SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow8093
State laws that require gun purchasers to obtain a license contingent on passing a background check performed by state or local law enforcement are associated with a 14 percent reduction in firearm homicides in large, urban counties.
Studies have shown that these laws, which are sometimes called permit-to-purchase licensing laws, are associated with fewer firearm homicides at the state level. This is the first study to measure the impact of licensing laws on firearm homicides in large, urban counties, where close to two-thirds of all gun deaths in the U.S. occur.
The study was published online May 22 in the Journal of Urban Health and was written by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, based at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.
Handgun licensing laws typically require prospective gun purchasers to apply directly to a state or local law enforcement agency to obtain a purchase permit, which is dependent on passing a background check, prior to approaching a seller. Many state licensing laws also require applicants to submit fingerprints.
The study also found that states that only required so-called comprehensive background checks (CBCs) -- that is, did not include other licensing requirements -- were associated with a 16 percent increase in firearm homicides in the large, urban counties. In states that only require a CBC the gun seller or dealer, not law enforcement, typically carries out the background check.
"Background checks are intended to screen out prohibited individuals, and serve as the foundation upon which other gun laws are built, but they may not be sufficient on their own to decrease gun homicides," said Cassandra Crifasi, PhD, MPH, assistant professor with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and the paper's lead author. "This study extends what we know about the beneficial effects of a licensing system on gun homicides to large, urban counties across the United States."
In addition to sending potential purchasers to law enforcement and requiring fingerprints, state licensing laws provide a longer period for law enforcement to conduct background checks. These checks may have access to more records, increasing the likelihood that law enforcement can identify and screen out those with a prohibiting condition. Surveys from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research find that the majority of both gun owners and non-gun owners support this policy.
[...] For the study, a sample of 136 of the largest, urban counties in the U.S. was created for 1984-2015 and analyses were conducted to assess the effects of changes to the policies over time.
The study also examined the impact of right-to-carry (RTC) and stand- your-ground (SYG) laws. SYG laws give individuals expanded protections for use of lethal force in response to a perceived threat, and RTC laws make it easier for people to carry loaded, concealed firearms in public spaces.
The researchers found that counties in states that adopted SYG laws experienced a seven percent increase in firearm homicide, and counties in states with RTC laws experienced a four percent increase firearm homicide after the state's adoption of the RTC law.
"Our research finds that state laws that encourage more public gun carrying with fewer restrictions on who can carry experience more gun homicides in the state's large, urban counties than would have been expected had the law not been implemented," said Crifasi. "Similarly, stand-your-ground laws appear to make otherwise non-lethal encounters deadly if people who are carrying loaded weapons feel emboldened to use their weapons versus de-escalating a volatile situation."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 09 2018, @11:06AM (7 children)
Yes, which plainly tells me that you do not understand what a right even is. Let me splain. No, is too much. Let me sum up. You innately have every possible right to begin with. They don't even need acknowledging and defining except in the cases of desiring to protect or surrender a specific liberty.
Example: Do you have the right to pick your nose? Why? Where does this right come from?
See? Asking where they come from makes no sense whatsoever.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ewk on Saturday June 09 2018, @12:18PM (6 children)
"They don't even need acknowledging and defining except in the cases of desiring to protect or surrender a specific liberty."
Except that each and every right actually does. So, 'your' exception mentioned above is (the way I see it) the rule.
If you don't want a right to be defined and acknowledged, it's not really a right now, is it?
Which brings me back to the main (and snipped away) part of my previous answer.
Re(re)ad it, (try to) understand it and realize that this means that each and every right (that you seem to think has been innately yours), in fact has been granted (by someone, during some time, for some period) to you.
Even picking your nose.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 11 2018, @02:05AM (5 children)
That is so amazingly incorrect it's beyond belief. You do countless thing every single day that nobody has ever told you you have the right to do. You also avoid doing infinitely more things that nobody has ever told you you have the right to not do. Yet you'd get looked at like an idiot if you asked anyone where they got the right to wear blue on a Tuesday.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ewk on Monday June 11 2018, @08:55AM (4 children)
If someone cares enough about your transgression of the right to wear only blue on Thursday, if will be brought to your attention.
Same applies to your other rights. Think it through.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 11 2018, @03:27PM (3 children)
That's kind of my point. Most of your rights are never going to even be defined, yet they still exist.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ewk on Monday June 11 2018, @05:01PM (2 children)
My point (and that of the Wikipedia-pages I referred to earlier in this thread) is kind of that those (for lack of a better word) concepts you refer to, are not rights.
Somewhat condensed and shortened (but do feel free to reread my original answer for all the nuance presented there) version of my original point:
A Right is an Entitlement or a Permission granted to you.
Seems we have a difference over what the proper definition of a Right is.
If you don't mind (and even if you do :-) ) I'll side with Wikipedia on this one.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 11 2018, @06:50PM (1 child)
You'll cite people who agree with your flawed understanding of the nature of things. I understand. It's extremely difficult to get people to change their minds about anything even after you've explained the facts to them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ewk on Monday June 11 2018, @07:00PM
I completely agree with THAT statement.
But I still keep a glimmer of hope that eventually you'll come to your senses.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews