I was not talking about LEGAL. Your insurance company (injured) will go after the insurance of the car owner of the car that was stolen.
The stricter the gun laws, the safer the children
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
I was not talking about LEGAL. Your insurance company (injured) will go after the insurance of the car owner of the car that was stolen.
I don't choose to ignore anything. I choose to dismiss any real impact of legislating a fix to what is illegal firearm usage in gang crime, because there isn't any.
I read it. The study is too general and has many flaws. It is consistent with a narrative established by the left to push firearm legislation upon people who obey laws without regards to those who choose to ignore those laws.
Two quick points and I think we can call this thread a wrap.
One, the study is meaningless without an explanation of how they adjusted the data, ie "adjusted incident rate." Off the top of my head, I can't see why you would need to adjust anything, so it sounds like a giant fudge factor which allows them to come up with any answer they want.
Two, even if the statistics are evaluated honestly, which seems highly unlikely, they are useless without some causal link. Otherwise, it is just data mining or, in trader's lingo, curve fitting. It is not immediately apparent why, for example, "universal" background checks would have any discernible impact on "youth" gun deaths. "Universal" background checks refer to a favorite liberal bogeyman, the so-called gun show loophole. Under current law, anyone buying a gun is required to undergo a background check but bona fide private transactions are exempted. Such sales occasionally take place at gun shows, so libs have tried to create a false impression that all gun show sales fly by without background checks. That is demonstrably untrue.
A legitimate study would have linked guns legally acquired without background checks to actual youth homicides. Then there would be at least some cause and effect nexus we could analyze. For example, we know that the disastrous and criminal Obama/Holder Fast and Furious gunrunning op led to the death of a Border Patrol agent. So we can point to that and say there is a clear causal nexus. We can look at the anticipated reward for the operation, eg, a coordinated media campaign to boost anti gun laws, and say that it clearly was not worth the cost.
One, the study is meaningless without an explanation of how they adjusted the data, ie "adjusted incident rate." Off the top of my head, I can't see why you would need to adjust anything, so it sounds like a giant fudge factor which allows them to come up with any answer they want.
Two, even if the statistics are evaluated honestly, which seems highly unlikely, they are useless without some causal link. Otherwise, it is just data mining or, in trader's lingo, curve fitting. It is not immediately apparent why, for example, "universal" background checks would have any discernible impact on "youth" gun deaths. "Universal" background checks refer to a favorite liberal bogeyman, the so-called gun show loophole. Under current law, anyone buying a gun is required to undergo a background check but bona fide private transactions are exempted. Such sales occasionally take place at gun shows, so libs have tried to create a false impression that all gun show sales fly by without background checks. That is demonstrably untrue.
A legitimate study would have linked guns legally acquired without background checks to actual youth homicides. Then there would be at least some cause and effect nexus we could analyze. For example, we know that the disastrous and criminal Obama/Holder Fast and Furious gunrunning op led to the death of a Border Patrol agent. So we can point to that and say there is a clear causal nexus. We can look at the anticipated reward for the operation, eg, a coordinated media campaign to boost anti gun laws, and say that it clearly was not worth the cost.
In 2011 person A weighs 130 pounds and person B weighs 200 pounds. In 2015 person A still weighs 130 pounds and person B still weighs 200 pounds. A study would find that over a 5 year period that person A had a weight that was 35% lower than person B. But obviously there wasn't any reduction in weight.
This study proves that the gun death rate was lower during that time period in those specific states, but we don't know what the rates were in those states prior to enacting these laws. So we don't know for sure if they actually caused a reduction. I would assume they reduced the rate some, but it might not be as much as you would think.
if you all as claimed, follow the law and obtain your firearms legally, then, why do you care if the laws change in a matter that makes it safer for others while you still can get your firearms legally?
This is willfully ignorant.
This was accounted for in the ‘exposure variables’ when they weighted States with laws of greater than five years.
This motherfucker who is a white supremacist bought a gun (an AK-47 style gun which is illegal in CA) legally in Nevada and brought it to CA illegally and shot the innocent folks. this is why gun controls need to be addressed at the federal level and applied to all states. this is why cities or states with strict gun control keep failing. states with loose gun control laws are the culprits.
let's hear the spin on this one.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-29/gilroy-garlic-festival-shooting-suspect
let's hear the spin on this one.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-29/gilroy-garlic-festival-shooting-suspect