Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DeepModem Mom

(38,402 posts)
Wed Jul 29, 2015, 08:28 PM Jul 2015

Washington Post: A sensible, state-based answer to gun violence?

...Debate about this issue, which encouragingly is getting some attention on the presidential campaign trail, ought to be driven by evidence of what has proved to be effective.

In particular, attention should be paid to studies showing the efficacy of state permits for gun purchases. Research by the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health shows that state permitting systems reduce gun availability to dangerous people and prevent homicides, suicides and shootings of law enforcement officers.

One study released in June examined effects of a law implemented in Connecticut in 1995 requiring a license, contingent on passing a background check, to purchase a handgun. Using sophisticated statistical modeling, researchers compared Connecticut’s homicide rates during the 10 years after the law’s implementation with the rates that would have been expected had the law not taken effect. The conclusion: a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm-related homicide rate....

Ten states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring permits for gun purchases and, according to center director and report author Daniel W. Webster, the strongest require the applicant to apply in person to local enforcement, which has access to more information and has discretion in granting the gun purchase permits. “Local police chiefs typically know more about the people in their community than does a national computer,” said David Hemenway, who headed a team from the Harvard School of Public Health that surveyed Massachusetts police chiefs. It found applicants who would have passed the federal background check and were denied permits due to worrisome behavior, including arrests for violent offenses or making threats....

To encourage states, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Connecticut’s lawmakers in sponsoring legislation that would provide funding to states to expand background checks. “States,” said Mr. Van Hollen, “require licenses to drive a car or even to fish in local rivers, so requiring a license to buy a deadly handgun is a commonsense step that could save countless lives.” That common sense has been borne out by solid research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-sensible-state-based-answer-to-gun-violence/2015/07/28/f779dc0c-113a-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Washington Post: A sensible, state-based answer to gun violence? (Original Post) DeepModem Mom Jul 2015 OP
Yeah, meaningful reductions in gun violence can be had and quite easily. flamin lib Jul 2015 #1
Thanks so much for your post! I'm new to this area... DeepModem Mom Jul 2015 #2
Having had a CT license, I like their much-lauded system, but many here may have some issues. sir pball Jul 2015 #3
I think cc should be separate and apart from PTP. flamin lib Jul 2015 #4

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
1. Yeah, meaningful reductions in gun violence can be had and quite easily.
Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:49 AM
Jul 2015

The first step is get rid of all the nonsense NRA backed changes to regulation in the states. Stand your ground and "shall issue" being the first two.

Shall issue laws require applicants to get a concealed carry license if they pass the NICS background check, no other questions asked. If the local law enforcement knows the applicant is a troubled individual or a trouble maker there is no option but to let him walk the streets with a loaded gun.

Given this study linking alcohol to gun violence ( http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/chattanooga-shooter-mental-illness-alcohol-drugs-data-gun-violence/ ) if the police knew that the applicant has a history of public intoxication, itself not a NICS violation, that would be grounds for denial.

We have to get common sense human intervention back into the gun purchase/carry scenario.

DeepModem Mom

(38,402 posts)
2. Thanks so much for your post! I'm new to this area...
Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:21 PM
Jul 2015

and I see that you've been actively contributing your knowledge. Literally, a life-and-death issue and so difficult to address!

sir pball

(4,941 posts)
3. Having had a CT license, I like their much-lauded system, but many here may have some issues.
Fri Jul 31, 2015, 09:34 AM
Jul 2015

First, while it is legally may-issue, in practice once you've completed the mandatory NRA pistol course and passed the tests, and aren't a blatantly raving lunatic, you're good to go - there's no hard and fast definition of a "suitable person" and more to the point, there's no statutory requirement for you to have any particular reason to carry a handgun, just that you feel like it.

Which brings me to the second, bigger issue a lot of people might take with CT's permit - it's not just a permit to purchase but also a fairly broad concealed-carry permit (IIRC schools, courthouses, and no-gun-posted property are off-limits). I have neither the time nor the inclination right now to open the can of worms of discussing this myself, as I have to leave for work in 15, but I thought it's worth making it known.

I have zero problem with CT's PTP/FOID system, TBH I'd like to see something very close to it nationwide, for both long and handguns, but to those who favor stricter controls than I do there may be a couple of dealbreakers with using it entirely as a model.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
4. I think cc should be separate and apart from PTP.
Fri Jul 31, 2015, 04:23 PM
Jul 2015

To walk around in public with a loaded lethal weapon should require a much higher standard than to own and to keep secured in a home.

It should require, at the very least, serious training on use and law covering the use of a gun.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Washington Post: A sensib...