Archive for the ‘#guncontroldoesn’twork’ Tag

Recognizing Cognitive Dissonance   Leave a comment

Recognizing cognitive dissonance is the key to real problem-solving.

Far too often, we leap to conclusions that are not supported by reasoning.

One such conclusion is that gun control is the answer to mass shootings, murders, etc. But the logic defies that mind set. We already have background checks to purchase new guns and several studies have shown that mass shooters rarely get their weapons from private sales. And yet, the Democrats are already planning a bill that will attempt to outlaw all private sales. So, if I want to give my guns to my son, I will have to actually sell them to a federal firearms dealer and then my son will have to purchase them for whatever price the FFL feels is acceptable and, in the meantime, my collectible firearms will become subject to confiscation if the FFL decides he can get a better price on the open market.

And, yet, we know that gunmen get their guns legally, using the background check system while other gunmen get their guns illegally, avoiding the background check, and in all cases, gun control FAILED to keep the gunman from getting the guns.

Meanwhile, Office of Government Accountability created a study to try and catch illegal private sales on the Internet and dark web. Pretending to be felons and other disallowed individuals, government agents tried to buy guns privately, but gun forums and those running classified ads were unwilling to sell to agents who self-identified as being prohibited from possessing a firearm. Out of 72 attempts, 56 sellers refused to complete the transactions, 26 sellers stated they would not ship a firearm and 27 refused after the disclosure of prohibited status. Five websites froze the accounts the undercover agents had set up, preventing further use of the forums and attempts at purchase.

In other words, self-monitoring appears to be much more effective than gun control.

Posted December 28, 2018 by aurorawatcherak in Gun control

Tagged with ,

What If “Experts” are Wrong?   Leave a comment

https://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/

A new academic study has found that, once again, gun laws are not having their desired effect.

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.

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. Shotguns and rifles, like handguns, became subject to a 15-day waiting period to make certain all gun purchasers had undergone a thorough background check.

More than a quarter of a century later, researchers at Johns Hopkins and UC Davis dug into the results of the sweeping legislation.

It was the most expansive state gun control legislation in America, affecting an estimated one million gun buyers in the first year alone. Though costly and cumbersome, politicians and law enforcement agreed the law was worth it.

The legislation would “keep more guns out of the hands of the people who shouldn’t have them,” saidthen-Republican Gov. George Deukmejian.

“I think the new laws are going to help counter the violence,” said LAPD spokesman William D. Booth.

More than a quarter of a century later, researchers at Johns Hopkins and UC Davis dug into the results of the sweeping legislation. Researchers compared yearly gun suicide and homicide rates over the 10 years following implementation of California’s law with 32 control states that did not have such laws.

They found “no change in the rates of either cause of death from firearms through 2000.”

The findings, which run counter to experiences in Missouri and Connecticut that did show a link between background checks and gun deaths, appear to have startled the researchers.

Garen Wintemute, a UC Davis professor of emergency medicine and senior author of the study, said incomplete data and flawed criminal record reporting might explain the results.

Wintemute noted:

In 1990, only 25 percent of criminal records were accessible in the primary federal database used for background checks, and centralized records of mental health prohibitions were almost nonexistent.

As a result, researchers said as many as one in four gun buyers may have purchased a firearm without undergoing a background check.

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

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the findings—which run counter to the conventional wisdom that gun control saves lives—have received almost no media attention.

An exception was the Washington Post, which cited the study (buried 20 paragraphs down) in an article in which the American Medical Association calls for stronger gun control laws at the state level.

AMA President Barbara McAneny told the Post in an interview:

We see this as an epidemic and public health crisis and we think intervening as early as possible is smarter than just building more intensive care units for people who are either killed or damaged and badly hurt by the violence.

Bizarrely, the Post cited the Johns Hopkins-UC Davis study as evidence that what “the AMA is calling for may be needed.”

Apparently, to the Washington Post, California’s failure to effectively enforce background checks that had no discernible impact on gun deaths is evidence that more gun control laws are needed.

Essentially, the study’s authors, the AMA, and the Post appear incapable of seriously entertaining the possibility that sweeping gun control legislation might not have produced the results desired and expected: fewer deaths.

Alas, the experts are behaving exactly as expected.

More than a decade ago, the writer Louis Menand, in a New Yorker article, explained the rationalizations experts make when their theories fail to hold up in our real-world laboratory:

When they’re wrong, [experts are] rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. They insist that they were just off on timing, or blindsided by an improbable event, or almost right, or wrong for the right reasons. They have the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has, and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work, just because they made a mistake.

California’s failed gun control law appears to be yet another example of experts, to paraphrase the great Milton Friedman, judging “policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

Despite the dismal record of gun control, expect the media and “experts” to use a repertoire of self-justifications rather than modify their beliefs—regardless of what the evidence shows.

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. Serving previously as Director of Digital Media at Intellectual Takeout, Jon was responsible for daily editorial content, web strategy, and social media operations. Before that, he was the Senior Editor of The History Channel Magazine, Managing Editor at Scout.com, and general assignment reporter for the Panama City News Herald. Jon also served as an intern in the speechwriting department under George W. Bush.

Truth about Gun Control   Leave a comment

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are both under fire currently for “not being willing to talk about gun control” in connection with the Parkland Florida high school shooting. Good for them.

The Left’s incessant attempts to find new ways to take guns from law-abiding American citizens in the name of reducing gun crime .is completely misplaced because the facts clearly show that gun control only exacerbates violent crime. Here are seven facts proving this.

1. Washington, D.C.’s gun ban worsened the city’s homicide rate. In 1976, D.C. implemented a law that banned citizens from owning guns, meaning only police officers were allowed to carry firearms. Those who already owned guns were allowed to keep them only if they were disassembled or trigger-locked and the trigger locks could be removed only if the owner received permission from the DC police, which pretty much never happened.

The results weren’t good. Annual homicides rose from 188 (1976) to 364 (1988) and by 1993 it was 454. The District of Columbia gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court  in 2008 and by 2012 the DC murder rate had dropped to 88. Yes, there were no doubt other factors involved in the decline in homocides, but lifting the gun bad clearly didn’t result in an increase in murders.

Washington DC still has strictest gun laws in the country and one of the most dangerous places in the country to live. The salient facts are that homicides in D.C. rose after the ban was implemented and subsequently declined after the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional.

2. The gun bans in Australia and Britain also didn’t work. Australia and Britain are both hailed by the Left as evidence that gun control works. The facts, even collected within those countries, tell a different story.

A 2007 study published in the British Journal of Criminology determined “The gun buy-back and restrictive changes had no influence on firearm homicides in Australia.” The gun homicide rate had actually been low in Australia and falling prior to the Port Arthur shooting. After the gun ban, firearm suicides and accidental firearm deaths did decrease, but researchers noted there was an initial spike in non-firearm suicides for the next couple of years, followed by a decline. Thus, researchers concluded that “suicide rates in Australia were highly influenced by other societal changes, confounding the ability to discern any effect on firearm suicides” after the buyback program.

After Australia’s gun buyback, the gun ownership levels in Australia rose to the point where by 2010, there were as many guns in circulation as there were before the gun buyback. You would have thought to see gun deaths decrease at first and the increase as guns came back into circulation, but that’s not what happened. The rate of firearm suicides was falling about the same rate after the buyback as they were beforehand. After the buyback, there was no sudden drop and then an increase, but that sudden drop in firearms-related suicides coincided with a sudden drop in non-firearm suicides fell by virtually the same percentage as firearm suicides. The fits what I know about suicide from my 15 years of working in the mental health fields. People who want to kill themselves will kill themselves whether a gun is available or not.

The same appears to be true with gun homicides.

According to the study (see the link), prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward trend in firearm homicides, a pattern that continued after the buyback. As with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts, though the trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. That suggests crime had been falling for other reasons. Significantly, there was no increase in homicides as gun ownership gradually increased.

 

 

In Britain’s case, the Crime Research Prevention Center found that after the gun ban was implemented, there was initially a severe increase in the homicide rate, followed by a gradual decline once Britain beefed up their police force. However, there has only been one year where the homicide rate was lower than it was pre-ban:

There was an 87 percent spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of which occurred after the gun ban.

A closer look at the actual facts shows that the Left’s favorite examples of Britain and Australia are actually examples of how gun control DOES NOT work.

3. The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. Since 1950, 98 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL all the school, mall, and movie theater shootings all took place in gun-free zones. There’s an obvious reason for that. Deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many people as possible, so they target areas where they’re least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones.

There are 330 million people in America but only 628,000 police officers. Cops can’t protect everybody and the Supreme Court has ruled that they have no obligation to do so. That’s why it’s prudent for citizens to arm themselves.

4. There is a clear correlation between higher firearm ownership and reducing police killings. There is a 3.6 percent DECREASE in police killings for every percentage point INCREASE in those owning a firearm. Naturally, the inverse was also true. From 2013 to 2015, the six states (plus the District of Columbia) that banned open carry actually experienced higher rates of police death (20.2 versus 17.3 per 100,000 officers).”

A 2016 National Association of Chiefs of Police survey found that 86.4 percent of 20,000 police chiefs and sheriffs support concealed carry and are overwhelmingly against further gun control. In light of the recent murders of cops, it has become even more important to have an armed citizenry.

5. There is also a correlation between fewer mass public shootings and higher gun ownership. According to John Lott and the University of Chicago’s Bill Landes, between 1977 and 1999 “right-to-carry laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of mass public shootings; and to the extent to which mass shootings still occurred, they took place in those tiny areas in the states where permitted concealed handguns were not allowed.”

6. As the number of guns per person has increased, gun violence has declined. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that between 1993 and 2003, gun ownership in the US increased by 56 percent, and yet gun violence declined by almost 50 percent in the time period. If the premise of gun control zealots were correct, then wouldn’t gun violence have INCREASED during that period of time?

7. The number of defensive gun uses are higher than the number of criminal firearm uses. There was a range of 500,000 to over 3 million defensive gun uses in 2013, according to research from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council published by the CDC. That same year, there were 11,208 firearm homicides and 414,562 nonfatal illegal gun uses, according to the CDC and National Justice Institute, respectively. Even when taking the low end of the defensive gun uses, it’s clear that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses by Americans.

Remmington Reads

A book enthusiast bringing you all things bookish

MiddleMe

Becoming Unstuck

Magical BookLush

A New Dimension to Explore

Jacquie Biggar-USA Today Best-selling author

It's All about the Romance 💕💕💕

Not Very Deep Thoughts

Short Fiction and Other Things

Homestead on the Range

Abundant Living in Flyover Country

Ediciones Promonet

Libros e eBooks educativos y de ficción

the dying fish

Book info, ordering, about me etc. in upper right

STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

Never underestimate the power of a question

Healthy Ebooks

Healthy tips to live more & better!

Mikes Film Talk

Entertainment, Films, Books, Television

Radical Capitalist

Anti-State. Anti-Left. Pro-White.

PushUP24

Health, Fitness, and Relationships is a great way to start living again.

MG WELLS

✪ Enjoy The Journey!

%d bloggers like this: