Skip to comments.
Evidence scant on effectiveness of one-gun laws
Philadelphia Inquirer ^
| Sep. 27, 2006
| Larry Eichel
Posted on 09/27/2006 11:07:42 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
1
posted on
09/27/2006 11:07:43 PM PDT
by
neverdem
To: Joe Brower; Travis McGee; Mr. Mojo; DaveLoneRanger
2
posted on
09/27/2006 11:10:25 PM PDT
by
freepatriot32
(Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
To: Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; Annie03; ...
evidence of effectivness never stopped a feel good nannystater i mean after all its for the children
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
3
posted on
09/27/2006 11:12:24 PM PDT
by
freepatriot32
(Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
To: neverdem; GMMAC; Shooter 2.5; girlangler; Army Air Corps
But those who favor one-gun laws say the absence of hard proof shouldn't undercut the validity of the concept
Liberal thinking at its best. This is the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
4
posted on
09/27/2006 11:18:01 PM PDT
by
proud_yank
(Socialism - An Answer In Search Of A Question For Over 100 Years)
To: Joe Brower; Born Conservative; airborne; smoothsailing; Dr. Scarpetta; martin_fierro; Coop; ...
5
posted on
09/27/2006 11:24:22 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
Well, if I buy a dozen guns they might go out and form a gun gang.
To: neverdem
I know people who wanted to buy a matched pair of revolvers with consecutive serial numbers from a shop in San Diego. They had to pay for everything up front, wait for the initial mandatory wait to pick up the first revolver, then wait 31 days more to take possession of second revolver. It's harassment because those purchasers have a safe full of firearms at home. It wouldn't restrain them in the least if they wanted to perform some heinous act with a firearm.
7
posted on
09/27/2006 11:47:59 PM PDT
by
Myrddin
To: HiTech RedNeck
Well, if I buy a dozen guns they might go out and form a gun gang. We need more laws to control gun gangs will be the battle cry of the anti gunners.
Common sense says keep the criminals locked up....K.I.S.S.
8
posted on
09/28/2006 12:01:55 AM PDT
by
TYVets
(God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
To: HiTech RedNeck
Gun gangs like to rumble with packs of SUV's.
To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ...
Leave it to the "Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research" to manage scraping up some microscopic "evidence" of the result they're hired to find. If that's "science", then voodoo is modern medicine.
Ultimately, laws such as "one gun a month" are only another sad example of the willingness of the anointed to have criminals to dictate the rights allowed the law-abiding.
To such "leaders", the Constitution is not even a dead letter.
10
posted on
09/28/2006 4:00:18 AM PDT
by
Joe Brower
(The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
To: neverdem
Gun control isn't about crime or safety, it's about subjugation of the population. However, if they insist on one gun a month... fine... but NO exemption for LE or military or anyone else either. If they have that exemption, then I cannot and will not abide by that law.
Mike
11
posted on
09/28/2006 5:00:25 AM PDT
by
BCR #226
(Abortion is the pagan sacrifice of an innocent virgin child for the sins of the mother and father.)
To: neverdem
I've wondered before if this law is an attempt by the libs to keep ordinary people from buying guns, transporting them to gun-free liberal paradises (New York, D.C.) and selling them for a profit.
To the libs, buying guns=bad. Owning guns=bad. Selling guns=bad. Making a profit=bad.
It's a thought.
To: Joe Brower
Well said, Joe! Keep up the good work!
13
posted on
09/28/2006 5:20:29 AM PDT
by
Andonius_99
(They [liberals] aren't humans, but rather a species of hairless retarded ape.)
To: Joe Brower
Another study, done in 2001 by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, found evidence of a slight decrease in gun violence associated with Maryland's one-gun law. This is weasel wording in the press at it's finest. "Associated" does not really mean "caused by" It just means found together. All people who drink water die. A statistical test for association would show 100% correlation between water drinking and death. Doesn't meant that there's any causal relationship between the two. I'd love to get ahold of the actual data and run my own statistics on it. Of course anti-gun organizations never make their raw data available, because honest researchers like John Lott would quickly show them to be the liars that they are.
My guess that any decrease in Maryland's crime stats are due to random fluctuations
14
posted on
09/28/2006 5:26:26 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
To: neverdem
More than one gun per month could just slow somebody down. First, which one do I use? Second, the heck with it, I'll carry them all! Then the perp can hardly move without clanking or groaning.
Seriously, those with closets full of guns can only shoot one at a time. Somedays you feel like a Colt, somedays you don't.
15
posted on
09/28/2006 6:42:53 AM PDT
by
GingisK
To: neverdem
These gun control morons can't even figure out there own policies.
The only plausible (though unjustified, and likely dubious) benefit of limiting purchase quantities is to adjoining states with stricter gun control laws, because they are the logical destination for bulk gun runners.
But that benefit would not occur unless people were running guns from California to Nevada, Oregon, or Arizona, which is silly because it is already easier to buy guns there.
16
posted on
09/28/2006 6:44:30 AM PDT
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: Beelzebubba
These gun control morons can't even figure out there own policies. Sure they can. Their goal is to totally eliminate civilian gun ownership. They want (and I quote Atlanta's former mayor, a member of HCI's board of directors, the late and unlamented Fat Fu*k Jackson) "A society where only the police and military are armed."
Anything that erects a barrier to gun ownership just advances their cause. Waiting periods, background checks, gun rationing, FOID cards, etc. don't afffect crime in the slightest, nor are they meant to. They simply add more barriers for citizens to own guns which is exactly their intent.
Just as an aside, his late corruptness spent $490,000 tax dollars annually on his personal security detail. So his fat hide was protected by the Atl police department at great expense to the unprotected citizens in Atlanta.
17
posted on
09/28/2006 6:54:18 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
To: neverdem
The number of guns on the "street" have no bearing on crime. Period. The number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens DOES.
22,000 gun laws on the books and not a ONE is designed to be Constitutional, ethical, logical, or effective in doing anything but creating more victims.
18
posted on
09/28/2006 7:19:59 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Quam terribilis est haec hora)
To: from occupied ga
Their goal is to totally eliminate civilian gun ownership. I say we "eliminate" gun control. And those that advocate it as well if need be.
19
posted on
09/28/2006 7:20:49 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Quam terribilis est haec hora)
To: neverdem
Well, that clears one thing up -- for years I had been laboring under the false impression that I needed to buy one gun a month. I have been struggling for years to meet the quota. At least I have a dandy collection. The only dilemma now is deciding which one to take to the Crusades. Decisions, decisions....
20
posted on
09/28/2006 8:19:16 AM PDT
by
TexasRepublic
(Afghan protest - "Death to Dog Washers!")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson