Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-13-2019, 7:00 PM
hermosabeach's Avatar
hermosabeach hermosabeach is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,948
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Exclamation Johns Hopkins Study Finds CA background checks did NOTHING

https://fee.org/articles/california-...ns-study-finds

SNIP-
A joint study conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of California at Davis Violence Prevention Research Program found that California’s much-touted mandated background checks had no impact on gun deaths, and researchers are puzzled as to why.

California Gun Laws Are a Failure
In 1991, California simultaneously imposed comprehensive background checks for firearm sales and prohibited gun sales (and gun possession) to people convicted of misdemeanor violent crimes. The legislation mandated that all gun sales, including private transactions, would have to go through a California-licensed Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...it-didnt-work/
__________________




“Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you.”
— Neil deGrasse Tyson
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-13-2019, 7:04 PM
big red's Avatar
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 983
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

And this comes as a big surprise to who? Certainly not to gun owners or the citizens that have had to live under these stupid laws with more to come in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-13-2019, 7:12 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,633
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

First, someone needs to explain how UBC (or most any gun control measure) is expected to reduce violence. If such an explanation makes sense (which it never will) and is convincing enough to forgo our natural rights and the protections of a specifically enumerated right then I might be surprised by such a studies findings but as of now it's just a big fat, well, duh.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-13-2019, 7:17 PM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,386
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

OH it did accomplish something huge they never claim...
confiscation lists.
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-13-2019, 7:19 PM
rudigan's Avatar
rudigan rudigan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Fresno County
Posts: 1,594
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

My favorite part is the 10 day waiting period. I mean look, I've got a number of guns, many purchased over the last year or so. So if I go and buy say my 12th gun tomorrow, I gotta wait 10 days again, because God only knows what I'd do with that 12th gun if I got it sooner. Without the 10 day wait, I might do something rash with that 12th gun. It's much safer after 10 days, and I would not think to ever use the 11 I already have...Brilliant.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-13-2019, 7:21 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I would wager Mike Bloomberg is disappointed in his investment.
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-13-2019, 7:31 PM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,386
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudigan View Post
My favorite part is the 10 day waiting period. I mean look, I've got a number of guns, many purchased over the last year or so. So if I go and buy say my 12th gun tomorrow, I gotta wait 10 days again, because God only knows what I'd do with that 12th gun if I got it sooner. Without the 10 day wait, I might do something rash with that 12th gun. It's much safer after 10 days, and I would not think to ever use the 11 I already have...Brilliant.


Yeah it's idiocy, harassing infringing idiocy.
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-13-2019, 7:32 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 13,496
iTrader: 159 / 100%
Default

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1492652
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-13-2019, 7:37 PM
SoldierLife7's Avatar
SoldierLife7 SoldierLife7 is offline
The Super
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Sunny San Diego
Posts: 2,230
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

I didn't open the link...

I'm curious if it mentioned the amount of money that CA has made off of DROS fees. In the eyes of Democraps, this is a successful revenue stream, and they couldn't care less about gun deaths...
__________________
___________

They support free speech - on their terms. They oppose hate - providing they alone are allowed to define hate. They speak for 'the oppressed' - without their consent. Their problem, I suspect, is that they have never seen real suffering or inequality or oppression...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-13-2019, 7:46 PM
wpod's Avatar
wpod wpod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,983
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Gun laws never were about reducing violent crime or saving lives.
The "unintended?" consequences are more crime.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-13-2019, 8:04 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,662
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Did I see correctly that the article in the op is from Dec of 2018?
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-13-2019, 8:05 PM
MEGSDAD's Avatar
MEGSDAD MEGSDAD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 179
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ummm.... I can explain it. CRIMINALS DONT OBEY LAWS.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-13-2019, 8:17 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,988
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

The fact they “did nothing” is exactly the point. Apparently much more comprehensive gun control is needed.

Which of course is odd because if they did work, more gun control would be needed.

Funny how the solution is always more gun control.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-13-2019, 8:20 PM
Tarmy's Avatar
Tarmy Tarmy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 824
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is this a “common sense” research paper...because we need more of those...
__________________
Wilson Protector .45, Springer 9mm Loaded, Franchi Instinct SL .12ga. and some other cool stuff for the kiddos...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:00 PM
ja308's Avatar
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am completely and totally shocked ! Not by the conclusion, because only an idiot would think laws, written by communists to discourage law abiding people from being gun owners , would have an effect on criminal behavior.

My shock comes the fact something truthful came from John Hopkins who IIRC were lying swamp dwellers in the 1st degree.

While I havn't opened the link to determine where they are going with this. my preliminary thought is John Hopkins and Davis have a degree of honesty, I never could have believed.
__________________
"Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guy’s money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him..."
Rick Kelo
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
Who is John Galt!
Recent NRA LIFE ENDOWMENT MEMBER--on the way to PATRON. See you friends, in Nashville next April 2020.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:34 PM
DentonandSasquatchShow's Avatar
DentonandSasquatchShow DentonandSasquatchShow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Just down the street from Mickey
Posts: 111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

20,000+ gun laws in the US. What we need are a few more and that should fix all the bad guys.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:38 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,244
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudigan View Post
My favorite part is the 10 day waiting period. I mean look, I've got a number of guns, many purchased over the last year or so. So if I go and buy say my 12th gun tomorrow, I gotta wait 10 days again, because God only knows what I'd do with that 12th gun if I got it sooner. Without the 10 day wait, I might do something rash with that 12th gun. It's much safer after 10 days, and I would not think to ever use the 11 I already have...Brilliant.
Hang on! Its not like you can use them more than once you know - at least according to one of the nitwits in Sacramento
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-14-2019, 9:20 AM
Eureka1911's Avatar
Eureka1911 Eureka1911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 312
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How about actually reviewing the actual study?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...161?via%3Dihub

The study ONLY looked at the comprehensive background check policy and the effects of including persons convicted of certain violent crimes classified as misdemeanors. It does NOT conclude that background checks did nothing. It concluded that including certain violent misdemeanors in the background checks did nothing.

I always prefer to go to the actual source material rather than rely on a secondary source to provide me with their analysis of the original research.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:17 AM
checkplease checkplease is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 222
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eureka1911 View Post
How about actually reviewing the actual study?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...161?via%3Dihub

The study ONLY looked at the comprehensive background check policy and the effects of including persons convicted of certain violent crimes classified as misdemeanors. It does NOT conclude that background checks did nothing. It concluded that including certain violent misdemeanors in the background checks did nothing.

I always prefer to go to the actual source material rather than rely on a secondary source to provide me with their analysis of the original research.
Is the CBC (comprehensive background check) not the same as the state/federal background check run now?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:29 AM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 8,607
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eureka1911 View Post
How about actually reviewing the actual study?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...161?via%3Dihub

The study ONLY looked at the comprehensive background check policy and the effects of including persons convicted of certain violent crimes classified as misdemeanors. It does NOT conclude that background checks did nothing. It concluded that including certain violent misdemeanors in the background checks did nothing.

I always prefer to go to the actual source material rather than rely on a secondary source to provide me with their analysis of the original research.
They are subsets. If one increased and the other decreased it would be noted in the study. It wasn't.
__________________
“Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.” - Sir Winston Churchill

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” - Senator Barry Goldwater
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-14-2019, 12:45 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,633
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

This is another example of why there will never be federally funded research on the issue - results always run counter to the tyrants goals.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-14-2019, 1:54 PM
Rcjackrabbit Rcjackrabbit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 480
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Here is the deal with all gun laws in places like Kalifornia ...

THEY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF GUNS AND AMMO IN THE HANDS OF THE AVERAGE CITIZEN

Most people have twice as many guns that they would normally own without these oppressive laws. Same for ammo. They cause us to "buy it cheap and stack it deep".

I think the left must be closet gun lovers based on the effects of their actions.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-14-2019, 2:49 PM
Thoughts Thoughts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 265
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CessnaDriver View Post
OH it did accomplish something huge they never claim...
confiscation lists.
Yep. That's the intended purpose of UBC, I'd guess.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-14-2019, 3:48 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,122
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Gun control is akin to fortifying a store against after hour thieves when the real source of theft comes from customers and employees. Two things are certain.

You can add all the alarms, locks, fences and guard dogs in the world and it won't solve the problem. And because it is fundamentally misdirected, you'll always have folks saying "do this one more thing …..". It's always just "one more thing".
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:00 PM
SmallShark's Avatar
SmallShark SmallShark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento 95834
Posts: 1,677
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

most criminals are actually smart enough not to walk into gun stores to buy guns which will be used to commit crimes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:02 AM
DB> DB> is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 155
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Every time I hear the typical "sheep" line of "we need common sense gun laws", I always ask what they mean, and almost everything is ALREADY law (no full auto, kids can't buy guns, felons and lunatics aren't supposed to be able to, etc).

If the conversation is still going, I say I'm all for new gun laws, but they must pass two tests:

1. Any new law must not place any expense, undue burden or restriction on an existing gun owner, or want to be gun owner.

2. Any new law must be empirically provable to have the desired effect of stopping "gun violence", not just a speculative or non-provable effect on a criminal who is intent on doing violence.

This is pretty much the end of the road, as they realize the AGREEMENT that there is a problem (violent PEOPLE), but that there simply is no law that can be put forward to stop a criminal intent on mayhem, with a gun or otherwise.

We don't have a gun problem we have a stupid and or crazy people problem
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:19 AM
Nvberinger Nvberinger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 139
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudigan View Post
My favorite part is the 10 day waiting period. I mean look, I've got a number of guns, many purchased over the last year or so. So if I go and buy say my 12th gun tomorrow, I gotta wait 10 days again, because God only knows what I'd do with that 12th gun if I got it sooner. Without the 10 day wait, I might do something rash with that 12th gun. It's much safer after 10 days, and I would not think to ever use the 11 I already have...Brilliant.
So you have compromise which allows background check in return for no wait for current gun owners like yourself and CCW licensed. 10 days only for your first purchase. Make the other side give up more.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-15-2019, 9:44 AM
Eureka1911's Avatar
Eureka1911 Eureka1911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 312
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by k1dude View Post
They are subsets. If one increased and the other decreased it would be noted in the study. It wasn't.
No, they would not have since they ONLY focused on the effect of violent misdemeanors not anything else. There is no mention of wider effects of background checks to reveal felons, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:14 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 608
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eureka1911 View Post
No, they would not have since they ONLY focused on the effect of violent misdemeanors not anything else. There is no mention of wider effects of background checks to reveal felons, etc.
MVP = "misdemeanor violence prohibition" (i.e. can't buy a gun with misdemeanor battery)
CBC = "comprehensive background check" (i.e. universal background checks)

from here,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...161?via%3Dihub
Quote:
We evaluated the population effect of the simultaneous implementation of CBC and MVP policies in California on firearm homicide and suicide.
MVP is a minor tweak to CBC , and your suggesting they tested only MVP and CBC was entirely unscathed? That seems like a stretch, cause they went into effect simultaneously. The research most likely only included MVP because it was in effect at the same time as the background checks.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-15-2019, 11:37 AM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 8,607
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eureka1911 View Post
No, they would not have since they ONLY focused on the effect of violent misdemeanors not anything else. There is no mention of wider effects of background checks to reveal felons, etc.
You're wrong.

From UC Davis: "A study of firearm homicide and suicide rates in the 10 years after California simultaneously mandated comprehensive background checks for nearly all firearm sales and a prohibition on gun purchase and possession for persons convicted of most violent misdemeanor crimes found no change in the rates of either cause of death from firearms through 2000."
__________________
“Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.” - Sir Winston Churchill

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” - Senator Barry Goldwater

Last edited by k1dude; 08-15-2019 at 11:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:24 PM
A-J's Avatar
A-J A-J is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,222
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

OK, so I'm reading about how experienced researchers are shocked to find that background checks did nothing. And then one of them says:

Quote:
“We know at the individual level that comprehensive background check policies work, that they prevent future firearm violence at this level," said Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz, a researcher who led the survey.
How ignorant can you truly be? YOUR OWN RESEARCH proves you wrong, just accept it and move on.
__________________
It was not a threat. It was an exaggerated response to an uncompromising stance. I was taught never to make a threat unless you are prepared to carry it out and I am not a fan of carrying anything. Even watching other people carrying things makes me uncomfortable. Mainly because of the possibility they may ask me to help.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-16-2019, 8:26 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 13,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Someday someone will need to explain to Excremento that criminals don't follow the laws they pass.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-16-2019, 8:46 AM
glock7's Avatar
glock7 glock7 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: V.C.
Posts: 3,383
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Pretty sure criminals don’t go through background checks. It’s a criminal and mental health issue. But, then again, they already know that.
__________________
#blackriflesmatter
<4 years till retirement, can't wait to leave this state
California, where all of the good stuff is banned, registered, regulated or prohibited, yay.....

Law abiding firearm owners have no chance in this state.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-16-2019, 9:26 AM
aklon's Avatar
aklon aklon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Leandro, Alameda County
Posts: 2,371
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierLife7 View Post
I'm curious if it mentioned the amount of money that CA has made off of DROS fees. In the eyes of Democraps, this is a successful revenue stream, and they couldn't care less about gun deaths...
THIS^ The revenue stream alone - no matter how large or small - means the whole thing is worthwhile as far as the state is concerned.
__________________
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see."
- Arthur Schopenhaur
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-16-2019, 11:11 AM
joepamjohn's Avatar
joepamjohn joepamjohn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nor Cal East Bay
Posts: 2,082
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierLife7 View Post
I didn't open the link...

I'm curious if it mentioned the amount of money that CA has made off of DROS fees. In the eyes of Democraps, this is a successful revenue stream, and they couldn't care less about gun deaths...
Actually they do care, gun deaths are a needed ingredient in the anti-gun narrative they are promoting.
__________________
"You can't handle the truth"
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-16-2019, 11:11 AM
sirgrumps's Avatar
sirgrumps sirgrumps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,560
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallShark View Post
most criminals are actually smart enough not to walk into gun stores to buy guns which will be used to commit crimes.

I dunno about that.
That’s why their criminals, they got caught, not too bright..
__________________
“Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized.” ......
“The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats.”
—————————————————-
The Honorable Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-16-2019, 11:50 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,633
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

40% of murders are unsolved. Not saying it's because of smart killers, per se.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-16-2019, 12:15 PM
Eureka1911's Avatar
Eureka1911 Eureka1911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 312
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by k1dude View Post
You're wrong.

From UC Davis: "A study of firearm homicide and suicide rates in the 10 years after California simultaneously mandated comprehensive background checks for nearly all firearm sales and a prohibition on gun purchase and possession for persons convicted of most violent misdemeanor crimes found no change in the rates of either cause of death from firearms through 2000."
I am speaking about the results of this particular study (Johns Hopkins) which only looked at the effects of including violent misdemeanors into the background check and prohibited pool.

The UC Davis study seems to support that. But that does not mean that ALL background checks are worthless, which many are trying to say here.

Last edited by Eureka1911; 08-16-2019 at 12:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-16-2019, 1:04 PM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 8,607
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eureka1911 View Post
I am speaking about the results of this particular study (Johns Hopkins) which only looked at the effects of including violent misdemeanors into the background check and prohibited pool.

The UC Davis study seems to support that. But that does not mean that ALL background checks are worthless, which many are trying to say here.
It's the same study. It was a joint study run by both John's Hopkins and UC Davis. I have no idea why you're so resistant to the proof that background checks do nothing. Common sense would tell you that, since criminals don't care what the laws are by definition. Evil will always find a way.
__________________
“Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.” - Sir Winston Churchill

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” - Senator Barry Goldwater

Last edited by k1dude; 08-16-2019 at 1:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-16-2019, 3:01 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,122
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A-J View Post
OK, so I'm reading about how experienced researchers are shocked to find that background checks did nothing. And then one of them says:

“We know at the individual level that comprehensive background check policies work, that they prevent future firearm violence at this level," said Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz, a researcher who led the survey.

How ignorant can you truly be? YOUR OWN RESEARCH proves you wrong, just accept it and move on.
For her to know that "at the individual level" a few things must be true -

The person attempted to legally purchase a gun, was denied, then illegally purchased a gun and committed a crime with it. I suppose that can be demonstrated. But if so, where's the benefit? Should we prohibit all private sales just to slow down a bad gun?

She presumes that any prohibited person who would have been denied purchasing with a background check, but purchased privately, would have subsequently committed a crime with that gun. I'm curious as to how that can be known. Further, my bet is many prohibited persons purchase and own firearms but never use them to commit a crime.

A prohibited person ought not perhaps possess a firearm, but that they do it doesn't necessarily follow that they'll use it to break the law.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:40 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.