ProPublica

Journalism in the Public Interest

Cancel

What Researchers Learned About Gun Violence Before Congress Killed Funding

We spoke with the scientist who led the government’s research on guns.

« Return to Story

Sort by: Oldest Newest  <  1 2 3 4 5 >

Michael Long

Feb. 28, 2013, 7:24 p.m.

Polls? The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, more than six in ten (61 percent) say that “laws covering the sale of firearms” should be made stricter.

The February, 2013 polling numbers regarding stricter gun laws break down as follows:

African Americans: 86% (Feb. 2013) – 71% (Jan. 2011) Net change: +15
Hispanics: 72% (Feb. 2013) – 60% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +12
Whites: 55% (Feb. 2013) – 48% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +7

Democrats: 82% (Feb. 2013) – 71% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +11
Republicans: 37% (Feb. 2013) – 24% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +13
Independents: 49% (Feb. 2013) – 48% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +1

Men: 51% (Feb. 2013) – 42% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +9
Women: 69% (Feb. 2013) – 61% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +8

Urban: 71% (Feb. 2013) – 55% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +16
Suburban: 59% (Feb. 2013) – 51% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +8
Rural: 48% (Feb. 2013) – 41% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +7

But why is it I suspect that if the polling numbers were the other way around they’d suddenly be admissible? Like, say, the Kleck polling numbers regarding DGU?

John Smith

Feb. 28, 2013, 7:28 p.m.

Ahhh you blinded me!

Haha thanks for the laugh though that was funny.

To answer your question “But why is it I suspect that if the polling numbers were the other way around they’d suddenly be admissible?”

because you make large assumptions…

Is there new technology I don’t know about that asks every American these questions?

Michael Long

Feb. 28, 2013, 7:30 p.m.

Yep. I… dislike the NRA. Especially when they pretend to take the high ground on the 2nd Amendment, even though firearm industry executives sit on the NRA’s board and even though the NRA takes in a hundred million or more a year in industry dollars and even though many of the NRA’s own executives make millions in the process.

I mean, if the President and CEO of Glock or Strum Ruger held a press conference and started shouting and pounding on the table about our “Second Amendment” right to buy their weapons, people might reasonably suspect their motives.  They’d probably understand that—regardless of their Second Amendment rationalizations—Glock and Strum Ruger are in the business of selling as many guns as possible to as many people as possible, no questions asked. 

People need to understand that the NRA, like Glock, has a financial interest in the subject at hand. That the NRA is getting paid—and paid well—for their efforts to ensure that as many Americans as possible have the “right” to buy guns, regardless of the public health, safety, or moral issues involved.

That, fundamentally, they’re just another group of special-interest hired guns fronting for a $31 billion dollar a year industry.

John Smith

Feb. 28, 2013, 7:33 p.m.

Micheal I don’t like the NRA for the exact reasons you are stating. Right now my target shooting hobby has been destroyed because of the idiotic fear based panic buying going on in the firearm community fueled by the NRA and media outlets.

Albert

Feb. 28, 2013, 7:34 p.m.

Jim sorry to engage you! To everyone else, sounds like the assailant was a Looney tune. I hope everyone understands, If someone is Hell bent on killing the availability of guns are not a deterrent. The existence of Guns by good people certainly can be a deterrent!
The knowledge that guns are not likely to be on site is actually a reassurance to the perps , such as in a school zone. A percent of Staff need to be trained and armed in a consealed manner.
McVey, the Uni-bomber, Olympic bomber in Georgia and Mohammad Ata are four examples of mass murders that did not use guns as their choice of weapons but was much more efficient in their objectives of mass murder. Guns are actually a bombers fear they would have made a difference at 911 for sure. I know Ata would have had to contend with many more good people if the pilots alone were armed in self-defense and everyone knew that.
We need to better understand the root cause of these issues.

Albert

Feb. 28, 2013, 8:22 p.m.

Answer to the question… Why would you assume the shooter would have resorted to other means if he hadn’t had his personal gun arsenal close by? A deranged mind met an unplanned opportunity, had the necessary equipment handy, and we can only presume the “messages” in his head sent him into action.

To think there was no underling reason for a mass murder is a bit unreasonable. The fact the person had all his guns in the truck says he was looking for an opportunity, insinuating a preliminary plan at minimum.
The exact place may or may not have been planned but this was something he obviously had planned to do at some point. If he had no guns, he could have made a bomb from internet instructions. To think we can protect ourselves against every potential threat is naive. Too bad someone there did not have a hand gun with a laser on it. All it takes is one well placed shot to save lives. People are all too often concerned about themselves only in a situation like that.

Don’t get me wrong I would have a hard time convicting someone of murder if the penalty was death but if I could save a life that guy has a problem with me around.

Michael Long

Feb. 28, 2013, 11:04 p.m.

“...when in reality we haven’t had to do anything and the child firearm related death rate is declining.”

Unfortunately, the number of children killed in accidental shootings increased from 68 in 2009 to 84 in 2010, reversing a 20-year decline. There were 851 accidental gun deaths of all ages in 2011, up from 606 the previous year.

Gun ownership has reversed its generation-long steady decline, and with it the decline in deaths.

John Smith

March 1, 2013, 12:09 a.m.

I gave you a 30 year trend while you are looking at a two year trend.

Michael Long

March 1, 2013, 1:52 a.m.

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period.

Pew, NBC/WSJ, Gallup, all show gun ownership trending downward during that same exact 30-year trend. Except during the past couple of years, during which the NRA’s been beating its drums and people have in fact been buying more weapons. Current ownership is estimated to be back up to around 40%-42%.

And during which time accidental deaths began trending back upwards. Coincidence?

Also note that the three states with the highest rate of gun ownership (MT, AK, WY) have a gun death rate of 17.8 per 100,000, over 4 times that of the three lowest-ownership states (HI, NJ, MA; 4.0 gun deaths per 100,000).  The relationship is a near-perfect linear proportion: on average, as gun ownership goes up, the firearm death rate goes up. 

Another coincidence? Or does one statistic reinforce the other?

Jim Travers

March 1, 2013, 4:29 a.m.

Thank you all for your condolences. A special thanks to Carolyn for her kind words.

Wiki “Capitol Hill Massacre” for more about the tragedy that took my son’s and his friends life.

One need only look at the statistics for firearms caused deaths in the states with the loosest or non-existent gun laws. Compared to our national average, which includes these incidents, they are extraordinarily high.

Rusty, most criminals breaking into one’s home are not interest in harming anyone. They want your money, perhaps your drugs and if a handgun is lying around, they may or may not take it. You cannot say the elderly woman life was threatened because someone tried to break into her home. 

Albert, we need to look at the gross disparities that exist within our society between classes. Poor people didn’t create ghettos, the upper classes did and still promote policy that assures some certain people will be kept in their place. Ghettos are only one source of violence.

Did you know that back in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s teenagers in Texas were being sentenced to life in prison for possessing one marijuana cigarette? I am not exaggerating. Do I need to tell you what race they were?

Most conservatives do not want to be taxed enough to remedy any of our social problems.

Interesting tact, Albert to sway the topic of this conversation and turn it to an off-topic subject: other causes of childhood deaths and abortion; a sure sign you’ve run out of rational argument and so atypical.

To remind you, the topic is guns and the violence they cause, not automobile safety. And Albert, if you approach another who’s been victimized by firearms, just be quiet.

Listen, don’t talk. Words are empty of all comfort and perhaps give a them a heartfelt hug.

And for god’s sake, get rid of your guns before your wife, partner or kid shoots you.

John Henry Bicycle Lucas

March 1, 2013, 7:03 a.m.

Dr. Rosenberg is doing the studies for the CDC again? WOW, something told me I was right NOT to ever get flu shots!

John Henry Bicycle Lucas

March 1, 2013, 7:40 a.m.

One need only look at the statistics for firearms caused deaths in the states with the loosest or non-existent gun laws. Compared to our national average, which includes these incidents, they are extraordinarily high.

1.  Answer, Guns don’t know when they cross a border. (Fast and Furious)

Rusty, most criminals breaking into one’s home are not interest in harming anyone. They want your money, perhaps your drugs and if a handgun is lying around, they may or may not take it. You cannot say the elderly woman life was threatened because someone tried to break into her home. 

2. Nothing I own is worth another person’s life. I will not stand by and let some thug take what I have sweated for for many years, just take it.

Albert, we need to look at the gross disparities that exist within our society between classes. Poor people didn’t create ghettos, the upper classes did and still promote policy that assures some certain people will be kept in their place. Ghettos are only one source of violence.

  3.Guns did not cause these disparities.

Did you know that back in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s teenagers in Texas were being sentenced to life in prison for possessing one marijuana cigarette? I am not exaggerating. Do I need to tell you what race they were?

4. Selective law enforcement. The most dangerous kind.

Most conservatives do not want to be taxed enough to remedy any of our social problems.

5. You are damn right.

Interesting tact, Albert to sway the topic of this conversation and turn it to an off-topic subject: other causes of childhood deaths and abortion; a sure sign you’ve run out of rational argument and so atypical.

6. All life is sacred to many of us.

To remind you, the topic is guns and the violence they cause, not automobile safety. And Albert, if you approach another who’s been victimized by firearms, just be quiet.

7. I’ll let Albert respond to that.

8. Who has not been affected by traffic deaths? An automobile is a 3000 lb projectile that will do 100 MPH and you can actually get under the wheel impared and drive them off, they don’t know you are driving drunk.

Listen, don’t talk. Words are empty of all comfort and perhaps give a them a heartfelt hug.

9. I did, and you weren’t going to weigh in here with any debate. So just be quiet and read.

And for god’s sake, get rid of your guns before your wife, partner or kid shoots you

10. You obviously do not take any resposibility for you son’s death. What was he doing at a crowded party asleep? Was he not taught better?

11. (Most important)  I won’t coddle you. Yes I wish your son was alive today, I cannot change that, but I won’t coddle you. Man up. For all of us, our ultimate destination is death. Be prepared to meet God.

John Smith

March 1, 2013, 10:07 a.m.

JHBL! Your the man.

Saying it like it is. If only more people weren’t afraid of hurting someones feelings when it comes to the truth we would have a much better world.

Jim Travers, the parading of victims is a slanted argument against guns. Don’t be surprised when it gets ignored and only effects the individuals who run purely on emotion. Its clear you are jaded towards guns because of what happened to your son. Do what you originally said, and don’t join in the debate. Sorry for your loss. Goodbye!

Micheal, your polls are gleaming. Did every American get questioned in those polls? Didn’t think so…..Are they adjusted for population increase? Who knows…..your arguments are getting weaker. You are free to live your life based on polls, but I refuse to. If you really wanted to convince me of something, you would stop using those.

All trends ebb and flow, if you focus on the lowest points, you can expect to see an upward trend eventually on just about all accounts.  If you only look at numbers, its easy to miss the real reasons behind them, which seems to be what you are hoping for your audience to do.

So no, polls do not reinforce other polls with much weight at all.

Albert

March 1, 2013, 11:59 a.m.

Just to make something clear…
You don’t know me and I don’t get offended when talking about something that is so close to peoples personal experiences. I listen and learn. Something many people have not learned to do.

For me this is not about guns it is about life, human dignity and the rights we were given in the 2nd amendment. People with an agenda will try to color it by using children deaths as a motivator. Shame on them!  I countered by saying… if life was so important to them they would save children’s lives from being butchered on the abortion table. save MILLIONS not 20 or Five. They don’t care about life they care about their agenda. I am a Christian and life and dignity has been downgraded, so much so that killing is a part of life in the big cities all around America.

Now, lets get to know Albert!  For 11 years I served the poor people in the poor areas of Boston. If someone wants to take protection from those people, I speak up. I have many friends in those areas and I have many letters from them thanking me for my service.

The police don’t do the job effectively in those areas. As I said in a past comment… If you lived on Crescent st., Wendover st. or Howard st. in the Roxbury area of Boston for two months you will be looking to buy protection. If that protection was not legal to buy you would go to the black market. That only makes the black market people rich.
Don’t restrict those poor people access to their full 2nd amendment rights. All you do is empower the bad guy. If you do they will be victimized and the blood will be on your hands.

So you see, you don’t know me, so don’t spew your month until you learn to listen more effectively.

Albert

March 1, 2013, 6:41 p.m.

JHBL: After getting time to read more comments I would like to add.
Some of you people are so focused on “the problem is Guns” that you can’t see the forest through the trees. At some point you need to understand you have devoted time fighting the wrong battle.
Of course more Guns will cause more Gun deaths Dah! You don’t need a study to tell you that, unfortunately maybe some do. How many murders, violent crimes, rapes, beating, stabbings, road rage, robberies have been avoided due to GUN ownership? WAKE UP PEOPLE! Deal with the increase of Guns by formal training programs and if your gun gets used in a crime you should be liable. No insurance you lose everything unless you can prove you did due diligence in guarding against the loss or theft.
The problem is not Guns it is the loss of Human dignity, respect for life and personal responsibility. Laws don’t punish effectively, judges release people and are too lenient. The far left and far right are over the top! In this world there is a price for everything. The saying is… Pay me now or pay me later.
Politians and police offices want you to believe you need them to protect you. It is not true; you need you to protect you. If crime goes down police worry about their jobs. If crime goes up they respond slowly so they can go home to their own family that night. If civil disorder comes to pass you will see the truth. I will be armed in self-defense so will my entire family. What are you going to do?
We are dealing with a sinful world and to believe you can battle all the violent crime, rape, murder without the aid of a gun or the perception a gun may exist is delusional at best. Guns are now a fact of life especially since the latest threat to regulate them. Sales are off the charts. That is not because they believe you it is because they believe me.
Look Good people out number bad people, if more good people carried bad people would be in check. Bad people are opportunists they are not risk takers. If they know one gas station is armed and other is not they will go to rob the one that is not. If no guns are allowed they have a free for all and will buy one or make one on the black market. Please wake up people, don’t be fearful train and defend yourselves responsibly. I am a God fearing Christian and I pray every day. I would love to see the day people could live in peace with no guns. That day is not today, your government created the prime loan scandal and took a nation that was still in the best position in the world and drove it to destruction all for the effort of a new world order to come. Did anyone go to jail for that? No, why? Because too many people of power were involved. That is why Bill Maher on national TV said the general public is stupid.
You keep dis-arming and I will lawfully own. Hopefully you are right but if not I am prepared. The bad guy will go after you 1st and give time to plan.
Read the Harvard study! Stop fooling yourselves you are hurting others as well!
You can debate forever but until you wake up and go after the root cause the problem will not be solved.  I am a Lean Six sigma Professional; I was trained in problem analysis. Too many people here are willing to disregard a very creditable “Harvard Study” done by scientists and continue to debate blindly. The reason, in my opinion, is you know you can’t win but you continue to hang in there hoping someone will swallow the crap. Oh, buy the way England disarmed the public and police, they had a civil up rising, what did the government do? They brought in police with guns. How foolish does the general public in England feel? This is you, my friends! This is you!

Albert

March 1, 2013, 9:45 p.m.

JHBL: In response to your telling me if I run across a victim of gun crime , don’t say anything.

If you put your example out there in a discussion forum as part of an argument for or against, you should expect not everyone will be on your team. You should also expect to hear some things that are not in tune with what you want to hear.

So who are you to tell me to not say anything? You sound like the Furier.

Oh by the way Hitler once said… If you want to conquer a nation 1st disarm its citizens.

John Smith

March 1, 2013, 10:37 p.m.

Albert…JHBL wasn’t talking to you….re-read his comments.

Albert

March 2, 2013, 2:15 a.m.

John Smith: JHBL wrote… 5. You are damn right.

Interesting tact, Albert to sway the topic of this conversation and turn it to an off-topic subject: other causes of childhood deaths and abortion; a sure sign you’ve run out of rational argument and so atypical.

6. All life is sacred to many of us.

To remind you, the topic is guns and the violence they cause, not automobile safety. And Albert, if you approach another who’s been victimized by firearms, just be quiet.

7. I’ll let Albert respond to that.

Dave Weaver

March 2, 2013, 9:05 a.m.

I think they missed the point - and used a completely biased data set.  In no way did they consider if keeping a gun makes you safer.

My guess is that they should have ALSO looked at the events where law abiding persons used a gun to prevent a death or injury?  Naa… that would be silly - wouldn’t it?

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

John Smith

March 2, 2013, 10:07 a.m.

Albert. He was quoting Jim Teavers comment right above his, the numberered sentences are his responses, the text in between is Jim Travers comments, some toward you directly, which JHBL left for you to answer. JHBL was not talking to you, Jim Travers was.


On a side note - notice the lack of any intelligent dispute against the Kate’s and Mauser study from the anti-gun crowd? They can’t do it.

Ken Tibbetts

March 2, 2013, 11:07 a.m.

Let’s face it, what “ordinary” citizen needs an AK- 47…for anything?  I truly believe that good law-abiding individuals have a constitutional right to own a gun or two - for protection, hunting, sport.  Those in favor of ownership of combat weapons should be able to purchace them.  But…they must also be willing to spend at least 3 months on the front line in any current conflict with “our” enemy at the moment.  The weapon would be theirs to keep and do with as they please.

If one is not willing to comply, they do not qualify for an assault weapon…period.

John Smith

March 2, 2013, 11:40 a.m.

Ken, your ignorance is stinky! Please educate yourself before making foolish comments.

John Henry Bicycle Lucas

March 2, 2013, 12:49 p.m.

Ken, while I find your post agreeable, but what about that 70 year old that needs something to keep the thugs at bay?

I have an interesting thought, here there has been enough debate, let’s have an excersize in our democratic process.

Let’s write a law, and publish it here, for everyone to see.

John Lubeck

March 2, 2013, 1:14 p.m.

The GOP and NRA primary tenant is clearly avoidance of facts, factual basis, logic, and common sense.  The gun issue is only one of the symptoms of this tenant.  The NRA and the GOP not only deny facts but force their political will using gun / blood money on the American public to remove and prevent scientific research from ever happening in the first place.  This is not merely reprehensible, but criminally irresponsible.  The NRA is responsible directly for the vast number of shooting deaths in this country.  As far as I am concerned the NRA is the finger pulling the trigger shooting 1st graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Obviousman

March 2, 2013, 2:03 p.m.

John Lubeck:  You claim that the GOP and NRA deal in “avoidance of facts, factual basis, logic, and common sense,” then continue on to post a fact-free screed ending in two irrational, illogical, and emotional accusations.  But the more you actually study the issue and understand the history of this political advocacy masquerading as “government research,” the more you realize the facts and logic are on the NRA’s side.  Posts like yours, although they are the common coin of the day, add precisely nothing to this debate.

Albert

March 2, 2013, 3:11 p.m.

John Lubbock: Freedoms come with costs for sure. The world is not perfect. What allowed an unbridled mass murder in Newtown is the Law that doesn’t allow good law abiding citizens to carry in a school zone. The conditions we all are dealing with in this world do not allow an idealist approach to anything not just GUN laws. Idealist being totally naïve in this instance. Go live in England and have your guns taken away. Their argument was not even the police will have them. We will have no guns. They were naïve to believe a civil up rising may be necessary to get the attention of their leaders who work for them but fear them no longer. So what did their leaders do? They rearmed the police. This is you! Idealistly naïve at best! Some would say chump, sucker, pawn future slave etc.
There are more good people than bad in any given place except prisons; the law tied the hands of Good people in the favor of allowing criminals and sick people to kill without an immediate worry. No doubt anyone can decide to kill at any point in time but the law allowed a “free to kill zone” to exist in Newtown and every other school zone. So you can expect more of the same!
The blood is on the hands of law makers that put their political ideals over the good of the people. Shame on Them! What is truly dangerous about this government is people that don’t think things through are allowed to make and push laws through. The Constitution has lasted this long because it was throughout and was born of oppression. Yet, people like you think they know better! What affords you to be so naïve is the protection of that very Constitution?
I don’t think our forefathers foresaw the possibility of compliancy being born from the rights that protect its people. The Constitution is that affective. Some people do not have the capability to learn from others experiences. Some people need to learn by hard knocks. I believe you are a Hard Knocks learner.

Albert

March 2, 2013, 3:38 p.m.

A couple of thoughts…
1 No guns allowed in and around schools
2 No guns allowed in and around Federal building.

No guns around school obviously doesn’t work because of all the mass murders. Right?  Why, because criminals don’t follow the law they exploit it and there are no guns carried by anyone else in the school.

No guns allowed in federal buildings. Seemingly very effective. Why because people are checked and some employees are allowed to carry.

Simple isn’t it.  No guns allowed, helps criminals. Guns allowed by a few trained good people helps, the Law.

Now, what stops government from abusing its people. The fear of uprising by an armed public.Guns are a fact of a free society! Get used to it! Do away with them and be at a emanate risk of losing your freedoms.

John Lubeck

March 2, 2013, 3:59 p.m.

Albert - utter nonsense.

Obviousman

March 2, 2013, 4:34 p.m.

John Lubeck:  Please be so kind as to inform me of your address.  You have called me a murderer in a permanent public forum, which is libel, and I will be pursuing charges.  Then it will be apparent to all who is the real criminal.

Albert

March 2, 2013, 4:35 p.m.

John Lubeck: I suppose you do not care to elaborate? I wouldn’t if I were you either.
You have run out haven’t you?
What are your credentials that you can argue against The Harvard Study?
You’re dangerous to society. You may be able to fool a pool of more fools but anyone that can think for themselves will see straight through you.

Albert

March 2, 2013, 4:43 p.m.

John Lubeck:  Correction: I meant to say in my opinion, you’re ideas are a danger to society.

John Lubeck

March 2, 2013, 5:04 p.m.

It is proven pointless to argue with those who are either incapable of using facts or more likely just choose to ignore them.  In this case, your ignorance of facts, factual evidence, logic and common sense is a danger to everyone in America.  I can elaborate.  Once you choose to use scientific fact then there is a discussion,  Until then, your choice to remain ignorant precludes any logical discussion.  A clear point of this article is that you - the NRA and the GOP choose to prevent any scientific fact from being demonstrated.  You do this by making pointless and unsubstantiated claims that those left wing institutions like the CDC are motivated by politics.  These claims are absurd,  If you have some factual evidence then back them up.  Until then, as I said your ignorance has become and is criminally irresponsible. You - the NRA and the GOP are responsible for the deaths of countless people with your criminally irresponsible behavior.

Albert

March 2, 2013, 5:21 p.m.

John: 1st I Read the Harvard study, did you?
I agree with it. My arguments are founded on it.
Who are you that you can argue with Harvard?
Please elaborate to what It was that I did that was criminal? My opinions are protected by the Constitution!
I think you are the one that is irresponsible. In my opinion, you are grasping at straws and making yourself sound like a loose cannon. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Albert

March 2, 2013, 5:58 p.m.

John L.
A very well respected man once told me Locks only help keep honest people honest! Criminals don’t respect locks!

Well, Gun laws tie the hands of good people and help criminals work with less fear. Criminals don’t respect Gun laws. So you are effectively regulating Good people only! How foolish is that?

The days when I grew up bullies ran unchecked. People became bullies or sided with bullies to avoid being bullied. Today bullies have to fear the existence of a gun. What is so wrong about that?

15 to 20 percent of Good people should be able to carry, this includes on campus. Violent crime as a whole will go down. See the Harvard Study people!

At 15 percent of good people carrying crime as a whole goes down.
I did not make it up people. Read the study! this means you John L.

Obviousman

March 2, 2013, 7:23 p.m.

Lubeck, you are incorrigible.  We HAVE presented factual evidence that the CDC studies were motivated by politics—namely two quotes from the chief researcher (Rosenberg), made BEFORE his “research,” clearly stating that it was his goal to prove that guns were such a public health menace that banning them would be justified.  The resulting “research” concentrated entirely on the hazards of guns and spent ZERO effort researching their benefits, much less attempting to balance the two.

If you are too damn lazy to read the proof that has already been posted here, I’m done wasting my time on you.  You’re ignorant, intellectually lazy, a libeler, and a troll.

Albert

March 3, 2013, 12:26 a.m.

Obviousman: I have to agree with you this guy John Lubeck is a total waste of time. Let him spew his month he is makes himself and his cause look useless. He serves us better as an example of how feeble his cause is. Keep it coming Lubeck! We will be watching for something intellegent from you at some point.

John Henry Bicycle Lucas

March 3, 2013, 1:51 a.m.

Forget it guys, he won’t change his mind even if someone is murdered in front of him. John lives in that utopia perfect world that many dream of. Probably NYNY.

Michael Long

March 3, 2013, 11:22 a.m.

Regarding the Kates and Mauser Harvard “study”...

The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is a law review edited by a conservative/libertarian student group at Harvard Law School. Nor are the authors even associated with Harvard: Kates went to Yale, Mauser to UC. In short, it’s basically a non-peer-reviewed article published by Harvard students, and not a “Harvard Study” by any stretch of the imagination.

And it has known issues, to boot. Example: The authors quote the homicide rate of Luxembourg as 9.01/100K. Of course, as anyone even marginally knowledgeable about international crime statistics knows, this is completely out of the question, unless there were some kind of anomalous mass killing in that year. What happened was there was a decimal point error: the Luxembourg homicide rate is actually 0.9/100K.

Now, if this was some number hidden away in some table, perhaps it wouldn’t matter much. But it’s not. In fact, they refer directly to this supposedly sky-high homicide rate of Luxembourg in the article text, and they even highlight the number in Table 2.  This leaves us with the standard two possibilities: Incompetence or Dishonesty.

Either Kates and Mauser didn’t double-check their facts, or Kates and Mauser knew the number was bad, but chose to highlight it anyway because it suited their agenda.

Speaking of which, the article repeatedly references Kleck, while ignoring the many rebuttals and refutations associated with his studies, as well as Lott, a “researcher” whose protocols were so stringent that he claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash, kept no financial records, can’t reproduce the software used with his survey, and in fact can’t even remember the names of the students who helped him with his research.

But, if you’re interested, there is actually a research group of Harvard professors (not students) that studies gun violence.

Google: Harvard Injury Control Research Center

John Smith

March 3, 2013, 11:36 a.m.

Micheal, The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is peer reviewed. So Harvard students findings have no weight? What a silly argument. Insiginificant decimal error that doesn’t effect the overall conclusion.  Nice try but you fail like all the others.

Again folks, another example of a weak dispute of the study.

Michael Long

March 3, 2013, 12:48 p.m.

JS: It’s a student run magazine. The articles are not peer-reviewed. The articles published within are not “stuides”. Kates and Mauser are not Harvard students, in fact the paper states that fact on page one.

And when you make a “silly decimal error” one of your article’s featured points, it tends to cast doubt on the rigidity of the rest of your arguments and assumptions.

As well as your bias when your references all come from the same side of the debate.

Want another example? The authors claim that there’s no correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths (p663), even though studies have shown a direct linear relationship: More guns, more gun deaths. Google: Princeton Scientific American’s Gun Error

More? Their Russian data, and hence, may of their conclusions, come from unpublished “sources” supposedly within the Russian Ministry. Hard to “peer review” that kind of data.

More? Russia, another shining example, experienced peak homicide rates during 2001: 33,600. The numbers, however, have steadily and rather dramatically declined to date, down to 11,500 in 2011. Did the entire country rearm? Or was organized crime, Chechnya, or other issues to blame?

And on. Again, Google: Harvard Injury Control Research Center if you want to see actual studies. This one is a joke, and to base your arguments on it while ignoring countervailing studies proving otherwise simply illustrates your own bias on the matter.

You latched onto a “study” that matched your own preconceptions. You ran with it. ‘Nuff said.

carolyn

March 3, 2013, 1:01 p.m.

Michael Long: I’m glad you posted your rebuttal on the Kates/Mauser piece. I had thought of posting a similar piece (mine wasn’t as well written as yours), but decided it would be a wasted effort, given the “audience” currently making posts. You’ve put it on the record anyway.

Our NRA “freedom fighters” here have latched onto this “study” as the lynchpin of their argument (Albert: “My arguments are founded on it”) - ignoring the mountain of authentic compelling statistics which prove otherwise. This selective process is often referred to as “cherry picking”.

These people are here for the sole purpose of protecting their version of the 2nd amendment (the LaPierre version) which has been proven over and over to be constitutional overreach.

They have no concern for the carnage which results, very obvious by simply reading the insensitive, uncaring, and sometimes cruel responses following Jim Travers post on his son’s death.

The Slate site which documents gun deaths reported to their site now has the death toll since Newtown at least 2422. (Slate is very careful to verify every report, so any deaths not reported are not recorded.)

It seems via our polls that most Americans agree we need to push efforts to stem the violence, so perhaps soon the hardened, inflexible views of those “freedom fighters” posting here will be voted down by the more sensible majority. Continued arguments here are fruitless. We will not convince them to have concerns for our homicide by firearms rate, and they will never convince us not to.

Albert

March 3, 2013, 3 p.m.

Why am I not surprised? I guess good sense and Harvard studies will not work to change the opinion of fools, this will be settled in the courts as it was in the past.
I have a few friends that are police officers, they ALL are in favor of the second amendment and want the general public to be armed. They all have been in violent crime zones and would not dream of leaving good people defenseless while out in public in those areas. One is now the deputy superintendent of the gang squad in a major city. They understand if the public is not armed the police will have an impossible job.
It is unrealistic to believe all guns can be controlled so until then, Together we stand divided we fall. Don’t give the responsibility to a few. If we all stand up the job becomes much easier.
We will continue to carry and the rest will continue to reap the benefits of the “Harvard 15 percent rule” people that are willing to carry are doing a service to society. You can hide, complain and cry when someone victimizes you or your family, I will retain my dignity and be prepared to fight back. For now you can hide behind me. It is okay! Hopefully I will remove the possibility of a future attack on a fellow citizen. You better hope I like you enough to defend you. How does that make you feel?
It is the same story… some fight, some hide behind those who fight!
I prefer to be in control of my ability to survive an attack.
If you want to reduce the chance of break-in,  put an NRA sticker at both your front and back door along with a sticker that says “don’t worry about the attack Dog, the homeowner carries.”
Stop leaving schools “defenseless zones” that criminals can exploit and there will be less death in schools. Whoever pushed that idea should be a subject of a congressional investigation! By all means implement protected mental health reporting so mentally ill people don’t get access to a lawful carry permit. You should not be so naive to expect that will stop them from getting illegal access to guns if they really want them.
Train and Arm willing stand up teachers with concealed weapons and allow lawful carry in schools again. May be the state of Michigan will show you how to deal with this best. They are trying to reverse the ban on legal carry in a school zone. More states need to stand up and do the same.

Obviousman

March 3, 2013, 3:29 p.m.

“These people are here for the sole purpose of protecting their version of the 2nd amendment (the LaPierre version) which has been proven over and over to be constitutional overreach.”

Ha.  You wish.  Over the past 20 years, both experience and the courts have overwhelmingly affirmed the NRA’s interpretation of the constitution.  Look at all the gun-banner talking points that have been demolished:

Second Amendment is only a right of the states?  Wrong.
Second Amendment is not an individual right?  Wrong.
Second Amendment is not binding on state and local governments?  Wrong.
Second Amendment does not protect carry outside the home?  Wrong.  Allowing people to carry guns will result in shootouts over fender-benders, blood in the streets, and increased violent crime?  Wrong, 47 times—once for each state these arguments were used in as each moved to relax its gun laws.

You would think with such a perfect record of being 100% wrong 100% of the time, that gun-banners would have no residual credibility with the general public at all.  (And we are here to remind them of that.)

Newtown represents the last cry of the 60’s-era gun-banners, using their tried-and-true methods: wait for a large pool of blood to be spilled, then soak shirts in it while you panic the populace into doing something, ANYTHING, even the WRONG thing, to “solve” it.

The irony here is that the slaughter happened in a state that already HAD every one of the restrictive laws no being touted as a “solution” to this sort of violence—yet the crime STILL HAPPENED.  You would think people would be intelligent enough to realize that these laws therefore cannot possibly solve the problem, but panic is a marvelous tool of confusion.

Yet I am confident that guns have been “de-demonized” to the American public sufficiently over the past 20 years that the American public no longer accepts this idiocy at face value, and will quash this last desperate attempt to whittle down the Second Amendment.  I am heartened by the fact that while old, white gun-grabbing politicians continue to insist that America wants new gun laws, the number of new guns bought by American citizens in December and January outnumbered the headcount of federal state, and local law enforcement officers in the entire country.  This is how America lets you know what America really wants.

So, good luck to you.  Pro libertate.  WE WILL NOT COMPLY.

Michael Long

March 3, 2013, 3:51 p.m.

“Obviousman”: Since you’re so concerned about the decision of the courts, I suggest you go back and reread Heller.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited ... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

In fact, Alan Gura himself argued that a whole host of gun control laws would be consistent with the Second Amendment. D.C. could “require safe storage” of guns, “for example, in a safe.” D.C. could require a license to possess a firearm and condition that license on what he called “demonstrated competency” with the weapon. It could also require “background checks” or prohibit minors from possessing guns. Indeed, Gura counseled, D.C. should have “a great deal of leeway in regulating firearms.”

Winkler, Adam (2011-09-12). Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America (pp. 228-229).

State rights over the 2A were just upheld in Colorado laws, where restrict out-of-state residents from carrying loaded weapons in public unless they have concealed carry licenses from states which share reciprocity with Colorado.

Brady Center lawyers successfully argued against NRA and Second Amendment Foundation lawyers by receiving a unanimous verdict from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit: The Second Amendment doesn’t provide the right to carry concealed weapons which oppose Colorado’s carry laws.

You’re right about one thing, though. Newtown was the turning point.

Michael Long

March 3, 2013, 3:59 p.m.

Albert, as shown, the only one who believes the Harvard magazine article is a serious scientific study is you. Wishing it were so won’t make it otherwise.

And just for the record: I grew up with guns. I voted Democratic. I have a Glock. I spent time in the Army. I’m pro-choice.

And I’ve been posting comments not about weapons bans, but on closing gun show and private sale loopholes, increasing liabilities on owners whose weapons are subsequently used in criminal acts, and unshackling the ATF so they can crack down on traffickers and bad gun dealers.

I don’t want to steal anyone’s guns. I do, however, want to make it harder for criminals and the disturbed to obtain weapons, to make sure those who carry are properly trained, and to work on making sure stored weapons are safely secured.

Some people are trying to be rational about this. You?

Obviousman

March 3, 2013, 4:13 p.m.

Thanks, Michael, I have read Heller.  It slashed and burned your 50-year-old “second amendment is meaningless” worldview pretty much to the ground, while leaving you a small pocket of air in which to hang your hopes.

So the “right isn’t unlimited”?  Oooh, then I guess you won, right?  Keep trying to persuade yourself of that.

Also, your 10th Circuit win is meaningless—all it bans is concealment.  Out-of-staters will simply carry openly, and Denver’s law will fall just like similar laws in other municipalities that are currently being challenged.  So if you intend to party about your win, better book your hall soon.

This is the way gun-grabbers argue—if they can think of a circumstance in which carrying a gun will not save your life then “carrying a gun is worthless.”  Guess what?  A better CHANCE at survival has value.  A VAST EXPANSION of gun right is a win for the gun owners, not the little sandbox they left gun-haters to justify minuscule bans.

Ta ta, loser.  I’ve wasted enough time here with you.  I’m off to do some pro-rights activism.

John Smith

March 3, 2013, 4:44 p.m.

Obviousman, well put my friend!


“State rights over the 2A were just upheld in Colorado laws, where restrict out-of-state residents from carrying loaded weapons in public unless they have concealed carry licenses from states which share reciprocity with Colorado.”

Its hilarious that he touts this as some achievement. I reside in Colorado and couldn’t carry concealed without a CCW permit either. I can, and so can non-residents, open carry loaded handguns anywhere in Colorado but the city and county of Denver. Residents and Non residents alike can have their handgun loaded and concealed in their vehicle as they travel through our state without any permit. 

Plus, Colorado has reciprocity with 30 other states that allow CCW permit holders from those states to carry concealed here. So yeah, those from the other states will just have to carry openly.

Albert

March 3, 2013, 6:48 p.m.

Obviousman, you did a great job there!
They will never admit it. They need to suffer the consequences of their decisions to learn. Fortunately for them we and millions like us are here to save their butts. Irresponsibility can only exist while someone is holding it all together.  Many of them are are mindless, spineless, slackers.
Let’s go to a good Gun shop and associate with the salt of the earth people we know. I think I am going to move to new hamshire, maine or vermont and let the idiots here reap what they sow.

Michael Long

March 3, 2013, 7:20 p.m.

The Colorado decision upheld Heller regarding the ability of the states to regulate firearms and CCW permits. The NRA argued that Colorado’s tighter restrictions violated 2A and that visitors enjoyed a “broad right” to carry. The district court shot them down.

But if you say it’s a win, fine. Through that leaves me confused about why the NRA was on the losing side.

BTW, Albert, putting the NRA sticker on your door increases your chances of burglary, thieves looking for easily stolen guns and all. Oh, and try not to shoot anyone when you’re out salting the earth at your local gun show…

John Henry Bicycle Lucas

March 3, 2013, 11:14 p.m.

As Obvious man put it,

The irony here is that the slaughter happened in a state that already HAD every one of the restrictive laws no being touted as a “solution” to this sort of violence—yet the crime STILL HAPPENED.  You would think people would be intelligent enough to realize that these laws therefore cannot possibly solve the problem, but panic is a marvelous tool of confusion.

This is possibly the best paragraph I have read here concerning the entire subject matter.

Micheal, the 2nd Ammendment is to ensure the government did not have enough firepower to overcome the entire population. Hence the idea of standing armies on our soil are not needed. Now, in today’s world, we understand that we would not be able to hold off military force against us. The threat that it would be very costly for the military to operate against us is threat enough for now, as an armed populace is also a balance of power in government.

All of the events converging at one time is what has the population that is paying attention to what is going on, in a word, fearful.

Does anyone remember Waco, and what happened there? Imagine thousands of little Wacos, all within a short timeframe.

We have states enacting laws against any actions of the central government. This is mostly a form of protest, but serious protest. This is the most promising part of the whole situation. In some states, these laws have teeth, some states these laws do not.

A few years ago (late 1960s) the Federal Marshalls and other officers squared off in lines in Mississippi at the state college there to ensure black people were afforded an equal education. Federal officers and Mississippi State Policemen in two line opposing each other. These Federal officers were certainly fearful as these Ms. State Troopers would have certainly prevailed in this situation, and the Federal officers well knew it. In that situation, cooler head prevailed, and I certainly hope that cooler heads will prevail in our current crisis.

This nation is becoming fragmented, to say the least. I for one, do not see this as a good thing, but, fearful of the outcome.

We have too many laws as it is, and not enough common sense.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.
This article is part of an ongoing investigation:
Guns

Guns

We're probing the policy and politics of guns in America.

Get Updates

Stay on top of what we’re working on by subscribing to our email digest.

optional

Our Hottest Stories

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •