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.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by trndobrd

What ever happened to the widespread support from the left for assisted suicide?

That's a separate issue.

Shooting yourself is not assisted suicide.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

What about for people who already own a safe full of guns, should they be subjected to a waiting period? If so for what purpose?

I'm agnostic. I'd like to see research on this before I mark any hardcore position on the issue.

Personally, if you have a full safe, you don't need a gun within what would be a normal waiting period.

But like I said, I'm agnostic.

[trndobrd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Link: http://www.guncite.com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf

"...implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."


That sounds about right. So explain again why we need waiting periods since the the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that the Brady Legislation and associated waiting periods for handgun purchases have had no effect on reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

[trndobrd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Crimes of impulse, mainly.

What do you mean "crime of impluse"? A woman is being threatened by a violent ex-boyfriend and defending herself is a 'crime of impulse'? What kind of misogynist do you have to be to conclude that a woman's right to defend her person is a crime of impulse? Hell, why don't you just issue licenses and let women be beaten or stoned?

[2bikemike]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm agnostic. I'd like to see research on this before I mark any hardcore position on the issue.

Personally, if you have a full safe, you don't need a gun within what would be a normal waiting period.

But like I said, I'm agnostic.

First of all it's not about need. I go in make a purchase and I would like to take possession of that which I purchased. In my circumstance a waiting period serves no purpose. Background checks can be instaneous just like swiping a credit card.

[Great Expectations]

Homicide rates:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167984...se-in-homicide