people. National homicide rate in 1995 was 8.2 per 100,000 people. A 44 percent national reduction. Connecticut's murder rate in 2013 was 2.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. Connecticut's murder rate in 1995 was 4.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. A 47 percent reduction in state wide murder rate. Their murder rate has declined at almost exactly the amount of the national rate. [/QUOTE] Man, why even bother if you're not gonna read the article? Though to be fair, it is poor science to find observations and believe they correspond to a "fact". This study is simply one contribution to the scientific understanding of this issue, and doesn't "prove" anything. The study doesn't present a policy-change, it simply attempts to find a statistical relationship.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47948965]When faced with any evidence that gun control will actually work, Facepunch seems to find whatever reason it can that the results are flawed.[/QUOTE] I'm impressed, actually, and it proves my point that as long as we're only allowing people who are qualified to safely handle a firearm and who are mentally sane enough for the responsibility to actually own one the second amendment and public safety can coexist quite happily.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47949078]i'm not entirely sure what this post is about[/QUOTE] What he's saying is that in 10 years, due to possible economic troubles, you may find yourself fighting for food and survival using your guns. Or something like that.
[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 always feel bad for reasonable people who are like "gun owners are just normal people who have different interests" and then some guy posts about how we're gonna need to defend ourselves with guns when the economy collapses in the next 10 years.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;47950696]A bit sad that a study done by extremely well educated people from an extremely well regarded university is being treated as a elementary school essay in this thread. Do you think the authors are retarded or something.[/QUOTE] Why do you accept information on authority alone seemingly? Do you think the people who fund these research projects don't have an agenda? Berkeley is a completely corporatized university with huge sponsors like Warner Bros etc, I'm not afraid of some conspiracy to "take muh guns" so I still don't vote republican or anything like that, but I'm fairly certain when they set out with their objective it wasn't "figure out what this law has done", but rather "find some way to prove this was a success as well as you can, and put official stuff on it" California, being one of the more strict states as far as gun control goes has a murder rate of 4.6 (2013) compared to some pretty gun friendly states such as CO (3.4) , WV (3.3), OR (2.0) As gunfox has already iterated, the problem is lack of education and cultural issues. People can be good (or at least better) at living in harmony with or without guns
[QUOTE=Perfumly;47951500]Why do you accept information on authority alone seemingly?[/QUOTE] Because the people carrying out this study have the know-how to do it without fucking it up and you and I don't?
[QUOTE=thisispain;47951453]Man, why even bother if you're not gonna read the article? Though to be fair, it is poor science to find observations and believe they correspond to a "fact". This study is simply one contribution to the scientific understanding of this issue, and doesn't "prove" anything. The study doesn't present a policy-change, it simply attempts to find a statistical relationship.[/QUOTE] Ooh score, didn't notice the non paywalled actual research. Thanks for pointing that out. Edit: wow the news article is a pretty complete misrepresentation of the research. Though honestly this shouldn't surprise me. Edit2: wait, why are they using R for the analysis? They should be using SPSS. Edit3: oh public health. That is why they are using R and have a convoluted control group. They aren't really trained to do this. This would be what criminologists are trained to do.
[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] It's because background checks can be denied for the most asinine and bullshit reasons. In the firearms thread, a guy was denied a purchase because he had an infraction from several YEARS ago for missing/skipping jury duty. I don't want to spend a couple of hours filling out paperwork then having the ATF tell me to fuck myself over a parking ticket. Having background checks on everything is a slippery slope, as its easy to add more provisions to deny a sale.
I can't fathom how people think this is a bad thing.
The dicey part to me is that gun ownership is a right. So the amount of obstructions to gun ownership need to be kept to a minimum. If I want to buy a handgun, making me wait so a background check is run is not unfair or unreasonable. Now, once I legally own that gun, it's my property. I should be able to sell it the way I might sell my car or computer or tv. Whether the guy buying my car is a licensed driver or not is irrelevant to me. The same should hold true with guns. Unless it can be proven I knew the person buying my gun was barred by law from buying it, then I should be in the clear. At disastercenter.com they have stats on yearly murder in that state. You'll notice that the numbers spike to over 200 right before/during the time this law was passed. Between 1960 and 1993 it never hit 200. After 1995 it never hit 200. This tells me those two years that upset everyone were anomalies, and the rate of murder was not actually affected by this law.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/qmoK6e6.jpg[/img] This graph makes it seem like murder rate is more related to lack of education, with easy availability of guns as an undertone. And Louisiana is just hellfuck I agree that if requiring a permit to legally purchase a gun reduced the number of firearms available in CT ( Both legal and illegal ) undoubtedly had an effect on the murder rate, but I think the effect has been exaggerated. However, one thing to keep in mind (and this is to put yourself in the shoes of someone who believes in the main things the United States was founded on [not necessarily me but someone]), is that the reason that requiring a permit to own a gun is so outlandish to some Americans, is because the country was founded thanks to armed rebellion. No government has ever been permanent in our history so it's disconcerting when obstructions are put between you and the only chance you would have at defending yourself from a (potentially) oppressive state, or a civilian aggressor. The peace of mind is what's important to some people. Having said that, personally if someone could magically zap all the guns in the world away and make people just chill and get along share a blunt and watch some netflix, I would trade in all of my guns for that reality. Personally I just like guns due to a mechanical fascination with them and I like target shooting recreationally.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47951577]Ooh score, didn't notice the non paywalled actual research. Thanks for pointing that out. Edit: wow the news article is a pretty complete misrepresentation of the research. Though honestly this shouldn't surprise me. Edit2: wait, why are they using R for the analysis? They should be using SPSS. Edit3: oh public health. That is why they are using R and have a convoluted control group. They aren't really trained to do this. This would be what criminologists are trained to do.[/QUOTE] Armchair analyst much? Or do you actually have equal or better credentials than the authors of the paper?
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;47951750]Armchair analyst much? Or do you actually have equal or better credentials than the authors of the paper?[/QUOTE] Why does no one here accept criticism of statistics that they can see right infront of their faces because someone has a degree? Posts like this illustrate the perfect issue with public education typically teaching people to simply regurgitate what they hear from someone with credentials. Depressing
[QUOTE=Perfumly;47951758]Why does no one here accept criticism of statistics that they can see right infront of their faces because someone has a degree? Posts like this illustrate the perfect issue with public education typically teaching people to simply regurgitate what they hear from someone with credentials. Depressing[/QUOTE] Between ~1998 and 2005 there's a large difference in gun related homicides between Connecticut and the control group. It may or may not have been due to the PTP law. Anything else is speculation. And I'm more inclined to have faith in the people who do this for a living rather than some dude on the internet criticizing it.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;47951780]Between ~1998 and 2005 there's a large difference in gun related homicides between Connecticut and the control group. It may or may not have been due to the PTP law. Anything else is speculation.[/QUOTE] Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the control group estimated homicides based off composite of data from other states (which vary drastically in homicide rates not only from eachother but to CT, some are near the top in homicide rate, while others used to compare are near the bottom (MD @ 5.1 in 2010), (RI @ 0.4 in 2010) And as I said they do it for a living, but the research was certainly funded from a political angle. The objective was not to give a realistic impression of what the law did, but to create a project that gave the law the best impression. Please don't tell me that you think Berkeley doesn't have certain objectives and needs to fill for its sponsors in order for them to keep getting funding. I'm sure Berkeley has a lot more practically useful research than this that doesn't get publicized as much. There's just a lot of money to research with a political angle and that's just how things are.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47951367]What does it fucking take to convince people that guns aren't the problem? How is it such a hard sell to say things like "instead of passing laws to restrict things, let's fund education and make everyone's life better." Education works! Really! I promise! Connecticut spends more on education than the national average and, surprise, has lower overall homicide rates.[/QUOTE] Are people being shot to death? Yes. [I]Then guns are part of the fucking problem![/I] We can't get rid of knives because, guess what, we wouldn't be able to cut our fucking food. We can't get rid of cars because all of a sudden we'd be unable to travel to our fucking places of employment or get groceries home from the shops. Guns are [I]not[/I] a necessity for 99.99% of the human population of America, or Earth for that matter (and you [I]liking[/I] them doesn't make them a fucking necessity, by the way). If you can't take the murder out of people then you sure as hell take as many of the tools away from them as is reasonably possible that they can actually use to commit murder.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;47951750]Armchair analyst much? Or do you actually have equal or better credentials than the authors of the paper?[/QUOTE] I am married to a doctor of criminology from an R1 who is, understandably, annoyed by this paper. I have a BA in criminal justice and sociology. So yes, people with better qualifications than theirs find the study to be bullshit. An assessment that I, who actually has a degree in the field, agree with.
[QUOTE=sltungle;47951825]Are people being shot to death? Yes. [I]Then guns are part of the fucking problem![/I] We can't get rid of knives because, guess what, we wouldn't be able to cut our fucking food. We can't get rid of cars because all of a sudden we'd be unable to travel to our fucking places of employment or get groceries home from the shops. Guns are [I]not[/I] a necessity for 99.99% of the human population of America, or Earth for that matter (and you [I]liking[/I] them doesn't make them a fucking necessity, by the way). If you can't take the murder out of people then you sure as hell take as many of the tools away from them as is reasonably possible that they can actually use to commit murder.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Perfumly;47951705][img]http://i.imgur.com/qmoK6e6.jpg[/img] This graph makes it seem like murder rate is more related to lack of education, with easy availability of guns as an undertone. And Louisiana is just hellfuck I agree that if requiring a permit to legally purchase a gun reduced the number of firearms available in CT ( Both legal and illegal ) undoubtedly had an effect on the murder rate, but I think the effect has been exaggerated. However, one thing to keep in mind (and this is to put yourself in the shoes of someone who believes in the main things the United States was founded on [not necessarily me but someone]), is that the reason that requiring a permit to own a gun is so outlandish to some Americans, is because the country was founded thanks to armed rebellion. No government has ever been permanent in our history so it's disconcerting when obstructions are put between you and the only chance you would have at defending yourself from a (potentially) oppressive state, or a civilian aggressor. The peace of mind is what's important to some people. Having said that, personally if someone could magically zap all the guns in the world away and make people just chill and get along share a blunt and watch some netflix, I would trade in all of my guns for that reality. Personally I just like guns due to a mechanical fascination with them and I like target shooting recreationally.[/QUOTE] pls read dis post and come to terms w. culture differences
[QUOTE=sltungle;47951825]Are people being shot to death? Yes. [I]Then guns are part of the fucking problem![/I] We can't get rid of knives because, guess what, we wouldn't be able to cut our fucking food. We can't get rid of cars because all of a sudden we'd be unable to travel to our fucking places of employment or get groceries home from the shops. Guns are [I]not[/I] a necessity for 99.99% of the human population of America, or Earth for that matter (and you [I]liking[/I] them doesn't make them a fucking necessity, by the way). If you can't take the murder out of people then you sure as hell take as many of the tools away from them as is reasonably possible that they can actually use to commit murder.[/QUOTE] Except it doesn't help. I literally just finished pointing that out.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47951839]All research is political. All research is funded by people with political goals. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.[/QUOTE] I didn't say it's wrong, I'm just saying it's sensationalist and really exaggerates the effect of the law based off guessing a control. Making people less murderous takes time and developing our education and communication. Peaceful empathetic people are the next stage in evolution, gas all psychos.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47951852]Better qualifications than theirs? Better qualifications in statistics and public health than people with PhDs in public health and statistics and professors of public health and statistics?[/QUOTE] Do you really not think sociology and criminology are more relevant fields to know what the causes of crime and what the ways to prevent crime are? No one is arguing with the statistics, we're just saying the statistics are weak.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47951844]Except it doesn't help. I literally just finished pointing that out.[/QUOTE] I have a hard time believing that making it more difficult for people to get guns somehow doesn't effect the rate of use of guns in homicides (or, has been pointed out, suicides). And sure, you can use the whole, "oh, but people can acquire them illegally!" argument, except every extra step that's in the process of obtaining a firearm [I]only[/I] serves to attenuate the number of people who finally make it through to the end and possess a weapon (especially if one part of the process is, [I]"buy from shady dude in an alleyway who could possible mug/kill me [B]because he's carrying dozens of fucking guns and obviously doesn't care much for the law[/B]"[/I]). You're properly deluded if you think that making guns less easily accessible to people has absolutely no effect on the number of gun related deaths.
[QUOTE=sltungle;47951868]I have a hard time believing that making it more difficult for people to get guns somehow doesn't effect the rate of use of guns in homicides (or, has been pointed out, suicides). And sure, you can use the whole, "oh, but people can acquire them illegally!" argument, except every extra step that's in the process of obtaining a firearm [I]only[/I] serves to attenuate the number of people who finally make it through to the end and possess a weapon (especially if one part of the process is, [I]"buy from shady dude in an alleyway who could possible mug/kill me because he's carrying dozens of fucking guns"[/I]). You're properly deluded if you think that making guns less easily accessible to people has absolutely no effect on the number of gun related deaths.[/QUOTE] Buying guns illegally would not be an alley transaction (if all guns were made illegal). It would be going to a barbecue joint in the south with a hidden revolving door disguised as the back wall of a walk-in cooler where the briskets are kept fresh. On the other side of the wall there would be dozens of CNC machined unregistered AR-15s.
[QUOTE=sltungle;47951868]I have a hard time believing that making it more difficult for people to get guns somehow doesn't effect the rate of use of guns in homicides (or, has been pointed out, suicides). And sure, you can use the whole, "oh, but people can acquire them illegally!" argument, except every extra step that's in the process of obtaining a firearm [I]only[/I] serves to attenuate the number of people who finally make it through to the end and possess a weapon (especially if one part of the process is, [I]"buy from shady dude in an alleyway who could possible mug/kill me [B]because he's carrying dozens of fucking guns and obviously doesn't care much for the law[/B]"[/I]). You're properly deluded if you think that making guns less easily accessible to people has absolutely no effect on the number of gun related deaths.[/QUOTE] you're even more deluded if you think you can get rid of all the firearms in america, much less FIND them in the hands of 'bad people' in this system it is a roll of a dice, you either get caught at the wrong place at the wrong time and catch a bullet or you go about your day peacefully through your daily grind to make a living for yourself this concept seems strange to sheltered people living in more liberal oriented areas but thats not really a surprise
[QUOTE=Rocket;47951881]This is not looking at the causes of this drop, it's looking at whether or not there were fewer homicides after the law went into effect. A study that tried to find a link between the two would be something that you'd want sociologists and criminologists over statisticians and public health experts for.[/QUOTE] What. The entire point of the study was to draw a causal link between the law and the drop in homicides. Anyone with eyes can look at numbers to see if an absolute drop happens.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47951852]Better qualifications than theirs? Better qualifications in statistics and public health than people with PhDs in public health and statistics and professors of public health and statistics? [editline]13th June 2015[/editline] Ok, I'm pretty sure that you're being sarcastic at the end, but yes, you're right. But removing the tools people use to commit murder is a great way to reduce murders while others work to reduce it in the long term.[/QUOTE] Yes. An individual with a PhD in a discipline dedicated to the study of crime and law from a top tier institute dedicated to producing researchers. She is the definition of the authority on the matter. Public health likes to pull this shit. They throw their shit tier research into the fold and fail to get it peer reviewed by actual professionals in the field. It is like a bunch of biologists writing a paper about electrical engineering and then getting it peer reviewed by a bunch of other biologists instead of electrical engineers. They have produced a control group that is synthetic control group that has no evidence for its accuracy. The control group needs a control group to prove its own accuracy. On top of this, they are attempting to prove a single law, two decades ago, was responsible for a drastic change in crime. I can't even begin to describe how many variables are at play over two decades that pertain to crime rates.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;47951791]Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the control group estimated homicides based off composite of data from other states (which vary drastically in homicide rates not only from eachother but to CT, some are near the top in homicide rate, while others used to compare are near the bottom (MD @ 5.1 in 2010), (RI @ 0.4 in 2010) And as I said they do it for a living, but the research was certainly funded from a political angle. The objective was not to give a realistic impression of what the law did, but to create a project that gave the law the best impression. Please don't tell me that you think Berkeley doesn't have certain objectives and needs to fill for its sponsors in order for them to keep getting funding. I'm sure Berkeley has a lot more practically useful research than this that doesn't get publicized as much. There's just a lot of money to research with a political angle and that's just how things are.[/QUOTE] Their statistical model takes into account these things. The data is fed into a model and only a few states of the entire control group of 39 were suitable for creating the synthetic model.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.