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 ewk on Wednesday June 06 2018, @12:25PM (21 children)
"My rights do not come from the government"
So... where do they come from?
If not from someone/something else, it only leaves your imagination...
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:10PM (8 children)
We hold these truths to be self evident . . . .
Self evident facts are not granted by a government.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ewk on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:03PM (7 children)
"We"
Seems to me this 'we' is referring to the de facto government/leaders of that time.
It's not like YOU conjured up these ideas about truth and them being self evident. (Left aside the discussion whether they really are both)
However, that government (and by succession your current one) did/does manage your rights (either by limiting those rights directly or by indicating the limits the government can impose on those rights).
Seems to be your rights do come from your government after all, whether you like it or not.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:06PM (6 children)
I'm hoping you aren't just trolling. I'll bite.
The right to self defense is in fact a natural right. If you are assaulted, do you have to ask the .gov if you can defend yourself or, in the moment, do you just do so? That's what people mean by natural rights.
Now, as we see in the EU/Britain, the government can make legislation purportedly to limit such natural rights. But all such legislation only applies after the fact, and is completely ineffective in the moment when your attacker decided to ignore even more laws by attacking.
Similarly for free speech. All humans can say anything they want, at any time. Social constructs and common sense rein most of us in. But any North Korean could absolutely start shouting for Kim's ousting right now. That's a natural right. Their government wouldn't take kindly to this, and they may not be able to express their opinion long before getting arrested or shot, but they have the ability.
Natural rights do not arise from governments, full stop. In the above examples, governments feebly attempt to limit them, often with little functional success. I hope this is enlightening for you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ewk on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:00PM (5 children)
Not trolling here, just a total incomprehensibility of the weapon/gun-nuttery (and all the crap that comes along with it) that some people seem to be infected with.
You really should try this thing called civilisation... it works so much better than living by instinct or in an irrational fear that something might happen.
Then you will notice that the reasons to attack are few and far between. And so will be the actual attacks happening.
Or you could opt for something like the Somalian-solution, where no government feebly attempts to limit your so called natural rights.
Your choice... I know what is mine.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 07 2018, @12:22AM (4 children)
And yet - London's murder rate is on the rise.
Funny, those people who lecture us on civilization, are in the process of abandoning said civilization. They have invited the barbarians in, and civilization just washes away.
(Score: 2) by ewk on Thursday June 07 2018, @07:58AM (1 child)
Nice whataboutism there. London is not the issue here.
"Handgun Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Firearm Homicides in Large, Urban Areas" is.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 07 2018, @02:14PM
As stated repeatedly throughout this discussion, the title, TFS, and TFA are nothing but shit. The lefties have learned, "If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes truth." Some anti-gun nuts funded a study to support their position, so some "academic" took their money, and gave them what they wanted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @01:03AM (1 child)
This is why I said, at the Close of the Civil War, that we should have just let Arkansas go. But the Union "invited" them back in. And so we have the uncivilized Runaway washing over us. American carnage and ignorance!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 09 2018, @10:42AM
Arkansas? He gets welcomed to IRC by cmn32480's bot with Dallas weather every time he joins.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:45PM (1 child)
I would suggest that you read the US Constitution. It doesn't grant rights to the people, it limits what the government can do in restricting the rights of the individual.
If people don't like the second amendment then they should push for a 28th amendment that simply says "The second amendment no longer applies." Problem solved.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by ewk on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:55PM
Thanks for the suggestion, but that particular piece of paper (and the text written on it) has about the same value or interest to me as the half dozen sheets of toilet paper that I used today.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 07 2018, @03:22AM (9 children)
That you need to ask tells me you do not understand what a right even is. Think on it a while. Reread the declaration and constitution. Hopefully it will come to you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ewk on Thursday June 07 2018, @08:24AM (8 children)
I did not ask what a right is, but where you think they/yours are coming from.
But, let's take a little more up-to-date point of view, instead of this stuff from yesteryears.
Like, the wiki page about 'Right': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_(disambiguation) [wikipedia.org]
"A right is a legal or moral entitlement or permission."
Drilling down on Entitlement and Permission, gives us:
- An entitlement is a provision made in accordance with a legal framework of a society.
- Permission, in philosophy, is the attribute of a person whose performance of a specific action, otherwise ethically wrong or dubious, would thereby involve no ethical fault. The term "permission" is more commonly used to refer to consent. Consent is the legal embodiment of the concept, in which approval is given to another party.
All in all it seems to me both Entitlement and Permissions (and therefore Rights) are granted to you by another party.
There are no 'self evident' Rights.
Hope this helps.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(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