ANTI-GUN RESEARCHERS ADMIT TO INCLUDING INJURIES FROM NON-GUN OBJECTS IN “FIREARM INJURY” DATA

If your gun is registered, you cannot commit a crime with it. Duh.

 

Just like cars it allows us to track where the gun goes and who had it last

 

I guess that applies to cars too. LOL

 

And that provides public safety how?

 

You don't know why we register cars?

 

There is no law against having an unregistered car. Car registration is a means to prevent theft, not promote safety. If guns were registered like cars, we would have to register them to use them in public. You would still be able to use unregistered guns on private property (with property owner permission) and you wouldnt have to register them to transport them (just like how you can drive w/e you want on private property (with property owner permission) and transport an unregistered car as long as its not being driven to transport it).

Do you want to register guns in this way, or is your car argument completely invalid?

Still waiting for a reasoned argument on how registration will effect the black market and not just be used to track law abiding gun owners.

Also still waiting for you to post a link to some research that provides evidense that 'gun control works.'

I thought you wanted a debate? I have provided multiple points that you arent adressing, questions you havnt answered, and all you have provided is one irrelevant example. C'mon, lets debate!

 

It allows us to track where the gun goes and who had it last until the criminal removes the ID markings.

I fixed it for you.

 

Just like cars

 

So would you be happy with registering guns 'just like cars' where you only have to register those guns which you use in public?

 

Fair points. Let me try to address them.

Guns are different from cars in that they pose a risk to the community just by being in your house (you are free to disagree with me but many would agree that you will not likely kill someone with an unregistered car). So I do believe that they would be to be registered simply for ownership. The black market will always exist. It does for stolen cars now but that is no reason not to register as many guns as possible so that at some point we are able to track as many guns as possible. By the way ammo purchases would also require you present your gun registration further helping to ensure only that only registered owners can purchase ammo. Basically if someone is caught with an unregistered gun we have a charge that he would want to narc out who sold it to him to get a plea bargain. Few people will want to be involved with unregistered guns at some point.

The best gun research can be found here

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

On the left you can go thru homicides, suicides, accidents and will find numerous gun research showing gun control works. Feel free to comment on any or all of it.

For the rest of you who know who you are....this is how intelligent debate works.

 

research sorces cited from your link:

"Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature." -Full study unavailable without purchase.

"Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. -A study that concludes that firearms are used more often in homicide when they are more readily available. 'No ****, Sherlock.' Fails to address weather homicide in general is more prevalent when firearms are more available (which is the real question- does more guns equal more crime or less?) . Also fails to differentiate between justifiable homicide (self defense) and murder (or offense), a good indication that lawful firearm use was included in the data. Overall, this 'research' is at best, not relevent to the 'is gun control effective?' debate, and at worst being used disingenuously to push propaganda on people who wont read the study or arent familiar with legal terminology.

"Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997." -"Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide." This study is not relevent to the 'is gun control effective?' debate without causation. Are people committing more violent crime because they have more guns, or are they buying more guns to defend themselves from the increased violent crime?

"State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003." -This study was listed by your original source (Harvard) under the heading "Across states, more guns = more homicide" who went on to describe the study as "We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide." Yet in the study itself it says "The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States." So Harvard cited a study that *did not* find a causal relationship between guns and homicide in general as a source for a causal relationship between guns and homicide in general. While this study, as well as the previous two I was able to actually read, does not support your claim that 'gun control is effective,' it is a PERFECT example of 'research' being used dishonestly to push a political agenda.

"A summary of the evidence on guns and violent death" - Unavailable without purchase (but worth noting that it was written by the same Millerhew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David) that conducted the previously mentioned studies and *likely* listed them with the bogus afforementioned claims.

And last but not least... "Firearm prevalence and homicides of law enforcement officers in the United States. American Journal of Public Health." Harvard brags "This article was cited by President Obama in a speech to a police association. This article will hopefully bring police further into the camp of those pushing for sensible gun laws" by claiming, as Harvard listed the article, that "More guns = more homicides of police." Since Obama cited this article, theres TONS of debunk on it out there... which is completely unnecessary because it debunked itself for all who actually read it, by admitting that instead of its claimed findings, "It is possible that homicides of LEOs are driven by criminal offender theory: more frequent encounters with motivated violent offenders are the root cause of LEO homicide rates" which, of course, is the more logical conclusion to anyone that doesnt have an irrational fear of inanimate objects, an agenda to control people, or being paid by one or the other.

To summarize, your 'source for research on the effectiveness of gun laws' is dissapointing. Every one of its sources were conducted by the same handful of researchers, none of the studies actually evaluate the effectiveness of laws, and most of them dont even prove what they claim.

As to the 'registration' issue, you just keep saying you want registration so we can track guns, but fail to mention how you think that is actually going to happen. You cant just 'hope away' the fact that guns are easily made untrackable. Registration can *only* be relied upon as a means to track LAW ABIDING gun owners. You could track every legal gun (owner) in the nation and criminals would still be able to nullify the system with a handfile. Your continued support of it despite any proposed repair to its inherent ineffectivity is indicative not of a desire to decrease gun crime, but instead to treat law abiding gun owners as criminals, as that is the *only* reliable effect of registration.

 

Justifiable homicide is so small a number that it would not skew the data in the slightest.

Causation is rarely determined from a single study but the weight of the many studies is quite clear that there is some evidence for causation. "...our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States."

I find all these studies when I copy them and put them into google without paying. Here is the first one
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/

You skipped the whole left side of the page. There are dozens more studies under each topic. You will of course try to attack them all but in the end it will seem silly.

Registration of firearms is a common toll of law enforcement in other countries. Why are we tying cops hands in this country? Are we just protecting criminals?

 

You were doing so well! Then with the "Registration of firearms is a common toll of law enforcement in other countries. Why are we tying cops hands in this country? Are we just protecting criminals?"

Yes, VG, we promote gun rights because, ultimately, we want to have our stuff stolen, be raped and killed by criminals run wild (thats sarcasm).
This is the sort of blatant disingenuinness that makes people stop taking you seriously (or think less of you intellectually if they think you actually believe thats whats going on).
I understand what you're doing... you probably think that my accusation that you seem like you want to treat all gun owners as criminals is equally disingenuous and seek to expose that via reverse example. The problem is that there are a number of prominent individuals and institutions on 'your side' of the argument that are on record having such views. For example, the UN (the most influencial and powerful proponent of gun control globally) believes (as its representatives argue in international debate competitions) that "civilian firearm ownership undermines the legitimate power monopoly of The State" (im quoting from memory). If you can explain how that means anything but 'gun owners are criminals,' im all ears.

I have spoken with gun controllers who will literally admit that they believe 'all guns are bad, all gun owners are violent criminals, only government should have guns...' and, no, i dont think you are one of those people. But, like them, you support policies that innevitably (demonstrably via simple logic) lead to that very conclusion. They *also* say 'i dont care that it wont work, we have to do something.' The irrationality of this position is indicative of a mental illness, and earily similar to your 'logic' of 'registering as many guns as possible so we can track as many guns as possible' even though you fail to explain how that will help us track the guns that are 'ghosted' for use in crime. We can 'do something' all day long, but if its not the *right* something, whats the point? The point is that the UN (just as an example) pushes for gun control because it supports 'the power monopoly of The State' and such notions need to be very carefully weighed against the likely effectiveness of any laws that support such an agenda as the UNs, seeing that we're in a nation that holds individual liberty in such high regard.

Registration is common in other countries because of how hard it is pushed by the UN. Something else that is common in other countries is the revocation of gun rights and their replacement with gun privaledges following soon after registration. And once again, we are not other countries. You cant expect gun control to work here just because it looks like it works in other places. We are not them. Cultural differences matter in legislation.

I did not see anything 'on the left' in the link you posted (prolly cuz im on a phone, not a pc) but i did 'go back' and find that I was missing a lot of categories. Ill read more and bbl.

 

I am not a side. I am a person with a wide variety of beliefs. I know it is easier for you if you just put me in a box and say I am one of "them" but you would be wrong. This is the beginning of you failing to remain objective. You need to treat me as the enemy. The debate is on the issues....it need not be about us. Don't fall into that trap that so many do on here.

 

maybe you missed where i said "i dont think you are one of those people [who want to ban all guns]. But, like them, you support policies that innevitably (demonstrably via simple logic) lead to that very conclusion."
And when i say 'your side,' i mean the side pushing for authoritative restrictions, relative to 'my side' thats in resistance to more authoritative restrictions.

 

Again I don't want to be a side. I have been nothing but straight forward and honest with you. But there are people on here who hate me. They have never met me but literally hate me. I find it kind of funny and would not care except it distracts from the debate. So far you have not joined them. Good for you. So lets debate. As long as it is on the issues

 

ok. lets debate the likely effectiveness of firearm registration. How can registration be useful in the prevention or prosecution of violent gun crime (via providing a tracking system for firearms) given the ease with which firearms can be altered (rendered untrackable)?

 

Here is one example

States with some form of both registration and licensing have greater success keeping firearms initially sold by dealers in the state from being recovered in crimes than states without such laws.1

Notes

1. Daniel W. Webster et al., Relationship Between Licensing, Registration, and Other Gun Sales Laws and the Source State of Crime Guns, 7 Inj. Prevention 184, 188-89 (2001). The study included jurisdictions with concealed carry permits and dealer sales reporting, which have elements of licensing or registration but are not comprehensive licensing or registration systems. ⤴︎

 

because registration only helps confiscate guns owned by people who follow the law. Making the lives of cops easier to suppress our rights is idiotic. If you want to make cops' lives easier, why not get rid of MIRANDA, GIDEON and the fourth amendment?

I get sick and tired of BM members claiming we ought to be like euro socialist nations-some of which have had genocidal outbreaks in the last 100 years.

 

Hawaii, an island pseudo-nation with no borders adjacent to another state, have had registration for years and there is no evidence that registration has done a damn thing to decrease or solve crimes

 

The study doesnt factor in the rates of state origin guns used in crimes before the laws compared to after. Its likely that the political atmosphere that prompted these cities to engage in the study also prompted them to adopt the legislation the study was focussed on.
Its also noteworthy that while legal avenues of purchasing firearms outside the purvue of the registry exist, registry participation could be considered voluntary, and I have no problems whatsoever with voluntary registration systems (as some of the data in the study is based upon).
Its also likely that without registration and liscencing, its more difficult to determine the origin state of the weapon (another 'no ****, sherlock'). All this study proves is that registration makes studies on firearm crime more efficient. Which i will admit is a benefit I hadnt considered, but still not anywhere close to 'worthwhile.'
Aside from the constitutionality and authoritarian precedent problems that mandatory registration poses, we need to consider the financial cost as well. Canada is an example worth considering- "Despite spending a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a long-gun registry, Canadians never reaped any benefits from the project. The legislation to end the program finally passed the Parliament on Wednesday. Even though the country started registering long guns in 1998, the registry never solved a single murder. Instead it has been an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from patrolling Canadian streets and doing traditional policing activities." ( http://crimeresearch.org/2013/05/pi...da-sank-2-7-billion-into-a-pointless-project/ )
Canada doesnt have a lot of gun crime (never did, even before gun control, its worth noting). We would probably see a higher number of successes of such a program. BUT we would likely see a similar cost/success. A comprehensive registration program in the US would be massively (gargantuan, collossal, i cant stress with mere words) expensive, with a likely increase in efficiency in firearm statistic dissimination, but with questionable benefit to actual gun crime.

 

Wrong.

"Its residents are at a significantly lower risk than mainland Americans of dying by gunshot.

"According to a data calculator maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hawaii’s rate of gun homicide clocks in at just 0.62 victims per 100,000 people. (The rate for the United States as a whole is 3.99, a nearly sevenfold difference.) Hawaii boasts one of the country’s lowest suicide rates, which have been shown to increase when a gun is kept in the home, and just 20 percent of the state’s suicides are committed with firearms — nationally, guns are responsible for a little over 50 percent. A study from earlier this year also assigned Hawaii the lowest prevalence of non-fatal firearm injuries in the 18 states it measured. Whether intentional, accidental, assault-related, self-inflicted, or indeterminate, these incidents consistently occur at far lesser frequency in the Aloha State."
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/11/hawaii-gun-laws-australia/

 

that's a bogus argument. My argument-registration didn't solve crimes or stop crimes. You don't even address my claim but you try to claim registration does decrease crime without any proof whatsoever. Hawaii has always had less crime. They don't have lots of the people who tend to cause most of the violent crime in the USA. so your argument is completely specious

 

about 27 or so years ago, Cincinnati's democrat majority passed an "assault weapon ban" that required owners of guns that cause BM members to get upset, to register them in order to not be in violation of the ban (almost everyone in Cincinnati buys guns outside the city limits because there was only one real gun store in the city limits (Roy Tailor Uniforms) since about 1980. Well at the Time, was was general counsel for two of the biggest gun dealers in SWO. I also was a former legislative aid to one of the few Republicans on Council and I knew from him that less than 100 residents of Cincinnati proper registered their incontinence causing (to gun banners) firearms. I also knew from those two dealers that between them they had sold at least a thousand firearms that needed to be registered, to Cincinnati residents within 5 years of that law

the law was never enforced because the local judges knew it was a joke and it was thrown out a few years later. But the compliance with it was less than one percent

 

WA passed mandatory background checks on *all* gun sales (including private sales) a couple years ago. No one that I know of takes it seriously (including law enforcement, who were and are still on record calling the law 'unenforcible'). Now when folks buy/sell guns privately, they just mutually agree to a date that the transaction took place on before the law was passed.

The only demonstrable effect the law has had is to turn a lot of law abiding citizens into defacto 'illegal arms dealers' that the sytem is unable to catch, track or prosecute.