The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

General Discussion Topics

Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

The Black Vault Message Forums has a considerable number of niche forums to place your post. If you can not find a home for it, and the topic doesn't fit anywhere else, then post it here.

Postby rath » Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:58 am

Tough gun laws linked to fewer deaths
Bob Egelko - San Francisco chronicle,

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Connecticut has more restrictions on gun ownership than most states, so gun-rights advocates argue the Dec. 14 schoolhouse massacre there illustrates the futility of gun control.

But a new study by a San Francisco organization reaches the opposite conclusion: States with the most restrictive laws, including Connecticut and California, have lower rates of gun-related deaths, while states with few limits on firearms have the highest rates.

In 2009 and 2010, the most recent years for which information is available, California had the nation's strongest gun controls and the ninth-lowest rate of gun deaths, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which favors firearms regulation.

Connecticut had the fourth-strongest gun laws and was sixth-lowest in gun deaths, while Hawaii ranked fifth in gun control and had the lowest death rate.

At the other end of the scale, the report found that Alaska, Louisiana and Montana - all graded F for gun control - had the highest rates of deaths caused by gunfire, more than double California's rate. The law center graded all 50 states and gave an F, for weak regulation, to 24 of them.

In 2010, the report said, quoting the federal Centers for Disease Control, California had 7.88 gun deaths for each 100,000 residents, compared with rates of 3.31 in Hawaii and 20.28 in Alaska.

More research is needed on the links between specific weapons regulations and fatalities, but "the data supports the common-sense conclusion that gun laws are a significant factor in a state's rate of gun deaths," said the report.

Since the report's release last month, The Chronicle has forwarded it for comment to four pro-gun organizations: the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Gun Owners of America and its state affiliate, Gun Owners of California. None replied to calls or e-mails.

Similar studies

Other recent studies have reached similar conclusions. A researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham reported in July that states requiring comprehensive background checks before gun purchases had lower death rates than those without such requirements. And Richard Florida, an economist and urban studies theorist at the University of Toronto, found lower death rates in 2011 for states that ban assault weapons and require trigger locks and secure storage for guns.

But as long as the federal government leaves gun regulations largely up to each state, the effectiveness of any state's laws is inherently limited, said Laura Cutiletta, an attorney at the law center that conducted the study.

California, for example, bans most semiautomatic rifles, including the Bushmaster .223 that Adam Lanza used to kill 20 students and six educators at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school this month. But the rifles are legal in neighboring Nevada, and can be taken easily - though illegally - to California.

The Bushmaster is also legal in Connecticut, a circumstance that Cutiletta said illustrates the modest level of gun regulation even in states ranked high in the law center's survey.

While Connecticut is one of about 10 states with any restrictions on semiautomatic rifles, it prohibits them only if they have certain additional features, such as a pistol grip and a folding or collapsible stock.

The Bushmaster that Lanza reportedly used-a version of the widely sold AR-15 rifle - had been legally purchased by his mother, whom he killed before taking her guns and heading to the school.

A federal assault weapons law, in effect from 1994 to 2004, also banned semiautomatic weapons only if they had specific features. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sponsored that law after a gunman used assault weapons to kill eight people and then took his own life at 101 California St. in San Francisco.

Feinstein is proposing a more far-reaching national law in the wake of the Newtown bloodbath.

Although the federal law has been widely regarded as ineffectual, Cutiletta cited a 2004 study commissioned by President George W. Bush's Justice Department that found assault weapon use in gun crimes dropped by 17 to 72 percent in six cities during the decade. On the other hand, use of large-caliber ammunition magazines increased through the late 1990s, probably because the ban did not apply to weapons acquired before 1994, the study said.

California, by contrast, prohibits a long list of semiautomatic weapons, including the AR-15 and its variations, as well as magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.

Background checks

The state also requires background checks for all gun sales, including those at gun shows. In addition, the law allows only one handgun purchase per month, gives local law enforcement broad authority to deny concealed weapons permits, and requires micro-stamping on all bullets so they can be traced to the gun that fired them.

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, is proposing to further tighten the assault weapons law by banning semiautomatic weapons with magazines that can be replaced quickly by pushing a button. The Legislature rejected a similar measure earlier this year.

But no state goes as far as the nation of Australia, which responded to a 1996 mass shooting by not only outlawing sales of semiautomatic rifles but also requiring owners of the weapons to turn them in for a refund. Gun deaths have plunged, and Australia has experienced no more large-scale shootings.

It's unlikely that the United States will do anything similar soon.

"We're just not there politically," Cutiletta said.

Online

The report, "Gun Laws Matter," can be viewed at tinyurl.com/cj5x6vq.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Tou ... z2G9rbxrEY
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby capricorn » Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:42 pm

Rath,
Your article points out a flawed study. You can't just evaluate the # of gun deaths, you have to evaluate overall crime. But you would have already realized that your argument is outdated because i pointed that out 7 pages back lol. The stats you provided show that in Australia, after the assault rifle ban, violence and crime have continued to increase. These stats are per the govt website you provided. Places where guns are illegal are actually more dangerous to live.

I guess we should ban knives too. That will make the country safer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
"A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal."

What's next? Bleach? Candles? Forks? ...no wait maybe thumb tacks or q-tips? :lol:
"a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people."
User avatar
capricorn
 
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:03 pm

Postby blackvault » Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:02 pm

Well said, Capricorn.
-----
John Greenewald, Jr.
The Black Vault Website Owner / Operator
http://www.theblackvault.com
User avatar
blackvault
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: North Hollywood, Ca.

Postby blackvault » Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:11 pm

I thought this image would be of interest here.... and maybe even it's own thread.
Attachments
guncontrol.jpg
guncontrol.jpg (150.01 KiB) Viewed 687 times
-----
John Greenewald, Jr.
The Black Vault Website Owner / Operator
http://www.theblackvault.com
User avatar
blackvault
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: North Hollywood, Ca.

Postby greeney2 » Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:00 pm

Trying to convince Rath is an exercise in futility. Australia has about the same number of people total as California, New York, or Florida each have. Yet they also live in a country the size of the USA. We have 310 million people, about 10 times more total, in the same area. It you want to really compare facts and figures, multiply Australia's statistics by a factor of 10, to make the numbers proportionate.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9685
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:52 am

capricorn wrote:Rath,
Your article points out a flawed study. You can't just evaluate the # of gun deaths, you have to evaluate overall crime.


So what :lol: .... now every time there is proof that your facts & figures are wrong, you claim the study is flawed, when all it is, is that you have zero understanding of the figures & the laws that guide the study interpretation of the information.

the flaw is your interpretation of the study & not the study itself.


You all started off talking about gun crime & the impact of gun crime when tougher gun laws are passed.

& Now you have lost the argument & looked a fool, you are trying to muddy the waters by trying to claim that you are talking about over all crime & how the number of people who through used cigaret butts on the ground & the number of people arrested for swearing in public back up your claim that over all crime is up & there fore gun law reforms in Australia has failed.

how you can argue that if Australian's where allowed to shot people in the face on a public street every time they litter or swear is insane, ...... How would a gun reduce non gun related crime ....


Explain that to us all that wont you.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:54 am

greeney2 wrote:Trying to convince Rath is an exercise in futility. Australia has about the same number of people total as California, New York, or Florida each have. Yet they also live in a country the size of the USA. We have 310 million people, about 10 times more total, in the same area. It you want to really compare facts and figures, multiply Australia's statistics by a factor of 10, to make the numbers proportionate.


that's a grand idea ... lets do that.

we will multiply Australia's full year / annual tally of gun related deaths by ten & see how they compare to that of the USA.

& we will see who's gun laws work the best at reducing the over all number of gun related deaths.
& then you will see just how flawed your entire argument is.

:lol:

Hell ..... why multiple Australia's national total by just ten.

I could give you an even bigger handy cape then ten, ....... we could multiply Australia's total number of gun related deaths by 100 or 1000. & Australia would still have a lower total number of gun related deaths each year, compared to the USA.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:31 am

greeney2 wrote:Trying to convince Rath is an exercise in futility. We have 310 million people, about 10 times more total, in the same area. It you want to really compare facts and figures, multiply Australia's statistics by a factor of 10, to make the numbers proportionate.



rath wrote:http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/home?opendocument#from-banner=GT

Australian Crime Data ....... (( Falling after gun reform in 1997. ))

This page first published 24 May 2012, last updated 3 December 2012

Murder, 1.0 victims per 100,000 persons
Attempted murder, 0.9 victims per 100,000 persons
Manslaughter, 0.1 victims per 100,000 persons
Sexual assault, 79.5 victims per 100,000 persons
Kidnapping/abduction, 2.7 victims per 100,000 persons
Robbery, 56.0 victims per 100,000 persons.


http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... tistics~63

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subjec/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~National%20crime%20statistics~63


WEAPONS USED AGAINST VICTIMS OF CRIME RECORDED BY POLICE

In 2010, a weapon was used in 67% of murders, 71% of attempted murders, and 39% of robberies. The most common weapon type used in the commission of all three offences was a knife, which was used against 33% of murder, 28% of attempted murder, and 18% of robbery victims.

The next most common weapon type that was used against victims was a firearm, with 17% of murder, 24% of attempted murder, and 7% of robbery victims subjected to an offence involving a firearm.

The majority of sexual assault (98%), kidnapping/abduction (89%) and robbery victims (61%) did not have a weapon used against them in the commission of the offence.




rath wrote:Tough gun laws linked to fewer deaths
Bob Egelko - San Francisco chronicle,

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

But a new study by a San Francisco organization reaches the opposite conclusion: States with the most restrictive laws, including Connecticut and California, have lower rates of gun-related deaths, while states with few limits on firearms have the highest rates.

Connecticut had the fourth-strongest gun laws and was sixth-lowest in gun deaths, while Hawaii ranked fifth in gun control and had the lowest death rate.

At the other end of the scale, the report found that Alaska, Louisiana and Montana - all graded F for gun control - had the highest rates of deaths caused by gunfire, more than double California's rate. The law center graded all 50 states and gave an F, for weak regulation, to 24 of them.

the report said, quoting the federal Centers for Disease Control, California had 7.88 gun deaths for each 100,000 residents, compared with rates of 3.31 in Hawaii and 20.28 in Alaska.

More research is needed on the links between specific weapons regulations and fatalities, but "the data supports the common-sense conclusion that gun laws are a significant factor in a state's rate of gun deaths," said the report.

Since the report's release last month, The Chronicle has forwarded it for comment to four pro-gun organizations: the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Gun Owners of America and its state affiliate, Gun Owners of California. None replied to calls or e-mails.


But no state goes as far as the nation of Australia, which responded to a 1996 mass shooting by not only outlawing sales of semiautomatic rifles but also requiring owners of the weapons to turn them in for a refund. Gun deaths have plunged, and Australia has experienced no more large-scale shootings.

It's unlikely that the United States will do anything similar soon.

"We're just not there politically," Cutiletta said.

Online

The report, "Gun Laws Matter," can be viewed at tinyurl.com/cj5x6vq.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Tou ... z2G9rbxrEY





rath wrote:Australian Crime Data ....... (( Falling after gun reform in 1997. ))

This page first published 24 May 2012, last updated 3 December 2012

Murder, 1.0 victims per 100,000 persons

California had 7.88 gun deaths for each 100,000 residents, compared with rates of 3.31 in Hawaii and 20.28 in Alaska.



If you take Australia's total national murder rate which includes all types of murder, & not just gun related deaths you get Murder, - 1.0 victims per 100,000 persons & of that 1.0 per 100,000 only a small fraction of them are gun related deaths.

1.0 Australian Murders per year per 100,000 & multiply it by the USA handicap of ten.

1.0 Australian Murders per year x 10 = Gives Australia A handicap of 10 Australian murders per year, per every 100,000 Australian's.

Now compare that to the USA ... who by Greeney2 own rules does not have any such handicap. As these are the actual figures.


Alaska alone .... not even the national U.S total of gun related deaths. but just Alaska by itself has a total of 20.28 gun related deaths per year for every 100,000 people in Alaska.

& Alaska is not even the worst state in the USA for gun related deaths.

( & remember this is not the total number of murders in Alaska ... like the Australian stats, this is just the gun related deaths in Alaska ) .... the total number of murders per 100,000 per year would be much much grater then 20.28.

Alaska alone ( just one single state in the USA has a figure of 20.28 gun related deaths per year.

Compared to Australia's total national tally ( from all states & external territory's ) of just - 1.0 murder victims per 100,000 people.


Well we can all see the math.

Australia has a national total of 1.0 murder victims per 100,000 people.

& Alaska alone has a total of 20.28 gun related ( not total murders ) but gun related deaths per every 100,000 people per year.

California had 7.88 gun deaths for each 100,000 residents, compared with rates of 3.31 in Hawaii and 20.28 in Alaska.




Now if you added up the total number of gun related deaths in all the States of the USA & added them all together' to get the national total of Gun related deaths in the USA each year & compared it to that of Australia.

Well like i said ......... you could multiply Australia's national total of gun related deaths by one thousand if you wished. & Australia would still have a lower number of gun related deaths per year. Then that of the USA in a single day.


All thanks to Australia's gun law reforms that have reduced Australian gun crime.

If you can't get a gun .... you can't shoot anybody with one.

:thumbup:
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:18 am

rath wrote:If you can't get a gun .... you can't shoot anybody with one.

:thumbup:



How's the weather in fantasyland?

:thumbup:
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9183
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby Eldensword » Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:19 pm

bionic wrote:so awful :(
I have to wonder how much online gaming and online encouragement (via boards and the like) pushing guns and violence, in general has to do with this.

A-lot of these young guys say stuff online like, "I am gonna go off soon" and nobody really takes it seriously. Some even encourage that talk. Maybe not realizing , while they themselves are not being serious, the person to whom they are communicating is. Or maybe someone viewing or listening to their conversation is more serious, and is feeling encouraged. I am not saying this is happening, but I do have to wonder. I feel with all the online, public talks we have, not knowing how we might be encouraging or discouraging someone in this way, we should, at least, take a moment to consider it.

They are saying he might have been on the autistic spectrum. I know that very high functioning autistics and asperger folks can sometimes have a really hard time with human interelations and empathy. This can set them up for being bullied or ostracized. Which, in turn, can create a monster in them over time, because of their lack of empathy issues.

I remember that one guy, the Virginia Tech shootings. He was also on the spectrum. This all concerns me personally, because as many of you know, my son is on the spectrum. He, though, very loving, has also shown that he does not get human emotion and empathy the way regular people do. Also, as he is going through puberty, with his testosterone levels rising, I have noticed a rise in his anger and agression issues.


I re-quoted it all, because in all of my post travels the last few weeks, THIS doesn't get said ENOUGH. The person, the retarded, goofy, bullied, vengeful little demon had a lifetime of movie, TV and video game violence to fuel his twisted disconnect and disgusting action. May he and his stupid, dead mother get the “full tour” of Satan’s butthole during their stay in Hell. She had no business leaving those guns to be accessed by him.

The guns are as guilty as oxygen is in fuelling a forest fire.
User avatar
Eldensword
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:14 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion Topics

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest