- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Connecticut gun controls estimated to have cut fatal shootings by 40%
Posted on 6/14/15 at 1:53 pm to fightin tigers
Posted on 6/14/15 at 1:53 pm to fightin tigers
Brady Law had an interesting interim period effect. It has also had virtually no real impact on firearm homicides.
This part seems to be glossed over by those that make arguments like you do.
I know the Brady Bunch touts the number of those blocked by the initial NICS check but fail to admit that many of those are later successfully appealed because the system is rather flawed. And since the law itself is so poorly enforced it's very difficult to argue that it has any real impact on criminal use of firearms since it's easily bypassed.
This part seems to be glossed over by those that make arguments like you do.
quote:
From the inception of the NICS system in 1998 through 2014, more than 202 million Brady background checks have been conducted.[21] During this period approximately 1.2 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or about 0.5% percent.[22] The most common reason for denials are previous felony convictions.[22]
Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only seven individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected.[23]
I know the Brady Bunch touts the number of those blocked by the initial NICS check but fail to admit that many of those are later successfully appealed because the system is rather flawed. And since the law itself is so poorly enforced it's very difficult to argue that it has any real impact on criminal use of firearms since it's easily bypassed.
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 1:59 pm
1
Posted on 6/14/15 at 1:55 pm to N2cars
quote:
His posts are spot on.
And please, unless you're a teenage girl, stop saying " cringe worthy".
Maybe for a super biased Louisiana message board.
And your defending shorty is " cringe worthy".
How you like dem apples?
Posted on 6/14/15 at 1:58 pm to Clames
quote:
Damn you are clueless since that law expired almost 11 years ago and yet the same national trend has continued. Try again but put a few more brain cells into this time.
Could play into why they chose the time period they did.
quote:
It has also had virtually no real impact on firearm homicides.
That is an extremely obtuse view.
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 6/14/15 at 1:59 pm to wickowick
The funny thing about defensive gun uses, no matter how justified (i.e. Citizen shoots a guy about to murder a bus load of children), is that it is reported as a homicide for the FBI stats. The FBI stats are famously inaccurate. Plenty of reviews out there that show the reporting done by local governments is routinely manipulated for political purposes.
Also, Hopkins has been in bed with the Brady's and gun control folks for years. Look up who paid for this "study."
TO THE OP:
If you posted this as a troll on the OT. Bravo. 8/10
If you posted this because you believe any of it. You are a fool. 0/10
If
Also, Hopkins has been in bed with the Brady's and gun control folks for years. Look up who paid for this "study."
TO THE OP:
If you posted this as a troll on the OT. Bravo. 8/10
If you posted this because you believe any of it. You are a fool. 0/10
If
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:02 pm to Street Hawk
so the same percentage as fatal shootings nationally....
neat. I guess their law works everywhere!
more pathetic hackery.
neat. I guess their law works everywhere!
more pathetic hackery.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:02 pm to Street Hawk
quote:
Overall, the authors estimate that there were nearly 300 fewer firearm homicides in Connecticut between 1996 and 2005 compared to what would have occurred otherwise.
So, they are guessing.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:02 pm to Street Hawk
Crime is down in virtually every place in the US since 1995. That has nothing to do with Connecticut passing some gun law.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:04 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
That is an extremely obtuse view.
It's the truth. Two separate studies examining the effect of the 1994 AWB, one while it was in effect and one after it expired. Neither concluded that it was effective in accomplishing the goal stated by those that wrote the law. Why do you think that the law was effective? Just because it existed independent of any empirical evidence to support that notion? In fact, some studies support the idea that the Brady Law has actually been detrimental as a whole if reducing criminal use and saving lives was the goal.
ETA: Link to one of the DoJ studies.
LINK
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:07 pm to Clames
So what is your belief on why gun homicides are plummeting in America?
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:12 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
So what is your belief on why gun homicides are plummeting in America?
Same reason violent crimes as a whole have plummeted, which is incredibly complex but some of the more commonly cited reasons involved more effective police tactics, cultural shifts within urban gangs, more social efforts to target at-risk youth and deter them from gang memebership, vastly improved ER trauma procedures (being shot and living = not a gun homicide), etc. Touting a law is incredibly simplistic and no reflection on reality.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:12 pm to fightin tigers
Call me when a redneck state has real gun control. Yeah right cowboy
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:17 pm to Clames
So in your theory access to guns has little to no bearing on gun violence/homicides.
Eliminating them (for all intents and purposes) would have a negligible effect on homicide by guns.
Eliminating them (for all intents and purposes) would have a negligible effect on homicide by guns.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:18 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Call me a redneck state has real gun control? Yeah right cowboy
I need clarification or some punctuation, Joe.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:18 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
by JEAUXBLEAUX
Call me a redneck state has real gun control? Yeah right cowboy
Didn't the gun laws in your state lead to the death of an lady recently...
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:20 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
So what is your belief on why gun homicides are plummeting in America?
Because CONnecticut passed that law!
It's amazings! /s
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:23 pm to fightin tigers
quote:Yes, for law abiding citizens, yes.
So in your theory access to guns has little to no bearing on gun violence/homicides.
quote:Eliminating them? Goddamn
Eliminating them (for all intents and purposes) would have a negligible effect on homicide by guns.
goddamn. Why the frick does eliminating something always start with law abiding relatively good citizens?
If you took every single gun from every law abiding citizen how much would that cut gun ownership? Probably what, 95%? Do you think that would cut gun related crime? Do you think it would stay the same? Would it increase?
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:27 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
ReauxlTide222
Calm down Cletus, I am not advocating taking your guns.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:32 pm to fightin tigers
I'm not a gun nut.
quote:Sounds exactly like it's what you want........
I am not advocating taking your guns.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:33 pm to fightin tigers
And you didn't answer the questions....?
Posted on 6/14/15 at 2:33 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
So in your theory access to guns has little to no bearing on gun violence/homicides.
Let me paint you a picture. Words don't seem to be your thing.
So it seems we are putting VASTLY more firearms in the hands of the public yet the number of firearm-related homicides isn't following the trend you seem to think it should. Why does my theory work and yours fail? Oh, and pay special attention to the trend in firearm homicides in 1998, the same time the NICS system (Brady Law) went into effect.
quote:
Eliminating them (for all intents and purposes) would have a negligible effect on homicide by guns.
Well that isn't going to happen. 300+ Million privately owned firearms in the US, there is nothing that is closing the barn door now. So instead of wasting your time on the mental masturbation of such an unrealistic scenario, how about you try and explain methods that do seem to not only curtail firearm homicides, but crimes of violence in general?
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 2:38 pm
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News