quote: (post)

Originally posted by snowdragon
The reason I asked that in regards to this :

"If you purchase a firearm from an unlicensed or private seller, you do not need to undergo a background check at all."

Any merchant that buys guns from manufacturers to sell is tracked, if they want to stay in business it doesn't benefit them to not background check because the guns will all trace back to them.

I've never seen a vendor at a gun show sell a gun without a background check in the state of MO, I can't speak to all places obviously. If it is a used gun its probably pretty old BECAUSE if the seller isn't licensed and the they sell their gun its still tracks back to the original owner..............so once again they would be responsible for any potential actions taken with said weapon.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by snowdragon
This is an interesting video in regards to the topic:

CNNGunShowBuys

Shocking but it really reflects our mindset on marketing and making money and the gun culture in general.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully-automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully-automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'd like to see some proof of this.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by SquallX
I call bullshit on that. Show me the proof.

I know for a fact you need a special license to own a fully auto gun, let alone to sell one. If you’re caught with a fully automated weapon, that’s federal time you’re doing.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Ask al Qaeda spokesperson Adam Gadahn, he is the one who said it. You both conveniently left that part out of your selective quote.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Ask al Qaeda spokesperson Adam Gadahn, he is the one who said it. You both conveniently left that part out of your selective quote.

quote:

Right!? Because neither have never lied before to support their end games?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-> Is caught lying
-> Deflects with "other people lie too"

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you didn't agree with his statement, you should have said so when you posted it.

So just to be clear; you don't agree with him, right?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not taking a position to report what someone said.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Silent Master
So what is your position?

quote:

1.Some killers would kill with knives or other weapons instead of guns.
2.To the extent that today some attempted killings are stopped by defenders who have guns, those attempts might succeed if the guns become harder enough for defenders to get.
3.To the extent that today some potential killings (or attempted robberies, rapes, or burglaries that lead to killings) are deterred by attackers’ fear of running into a gun, it might be that fewer will be deterred if guns become harder enough for defenders to get.

quote:

The correlation between the homicide rate and Brady score in all 51 jurisdictions is +.032 (on a scale of -1 to +1), which means that states with more gun restrictions on average have very slightly higher homicide rates, though the tendency is so small as to be essentially zero. (If you omit the fatal gun accident rates, then the correlation would be +.065, which would make the more gun-restricting states look slightly worse; but again, the correlation would be small enough to be essentially zero, given all the other possible sources of variation.) If we use the National Journal data (adding the columns for each state, counting 1 for each dark blue, which refers to broad restrictions, 0.5 for each light blue, which refers to medium restrictions, and 0 for each grey, which refers to no or light restrictions), the results are similar: +0.017 or +0.051 if one omits the fatal gun accident rates.

quote:

“Studies on Australia’s firearms legislation, using different time series and different statistical methodologies, have produced consistent results. In light of this, it appears reasonable to conclude that on the basis of available research there is no evidence for an impact of the NFA [Australia’s gun control legislation] on firearm homicides

Although the total number of published peer-reviewed studies based on time series data remains relatively small (fewer than 15 studies, at the time of writing), none of these studies has found a significant impact of the Australian legislative changes on the pre-existing downward trend in firearm homicide.“

quote:

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

quote:

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of federal and state assault weapons bans on public mass shootings. Using a Poisson effect model and data for the period 1982 to 2011, it was found that both state and federal assault weapons bans have statistically significant and negative effects on mass shooting fatalities but that only the federal assault weapons ban had a negative effect on mass shooting injuries. This study is one of the first studies that looks solely at the effects of assault weapons bans on public mass shootings.

quote:

This new study picks out just two to four states, and in many cases effectively just use Hawaii to compare with right-to-carry states. In the cases of Idaho and Minnesota, over 96 percent of the comparison is just with Hawaii. For Mississippi, Nebraska, and Utah, Hawaii counts for between 72 percent and 83 percent of the comparison.

quote:

But Donohue's only evidence is two news stories from 2000 and 2007 where permit holders committed crimes. Neither story shows any failure by police to record the incidents. The study never mentions how large the police error rate would have to be in order to for their results to hold.

Take Michigan, where Donohue claims that right-to-carry laws increased the violent crime rate by 8.8 percent. During 2015, 22 of Michigan's roughly 600,000 permit holders were convicted of violent crimes, and many of those had nothing to do with guns. Permit holders accounted for 0.053 percent of violent crime in the state. Therefore, Michigan experienced an increase in crime that was 166 times greater than permit holder’s share of violent crimes. And all this assumes that permit holders didn’t stop or deter any crimes.

For these results to be plausible, Michigan police departments would have to be missing 99.4 percent of cases where permit holders have committed violent crimes.

Other states with detailed data show similar results: Louisiana police would have to miss 99.5 percent of crimes committed by permit holders, Oklahoma 99.93 percent, Tennessee 99.98 percent, and Texas 99.54 percent.

quote:

There have been a total of 29 peer reviewed studies by economists and criminologists, 18 supporting the hypothesis that shall-issue laws reduce crime, 10 not finding any significant effect on crime, including the NRC report, and [Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang]’s paper, using a different model and different data, finding that right-to-carry laws temporarily increase one type of violent crime, aggravated assaults.

quote:

A later study addressed the causal order issue by using a panel design, relating changes in gun owner status over time to changes in fear of crime (Hauser & Kleck, 2013). The study indicated that increases in fear do motivate gun acquisition, but decreases in fear do not motivate getting rid of guns. At the macro-level, the combined operation of these two effects should generate a positive association between gun levels and crime rates, assuming that higher crime rates lead to higher levels of fear of crime. In sum, the hypothesis that crime rates affect gun ownership is more than a mere logical possibility – there is considerable empirical evidence to indicate that such an effect is a reality.

quote:

Methods: Each study was assessed as to whether it solved or reduced each of three critical methodological problems: (1) whether a validated measure of gun prevalence was used, (2) whether the authors controlled for more than a handful of possible confounding variables, and (3) whether the researchers used suitable causal order procedures to deal with the possibility of crime rates affecting gun rates, instead of the reverse.

Results: It was found that most studies did not solve any of these problems, and that research that did a better job of addressing these problems was less likely to support the more-guns-cause-more crime hypothesis. Indeed, none of the studies that solved all three problems supported the hypothesis.

Conclusions: Technically weak research mostly supports the hypothesis, while strong research does not. It must be tentatively concluded that higher gun ownership rates do not cause higher crime rates, including homicide rates.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So "Great Length" includes putting up very easy to fake and crappy looking graphs and charts?