More gun control = fewer gun deaths.

[Direckshun]

The Legal Community Against Violence conducted a study where they compared the rigidity of the gun control laws in all 50 states and the gun-related deaths.

Their conclusion:

Our ranking reveals that many of the states with the strongest gun laws
also have the lowest gun death rates. Conversely, many states with the weakest gun laws have the
highest gun death rates. Although it is beyond the scope of this publication to demonstrate a causal
relationship between state gun laws and gun death rates, the data provides support for the argument
that gun laws are a signifi cant factor in a state’s rate of gun deaths.vi More research is needed to
determine the precise relationship between state gun laws and gun death rates.

Here's the study, it's an insanely easy read, I'd recommend checking it out. I included the article below as a casual summary of the study's findings.

The recommendations of the study:

BEST PRACTICES

DEALER LAWS

• Require all fi rearms dealers to obtain a license and pass a background check (CA, HI, MA, NJ, PA, RI, WA)
• Prohibit dealers in residential and other sensitive areas (MA)
• Require employee background checks (CT, DE, NJ, VA, WA)
• Require security measures (AL, CA, CT, MA, MN, NJ, PA, RI, WV)
• Require sales record reporting to state and local law enforcement (CT)

PRIVATE SALE LAWS

• Require all fi rearm transfers are to be conducted through licensed dealers (CA)
• If transfers are not conducted through dealers, require private sellers to: 1) conduct background checks
  through a central law enforcement agency (RI); 2) maintain sales records for a lengthy period (IL);
  or 3) report sales to state and local law enforcement (MA)

AMMUNITION LAWS

• Require sellers to be licensed (MA)
• Require sales record-keeping (CA — handgun ammunition)vii
• Require license to purchase or posses ammunition (IL, MA)
• Require ammunition sellers to store ammunition safely (CA — handgun ammunition)viii
• Require handgun microstamping (technology that allows a fi rearm to imprint a serial number
  and other information onto a cartridge case when fi red) (CA)

ASSAULT WEAPONS

• Defi ne assault weapon based on generic features that characterize assault weapons and use
  one-feature test (CA for rifl es and pistols, NJ for shotguns)
• Prohibit broad range of activities such as possession, manufacture, sale (CA, CT, NJ have the
  broadest prohibitions)
• If weapons possessed prior to the ban are grandfathered, require registration with strict limits
  on transferability, use and storage (CA, CT)

LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES

• Defi ne “large capacity ammunition magazine” to include magazines capable of holding in excess
  of 10 rounds (HI, CA, MA, NY)
• Apply ban to large capacity ammunition magazines for use with all fi rearms (CA, MD, MA, NJ, NY)
• Prohibit broad range of activities such as possession, manufacture, sale (NJ, NY are the
  most comprehensive)
• Do not grandfather magazines possessed prior to the ban (HI, MD, NJ)

FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES

• Prohibit broad range of activities such as possession, manufacture, sale (CA)
• If weapons possessed prior to the ban are grandfathered, require registration with strict limits
  on transferability, use and storage (CA)

LICENSING

• Require license for possession of any fi rearm, and require license to be shown prior to
  purchase of any fi rearm (IL, MA)
• Require background check for license (HI, IL, MA, NJ), (handguns — CT, IA, MI, NY, NC)
• Require safety training and/or testing (MA), (handguns — CA, CT, HI, MI, RI)
• Limit duration of license (HI, IL, MA), (handguns — CA, CT, IA, MI, NJ, NC)
• Require background check and testing for renewal (MA)

REGISTRATION

• Require registration for all fi rearms (HI)
• Include identifying information about owner, fi rearm, and source from which fi rearm was obtained (HI)
• Require retention of fi rearm sales records (CA — handguns)

CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS

• Prohibit carrying of concealed fi rearms (IL, WI)
• If concealed carry is allowed, require a permit and give the issuer discretion based on strict guidelines (AL,
  CA, DE, HI, MA, NJ, NY, RI issue permits only for good cause to persons of good character)

OPENLY CARRYING FIRERAMS

• Prohibit open carry of handguns (FL, IL, TX)
• Prohibit open carry of long guns (FL, MA, MN)

LOCAL AUTHORITY

• Allow broad local regulation of fi rearms (CT, HI, IL, MA, NJ, NY)
• If broad local regulation is not allowed, allow substantial regulation (CA, NE)

Gun control absolutely must be part of any package designed to reduce gun violence.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012...ess-gun-deaths

Study: States with more gun control have less gun deaths
By Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle
Wed, 12/26/2012 - 1:03pm

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 pro-gun control 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 gun-rights 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.

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.

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-was a version of the widely sold AR-15 rifle, and 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.

[trndobrd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

How so?

The rate of firearm homicides trends higher in states that have more restrictive gun laws and lower in states with less restrictive laws, as identified in the article.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That's the problem that keeps you from identifying that gun related homicides are a meaningful statistic when discussing gun control legislation, but "gun deaths" are not.

So you would advise that we should not acknowledge any potential policy with respect to gun suicides.

Originally Posted by listopencil

Or that Austin Chief stated that "leftist asshats like you" are creating a conspiracy, not necessarily that you are creating a conspiracy within this thread.

Actually, AC did directly argue that I was inventing a conspiracy by claiming the NRA pressures Congress to suppress research on gun violence.

Which is why I linked it.

Originally Posted by listopencil

Or that the views of a politician, who has influence over legislation, can be inferred by their interpretation of our founding document where a private citizen who isn't in that position wouldn't be judged in the same way.

You're still wrong.

To insinuate that politicians must only be capable of having those two perspectives, and no other perspectives are feasible for them, is to once again be guilty of creating a false dichotomy.

The fact that they are politicians does not create logic where logic is already being violated.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Here's another great quote. It comes from Thomas Jefferson's legal "commonplace book."

Thanks for the quote. I read as much Jefferson (though this wasn't Jefferson per se) as I can get my hands on. He's probably the third or fourth greatest influence on my ideology.

Here's a Jefferson quote that I think is particularly apt on this subject:

I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Part of a letter he wrote to Samuel Kercheval in 1816. I think it has applied throughout all of American history, up to and including this moment in time.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

It's amazing to me that people who are arguing for more gun legislation sometimes attempt to dismiss the relevance of the second amendment.

I don't dismiss it. I defend it against anti-gun absolutism. And I understand how the Supreme Court has ruled on the 2nd amendment.

Regulating something does not diminish its importance. It preserves it.

That's what you're missing.

Originally Posted by listopencil

That they would paint the founding fathers as relics of a bygone age with no bearing on modern thought.

This is a comical strawman of my arguments in this and other gun control threads (and I don't accept that your post was a general criticism that doesn't necessarily include me, should that suddenly become your defense).

Jefferson himself encouraged modernity. He was the tip of the spear against theocracy among the founding fathers, for crying out loud.

Encouraging modernity doesn't mean you never look back, it means rejecting those who refuse to look forward.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

The so called "strawmen" are in fact the logical and necessary conclusions to your positions.

I have no idea what that means. My positions are my conclusions. I haven't argued any of those strawmen that you invented to resist the cognitive dissonance in your head, and you're taking a big shit in this thread instead of understanding the arguments being pitched at you.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Since you are obviously too stupid to know this.. here is a simple proof for you.

I didn't disagree, but thanks.

And you should probably link to shit you didn't write.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Twenty bucks he argues with you about what constitutes a primitive logical concept. No, I'm kidding. I'm too cheap to bet twenty bucks.

Heh.

I actually don't care, I think it's tangeantal to the discussion, and I wasn't disagreeing with AC anyway.

[listopencil]

Holy crap, Direckshun. You weren't kidding when you said that you had a below average level of intelligence. What you have just stated over several posts is perhaps some of the most convoluted, mindless crap I have ever seen. Austin Chief was right. It's really not worth discussing this stuff with you.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

So you would advise that we should not acknowledge any potential policy with respect to gun suicides.

Of course we shouldn't base legislation on gun suicide rates. Government is supposed to protect people from other people, not people from themselves.

[Dayze]

I don't think the government is supposed to protect anyone other than an attack on the US etc.

[trndobrd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

So you would advise that we should not acknowledge any potential policy with respect to gun suicides.

Would you care to point out the policies listed by the authors of the article you cited that would have an impact on suicides?

You've already determined that regulation of magazine capacity should not be based on suicide rates.

Would concealed carry laws impact firearms suicide rates? Open carry?

Regulation of .50 cal firearms?

Assault weapon ban? (one vs. two 'military characteristics')

More regulation of gun dealers beyond current ATF requirements?


Better yet, let's get to the point...Given the choice, should gun policy be based on reducing the rate of firearm homicides or the rate of firearm suicides?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Holy crap, Direckshun. You weren't kidding when you said that you had a below average level of intelligence. What you have just stated over several posts is perhaps some of the most convoluted, mindless crap I have ever seen. Austin Chief was right. It's really not worth discussing this stuff with you.

good to see you catch on~

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by trndobrd

Would you care to point out the policies listed by the authors of the article you cited that would have an impact on suicides?

You've already determined that regulation of magazine capacity should not be based on suicide rates.

Would concealed carry laws impact firearms suicide rates? Open carry?

Regulation of .50 cal firearms?

Assault weapon ban? (one vs. two 'military characteristics')

More regulation of gun dealers beyond current ATF requirements?


Better yet, let's get to the point...Given the choice, should gun policy be based on reducing the rate of firearm homicides or the rate of firearm suicides?

Questions like these are how you make Direckshun disappear real quick.

[Direckshun]

This is a study for listopencil, since he was asking for research that excluded suicides:

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/pa..._2006FINAL.pdf

This paper provides new estimates of the effect of household gun prevalence on homicide rates, and infers the marginal external cost of handgun ownership. The estimates utilize a superior proxy for gun prevalence, the percentage of suicides committed with a gun, which we validate. Using county- and state-level panels for 20 years, we estimate the elasticity of homicide with respect to gun prevalence as between +0.1 and + 0.3. All of the effect of gun prevalence is on gun homicide rates.

Higher gun prevalence = higher homicide rates.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

What you have just stated over several posts is perhaps some of the most convoluted, mindless crap I have ever seen.

What I stated over the "last few posts":

1. That the Hubb quote is a false dichotomy -- which you have not attempted to rebut, nor really addressed in any meaningful way.
2. That Jefferson said a bunch of shit, some of which you believe asserts your point but obviously it ain't that simple.
3. That regulation is not the same thing as dismissing basic rights.
4. That history is as part of my political positioning as is the future.

You can feel free to engage, or you can leave the thread. I have literally no use for parting shots, as I'm assuming nobody else on this thread does.