NY Paper Publishes Legal Gun Permit Holders Names

[Scruit]

The difference between gun owner records and court conviction records is that one conviction records are for people who have broken the law.

We can debate whether the list should exist in the first place separately, but for now I believe the law should allow media organizations to determine and report the permit status of named individuals only when those individuals have been involved in an incident involving firearms, or if the media organization is reporting on whether permits are being issued in accordance with law. Under no circumstances shall any permit holder's details be published in any media unless that permit holder has been involved in a firearms-related incident.

[Pokey]

To be honest.....I have zero need for the media beyond the newspapers, all the horseshit news networks could go off the air and we would all be better for it. The media is a totally out of control clusterfuck with way too much power and clout, they have a big hand in bringing this country to its knees. We absolutely do not need 24 hour news networks, bring back the 6 o'clock news and let that be the end of it beyond the daily papers. THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE MUCH BETTER OFF IF THAT HAPPENED. So much damage has been done to the moral fabric of this country, I fear there is no chance of repair now.

[swingset]

I still can't get over why some folks don't understand the flawed logic in the bike/car/knife/any other object is the same as a gun and should be treated the same.

If someone had ill intentions... I don't believe they thought, "I need to get a motorcycle/car/knife so I can quickly kill multiple people... those are definitely the appropriate tools for that."

There's nothing flawed my logic, it is sound and tenable. You and Magz are the ones demonizing one object over another, because 800 years ago someone invented a weapon that works on the same principle. Guns are used for all manner of things totally unrelated to killing, and conversely cars and knives are used for murder or breaking the law every day accounting for many many times more deaths than so-called assault weapons. Intent and the user determine injury or malice, just as they do with a bike, or a gun, or a pair of boxcutters.

You're politicizing and emotionalizing this idea of design, just as all anti-gunners do.

If I wanted to kill a shit ton of people, I wouldn't choose a gun. Requires commitment, aim, and presence. A lot of risk, too. A bomb is much better at the job, and can be done without me even being there. Diesel (not a weapon) + fertilizer (not a weapon) plus a detonator and I can kill hundreds while I'm removed from the action.

I can just veer my truck into a long line of people outside a bar or movie theater, and kill 10-20 pretty easily. Probably a better chance of surviving that than trying to shoot 10-20 in a crowded mall.

In fact, I'd say that to kill en masse I would almost certainly not choose a gun. And, if I were to choose a gun, I could patiently kill people all day long from a safe distance using a single-shot bolt gun in a large hunting caliber. In fact, it's a superior weapon than an AR-15 in regards to power and lethality.

The AR has many real-world, practical uses. It's a wonderful light and accurate utility rifle, and I've taken small game with it and I compete at Camp Perry in matches with mine. But, even if it had no such uses, it's still precisely the kind of weapon the 2nd was written to protect - the same guns as those which can be brought against us or can be attacked by (to include criminals, the police, mobs, and even foreign invaders as unlikely as that may be).

Edited December 26, 2012 by swingset

[Disclaimer]

There's nothing flawed my logic, it is sound and tenable. You and Magz are the ones demonizing one object over another, because 800 years ago someone invented a weapon that works on the same principle. Guns are used for all manner of things totally unrelated to killing, and conversely cars and knives are used for murder or breaking the law every day accounting for many many times more deaths than so-called assault weapons. Intent and the user determine injury or malice, just as they do with a bike, or a gun, or a pair of boxcutters.

You're politicizing and emotionalizing this idea of design, just as all anti-gunners do.

If I wanted to kill a shit ton of people, I wouldn't choose a gun. Requires commitment, aim, and presence. A lot of risk, too. A bomb is much better at the job, and can be done without me even being there. Diesel (not a weapon) + fertilizer (not a weapon) plus a detonator and I can kill hundreds while I'm removed from the action.

I can just veer my truck into a long line of people outside a bar or movie theater, and kill 10-20 pretty easily. Probably a better chance of surviving that than trying to shoot 10-20 in a crowded mall.

In fact, I'd say that to kill en masse I would almost certainly not choose a gun. And, if I were to choose a gun, I could patiently kill people all day long from a safe distance using a single-shot bolt gun in a large hunting caliber. In fact, it's a superior weapon than an AR-15 in regards to power and lethality.

The AR has many real-world, practical uses. It's a wonderful light and accurate utility rifle, and I've taken small game with it and I compete at Camp Perry in matches with mine. But, even if it had no such uses, it's still precisely the kind of weapon the 2nd was written to protect - the same guns as those which can be brought against us or can be attacked by (to include criminals, the police, mobs, and even foreign invaders as unlikely as that may be).

Your logic isn't flawed, and you sit there and use broad brush terms like "as all anti-gunners do"

1) You make the assumption I'm anti-gun, just because I'm open minded enough to see and understand an opposing viewpoint. I'm sorry you're incapable of fathoming that someone with opposing views may have some merit in their arguments.

2) I'm far from "emotionalizing" anything. Statistically and based on decades of case studies, more guns equal more deaths. Then you turn around and want to bust my balls about "emotionalizing" stuff "as all anti-gunners do" and you're the one talking about "intent" which is an emotional argument.

3) But, since you insist on using "intent" as your argument, it further solidifies mine. The vast majority of legal and responsible gun owners I couldn't care less about, but when someone's INTENTIONS are to harm people -- they aren't reaching for the keys to a Hayabusa or a Corolla.. they're getting access to guns. This is why no one has mandated a background check to buy cars or knives...

4) No where did I mention banning anything -- this was a debate about privacy, yet you're still stuck on this idea that this thread is another one about taking your precious guns away. I'm sorry that all this TALK is so scary for you Craig.

Edited December 26, 2012 by JRMMiii

[Tpoppa]

Your logic isn't flawed, and you sit there and use broad brush terms like "as all anti-gunners do"

Pot, "Kettle, you are black."

[Disclaimer]

Pot, "Kettle, you are black."

Please do point out where I went wrong...

[jagr]

[swingset]

Your logic isn't flawed, and you sit there and use broad brush terms like "as all anti-gunners do"

It was an opinion based on my observations, separate from my logic of guns or design.

1) You make the assumption I'm anti-gun, just because I'm open minded enough to see and understand an opposing viewpoint. I'm sorry you're incapable of fathoming that someone with opposing views may have some merit in their arguments.

You're demonstrating that my opinion is on the mark when you use Magz anti-gun arguments, the same ones I've seen all anti-gunners do. Why should I assume you're not anti-gun when you habitually opposing them and gun owners? Jesus.

2) I'm far from "emotionalizing" anything. Statistically and based on decades of case studies, more guns equal more deaths. Then you turn around and want to bust my balls about "emotionalizing" stuff "as all anti-gunners do" and you're the one talking about "intent" which is an emotional argument.

Bullshit. You are emotionalizing guns, and there are no statistics that prove that more guns equals more death. There are 300,000,000 guns in the United States, 9,369 murders by guns. That's .0003% of all guns used to murder. A microscopic percent of a percent. More guns do not equal more death. In the 1950's the gun ownership rate (with lax gun laws) was less than half of today's, but gun murder rates were nearly the same (per capita) as they are today.

More guns don't equal more death, murder and violence rates don't coincide with gun ownership or gun rates. Switzerland should be a great evidence of the fallacy of that childish assertion. And, there's a lot of other cities that have a nearly 100% gun ownership and almost zero murder rate.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

3) But, since you insist on using "intent" as your argument, it further solidifies mine. The vast majority of legal and responsible gun owners I couldn't care less about, but when someone's INTENTIONS are to harm people -- they aren't reaching for the keys to a Hayabusa or a Corolla.. they're getting access to guns. This is why no one has mandated a background check to buy cars or knives...

Nice sleight of hand, but you're changing the argument and trying to again say that guns are a more certain evil when there's that's entirely an emotional argument. I mentioned cars, I mentioned knives, I mentioned bombs. All of which have been used for mass murder, all of which are what people reach for (and there are multiple examples...do a fucking google search). The reason we have background checks on guns is because at one time someone politicized and emotionalized guns and viola. Before the GCA? There were no checks, and mass murders were rare. Maybe all this background checking is the culprit? Run with that.

Guns are not inherently evil, cars are inherently benign. YOU decide, that's intent. That you can't grasp this is all the proof I need you don't have any logic propelling you. None. You're proving, again and again, that you are deadlocked into the emotional and irrational view of guns as being imbued with harm or malice, Magz.

4) No where did I mention banning anything -- this was a debate about privacy, yet you're still stuck on this idea that this thread is another one about taking your precious guns away. I'm sorry that all this TALK is so scary for you Craig.

I didn't say you did, just made the case that guns that are often viewed as "assault weapons" are not more deadly than others, and have utility and purpose that should protect them from people who think like you do. And, I'll offer another opinion. I believe if an assault weapons ban, or a magazine ban passes, you will be thrilled about that outcome. Am I wrong? I don't think so.

Edited December 26, 2012 by swingset

[Disclaimer]

You know that line, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people?”

It’s true, so far as it goes. But in the United States, when people

decide to kill people, or kill themselves, they typically reach for a

gun.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/26/guns-kill-people-in-one-chilling-graph/

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

But yea, go ahead and keep f*(king that chicken. I'm "wrong, wrong, wrong" as are the researchers at Harvard who probably put a lot more effort into their research than you did.

I don't know where you get your numbers either... 9369 murders by guns? You just pull that out of thin air? Looks like it. Research is obviously not your strong suit.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

When Assault(homicide) makes Top 15 causes of death in the US, with the vast majority of homicides occurring with a firearm (11,493 out of all 16,799 total homicides in 2009)

So, aside from health problems and intentional self-harm of suicides... firearms account for the vast majority of non health related, NON-ACCIDENTAL death.

Edited December 26, 2012 by JRMMiii

[twowheelsnake]

Did anyone see that someone published the addresses of the columnists? Lol

[Scruit]

How can guns be the first AND second leading causes of death in 15-24yo? (and other age groups where it appears twice)

I would like to see those number broken down even more - How many of those guns were legally held versus illegally held.

If guns did not exist then another type of weapon would replace guns on that list, of course. The question is: Would the murder rate go down? Or would people still kill each other in the same overall numbers? (or would there be a matching rise in assault cases, basically displacing the criminal events from the murder column to the assault.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Scruit

[Scruit]

Did anyone see that someone published the addresses of the columnists? Lol

Did you see this:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/12/26/bpr-jonathan-lowry-gun-permits-map.cnn

Johnathan Lowry of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said;

"I think this shows a lack of judgement by the newspaper and I think we should not be stigmatizing every law abiding gun owner out there."

[shittygsxr]

Hate to say it but remove the black on black violence and I bet the numbers tell a different story.

[Disclaimer]

How can guns be the first AND second leading causes of death in 15-24yo? (and other age groups where it appears twice)

You missed the little color key up in the right corner.

One color is homicide, the other is suicide. The boldness of the colors are the value. A lot of the backup information to make that chart is lacking, but the some of it corroborates with the CDC links.

[jagr]

Scruit.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43

Not sure why BJS only has up to 2009 data.

But in 2009 73% of violent crime was committed with "No Weapon."

We should totally ban No Weapons!

[Pokey]

JRMMiii and his Liberal minded pie charts and bar graphs, can't use common sense to see the actual truth and REAL WORLD facts. Since you obviously appear to be a Liberal extraordinaire and claim that you own and enjoy firearms, how can even you sit back and not be concerned that your rights could be affected? Is that really what you want, you trust the mob mentality, big brother government and mob justice that is making this all aggressively go through due to emotions and a hang jury? Somebody has got to pay, oh somebody has got to pay. You seem like you would love Great Britain, Canada or Australia better than here, yet real bad shit is happening there too. Facts and opinions are coming from all sides, yet the only real certain truth is that the bad guys will always have and find a way to have guns and other dangerous ordinances. Can you grasp that people are the problem, hell people have always been the problem and will continue to be the problem. Bad can only be fought and won against with good, and the good guys and gals will be packing heat right along with the pieces of shit society. I want to be better armed and prepared than the bad guys, once they lose the advantage they lose interest. I hear and see nothing but excuses, finger pointing and fear from the left, then add in all the totally ignorant Americans that actually think and believe that nothing bad could happen to them. Feed enough bullshit, and eventually sheeple people will eat it and believe it.

[Disclaimer]

So, per Jagrs link... most homicides occur with a firearm, but non-fatal violent crime still occurs regardless of a weapon.

Per the PDF: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf

and Per the PDF: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Since Jagrs PDF relies on victim interviews and therefore does not account for violent crime with homicide (Table 2), that's why the CDC PDF was also required. And I didn't understand Table 10 in his PDF on the difference between "incidents" and "victimizations" unless that was due to a terminology change because of the methodology change from 2008 to 2009.

Total of 4.13M violent crimes

326k were KNOWN to have a firearm with another 225.7k where it was unknown what type of weapon they had or even if they had a weapon

16.8k homicides with

11.5k using firearms (and just for shittys clarification, black male was highest of that 11.5k at 5,574 followed by white males at 3,786 then by white females at 1,164 and black females at 642)

Since the 4.13M violent crimes doesn't include homicide, technically, we'd have to add the additional 16.8k to that, but it's negligible given the large number of violent crime in general... so out of 4.13M crimes, 11.5k resulted in homicide by firearm (or 0.28%) of all violent crime with 7.9% of all violent crime using a firearm -- or a 3.5% likelihood of death when a firearm is present.

Using the numbers for homicide without weapons, 5.3k out of 4.13M violent crimes (or 0.13%), with 72.6% of violent crime without a weapon. So, without a firearm in a violent crime, your chance of being murdered goes to 0.18%.

3.5% > 0.18%

*This is only good for y2009

Edited December 27, 2012 by JRMMiii

[swingset]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/26/guns-kill-people-in-one-chilling-graph/

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

But yea, go ahead and keep f*(king that chicken. I'm "wrong, wrong, wrong" as are the researchers at Harvard who probably put a lot more effort into their research than you did.

Nothing posted contradicts me, you know that right? You said more guns equals more deaths. That's empirically untrue, either by total number of guns or by rate of ownership.

Stop moving the goal posts. You said it, and it was wrong, wrong, wrong.

I don't know where you get your numbers either... 9369 murders by guns? You just pull that out of thin air? Looks like it. Research is obviously not your strong suit.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Even if my numbers are low, and they're not MY numbers, the total number of firearms committing murders related to numbers of guns is a tiny fraction of a percent. Period, end of story.

When Assault(homicide) makes Top 15 causes of death in the US, with the vast majority of homicides occurring with a firearm (11,493 out of all 16,799 total homicides in 2009)

So, aside from health problems and intentional self-harm of suicides... firearms account for the vast majority of non health related, NON-ACCIDENTAL death.

Again, that doesn't rebut anything I said. And, it doesn't actually support your own assertions that the prevalence or availability of guns increases the rate of homicide by firearms.

If it does, then again explain Switzerland, or Kennesaw Georgia (with mandatory gun ownership and 25 years without a murder).

Please, address this since your assertion is directly in question. Don't keep throwing up graphs that don't say anything.

[Disclaimer]

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Quoted myself again because Craig needs to try again to read. Even if you just read the very first bold line.

And if this is because I used the verbiage "deaths" when I was clearly talking about non-health related, unintentional deaths... you're really stretching.

Edited December 27, 2012 by JRMMiii

[swingset]

Oh, and it was mentioned earlier but factor out inner city violence involving drugs and crime....and our murder rate, violent crime rate, and most importantly firearm murder rate is very low.

Is this an important argument? It is since the culture of violence and socio-economic problems of the inner city and drug war is disproportionately skewing the statistics and if you have no contact with that world then violence in this country looks markedly different.

What's absurd is that white NRA members receive the derision of the liberals, yet the most ugly and numerous instances of violence is happening at the hands of minorities in the liberal cities. It's THEIR gun culture that's out of whack, not mine.

[swingset]

Quoted myself again because Craig needs to try again to read. Even if you just read the very first bold line.

I read it, and it's horseshit.

For the third time, explain Switzerland and Kennesaw Georgia.

If one word of that study held up (and that study is directly contradicted by Lott's work), then Switzerland would be experiencing gun crime and violence, yet it's so statistically low to be insignificant...as in non-existent. It also contradicts other Harvard research, interestingly.

That Georgia town would have had a murder, or 5, or 10.

Stop dancing, and answer my fucking question. Stop googling bullshit and think. Use your own words.

Use some of that impressive logic.

Edited December 27, 2012 by swingset

[JackFlash]

Quote from that article:

[ You know that line, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people?” It’s true, so far as it goes. But in the United States, when people decide to kill people, or kill themselves, they typically reach for a gun. ]

It doesn't matter. Take away guns and you can make the same statement using the word knife, or sticks, or stones, or being tossed off a building. Until we get some morality back into society it's only going to get worse. Until human life is respected, there will continue to be killings by anything that can be used as a weapon.

.

[Scruit]

You missed the little color key up in the right corner.

One color is homicide, the other is suicide. The boldness of the colors are the value. A lot of the backup information to make that chart is lacking, but the some of it corroborates with the CDC links.

Yep, missed that - thanks.

Concentrating on suicide for a moment. If a suicidal person did now have a gun available to them, what do we all think would happen? Would that person kill themselves using some different means, or would that person not kill themselves?

[Disclaimer]

I read it, and it's horseshit.

For the third time, explain Switzerland and Kennesaw Georgia.

The Swiss has been researched and it's a myth that they're "gun nuts", but I can only provide the abstract of the academic research until it's released in Feb 2013:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22089893

But, here's a conversation with the head researcher:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

And Kennesaw GA is questionable, I can only get crime statistics for the county, and they're just one small town in that county (not even the county seat) -- even so, I figured, if Kennesaw was so great, that'd constantly appear on cities with the lowest crime index or "safest places to live" -- they don't. They only appear on gun blogs and pro gun sites.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/search/5027854/

That's just one link, there are more.

If one word of that study held up (and that study is directly contradicted by Lott's work), then Switzerland would be experiencing gun crime and violence, yet it's so statistically low to be insignificant...as in non-existent.

Ohh, you mean John Lott... the guy who was caught sockpuppeting as Mary Rosh (http://reason.com/archives/2003/05/01/the-mystery-of-mary-rosh) and who's research has been under fire by numerous academics who say his statistical model and use of econometrics was flawed? (http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm) The model that, since it was created, has been proven false by new data? That guy? Ok.

Stop dancing, and answer my fucking question. Stop googling bullshit and think. Use your own words.

Use some of that impressive logic.

That's the f*(king problem... people that think they're the smartest person in the room, and they're far from it. This is why research needs to be done to validate opinions. But no amount of statistics or analysis will convince you or Pokey about how it's just "liberal" number and you guys will go with your "gut feel" because "those are the facts" when they're far from it. That's the problem.

[JackFlash]

Yep, missed that - thanks.

Concentrating on suicide for a moment. If a suicidal person did now have a gun available to them, what do we all think would happen? Would that person kill themselves using some different means, or would that person not kill themselves?

I'm guessing that if they were in a tall building, they may jump out the window. People have jumped off of bridges.

Sleeping pills and alcohol? Painless. Self hanging?

What if they had no bullets? They would have time to change their mind or they may find another way to end it. If a person is going to do it, they will find a way even if they have to jump in front of your car on the freeway.

.