"The Strongest Evidence We Have that Background Checks Really Matter"
"The Strongest Evidence We Have that Background Checks Really Matter"A new study makes the case for gun control
BY NORA CAPLAN-BRICKER at the New Republic
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116657/johns-hopkins-gun-control-study-background-checks-really-work
"SNIP......................................
During last years battle over gun control, the pro-gun side did more than passionately invoke the Second Amendment: They claimed that gun control doesnt work. Sometimes even the reformers, surveying the limited impact of legislation from the 1990s, feared the same. But a new study on universal background checks makes the strongest case yet that the policy saves lives. This is probably the strongest evidence we have that background checks really matter, said Philip Cook, a gun expert at Dukes Sanford School of Public Policy.
The study, from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, found the murder rate in Missouri jumped 16 percentan additional 55 to 63 murders a yearafter the repeal in 2007 of a state law that required anyone purchasing a handgun to obtain a permit showing they had passed a background check. (Though federal law mandates background checks by licensed dealers, private dealers dont have to perform them in all but 14 states.) "This study provides compelling confirmation that weaknesses in firearm laws lead to deaths from gun violence," said Daniel Webster, the studys lead author, in a statement.
Since this is only a single study, "it's just suggestive," warned David Hemenway of Harvard's School of Public Health. It is "another piece of evidence that is consistent with the bulk of the literature, which shows where there are fewer guns, there are fewer problems... But you want eight more studies that say background checks really matter."
And the study isnt perfect: Missouri also enacted a stand your ground law in 2007, creating some challenges in disentangling the effects. But Cook said he is confident that background checks played a major role because the authors tracked an increase in guns that went directly from dealers to criminalsexactly the scenario background checks are designed to prevent. The study also notes an uptick in guns purchased in Missouri that were subsequently recovered by police in border states that retained their [permit-to-purchase] laws.
....................................SNIP"
billh58
(6,641 posts)these gun "incidents and murders" must be broken down into groups of "justified" and "gang-related." To the right-wing NRA apologists (and bigots), neither of these categories can be addressed by sane gun regulation as the first is just a part of securing the Freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment and God, while the latter is just the natural scheme of things and saves taxpayer money.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Vast majority don't care what makes sense as long as they have unfettered access to mo gunz.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Portion. It is not that most citizens are against gun or gun ownership but with sensible ownership and safely operating the weapons. The SYG laws is too broad, give some people a weapon and they become a giant, forget about safety and others gets hurt. NRA should be about sensible and safely operating firearms but their spokesmen does not lead citizens in the right directions, itis all about selling more guns.
billh58
(6,641 posts)is the goal of the NRA, ALEC, and the Koch Brothers in order to scare the Second Amendment absolutists into buying more guns, and voting against their own best interests.
Their acolytes use the argument, "but the crime rate is falling" as an excuse to justify the fact that guns are involved in a large percentage of homicides. They neglect to cite the reasons for the falling crime rate, which are mainly increased police communications and methods, the fall of the cocaine industry, faster emergency medical response, and an aging population. Guns remain as a critical health issue, right up there with automobile deaths (which are declining due to increased safety regulations, and stiffer penalties). Gun deaths are forecast to out pace automobile deaths in just a few short years.
So, don't count on the gun extremists to join in the effort to reduce the obscene level of gun violence in this nation (highest by far of all civilized countries). It would not be in their best financial interests.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Yes, the NRA has scared many into buying multiple weapons, and scared enough to start shooting and asking questions later. Having lived in a home growing up with who loved hunting, safety was the first issue with my parents. My dad did not think he needed a elephant gun to hunt small game. He also did need to take a gun to church or going about his daily activity. These are the values of the NRA at one time, they have lost their way, it is shameful.
billh58
(6,641 posts)purchased (under the table) the NRA, and ALEC came along, the gun laws in this country were fairly reasonable and for the most part worked, and most honest American gun owners obeyed them.
About the time Charles Heston started spreading the lie that the "government is coming for your guns," and Newt Gingrich started selling the "contract with America" the NRA saw a lucrative marketing avenue by using the unfounded fear of gun confiscation to influence politicians for ALL right-wing ambitions. The NRA "rating system" became a scorecard for politicians (both Republicans and DLC DINOs) from Red State districts to win votes from their constituents, and sell them back to the right-wing cause du jour for a handsome profit.
Like all other right-wing political machines, the NRA contributes much to the corruption of politicians in this country, and it will take a great effort on the part of sensible and honest Americans to reverse that trend.