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.

[AustinChief]

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'.

I won't go through this post point for point but a lot of these are "iffy" points to make...but one that I KNOW isn't.. is the Armenian holocaust. You can't point to a more tragic situation in the 20th century that was not a direct result of people like Direckshun's ideas about gun control and government control. I would challenge him to dispute it but he's too ****ing stupid to be able to follow a logical construct well enough to make a cohesive point so it's really not worth the time.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Alright.

Nice job yet again avoiding a cogent response and attempting to play it off as if you are the "smart"*one. sorry, but over the last week it has been proven that you are a ****ing dumbass not because of your idiotic positions but because you are too ****ing stupid to follow a logical construct to its conclusion. (I may be wrong here, you may not be a complete moron, you may in fact be a disingenuous lying bitch)

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Nice job yet again avoiding a cogent response and attempting to play it off as if you are the "smart"*one. sorry, but over the last week it has been proven that you are a ****ing dumbass not because of your idiotic positions but because you are too ****ing stupid to follow a logical construct to its conclusion. (I may be wrong here, you may not be a complete moron, you may in fact be a disingenuous lying bitch)

Off the top of my head the Nazi reference is spotty at best. The previous regime had already enacted gun control legislation and the Nazis just continued to enforce those laws on civilians. The Nazi movement was popular enough that they didn't have a need to overcome any uprising of the populace. The laws they did pass largely affected the Jewish population though, and might have helped to subdue the ghettos.

[listopencil]

Oh, and he did manage to accomplish something. This report is from an obviously biased pro gun legislation source. They are listing states according to strictness of gun legislation. If you compare their list to gun related homicides, their report shows that gun legislation has little to no effect.

[2bikemike]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Oh, and he did manage to accomplish something. This report is from an obviously biased pro gun legislation source. They are listing states according to strictness of gun legislation. If you compare their list to gun related homicides, their report shows that gun legislation has little to no effect.

Not to mention that a lot of the points made about the laws are just flat out wrong.
I like how he referenced .50 cals. You know there was an "epidemic" of crimes with those.

[RNR]

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?

I make it a point not to stand beside them during the act

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

Not to mention that a lot of the points made about the laws are just flat out wrong.
I like how he referenced .50 cals. You know there was an "epidemic" of crimes with those.

Unless it has occurred recently, I don't believe one has ever been used in a crime. Didn't stop HI or CA from banning the though.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by frazod

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

This is an opportunity for dialogue. It's your call.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Nice job yet again avoiding a cogent response and attempting to play it off as if you are the "smart"*one.

Oh, I never claimed to be. I would honestly, personally describe myself as having below average intelligence.

But I support my points of view with as much evidence as you can have on a message board. You might disagree with the quality of the material but to say I don't back my shit up is clearly wrong.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Oh, I never claimed to be. I would honestly, personally describe myself as having below average intelligence.

This will end up in someone's signature I personally think you are a fairly bright individual. I also think you are purposely disingenuous for self entertainment. I have no doubt you are a leftist but have the same level of confidence you do not buy into much of what you sell here~

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

This will end up in someone's signature I personally think you are a fairly bright individual. I also think you are purposely disingenuous for self entertainment.

Kind of you to say, but you really couldn't be more wrong on those two points.

My arguments on this forum are sincere, particularly on gun control, but I don't consider myself particularly intelligent.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Kind of you to say, but you really couldn't be more wrong on those two points.

My arguments on this forum are sincere, particularly on gun control, but I don't consider myself particularly intelligent.

Sorry guy I just don't buy it~

[LOCOChief]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Sorry guy I just don't buy it~

You don't buy her assertion that she is not intelligent? wow, just wow.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by LOCOChief

You don't buy her assertion that she is not intelligent? wow, just wow.

No I do not, I think this is all a game. For some reason certain people just enjoy starting shit on the Internet. Seriously he has a half dozen threads about gun control going. If he was genuinely debating this issue he would state his case in one thread. He starts several to fan the flames and keeps poking people for reaction. The angrier the better. Why some people thrive on negative attention is beyond me but some do. I picked up on his act a long time ago. Whenever there is a hot button topic he floods DC with threads. I firmly believe it is nothing more than a game to him~

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

No I do not, I think this is all a game. For some reason certain people just enjoy starting shit on the Internet. Seriously he has a half dozen threads about gun control going. If he was genuinely debating this issue he would state his case in one thread. He starts several to fan the flames and keeps poking people for reaction. The angrier the better. Why some people thrive on negative attention is beyond me but some do. I picked up on his act a long time ago. Whenever there is a hot button topic he floods DC with threads. I firmly believe it is nothing more than a game to him~

spot on

Maybe IT should only be allowed to post 1 thread a week for awhile?