another school shooting tragedy, Umpqua Community College Oregon

[AUDub]

For you science guys the science is clear. More guns equals less crime. Areas with more gun control have higher crime rates.

Science guys? Sounds fancy!

But to your bolded point:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681

For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public – so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2004, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2000. 15 of the 16 academic members of the NRC panel essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. One member of the panel thought the NRC's panel data regressions showed that RTC laws decreased murder, but the other 15 responded by saying that “the scientific evidence does not support” that position.

We evaluate the NRC evidence, and improve and expand on the report’s county data analysis by analyzing an additional six years of county data as well as state panel data for the period 1979-2010. We also present evidence using both a more plausible version of the Lott and Mustard specification, as well as our own preferred specification (which, unlike the Lott and Mustard model presented in the NRC report, does control for rates of incarceration and police). While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC’s majority view about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models and re-affirm its finding that the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support, we disagree with the NRC report’s judgment on one methodological point: the NRC report states that cluster adjustments to correct for serial correlation are not needed in these panel data regressions, but our randomization tests show that without such adjustments the Type 1 error soars to 22-73 percent.

Our paper highlights some important questions to consider when using panel data methods to resolve questions of law and policy effectiveness. We buttress the NRC’s cautious conclusion regarding the effects of RTC laws by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications (especially the Lott-Mustard inclusion of 36 highly collinear demographic variables), and the decision to control for state trends.

Across the basic seven Index I crime categories, the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect would be for aggravated assault, with 11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime at the .10 confidence level. An omitted variable bias test on our preferred Table 8a results suggests that our estimated 8 percent increase in aggravated assaults from RTC laws may understate the true harmful impact of RTC laws on aggravated assault, which may explain why this finding is only significant at the .10 level in many of our models. Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults. Our analysis of admittedly imperfect gun aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33 percent.

In addition to aggravated assault, the most plausible state models conducted over the entire 1979-2010 period provide evidence that RTC laws increase rape and robbery (but usually only at the .10 level). In contrast, for the period from 1999-2010 (which seeks to remove the confounding influence of the crack cocaine epidemic), the preferred state model (for those who accept the Wolfers proposition that one should not control for state trends) yields statistically significant evidence for only one crime – suggesting that RTC laws increase the rate of murder at the .05 significance level. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis and clarify some of the highly sensitive results and anomalies (such as the occasional estimates that RTC laws lead to higher rates of property crime) that have plagued this inquiry for over a decade.

 

[jthomas666]

If you're going to exploit it to pass something even the President - an Ivy League brainwashed empty suit - knows won't prevent even ONE murder then it's reasonable to expect it REALLY is in response to what is being exploited. It will not prevent even one mass shooting.

And even he has to know that.

Setting your faulty premise aside, what exactly is the IT being proposed?

 

[Bama Reb]

The next time Obama propose new gun control laws, perhaps someone should ask him if we can start by taking the guns away from his own protection detail.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Science guys? Sounds fancy!

But to your bolded point:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681

I reiterate: the science is clear. Most studies support my argument. Those that do not do not show any law having an effect.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/08/a-...mistake-filled-effort-to-discredit-john-lott/

 

[Bamaro]

Honest question. What is the difference between getting a license and registration?

For me, it's the government knowing who can own a gun and what exactly the gun owner has. I'm not comfortable having a pervasive controlling authority over stepping its bounds again. A license for gun ownership is a good sensible gun control.

The license that I was referring to was to enable someone to be pre-checked to avoid having to go through multiple background checks each time a gun is purchased.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Setting your faulty premise aside, what exactly is the IT being proposed?

Specifics are not exactly Obama's strong suit.

But name me one thing that WOULD work? You can't, I can't, and he can't - so why is HE the one pretending anything can be done about it?

 

[Bamaro]

The bottom line here is doing whatever we can to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys while letting the good guys obtain/keep them.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The bottom line here is doing whatever we can to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys while letting the good guys obtain/keep them.

Nobody disagrees with this basic point.

It's the next step where everything gets fuzzy.

I'm willing to bet every single person here has probably always agreed with that bottom line.

 

[Bamaro]

Nobody disagrees with this basic point.

It's the next step where everything gets fuzzy.

I'm willing to bet every single person here has probably always agreed with that bottom line.

Then why all the spurious arguments and distractions that get posted over and over here.

 

[formersoldier71]

OK, off the top of my head:

These are specifically aimed at hand guns because that is where the real problem is.
Must be done on a national level

Already done for hand guns purchased through FFLs.

Tougher sentencing for gun related violence or noncompliance to rules

Tougher sentencing for drug offenses is regularly derided, yet it will work in regards to guns?

Mandatory background checks on ALL gun purchases or gifting. (a multi year license could be issued to eliminate redundant background checks)

Registration of all guns. We do it for cars, we can certainly do it for guns.

I can tell you one thing these will do - create a lot more criminals. There will be mass non-compliance. Example:

News last week that 44,485 assault-style weapons have been registered in a new State Police database brought a variety of responses.
Opponents of the 2013 Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act said the number was proof of a widespread boycott of the law, given initial estimates that hundreds of thousands of such weapons, maybe even a million, are owned in the state.

--

Local sheriffs in many upstate New York counties have made it clear that enforcement of the assault weapon ban simply isn't a priority.

http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-lo...E-Act-Connecticut-gun-control-law-6356919.php

Issuance of free anti-paranoia pills to those needing it after rules are enacted
I may have missed something but that is what comes to me right now

Call it paranoia if you like, but many feel that the end-goal of "sensible gun-control" proponents is the disarming of American citizens.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Then why all the spurious arguments and distractions that get posted over and over here.

Because even draconian laws haven't kept the bad guys from getting guns?

 

[Jon]

OK, off the top of my head:
Must be done on a national level
Mandatory background checks on ALL gun purchases or gifting. (a multi year license could be issued to eliminate redundant background checks)
Tougher sentencing for gun related violence or noncompliance to rules
Registration of all guns. We do it for cars, we can certainly do it for guns.
These are specifically aimed at hand guns because that is where the real problem is.
Issuance of free anti-paranoia pills to those needing it after rules are enacted
I may have missed something but that is what comes to me right now

How about a national database of mental disabilities that includes people on the Autism Spectrum or people that were required to be in special schools for behavioral issues? Make these people ineligible to purchase a firearm. This kid in Oregon would have failed on both

 

[jthomas666]

Specifics are not exactly Obama's strong suit.

So, he hasn't proposed anything, and yet you have concluded that it won't work. Interesting.

But name me one thing that WOULD work? You can't, I can't, and he can't - so why is HE the one pretending anything can be done about it?

The audacity of hope, perhaps? If we just shrug our shoulders and say "Well, stuff happens", I guarantee nothing can be done about it. But if people conclude that we need to find SOMETHING that will make the situation better, maybe we will...even if all we accomplish is getting more support for mental health funding.

 

[formersoldier71]

So, he hasn't proposed anything, and yet you have concluded that it won't work. Interesting.

Well, he is on record as admiring Australia's gun laws.

 

[jthomas666]

Well, he is on record as admiring Australia's gun laws.

Which does not constitute a proposal that we should adopt them.

 

[Tide1986]

OK, off the top of my head:
Must be done on a national level
Mandatory background checks on ALL gun purchases or gifting. (a multi year license could be issued to eliminate redundant background checks)
Tougher sentencing for gun related violence or noncompliance to rules
Registration of all guns. We do it for cars, we can certainly do it for guns.
These are specifically aimed at hand guns because that is where the real problem is.
Issuance of free anti-paranoia pills to those needing it after rules are enacted
I may have missed something but that is what comes to me right now

I love when arms are compared to cars. I need to dig up a copy of the amendment that states that the right of the people to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed.

 

[Tide1986]

OK, off the top of my head:
Must be done on a national level
Mandatory background checks on ALL gun purchases or gifting. (a multi year license could be issued to eliminate redundant background checks)
Tougher sentencing for gun related violence or noncompliance to rules
Registration of all guns. We do it for cars, we can certainly do it for guns.
These are specifically aimed at hand guns because that is where the real problem is.
Issuance of free anti-paranoia pills to those needing it after rules are enacted
I may have missed something but that is what comes to me right now

*** duplicate ***

 

[Tide1986]

Should the only criterion for effective gun control measures be "Would they have prevented [most recent killing spree]"?

When gun control fanatics beat the drum for more controls after such an event using the horror of the event to stir up knee-jerk emotions, then yes, the criterion you referenced is really the only one that should be considered.

 

[NationalTitles18]

How about a national database of mental disabilities that includes people on the Autism Spectrum or people that were required to be in special schools for behavioral issues? Make these people ineligible to purchase a firearm. This kid in Oregon would have failed on both

​Hell, why stop there? Why not just put them all in institutions where they should be.

 

[Jon]

​Hell, why stop there? Why not just put them all in institutions where they should be.

You think it would have helped here? I do

and of course I'd never advocate rounding anyone up, but a kid who gets put in special schools because he lashes out violently? I personally don't feel he should get access to firearms

and I'd like it if we could as a country provide for people with mental illness perhaps we can keep some of these people from snapping