Hopkins study backs gun controls {J.H is a part of the U.N. system}

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ ^ | 9/4/2001 | By Frank D. Roylance

[freedomnews]

A Johns Hopkins University study has concluded that criminals in states that require licensing and registration of handguns have a harder time acquiring guns than those in states that don't have such laws.

The findings contradict the position of gun-rights advocates, who say that gun licensing and registration do little or nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns illegally, while threatening Second Amendment rights.

Gun-control advocates immediately seized on the study as evidence in favor of handgun licensing legislation in Maryland.

[FreeTally]

A Johns Hopkins University study has concluded that criminals in states that require licensing and registration of handguns have a harder time acquiring guns than those in states that don't have such laws.

As always, I stop reading these peices at the first lie. And again, its in the first sentence. There would be absolutely no way of comming to this conclusion. States with strict "gun control" have the highest crime rates. This is fact. I have no idea what they mean by "harder time", since criminals are not obtaining them illegally.

Its ridiculous to even expect someone to believe that criminals have harder times getting guns in states with higher crime rates.

[Gig]

When your neighbor is no longer free, neither shall you be . . . . . for long. For those that say they don't care about their "sheeple" neighbors, it's going to be extremely tough being the "lone gun". You'll be on the run, no home, no friends, etc.

If America is to avoid this disaster, we must stand together and say "no more".

[joebuck]

"We believe that when criminals must rely on out-of state sources, the price of guns increases significantly, and they are much more difficult to obtain," Webster said."

Right on, FreeTally. This conslusion is in no way supported by this study. Webster admits this later on in the article. He merely takes this conslusion as an article of faith. BUT, it is this unsubstantiaed conslusion which is pasted as the headline for the article. Clearly, this study will be cited over and over to support the conslusion that the study didn't even address. When someone attempts to point this out they will be accused of rewriting history. This seems to be pretty much the modus operandi for scientific studies on sensational topics these days.

[pabianice]

So now we know they're not only whores, but $5 whores.

[t-shirt]

In reality gun confiscation advocacy group, just like Johns-Hopkins is, and the United Nations is!

[glc1173@aol.com]

Johns Hopkins - whose medical school was openly compared to Mengele's "medical experiments" at Auschwitz for its 1990s deliberate lead poisoning of unconsenting poor black kids in Baltimore in a series of "medical experiments" that now has provoked a big lawsuit there!

Scandals of antigun activists - from coast to coast!

[Sloth]

The findings contradict the position of gun-rights advocates, who say that gun licensing and registration do little or nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns illegally, while threatening Second Amendment rights.

It's utterly irrelevant if criminals have harder or easier access to guns, just as Lott's study on self-defense is irrelevant. Guns are a Constitutional right and will remain so until the Constitution is amended. The gun registration / Brady-Bill type laws are illegitimate.

[angkor]

Asked how a smaller proportion of in-state crime guns translated into fewer illegal guns, or reduced gun crime, Webster said that was not what the study sought to prove.

Nor could it possibly be proved, because the completely asinine tautology of this "study" is that the restricted ability to legally obtain guns in an given state results in less guns being legally obtained in that state. Duh.

Nevertheless, he said, "we think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that gun availability does increase homicide risk. So we believe it is highly likely that these laws will reduce homicide risk."

A "thought" that is irrelevant to the study, utterly unrelated to its thesis, and totally unsupportable by its findings. Next week expect Willard Scott to provide plenty of "thoughts" about the Big Bang theory of cosmology, as evidenced by his inability to locate a good donut shop in north Baltimore. Perhaps Johns Hopkins will reward him with a research grant.

The notion is buttressed by previous studies showing that in states such as New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, where handgun laws are more restrictive, guns also are less plentiful.

Yes, to be expected: the prototypical journalist's dumbed-down conclusion to a dumbed-down "study". Where there are more restrictions on legal gun ownership, there will be fewer legally owned guns. Proving, of course, the corollary dictum that when there is a restriction on the availability of grants for honest research, that Johns Hopkins will not provide honest research.

What used to be the pride of Maryland academia has gone straight down the PC toilet bowl.

[angkor]

All the "study" says is that more restrictive gun laws result in less legally owned guns. Period, end of story.

As Webster clearly indicates (more than once), the remainder of his thoughts are pure conjecture, completely unrelated to the study and utterly unsupported by his research.

What a pile of c**p this story is, not to mention the study itself.

[Movemout]

It does get rather tiresome. The basic flaw with this study is that it doesn't prove that ownership of firearms by the criminal element is actually decreased by imposing more onerous rules. It merely postulates that firearms become more expensive. When commodities become more expensive people become more inventive in how they acquire these commodities. I'll leave it to your imagination as to how criminals might acquire these more expensive commodities. Additionally there is no proof that more onerous restrictions actually reduce violent crime. One is supposed to deduce this from the false premise.

My favorite comment is that gun buyers "aren't even fingerprinted." You might as well say that criminals have never finger painted. It makes about the same amount of sense. Mono labe, you bastids!

[epow]

Wow, a "fair and balanced" study of gun violence by a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal organization funded by rabidly anti-gun left-wing limousine liberals. How original is that?

[Ancesthntr]

It's utterly irrelevant if criminals have harder or easier access to guns, just as Lott's study on self-defense is irrelevant. Guns are a Constitutional right and will remain so until the Constitution is amended. The gun registration / Brady-Bill type laws are illegitimate.

While I agree with your basic sentiments here, I wonder if you believe that your right to worship as (or if) you see fit is dependent upon the existence of the First Amendment. Ditto for your right to speak your mind. NONE of our basic rights depend on their ennumeration in the Bill of Rights - the BOR simply prohibits the Fedgov from taking those rights away. These are all rights that are ours because we are human - they predate and supercede even the Constitution.

I guarantee that the generation of the Founding Fathers had a great respect for the law - legitimate law, that is. They had such disrespect for illegimately passed and enforced laws that they revolted against the most powerful empire on Earth, at enormous cost to themselves. I would hope that any generation of Americans whose liberty was similarly assaulted by the "duly constituted authorities" would do the same.

The Constitution is simply the birth certificate for our form of government. It does not grant us any of our rights.

[Sloth]

I agree entirely, which is why I was careful to say that guns are a 'constitutional' right until amended; even if the 2nd Amendment was thrown out, it would still be a natural / human / God-given right... it would just no longer be constitutional.

[zeek]

I couldn't have said it better. I want to add that all those rights enumerated in the Constitution are Natural Rights. They are above the government. Many of the founders considered not including them in the constitution because they assumed any rational thinking person would already now that one has these rights. Lucky for us that some of the founders had the foresight to predict that the day would come that government would once again grow to large and begin overstepping its bounds and that if the Bill of Rights were not included we would in effect have NO Rights. Thank the Creator for the Founders.

[300winmag]

Just a brief comment on the underlying fallacies that were spewed in this article:

First, it quotes BATF "traces", which are done just to create "bad" statistics to prove BATF desires for more gun control. All those traces do is show where in the chain of events that particular gun was last in the legal commercial "pipeline". And BATF only traces guns, varying by state, that it wants to generate bad publicity on.

Second, gun control rests on the assumption that citizens are guilty until proven innocent. They must be made to prove their innocence every step of the way.

Third, they push gun control as the only tool that actually prevents crime. In other words, gun control makes certain kinds of crime physically impossible, no matter how much the bad guy wants to be bad. Or so they claim, using their phony statistics to back them up.

Finally, they deny the real purpose of the Second Ammendment. It's not about hunting, or protecting ourselves from criminals (which is still nice), but about protecting ourselves from our own government by retaining enough firepower for ourselves to discourage them from going too far.

To use the same logic liberals use, "why would the government fear armed citizens unless it was doing something bad?"

[DWSUWF]

"..."I don't think they can say they have no predisposed outcome," Kopel said. "I think it's a group of people who are first class, respectable folks... but who are inclined to be on the control side."..."

Anyone on the 'control' side is a G.D. whoring shill for the Reds...

Or a slack-jawed Fool.

Neither of these are 'First Class' or 'Respectable' folks.

[gatex]

"A Johns Hopkins University study has concluded that criminals in states that require licensing and registration of handguns have a harder time acquiring guns than those in states that don't have such laws."

False conclusion--

All citizens have a harder time -- not just criminals.

[Dr. Frank fan]

A Johns Hopkins University study has concluded that criminals in states that require licensing and registration of handguns have a harder time acquiring guns than those in states that don't have such laws.

Well, duh. That is the very intent and design of gun control laws, to give people who want to acquire guns a "harder time".

But this "study" which observes this entirely obvious point does not "back gun controls" as the title implies. For a study to "back gun controls" would have to mean, I would think, that the evidence and data found in the study would support the statement, "Gun Control Laws Should Exist".

But that statement flies in the face of the Constitution, of course; in particular, its Second Amendment. According to the Second Amendment - pending further data - it is clear that Gun Control Laws Should Not Exist.

So unless this "study" has found evidence that the Second Amendment does not exist or is otherwise fraudulent, it is entirely incorrect and misleading to say that the result of this study "backs gun control". Certainly it backs the statement "gun control laws make it harder for people to get guns".

But that statement by itself does not "back gun control".