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: 4, Insightful) by coolgopher on Thursday June 07 2018, @01:33AM (1 child)
I can't tell if you're trolling or have been drinking the Russian coolaid too much...
Ignoring the hyperbole (the only no-go zone for me would be way north in late summer, because of the mosquito swarms; most serious violence can be linked to the eastern mafia, which got the foot in when we gutted the police force), you are in many ways correct. The social pressures are still there, but the cohesion has been noticeably slipping for over a decade. The problem isn't immigration, it's integration, it rather the lack thereof. When I grew up, my best friend was of Spanish descent, the grand parents being the immigrants. They were as Swedish as any of us.
It's the recent unmanaged waves of immigration that have caused the creaking and cracking. The people see it, the politicians refuse to, because you have to be seen Doing The Good Thing. Which is why the Sweden Democrats are the third(?) largest party now and still rising, originally being the ultra nationalistic, neonazi flirting hard right, but having by now polished their image, policies and membership list into a serious political force. A decade ago I would not have been caught dead even thinking about voting for them. If I was living in Sweden now they'd have my vote. For all of their issues, past or present, they are the only ones who recognize the problem and are willing to speak and act on it.
There's no mercy in allowing everyone in, only to have the supposed sanctuary turn into locust ravaged wasteland (see, I can do hyperbole too). Provide as much help as you can without leaving yourself too short, then stop. That's basic advice that applies across life, and should be common sense. Alas, politics and common sense...
Denmark copped a lot of flak for closing their border when they did, but to my mind they did the only sane thing in an insane situation. And those who are so quick to judge Denmark fail to acknowledge that at the same time they're possibly the one country who successfully reintegrate jihadi fighters back into civilized society.
(Score: 1) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Thursday June 07 2018, @08:50AM
And this interesting in context in that it adds one point of data to the old adage that "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".
While the overall murder rate in Sweden has been in decline for a long time, and still is given even the current increase in gang related shootings, its the first time in Swedish discourse that no big squeeze has been put to legal gun ownership.
This is because no-one, even the most hard core hoplophobes, could argue that the AKs and com-bloc pistols (and F1 hand grenades...) that are being used were ever in Sweden lawfully. It is impossible to make the argument that restricting legal gun ownership would make one iota of difference in this case. Back in the day criminals used, mainly, stolen military weapons (as they were, for reasons of defence, easily accessible), or a stolen cut off double barrel. But these days its all, without exception, imports from the Balkans. Modern day criminals do not use Swedish supply channels to get their ordinance.
Now there is a cloud on the horizon in the EU "gun ban", but that seems to have been neutralised for the time being. We'll see.
Now, it should be pointed out that perceptions are misleading. Sweden actually has quite a lot of civilian firearms ownership, mainly for hunting. And I'm the last generation where every male underwent military training as a part of national service (some 50000 young men each year).
Stefan Axelsson