A new study determines that national implimentation of three specific gun laws could reduce gun deaths in the US by 80%. And not one of them is " gun grabbing" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160310214136.htm
All three of the proposed laws will require a complete and accurate registry, which is unconstitutional, and impossible to implement, for myriad reasons repeated ad-nauseum in 800 threads prior to this one. Besides, trading a 'gun death' for a 'knife death' is hardly a solution to the problem, which is 'violent crime'. Show me three laws that will reduce violent crime by 80%, and you'll have something.
The key word is "COULD." It's like maybe, perhaps or even If I wish hard enough it might happen. - - - Updated - - - The key word is "COULD." It's like maybe, perhaps or even If I wish hard enough it might happen.
Info for this article comes from "the Lancet" which is a UK journal that has advocated for banning everything from guns to tobacco. The Britts just don't understand our constitution and want America to be like them. There is a reason we ran from them and formed our own republic.
Once again suicide and murder (already illegal) are included. So tell me how microstamping, ammo background checks, and universal background checks will reduce firearm mortality? Here are the published results of the study. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)01026-0/fulltext
complete BS. more than half of gun deaths are suicides. Suicides aren't going to be prevented by any of that nonsense. and when "medical" researchers get involved in areas they don't have any expertise in, propaganda is the usual result. Since registration is a holy grail for gun grabbers, that alone is why we oppose it. and criminals are not even required to register guns. 80% of all homicides are by people who don't currently own guns legally the article is speculative at best-lie filled propaganda at worst
You're quite right Chuck. The Lancet has become controversial in recent years and has taken a political bent on a variety of subjects, not within its purview. So have many of the other American medical journals. The Annals of Internal Medicine has issued a so called "mission statement" on guns even though internal medicine as a field has nothing to do with guns. Before that they were into concentration camps and land mines even though there are no concentration camps in the US and zero land mine deaths in the US.
Actually that link doesn't allow you to read the actual study. Did you actually tead the entire study?
Go Ahead and supply us with the actual study. I assume you must have read it in it's entirety to be so knowledgable.
Actually I did read it. A Johns Hopkins review called it poor science about laws that haven't been implemented. The lead author is also an anti-gun activist. Next.
..." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What does shall not be infringed mean to YOU ?
Here is another article that ties the prevalence of guns in a home with suicide rates. http://www.bmc.org/Documents/Matt-Miller-2011.pdf Now it could be that gun owers are more likely to have mental problems but my guess would be that easy access to a gun just makes suicide easier and quicker reducing the possibility of changing one's mind about committing suicide. Probably also increases the odds of a suicide attempt being fatal.
Here is the definition: inĀ·fringe inˈfrinj/ verb past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.). "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright" synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More act so as to limit or undermine So unless the gun law infringes on the right of people to keep and bear arms the law is perfectly constitutional.
Bad article to try and make your point.... In 2001 there were about 350,000 suicide attempts. Only about 19,000 used a gun. I would say this showcases a mental health system issue, not a gun issue. Guns aren't needed to kill ones self. In half the successful suicides, a gun wasn't used.
That's real bad eh...not being able to read the study that was quoted. I was quoting the info in the Lancet which did mention this. Did you actually read the info?
One last time... 1) You already have to perform a background check when purchasing a firearm from an FFL dealer, that's new or used. The sale of firearms between private citizens is a states right issue and is governed by the state, not Feds. 2) Micro stamping of guns is easily changed by replacing the firing pin or taking a file to the end of it. 3) How do you require background checks on ammo, you would have to double the size of BATFE. And it would not affect reloaders like myself. And you notice how they never mention which states have these laws that supposedly reduce firearm mortality rates.
if you want to argue gun issues with us, at least do your homework and know basic facts. I have better things to do than constantly educate anti gun posted who have been here for thousands of posts
To begin with, the article is analyzing the effectiveness of not only laws, but programs that simply do not exist. The state of California is the only one in the united states that requires microstamping of all new handguns made available on the market, and that is currently tied up in legal limbo, leaving it essentially suspended and unenforceable. Even if the microstamping technology were freely available to all firearms manufacturers, and was actually as accurate and reliable as the patent holders claim, the stamping can easily be obliterated from the firing pin with a file, rendering it nonexistent. The firing pin itself is prone to breakage depending on how often the firearm is used, meaning it will eventually have to be replaced, with no way of ensuring that it is replaced with a firing pin with an identical marking. Even assuming this is not the case, such a proposal would be rendered useless if the shooter collects their brass casings, leaving nothing behind to analyze. Universal background checks on all private firearms purchases cannot be implemented without universal registration of every last firearm in existence, which is both physically impossible, and illegal under current united states law. Even if they could be implemented, the justice department has stated that they do not have the resources to prosecute the sheer number of offenses that are committed annually. Therefore the effectiveness of such a program must be questioned. Background checks for ammunition purchases was a program that was attempted, and it was eventually stopped because it was found to be ineffective to the point of being useless. Even if they could be implemented once again, they could be defeated just as background checks on firearm purchases are defeated; through straw purchases.
It seems anti-2A advocates aren't happy with the study either.... https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...exposes-broader-problems-in-anti-gun-research