More gun control = fewer gun deaths.

[Direckshun]

The Legal Community Against Violence conducted a study where they compared the rigidity of the gun control laws in all 50 states and the gun-related deaths.

Their conclusion:

Our ranking reveals that many of the states with the strongest gun laws
also have the lowest gun death rates. Conversely, many states with the weakest gun laws have the
highest gun death rates. Although it is beyond the scope of this publication to demonstrate a causal
relationship between state gun laws and gun death rates, the data provides support for the argument
that gun laws are a signifi cant factor in a state’s rate of gun deaths.vi More research is needed to
determine the precise relationship between state gun laws and gun death rates.

Here's the study, it's an insanely easy read, I'd recommend checking it out. I included the article below as a casual summary of the study's findings.

The recommendations of the study:

BEST PRACTICES

DEALER LAWS

• Require all fi rearms dealers to obtain a license and pass a background check (CA, HI, MA, NJ, PA, RI, WA)
• Prohibit dealers in residential and other sensitive areas (MA)
• Require employee background checks (CT, DE, NJ, VA, WA)
• Require security measures (AL, CA, CT, MA, MN, NJ, PA, RI, WV)
• Require sales record reporting to state and local law enforcement (CT)

PRIVATE SALE LAWS

• Require all fi rearm transfers are to be conducted through licensed dealers (CA)
• If transfers are not conducted through dealers, require private sellers to: 1) conduct background checks
  through a central law enforcement agency (RI); 2) maintain sales records for a lengthy period (IL);
  or 3) report sales to state and local law enforcement (MA)

AMMUNITION LAWS

• Require sellers to be licensed (MA)
• Require sales record-keeping (CA — handgun ammunition)vii
• Require license to purchase or posses ammunition (IL, MA)
• Require ammunition sellers to store ammunition safely (CA — handgun ammunition)viii
• Require handgun microstamping (technology that allows a fi rearm to imprint a serial number
  and other information onto a cartridge case when fi red) (CA)

ASSAULT WEAPONS

• Defi ne assault weapon based on generic features that characterize assault weapons and use
  one-feature test (CA for rifl es and pistols, NJ for shotguns)
• Prohibit broad range of activities such as possession, manufacture, sale (CA, CT, NJ have the
  broadest prohibitions)
• If weapons possessed prior to the ban are grandfathered, require registration with strict limits
  on transferability, use and storage (CA, CT)

LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES

• Defi ne “large capacity ammunition magazine” to include magazines capable of holding in excess
  of 10 rounds (HI, CA, MA, NY)
• Apply ban to large capacity ammunition magazines for use with all fi rearms (CA, MD, MA, NJ, NY)
• Prohibit broad range of activities such as possession, manufacture, sale (NJ, NY are the
  most comprehensive)
• Do not grandfather magazines possessed prior to the ban (HI, MD, NJ)

FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES

• Prohibit broad range of activities such as possession, manufacture, sale (CA)
• If weapons possessed prior to the ban are grandfathered, require registration with strict limits
  on transferability, use and storage (CA)

LICENSING

• Require license for possession of any fi rearm, and require license to be shown prior to
  purchase of any fi rearm (IL, MA)
• Require background check for license (HI, IL, MA, NJ), (handguns — CT, IA, MI, NY, NC)
• Require safety training and/or testing (MA), (handguns — CA, CT, HI, MI, RI)
• Limit duration of license (HI, IL, MA), (handguns — CA, CT, IA, MI, NJ, NC)
• Require background check and testing for renewal (MA)

REGISTRATION

• Require registration for all fi rearms (HI)
• Include identifying information about owner, fi rearm, and source from which fi rearm was obtained (HI)
• Require retention of fi rearm sales records (CA — handguns)

CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS

• Prohibit carrying of concealed fi rearms (IL, WI)
• If concealed carry is allowed, require a permit and give the issuer discretion based on strict guidelines (AL,
  CA, DE, HI, MA, NJ, NY, RI issue permits only for good cause to persons of good character)

OPENLY CARRYING FIRERAMS

• Prohibit open carry of handguns (FL, IL, TX)
• Prohibit open carry of long guns (FL, MA, MN)

LOCAL AUTHORITY

• Allow broad local regulation of fi rearms (CT, HI, IL, MA, NJ, NY)
• If broad local regulation is not allowed, allow substantial regulation (CA, NE)

Gun control absolutely must be part of any package designed to reduce gun violence.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012...ess-gun-deaths

Study: States with more gun control have less gun deaths
By Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle
Wed, 12/26/2012 - 1:03pm

Connecticut has more restrictions on gun ownership than most states, so gun-rights advocates argue the Dec. 14 schoolhouse massacre there illustrates the futility of gun control.

But a new study by a pro-gun control San Francisco organization reaches the opposite conclusion: States with the most restrictive laws, including Connecticut and California, have lower rates of gun-related deaths, while states with few limits on firearms have the highest rates.

In 2009 and 2010, the most recent years for which information is available, California had the nation’s strongest gun controls and the ninth-lowest rate of gun deaths, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which favors firearms regulation. Connecticut had the fourth-strongest gun laws and was sixth-lowest in gun deaths, while Hawaii ranked fifth in gun control and had the lowest death rate.

At the other end of the scale, the report found that Alaska, Louisiana and Montana -- all graded F for gun control -- had the highest rates of deaths caused by gunfire, more than double California’s rate. The law center graded all 50 states and gave an F, for weak regulation, to 24 of them.

In 2010, the report said, quoting the federal Centers for Disease Control, California had 7.88 gun deaths for each 100,000 residents, compared with rates of 3.31 in Hawaii and 20.28 in Alaska.

More research is needed on the links between specific weapons regulations and fatalities, but “the data supports the common-sense conclusion that gun laws are a significant factor in a state’s rate of gun deaths,” said the report.

Since the report’s release last month, The Chronicle has forwarded it for comment to four gun-rights organizations: the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Gun Owners of America and its state affiliate, Gun Owners of California. None replied to calls or e-mails.

Other recent studies have reached similar conclusions. A researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham reported in July that states requiring comprehensive background checks before gun purchases had lower death rates than those without such requirements.

But as long as the federal government leaves gun regulations largely up to each state, the effectiveness of any state’s laws is inherently limited, said Laura Cutiletta, an attorney at the law center that conducted the study.

California, for example, bans most semiautomatic rifles, including the Bushmaster .223 that Adam Lanza used to kill 20 students and six educators at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school this month. But the rifles are legal in neighboring Nevada, and can be taken easily -- though illegally -- to California.

The Bushmaster is also legal in Connecticut, a circumstance that Cutiletta said illustrates the modest level of gun regulation even in states ranked high in the law center’s survey.

While Connecticut is one of about 10 states with any restrictions on semiautomatic rifles, it prohibits them only if they have certain additional features, such as a pistol grip and a folding or collapsible stock.

The Bushmaster that Lanza reportedly used-was a version of the widely sold AR-15 rifle, and had been legally purchased by his mother, whom he killed before taking her guns and heading to the school.

A federal assault weapons law, in effect from 1994 to 2004, also banned semiautomatic weapons only if they had specific features. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sponsored that law after a gunman used assault weapons to kill eight people and then took his own life at 101 California St. in San Francisco.

Feinstein is proposing a more far-reaching national law in the wake of the Newtown bloodbath.

Although the federal law has been widely regarded as ineffectual, Cutiletta cited a 2004 study commissioned by President George W. Bush’s Justice Department that found assault weapon use in gun crimes dropped by 17 to 72 percent in six cities during the decade. On the other hand, use of large-caliber ammunition magazines increased through the late 1990s, probably because the ban did not apply to weapons acquired before 1994, the study said.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

But this could never happen in America. Because our government is da bomb

They will give you a cell phone duh!

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brock

I see dreck changed the usual number of minds.

DC at work, brother.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Trolling at your level is impressive~

I always saw myself as the liberal version of you. Are you not trolling?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

Sorry AB1471 Microstamping was never implemented due to Patent infringement.

Ah.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

You are not allowed to use any of your rights to infringe on someone else's rights. Reckless endangerment (yelling fire in a crowded theater) does not regulate the first amendment anymore than murder regulates the second amendment. Your inability to comprehend this is evident in every thread you post.

The argument you're making is that speech is not regulated, but you can be punished for certain kinds of speech. That is regulation. That's what regulation is.

This is political science 101. And yet I'm the newborn.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by teedubya

History Lesson:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.

From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

You got this from an email, and this is almost entirely bullshit.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You got this from an email, and this is almost entirely bullshit.

Huh?
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.

From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

[teedubya]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You got this from an email, and this is almost entirely bullshit.

Check the facts, son. Tell me which ones you dispute.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The argument you're making is that speech is not regulated, but you can be punished for certain kinds of speech. That is regulation. That's what regulation is.

This is political science 101. And yet I'm the newborn.

You are not restricted from using words. The word fire is perfectly acceptable to use in everyday language, however if you say it in a certain situation (theater) that is against the law, likewise shooting a 30rd magazine is perfectly acceptable, however if you shoot it in a certain situation (theater) that is against the law.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by teedubya

Check the facts, son. Tell me which ones you dispute.

No, that's not how logical argumentation works.

You don't get to present bullshit with no backing, demand somebody to disprove them or else the bullshit is true.

You have to present backing. The burden is on you to actually present something.

The truth is, you got this handed to you in an email. I got the same email two weeks ago and I've had this exact email, never with any backing, forwarded or recited to me like three times.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't think anybody's recommend we cap magazine limits to fight suicide.

But we have more suicides than mass murders. By a wide margin. Why wouldn't our regulation favor preventing the greater contributing factor?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Fish

But we have more suicides than mass murders. By a wide margin. Why wouldn't our regulation favor preventing the greater contributing factor?

I would hope it does.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

No, that's not how logical argumentation works.

You don't get to present bullshit with no backing, demand somebody to disprove them or else the bullshit is true.

You have to present backing. The burden is on you to actually present something.

The truth is, you got this handed to you in an email. I got the same email two weeks ago and I've had this exact email, never with any backing, forwarded or recited to me like three times.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by frazod

You can accuse me of plenty of things, I'm sure, but not offering backing for my arguments is not one of them.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You can accuse me of plenty of things, I'm sure, but not offering backing for my arguments is not one of them.

You scour the bowels of the internet for the most ridiculous horseshit propaganda you can find, authored by the most biased liberal retards on earth, and then pimp it as gospel.

You're like a used car salesman, trying to convince a potential buyer than the odometer didn't really roll over on that rusted-out Pinto - it actually only has 137 miles on it!

****ing clown.