Missouri provided a rare chance to track before-and-after changes in murders.*
Duh….
Duh….
Researcher finds evidence that relaxing gun laws ups murder rate
Missouri provided a rare chance to track before-and-after changes in murders.
Tell it to Detroit
Tell that to Chicago!
It is not unlike stating there is a corelation between banks and wallstreet….this is merely a different form of paridolia…or matrixing if you wish….it couldn't possibly have any other cause…because it is obvious that legal owners are the majority of those commiting said murders….really?
In case your inclined to believe the negitive propaganda you should also know less than 1% of gun crime can be associated with registered owners….to realistically fix your percieved problem remove guns from the hands of crackheads and crazies, end drug wars, and organized crime: government supported or otherwise …why do you lock your door at night? Security, saftey?….could it be that it is to keep someone from gaining legal entry….because you need to know it is not going to stop those who would choose to enter illegally…it is simple math…you break in my house…there will be one less dumbass in the world to deal with….©
Hokey article. Sorry the CDC report is out and it says the opposite of this piece of science fiction. You can also review the FBI report. The Harvard study. The Lott study . This belongs in the "Onion"
This is bull shit. Stop pushing your agenda anti gunners
+Paul Spoerry This is the beauty of G+, it requires critical thinking.
+Ken Webster, +Liz Mason…. You two have fun with this.
2Nd amendment "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
Who cares about your evidence, have you read the 2008 Heller decision. It's over, give it up or repeal the 2nd amendment.
+selvin morgan we'll die from the 2nd. Don't forget that
Chicago. highest murder rate and strongest gun laws.
+Paul Spoerry, here is an easy to understand method for you:
https://plus.google.com/108609031221581881497/posts/bHfbjcNVoFR
I highly recommend 2.3 on the list for you.
My favorite part about people who like to share or advocate gun control are totally unable to defend their viewpoint, even in a mature and intellectual environment.
Lol. This is troll worthy.
My favorite part about people who like to share our advocate gun control is their lack of knowledge about history-gun control.
You would think, +Travis Owens, that 20 million civilians killed by government troops in Soviet Russia under Stalin would be a "lets not make that mistake" type of thought pattern but… well guess not when it comes to dumbfucks like +Paul Spoerry
+Paul Spoerry additionally to being refuted by the study that is cited. Who do the courts say is responsible for your safety. ? http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
+Paul Spoerry additionally you will find that you are 10× as likely to be shot as an innocent person by a police officer (950,000 officers) vs the 100 million plus gun owners. That of the 310 million + firearms in the US only approximately three one thousandths of one percent (.003) ever kill anyone. Say that real slow and let it sink in. Gun safety. ..? Whereas the government having guns… I let history as far back as you want to take it shows.. http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
I agree with Marcus on this. The article went through a vast ordeal on obtaining the data. The data has already been complied in the areas Marcus stated in his comment.
+Paul Spoerry is not responding. Paul maybe reading the CDC report which he hadn't done before hand. Paul maybe reading the article on death by gun control which states that 4x as many people have been killed by their own government after being disarmed than in all the wars in the world combined in the last century. Paul maybe reading that the courts say that he is responsible for his safety. Paul maybe reading other informative posts or articles like the FBI report or the Harvard study or the Lott study. Paul maybe in shock an unable to respond…
No, +marcus easterling… +Paul Spoerry is maybe crying to his fellow anti-gun 'advocates' on how we're being mean and shoving facts in his face..
Of course he isn't going to respond.
I agree with you. They should know 2nd Amendment supporters have reviewed most of the reliable data or the real facts.
The thing in the article that threw the flag up for me was the plus 25%. I went really, because the uniform crime reports are not that hard to understand. I have always felt private research can be manipulated to fit a politicians agenda . That is what they are paid to do.
" I have always felt private research can be manipulated to fit a politicians agenda "
Which is why the NRA managed to ban government research on the subject. Wonderfull eh?
I glad the the NRA did that, but politicians are very crafty. I.e. Reaching out to a magazine or reporter, who favors a political agenda. Then they have an article and research to quote.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Why are you glade they did that? If the research supports them, why ban it?
Surely we need good research for informed choices on anything.I wouldnt trust data on either side at the moment – too much money on one, and potential for bias on the other.
Why don't we give everybody a gun and a holster, it'd be like stepping back in time!
Because the roads would be filled with the left's urine from them pissing themselves, +Dale Scogin.
Gun people crack me up.
NRA banned the research because it was corrupt. People would rather believe a lie and be disenchanted than face reality.
It's nice to assume that everybody who supports the 2nd Amendment belongs to the left, but you are so very wrong.
+Craig Tetwiler If you toss statistics then please cite your source.
+marcus easterling This was specific to Missouri, and very clearly stated so. However, if you'd like to cite where in any of those reports this is explicitly refuted (this being what's been shown in Missouri) then I'd be more than willing to read it.
+Liz Mason First Amendment. #trumpcard
+Alex Macevicius This wasn't making any statements regarding Chicago. Even the title states its about Missouri… and if you read the articles clearly states that it's because Missouri had a very clear before and after picture.
+marcus easterling It completely makes sense that more people are killed by police. All police carry firearms at all times; more firearms around == more deaths by firearms. This article wasn't about people owning firearms. (Side note: if you go back in my feed on any article concerning firearms I state over and over I'm not anti-gun. I grew up the son of a police officer and my entire family hunts). This article was about how "Missouri had been operating under a permit-to-purchase system, where would-be gun buyers would have to see local law enforcement for a background check and general vetting. If a person passed the check, they'd be given a permit that allowed them to buy guns. In 2007, that law was changed so that any required background checks were performed at the time of purchase"
… after the statements I've addressed here you devolve into being an asshole as well as off-topic so I won't respond any further.
+Tod Anderson I was spending time with my son by taking him to see the Lego movie. This is my post/thread. You do not dictate when or if I reply and you're welcome to stop following me (it's real easy on Google+). Additionally, this wasn't an anti-gun article. It simply talked about a before and after review of what occurred in Missouri. I'm so sorry that you're so sensitive.
+Joe Hartoebben As +Thomas Wrobel aptly pointed out, 2nd Amendment supporters haven't been able to get reliable research because the NRA "managed to ban government research on the subject." Which they did… which implies then that
2nd Amendment supporters haven't been using reliable research. :O)'
+Paul Spoerry you and I both have the right to speak freely, and I did, so..I am definitely believe that I have the right to protect myself, and my family, and I will should the need arise. Have a Nice day.
+Paul Spoerry this article says Webster finds multiple times where is this data that contradicts the data from every other place on the planet. The NRA did a poll of it's members asking about those background checks I believe it was 91% against. So how does Webster come up with this fabrication? This article is obviously a fabrication to anyone who is familiar with the independent studies (non nra which you seem to indicate don't exist) . Such as the very liberal Harvard study. The CDC study that the president commission recently then shelved because it wasn't favorable to his agenda. Or the John Lott Study (he doesn't own guns & he's a economist) or others. Now I know that you seem to want to shun the facts given. And brush off the fallacies that I've pointed out. And then say something really stupid like we'll the laws of the universe are different in Missouri and that's why I came up different here. Sorry you think I'm an ass hole for poking large holes in your story
Here is what we know FOR SURE: if there were NO guns, there would be NO gun violence. Can we at least agree on that? #captainobvious
Daniel Websters bloomberg school of public health at John Hopkins. .. hmmmm? I seem to recall something about 26 year olds in child data….? Yes this is a reliable source (sarcasm). These guys are proven to make up their own numbers. Not something that you'd say about the cdc Lott fbi or the nra . Bloomberg and his payroll doesn't change facts. But they do fabricate them. Bah!
+Paul Spoerry I was a police officer and served in the military and am a avid hunter & firearm enthusiast.
+marcus easterling I don't think you're an asshole for poking holes in my "story". For one it's not my story. Secondly, that's not why I think you're an asshole. That would have to do with the fact that you simply cannot acknowledge that this clearly says Missouri all over it. You're arguing about something that this article isn't even about. This article states it was a unique situation where there was the possibility to look at the situation pre and post law change.
The of course the fact you say things like "And then say something really stupid like we'll the laws of the universe are different in Missouri ". I believe you meant well. Additionally, an "ass hole" could be any hole on an ass… mouth, ears, asshole, etc. Whereas an asshole is the "is a vulgarism to describe the anus, and often used pejoratively to refer to people." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole)
I suggest you re-read the article as it plainly points out that Missouri was unique in that prior to 2007 it had a permit-to-purchase system and then in 2007 the state repealed its purchaser licensing law and, as a result, private sales of handguns no longer required purchasers to undergo a background check.
But let me google that for you:
* http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/repeal-of-missouris-background-law-associated-with-increase-in-states-murders.html
* http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/index.html
* http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/21/what-missouris-gun-law-change-did/
+marcus easterling Ummmm ok. Good for you?! *I'm bored with this*