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.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by frazod

****ing clown.

*hrmph*

Say what?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by frazod

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.

Alright.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Alright.

And because of you, I'm now scared to death of violent offenders who have committed suicide! How will I be able to sleep tonight?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by frazod

And because of you, I'm now scared to death of violent offenders who have committed suicide! How will I be able to sleep tonight?

It's cool. We'll just make sure that suicide is illegal. And, just to show them that we're serious, we'll make it a capital offense.

[stevieray]

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.

...this isn't groundbreaking news you ****ing dolt.

your self-loathing knows no bounds.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by listopencil

It's cool. We'll just make sure that suicide is illegal. And, just to show them that we're serious, we'll make it a capital offense.

I commute by train everyday, and have been on several trains that people have jumped in front of. A gun might misfire - the bullet might take an odd trajectory and shoot out your eyeballs, leaving you blind and disfigured, but very much alive. But if you absolutely, positively want to end your own life, accept no substitutes - step in front of a speeding Metra train. A gun's got nothing on a locomotive traveling at 70 mph. It takes the cleanup crews about an hour to pick up all the chunks.

So I'm wondering when Direckshun will come out in favor of banning trains?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by frazod

I commute by train everyday, and have been on several trains that people have jumped in front of. A gun might misfire - the bullet might take an odd trajectory and shoot out your eyeballs, leaving you blind and disfigured, but very much alive. But if you absolutely, positively want to end your own life, accept no substitutes - step in front of a speeding Metra train. A gun's got nothing on a locomotive traveling at 70 mph. It takes the cleanup crews about an hour to pick up all the chunks.

So I'm wondering when Direckshun will come out in favor of banning trains?

I'm sure it's possible to overestimate exactly how stupid this post is on several levels, but I'd imagine you'd have to break your back trying.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm sure it's possible to overestimate exactly how stupid this post is on several levels, but I'd imagine you'd have to break your back trying.

I know exactly how stupid it sounds. Just like 99% of the shit you post.

And by that, I mean the Direckshun conclusion. The first paragraph is completely accurate.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by frazod

I know exactly how stupid it sounds. Just like 99% of the shit you post.

It just shows a profound inability to grasp arguments I've been making for several weeks, in several hundred posts, across half a dozen threads.

If you're that far off base, you're either doing it on purpose, or I've found that dimension where unaware monkeys are randomly succeeding in entering ChiefsPlanet posts of which they have no understanding.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It just shows a profound inability to grasp arguments I've been making for several weeks, in several hundred posts, across half a dozen threads.

If you're that far off base, you're either doing it on purpose, or I've found that dimension where unaware monkeys are randomly succeeding in entering ChiefsPlanet posts of which they have no understanding.

Oh, I understand exactly what you're doing. I also understand that you're a complete ****ing imbecile.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by frazod

Oh, I understand exactly what you're doing. I also understand that you're a complete ****ing imbecile.

So humor me. Present me, like, a Cliff Notes version of what I'm arguing. You can even eviscerate it after you explain it a bit if you wish.

I honestly think you're not even understanding my point of view. By design, I'd gather.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

So humor me. Present me, like, a Cliff Notes version of what I'm arguing. You can even eviscerate it after you explain it a bit if you wish.

I honestly think you're not even understanding my point of view. By design, I'd gather.

Sorry, comrade. Your desired outcomes and methodology are common knowledge to you, me, and everybody else who posts here.

Instead I'll just continue to humor myself by mocking you. If this annoys you, well, that's cool.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by frazod

Sorry, comrade. Your desired outcomes and methodology are common knowledge to you, me, and everybody else who posts here.

Then why are you continually arguing against strawman positions?

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Then why are you continually arguing against strawman positions?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

[LiveSteam]