Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  probably could get away with no g'fathering (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, PsychoSavannah

    but the enforcement and practical aspects of it, as well as the strong desire for bipartisan support, make it less likely to be in the bill.

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:37:11 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Greg Dworkin

      True enough.  As much as I don't like it, I don't see any other way for CT to come to grips with gun policy except to go through this experience.  I doubt it will have much practical impact one way or the other, for either gun owners or everyone else, so it will persist.

      When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

      by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:40:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  CA laws have had a major effect (4+ / 0-)

        because of its size. i expect CT to have an effect as well, not because outside stuff won't show up but 1) as a model and 2) as a goad.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:43:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

          I've heard this before, but I've never gotten the details on exact effects observed by the proponents of the CA gun control experience.  And over the past decade, the trend has been towards ownership liberalization, particularly where it concerns the expiration of the federal AWB, and the expansion of concealed and open carry.

          When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

          by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:47:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  here (click for bigger) (3+ / 0-)

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:14:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ... (3+ / 0-)
              Data source: CDC National Center for Health Statistics, WONDER online database. Underlying cause of death used to select firearm deaths. Rates were calculated using census population estimates adjusted to the 2000 and 2010 US population.
              http://sbcoalition.org/...

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:15:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Note (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Greg Dworkin

              It is worth noting that the remarkable drop in the CA numbers started in the 1993-1994 interval, while the timetable of California laws is:

              1989: CA Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act (requiring registration by 1991)
              1994: Federal Assault Weapon Ban (by which time the CA law had already been in effect for some years)
              1994: Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

              As best I can tell, there are no major California or Federal gun control laws that were enacted that would cause the dramatic drop starting in 1993, plus it undercuts the statements on both sides of the issue that the original assault weapon ban was toothless and had so many loopholes as to not make any difference. Or, it might be something simple like the graph being off by a year and the decline listed as being from 1993 to 1994 is actually supposed to be from 1994 to 1995, during which the two new federal laws would have been in force.

              Since the graph lists all firearms deaths, perhaps it would be more instructive to see a graph for firearms suicides for the period shown, side-by-side with one for firearms homicides.

              Not trying to diffuse or redirect the issue, but it seems that as presented, there are factors other than gun control laws at work here.

              •  maybe (6+ / 0-)

                Most likely explanation is things take a few years. In Australia it took 2 years after 1996 (Port Arthur, new gun laws) to see a change. and yes, even in Australia, the data is still challenged.

                I do think the AWB from 1994-2004 had more to it than suggested, though still filled with loopholes.

                "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:45:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Could be (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Greg Dworkin

                  But that does not explain the synchronicity between California and national numbers. If the CA drop is a delayed reaction to Roberti-Roos, then the national numbers should lag behind the federal ban. Instead we see a sharp CA drop at the same time as a lesser drop at the national level, and both of them level off at about the same time as well. And we do not see a corresponding rise in the national level after the expiration of the federal ban.

                  To be fair, reduced availability for a generation of young adults (the most violent cohort) could simply have convinced them that they did not need to own guns. If so, this is a demographic bubble that should be trackable using available crime data and is worth exploring. Similarly, since there has always been a racial aspect to gun control, seeing if there were any race-based changes in arrest/incarceration rates in this period would be interesting.

                  It is worth investigating if there were any other laws or major social changes outside of firearm or firearm type law that happened about the same time as the drop. Because I think we are missing something useful here. Just don't know what it is yet.

          •  more on CA (5+ / 0-)

            from Wintemute (NEJM)

            We know that comprehensive background checks and expanded denial criteria are feasible and effective, because they are in place in many states and have been evaluated. California, for example, requires a background check on all firearm purchases and denies purchases by persons who have committed violent misdemeanors. Yet some 600,000 firearms were sold there in 2011, and the firearms industry continues to consider California a “lucrative” market. The denial policy reduced the risk of violent and firearm-related crime by 23% among those whose purchases were denied.4
            4 Wintemute GJ, Wright MA, Drake CM, Beaumont JJ. Subsequent criminal activity among violent misdemeanants who seek to purchase handguns: risk factors and effectiveness of denying handgun purchase. JAMA 2001;285:1019-1026
            CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:20:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I also expect CT to have mental health aspects (5+ / 0-)

        which will prove useful, if not in this bill than in future bills.

        I also expect CT to do this much better than in NY.

        I also expect CT to highlight this as a loss for NRA and NSSF. Which it is.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:45:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site