Gun Killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law

[Regionnus Rattis]

Not sure if this was posted...I didn't see it, so if it was, sorry for the dupe. But maybe as long as a person has an LTCH or a permit to carry, that would suffice for private gun sales.

Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law - The Washington Post

10 states already have a law like it.

 

[indykid]

Proof positive that you can take statistics and make them say what ever you want.

 

[DRob]

"Gun killings". "Gun homicides". Of course, the anti-gunners include suicides, justifiable shootings, (including justified police action shootings), accidental shootings, etc., etc., etc., right along with criminal acts. They will fabricate the stats necessary in an effort to prove their point.

 

[Bennettjh]

"Gun killings". "Gun homicides". Of course, the anti-gunners include suicides, justifiable shootings, (including justified police action shootings), accidental shootings, etc., etc., etc., right along with criminal acts. They will fabricate the stats necessary in an effort to prove their point.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[1911ly]

This should work. We all know criminals all legally buy there guns!

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree with one of the commenters. They can pass all of the "gun control" laws they want in "synthetic Connecticut". As long as they only apply to synthetic Connecticut, I have no problem with them.

 

[drillsgt]

This things too new to even read the actual manuscript, I can't find it on PubMed yet. But i'm always concerned when in the abstract there is only percentages which really don't tell you anything. There is no mention of statistical significance, they estimate it saved 270 lives over ten years because they created a "synthetic" comparison? I'd really have to read more on their methodology for that one. The article admits that the crime rate has been going down nationwide but that CT just went down "more". I've seen the senior author Daniel Webster speak at U of M, he's not as rabid as some but is a very prolific anti-gun researcher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJEIRAmSw-E

 

[45fan]

The statistics that we see any more are typically very slanted in the direction that the person(or organization) taking the survey want them to go. Anti-gun people will not take a survey at the NRA convention, just as the NRA typically wouldnt select a demographic in a liberal college for their purposes. All I know is that buying a handgun in NC (they have a similar system in place) is damn near impossible. Just the paperwork involved is insane, by the time you are actually cleared to take it home, you might have forgotten you even bought it.
I would say that as a nation, the only way to push back against the liberal mindset is to start attacking the rights that they covet, but it seems that they dont want rights, just a nanny state that tells us when and how to do everything, and how much we can spend while doing it. If that was such a good way to run things, wouldnt the USSR still be around?

 

[drillsgt]

Not sure if this was posted...I didn't see it, so if it was, sorry for the dupe. But maybe as long as a person has an LTCH or a permit to carry, that would suffice for private gun sales.

Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law - The Washington Post

10 states already have a law like it.

Hopefully NC can do away with theirs and MI is always on the cusp until the state police start whining about it. Didn't Indiana have it at one time?

 

[Light]

Like any article of the similar. "Gun Killings" went down.
They refuse to acknowledge that in almost all these areas where gun control was passed, the violent crime rate has sky rocketed.

Love to get mugged? Now it happens more, you just don't have to worry about getting shot.

 

[rob63]

"Permit-to-purchase laws, which are on the books in 10 states, pose one way to tame the secondhand market."

My question would be why didn't they include the statistics from the other 9 states that have the same law? I'm guessing it is because you don't get the same results.

 

[Libertarian01]

To use an analogy, during one of the heavier times of fighting in Iraq the United States enacted a "surge" in troop strength. Later, it was found that American casualties went down, so the government claimed, "Look at our success! Our decision to implement the surge worked. Look at how better things are!"

However, this is lying by omission, or ignorance. At the same time that the surge was being implemented so too was a CLC (Concerned Local Citizens) program implemented by Gen Petraeus. It paid Iraqis $10 per day to fight for us instead of the bad guys.

These two (2) initiatives were implemented in very close temporal proximity. Yet the government didn't want to admit that a general had actually started asking insurgents, "why are you shooting at us." Instead of the propaganda rhetoric of "they hate us" or "they're religious fanatics" being echoed about the American media by idiot politicians the general got the simple, and human, answer, "We're broke. We have to feed our families. The insurgent leaders are paying us to fight you." To which the general thought, "Well, hell. I can do that too." So he did, about the same time as the surge was ramping up. Then, lo and behold, American and Iraqi casualties began to plummet.

The point I am trying to make is that the article starts off with, "In the early '90s, gang shootings gripped Connecticut. ...and the public wanted action." Well, duh! Of course they did. I am certain the Connecticut legislature passed all sorts of laws and/or programs to reduce gang violence across the state. You would have to examine and eliminate every other variable before you could even begin to think that this law, and this law alone, was the cause for reducing gun killings. Perhaps the economy picked up? More people working means less people out committing crimes. Perhaps some obscure little program was initiated that had a large impact on violence? Perhaps law enforcement tactics were changed and improved to target this problem? When you have eliminated ALL OTHER possible variables, then, and only then, can you even begin to come close to determining that it was this law alone that had the cause and effect this study claims it did.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Markus]

If memory serves me correctly, this is the state that Thomas Dodd, father of Christopher Dodd was from. And we all know (or should know) his past and what he did...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Guys, it's a fraud: Bloomberg's School of Public Health Cherry Picked Claim that firearm homicides in Connecticut fell 40% because of a gun licensing law - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org

All gun control is based on a lie. Remember the nonsense the Media was spewing about mass shooting being "up" just before the election (Nov. '14)? The FBI admits the Media lied: Preelection FBI 'Active Shooter' Study Team Admits Media Misinterpreted It ? Six Months Later

 

[Seancass]

They way they arrived at "40%" is staggering.

 

[24Carat]

I can't find it right now but John Lott has already commented on the methods employed in this "study" and shredded it .

 

[drillsgt]

They way they arrived at "40%" is staggering.

That's why I said upthread beware of percentages and I was just thinking they meant raw numbers I never thought they were talking about the rate.

 

[drillsgt]

Guys, it's a fraud: Bloomberg's School of Public Health Cherry Picked Claim that firearm homicides in Connecticut fell 40% because of a gun licensing law - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org

All gun control is based on a lie. Remember the nonsense the Media was spewing about mass shooting being "up" just before the election (Nov. '14)? The FBI admits the Media lied: Preelection FBI 'Active Shooter' Study Team Admits Media Misinterpreted It ? Six Months Later

Great article and kudos to the rebuttal. These guys aren't worried about Lott though, they get all the mainstream press they want and it becomes gospel, nobody but gun guys are going to see Lotts rebuttal. This falls squarely on the reviewers they should have been asking these kinds of questions but the public health journals fall over each other to print something anti-gun. If you cherry picked some other states that happened to show that the permits did no good I doubt it would get published.