One Year Later, Groups Praise Connecticut's Stricter Gun Laws

  • Comments (36)
Members of gun violence protection groups celebrate the one-year anniversary of the passage of Connecticut's stricter gun laws.
Members of gun violence protection groups celebrate the one-year anniversary of the passage of Connecticut's stricter gun laws. Photo Credit: State of Connecticut / House Democrats
Gov. Dannel Malloy released compiled under the new law.
Gov. Dannel Malloy released compiled under the new law. Photo Credit: State of Connecticut / House Democrats

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, Conn. -- Gov. Dannel Malloy, along with legislative leaders and many gun-violence prevention organizations, commemorated the one-year anniversary of the passage of historic legislation to curb the risk of gun violence in Connecticut after the deadly Sandy Hook shootings.

“In the wake of one of the worst tragedies to befall our state, we took clear and decisive action to make all residents in every one of our cities and towns safer,” Malloy said Thursday at the state Capitol. “The common sense limitations we put in place will make sure that guns are less likely to fall into the hands of someone who shouldn’t have one.

"The investments in school security and the additional steps we are taking to address the challenges in accessing mental services are really the first steps toward long-term improvements in public safety. I want to thank my colleagues in the legislature and the thousands of people who came out to support the measures we put in place."

Among the many provisions in the bill, the law bans the sale and possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, requires a clean criminal record, safety training and a permit to buy rifles, shotguns and ammunition, whether it is from a gun store or private sale. 

The state now requires background checks and training for the purchase of all categories of guns. 

Additionally, convicted felons caught with ammunition now face the same penalty as they would if they got caught with a firearm. 

The bill also increased funding for mental health treatment and school security. 

Malloy also released statistics that have been compiled as different parts of the law went into effect:

  • To date, 50,242 assault-weapon certifications have been received and 38,209 gun owners filed declarations listing the number and type of large capacity magazines they owned. Some declarations contained hundreds of individual magazines. 
  • The state has also issued 2,592 ammunition certificates and received 61 eligibility certificates for long guns.
  • In addition, 1,747 pistol permits were revoked for reasons including drunk driving, mental health commitments, restraining and protective orders in domestic violence cases.
  • And 210 people tried to buy rifles and shotguns and were denied when background checks turned up felony convictions, undocumented alien status and domestic violence charges.

“One year ago, in the wake of the devastating tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, Democrats and Republicans in Connecticut worked together to pass the most effective and comprehensive legislation in the nation concerning gun violence prevention, school security, and mental health,” said Senate President Donald E. Williams, Jr. (D-Brooklyn).  “Our successful bipartisan effort stands in stark contrast to Congress and those states that are mired in gridlock and partisanship on issues that affect the safety of our children." 

  • 36
    Comments

Comments (36)

Repeal the second amendment

and there you have it. right out in the open. i applaud you Dirty Duck. the rest of the democrats simply try to mask their (rather obvious) intentions.

the entire Bill of Rights is under assault. take a look at the rest of the destruction today's democrat party is executing....

FYI
The second amendment never intended to give the individual the right to own a gun.

Strummie
You may want to actually read the article. It does state that gun crimes have dropped for the whole country. It also goes onto state thar CA with strict gun laws had a drop in gun crime 100 percent higer than the average.
Its a fact strick gun law create a drop in crime. All one needs to do is look at countries that outlaw guns.

For the claim below that CA's violent crime drop is due to strict gun laws, violent crime has decreased across the entire country by 50%+ in the last 20 years. However, it decreased faster in states with liberal concealed carry laws.

CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS (CCW) STATISTICS

Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992) -

The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).

The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000).

The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000). Using the most recent FBI data (1992), homicide trends in the 17 states with less restrictive CCW laws compare favorably against national trends, and almost all CCW permittees are law-abiding.

Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used).

Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times annually.

By contrast, there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed annually with firearms of all types. Seventy percent of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, including repeat offenders, many of whom the courts place on probation after conviction, and felons that are paroled before serving their full time behind bars.

Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain "studies" that are used to claim that guns are more often misused than used for self-protection. Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.

http://www.carryconcealed.net/carrying-concealed-statistics

What is really funny is that rep quoting "the safety of children" !!

This is a feel good law that will prevent NOTHING. Wake up people

California, the state with the strictest gun laws in the country, has seen a 56% drop in its gun death rate in the past 20 years, according to a study that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence released last week.

The study points out that 5,500 Californians were killed by gunfire in 1993, but that number dropped to 2,935 by 2010. The number of people per 100,000 who were killed by guns also dropped dramatically from 1990 to 2010 (see chart at right, and note that the numbers on the Y axis seem to be spaced unevenly).

While violent crime (including gun deaths) dropped everywhere in the U.S. during the 1990s, gun deaths declined even more in the Golden State. The nonprofit Law Center argues that there's a correlation between the state's strict gun laws and the dramatic drop in the number of deaths from guns.

This theory is bolstered by other studies done elsewhere — a Center for American Progress study found thatstates with the weakest gun laws have the highest rates of gun violence, and a study released by Boston Children's Hospital in March found that states with more gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths.

Gun restrictions similar to California's have failed in some other states.

Here's a sampling of the regulations the Law Center says have contributed the state's dramatic reduction in gun deaths:

In 1994, the state passed a law that prohibits people who are subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm.In 1999, the state passed a law banning individuals from buying more than one handgun in a 30-day period as part of an effort to fight gun trafficking.In 1999, the state began requiring a one-feature test for assault weapons to prevent manufacturers from modifying a banned weapon to make it legal.In 2000, the state passed a law banning the sale and manufacturing of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.In 2004, the state made it illegal to posses, manufacture, or sell 50-caliber, military-style firearms.

What The Rest Of America Can Learn From California's Strict Gun Laws

You do not understand that criminals do not obey laws.

Murders do not obey the law against murder.
So lets get rid of that law.
Burglars to not obey the law against burglary.
So lets get rid of that law.
That is basically what the ones that use the justification of a criminal not obeying gun laws are saying.

Jason get you facts straight OK. Here we go with the facts read it and weep. >>>>>>>>Since Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
Home invasions increased by 21%.
Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

jason parraga.5:

In Other Countries, Laws Are Strict and Work

Silly Silly you forgot one big factor. These country's are basically civilized and do not have a constitution. There residents are law abiding gun owners and they were stripped of the ability to defend themselves. So be it as it may they lack GANG BANGERS that are responsible for 81 % of all gun crimes in the US. Now tell you story to another DUMB LIBERAL LIKE YOURSELF!

States’ crime rates show scant linkage to gun laws

President Obama has called for stricter federal gun laws to combat recent shooting rampages, but a review of recent state laws by The Washington Times shows no discernible correlation between stricter rules and lower gun-crime rates in the states.

States that ranked high in terms of making records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System also tended to have tighter gun laws — but their gun-crime rates ranged widely. The same was true for states that ranked poorly on disclosure and were deemed to have much less stringent gun-possession laws.

For example, New York, even before it approved the strictest gun-control measures in the country last week, was ranked fourth among the states in strength of gun laws by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, but was also in the top 10 in firearm homicide rates in 2011, according to the FBI.

Meanwhile, North Dakota was near the bottom in its firearm homicide, firearm robbery and firearm assault rates, but also had some of the loosest gun laws and worst compliance with turning over mental health records to the background check system.

Analysts said the data underscore that there are no simple or easy broad answers to combating gun violence, which is a complex equation involving gun-ownership rates, how ready authorities are to prosecute gun crimes and how widely they ban ownership.

Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University, said in an email that a simple comparison between states' strength of gun laws and gun-crime rates doesn't say much about the effects of the laws because the exercise fails to control for other factors such as gun-ownership rates.

In an exhaustive analysis with data from 170 U.S. cities that did control for such factors, Mr. Kleck and fellow researcher E. Britt Patterson concluded that there was no general impact of gun-control laws on crime rates — with a few notable exceptions.

"There do appear to be some gun controls which work, all of them relatively moderate, popular and inexpensive," the researchers wrote. "Thus, there is support for a gun-control policy organized around gun-owner licensing or purchase permits (or some other form of gun-buyer screening); stricter local dealer licensing; bans on possession of guns by criminals and mentally ill people; stronger controls over illegal carrying; and possibly discretionary add-on penalties for committing felonies with a gun.

"On the other hand, popular favorites such as waiting periods and gun registration do not appear to affect violence rates," he said.

No state patterns

The Times analysis looked at the Brady Campaign's rankings for strength of each state's gun laws and at Mayors Against Illegal Guns' rankings for how states perform in disclosing mental health data to the background check system. That information was then matched against the FBI's 2011 gun-crime rankings for homicides, robberies and assaults.

The results showed no correlation among the strength of laws and disclosure and the crime rates.

For example, Maryland and New Jersey — both of them populous states with large metropolitan areas — have tight gun laws but poor mental health disclosure. But New Jersey's gun-crime rate was in the middle of the pack, while Maryland ranked sixth-highest in homicides involving guns and second-highest in robberies with guns.

Delaware and Virginia, which both ranked high in mental health disclosure and ranked 18th and 19th in the Brady tally of tough gun laws, also had divergent crime rates.

Delaware ranked among the top 10 in number of gun robberies and gun assaults, while Virginia was in the middle of the pack on its measures.

Statistical anomalies were found between rural states such as Louisiana and Vermont. The former state has lax gun laws and has high gun-crime rates on all three measures. Although Vermont also is a rural state with a strong tradition of gun ownership — the Brady Campaign ranks it 26th in terms of strength of gun laws — it has low gun-crime rates. For further head-scratching, Vermont ranks among the nation's worst in turning over mental health records to the background check system.

State law details

John Lott, who has conducted extensive research on the link between gun laws and crime rates, said he has examined 13 kinds of gun-control laws, but one that stands out as reducing crime is concealed-carry.

"What you see is the states that issue the most [concealed-carry] permits have the most drops in violent crime," he said. "When states pass carry laws, some criminals stop committing crimes, some criminals switch to other types of crimes and some criminals move out of the area."

He said that a deep dive into data is essential to understanding why different regions of the country see different results. Mr. Lott pointed to Texas and Pennsylvania, both of which are right-to-carry states, but he explained that the permitting process is much more expensive in Texas.

"If I have a $140 fee versus a $20 fee, I'm more likely to get suburban white males," he said. However, he noted, "poor blacks in high-crime areas benefit the most from carrying a gun."

"Those differences make a huge difference in how many people go through the process to get the permit," he concluded.

Still, the two large states had mixed results in crime rates in 2011. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Pennsylvania had higher rates of robberies and homicides committed with firearms than Texas, while the Lone Star State had nearly half again as many gun assaults per 100,000 population.

Changing patterns

The Brady Campaign declined a request for comment, but David Chipman, a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who now works with Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said that linking gun laws and background check compliance with crime rates is risky — particularly since 40 percent of gun transactions are private sales that don't require background checks.

"Requiring a criminal background check for every gun in every circumstance is something not yet tried," he said. "How do you measure prevention? It's tough to do a double-blind test."

Mr. Chipman also pointed to Virginia's first-of-its-kind 1989 law creating an instant check system — the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program — as an example of a law that had a tangible effect on criminal behavior and the gun market.

"When Virginia passed that law, all of the New Yorkers who used to come down — they never came back and tried to buy the guns themselves in the store," he said. "They were forced to use straw purchasers, and many of them went to other states.

"Did it immediately prevent all gun trafficking? Of course not. But it sure changed it," he said.

In 1991, the ATF reported that 40 percent of more than 1,200 guns recovered at crime scenes in New York were traced to Virginia, though gun rights advocates dispute the data. In 2011, 407 guns out of almost 9,000 guns recovered and traced in New York came from Virginia, according to the agency — about 5 percent.

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, co-chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, also argues that some specific changes can lower crime rates. He told the U.S. Conference of Mayors last week that after Colorado closed its loophole allowing private dealers to sell guns without conducting background checks, fewer Colorado-sold guns turned up at crime scenes.

He also said that in states that require background checks on all sales, 38 percent less women are fatally shot by their boyfriends and husbands.

He also cited a recent Duke University study that showed once a severely mentally ill person's records are turned over to the background check system, that person is 31 percent less likely to be convicted of a violent crime.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/states-crime-rates-show-scant-linkage-to-gun-laws/

Vindication: Gun Safety Laws Prevented Potential School Shooting Massacre In Connecticut

Natalie Carpenter’s name and face are not likely to be plastered all over our TV and computer screens; but for those who do read stories about her and know her name now, she’ll mostly likely be forgotten in a short time. We won’t remember her in 15 years the way we will always remember Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. And that’s, in part, thanks to gun regulations doing their job.

Carpenter, an 18-year-old from Torrington, Connecticut was arrested last month after making threats to conduct Columbine-like shootings at two different schools, Danbury High School and her own former school, Stratford High School. The arrest warrant, which was just unsealed this week, revealed that Carpenter had an obsession with Harris, Klebold, and the Columbine shooting.

Carpenter was receiving treatment at Hope House, a group home for people with mental health problems. According to court documents, she needed the treatment for a personality disorder, attention deficit disorder, and depression. The 18-year-old also had a history of self-injury and attempted suicide. She was able to “come and go as she pleased” at the group home.

Police found disturbing entries in Carpenter’s journal describing her admiration for Harris and Klebold.

[box type=”shadow”]“I can’t even stop thinking about Columbine and Eric and Dylan. I don’t know how but I miss Eric and Dylan. I never knew them but I miss them. I went though [SIC] everything they went through and I wanna follow in their footsteps. . . . . If they were still alive today and didn’t kill themselves, I would go find them and hug them and tell them how much I love them. That’s what nobody did and that’s how they ended up this way and why they shoot [SIC] up their school and yet people are still so rude and nasty and there’s still bullying going on and it’s getting worse. I mean HELLO PEOPLE OPEN YOUR (expletive) EYES.”[/box]

Along with a 19-year-old accomplice, Peter Thulin (who lives in the same group home), Carpenter planned to emulate her “heroes” by holding students and staff hostage and then shooting until they were all dead. Fortunately, another patient was able to inform the staff at Hope House of their plan before they were able to purchase the guns they would need.

Carpenter first tried to purchase a 12-guage shotgun at a city gun store, Tactical Arms. When that was unsuccessful, she tried Walmart. She filled out an application, but there was a 2-week wait for paperwork to be processed, which thankfully left enough time for her to be caught.

According to the right-wing gun nuts, Carpenter should have been able to walk into any gun store and buy whatever she wanted, no questions asked. Fortunately, there were common sense gun regulations that stopped her from doing that.

This is why we need to keep having this conversation. This is why we need to close gun show loopholes and ensure waiting periods and mental health screenings across the board; because instead of this post, I could be writing about another devastating mass murder.

Carpenter has been charged with attempt to commit first-degree assault and conspiracy to commit assault and is being held at Niantic Correction Institute.

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study

May 7, 2013, 12:46 p.m.

Gun crime has plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s, including gun killings, assaults, robberies and other crimes, two new studies of government data show.

Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center.

In less than two decades, the gun murder rate has been nearly cut in half. Other gun crimes fell even more sharply, paralleling a broader drop in violent crimes committed with or without guns. Violent crime dropped steeply during the 1990s and has fallen less dramatically since the turn of the millennium.

The number of gun killings dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in a separate report released Tuesday. Gun crimes that weren’t fatal fell by 69%. However, guns still remain the most common murder weapon in the United States, the report noted. Between 1993 and 2011, more than two out of three murders in the U.S. were carried out with guns, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found.

The bureau also looked into non-fatal violent crimes. Few victims of such crimes -- less than 1% -- reported using a firearm to defend themselves.

Despite the remarkable drop in gun crime, only 12% of Americans surveyed said gun crime had declined compared with two decades ago, according to Pew, which surveyed more than 900 adults this spring. Twenty-six percent said it had stayed the same, and 56% thought it had increased.

It’s unclear whether media coverage is driving the misconception that such violence is up. The mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., were among the news stories most closely watched by Americans last year, Pew found. Crime has also been a growing focus for national newscasts and morning network shows in the past five years but has become less common on local television news.

“It’s hard to know what’s going on there,” said D’Vera Cohn, senior writer at the Pew Research Center. Women, people of color and the elderly were more likely to believe that gun crime was up than men, younger adults or white people. The center plans to examine crime issues more closely later this year.

Though violence has dropped, the United States still has a higher murder rate than most other developed countries, though not the highest in the world, the Pew study noted. A Swiss research group, the Small Arms Survey, says that the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country.

Experts debate why overall crime has fallen, attributing the drop to all manner of causes, such as the withering of the crack cocaine market and surging incarceration rates.

Some researchers have even linked dropping crime to reduced lead in gasoline, pointing out that lead can cause increased aggression and impulsive behavior in exposed children.

The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Compared with other parts of the country, the South had the highest rates of gun violence, including both murders and other violent gun crimes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507%2C0%2C3022693.story

norealIy:

It seems before long we will see the second amendment repealed. This is a good move. Also the second amendment never gave the individual the right to own a gun. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone answer a MORON LIKE THIS!!!! Totally nuts and thank god this person does not like guns.!!! Someone should take all the sharp objects out of this persons house. What a nut JOB!!

Gun Laws Work, So Why Don’t We Have More Of Them?

An average of 83 Americans die every day from firearms in the United States. And the U.S. has the highest firearm homicide rates in the developed world.

Despite these numbers and the recent spate of deadly gun violence incidents, it’s not likely we’ll hear much about gun control from our presidential and congressional candidates. The popular position of most politicians falls somewhere between claiming that current gun laws are adequate and just need to be enforced, to deferring the responsibility to individual states. As a result we have inconsistent and insufficient gun laws.

In 33 states, criminals and terrorists can buy military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips from “private dealers” on the Internet or at gun shows without showing ID or completing a background check. No ID, no background check, no restrictions, no detection. It is perfectly legal for private gun dealers and individuals to sell an unlimited number of firearms to anyone, including domestic criminals and international terrorists, cash and carry.

In addition to neglecting public safety and contributing to the 30,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. each year, current gun laws fly in the face of public opinion. Most citizens, members of law enforcement, gun owners and even a majority of NRA members agree that we need more restrictive laws governing the buying and selling of firearms.

Consider these figures from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
•94 percent of police chiefs favor requiring a criminal background check for all handgun sales
•87 percent of Americans support background checks on private sales of guns, including sales at gun shows
•83 percent of gun owners support background checks on private sales of guns, including sales at gun shows
•69 percent of gun owners who belong to the NRA support requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns

There are several examples of successful legislative efforts to reduce gun violence, and real results that show the connection between restricted access to guns and reduced gun violence.

Between 1994 and 2004, under a federal assault weapons ban, there was a 66 percent reduction in assault weapons linked to crimes. (Assault weapons are the common denominator in every mass shooting because they can fire up to 100 rounds before reloading.) Since the ban expired, we have seen these military-style assault weapons come back into circulation. Previously banned guns like the AR-15, used in the Aurora massacre, are readily available to criminals and terrorists in the 33 states with lax gun control laws and at thousands of gun shows.

In Massachusetts, where we have some of the most effective gun laws, firearms kill three people per 100,000 each year, compared to the national average of 10 per 100,000. Despite being an urban industrial state, Massachusetts boasts the lowest firearm fatality rate in the nation.

More Americans have been killed by guns in the past 40 years than all U.S. service men and women killed in all foreign wars combined.

Massachusetts is one of the few states to require gun training, licensing and registration, and consumer protection standards for firearm manufacturers, and is one of only 17 states that require criminal background checks for all gun sales. These tough gun laws strengthen the conclusion reached by the Violence Policy Center, which found that states with the lowest firearm fatality rates have more restrictive gun laws and lower gun ownership rates.

Even for those inclined to dispute the connection between easy gun access and high rates of gun violence, there is still no basis for claiming that we should make guns easier for criminals and terrorists to access without detection.

So why do we still have federal policies that are intended to increase access to guns by criminals? How can we not see the problem with allowing criminals and terrorists to legally buy guns without detection?

Unfortunately the answer is simple: Sadly, Congress is willing to ignore the need for effective gun violence prevention laws in exchange for tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the gun industry and the NRA.

What is it going to take for us to recognize the deadly reality of the situation and hold our elected officials accountable?

Current national gun laws that allow unrestricted and undetected gun access have resulted in more Americans being killed by guns in the past 40 years than all U.S. service men and women killed in all foreign wars combined.

Look at the facts and let your policymakers know that you’re paying attention to their unconscionable and dangerous gun policies.

Excellent factual post Jason
Thank You
We all know how the right wingers just hate facts.

no source?

In Other Countries, Laws Are Strict and Work

Like other shootings before it, the Newtown, Conn., tragedy has reawakened America to its national fixation with firearms. No country in the world has more guns per capita, with some 300 million civilian firearms now in circulation, or nearly one for every adult.
Experts from the Harvard School of Public Health, using data from 26 developed countries, have shown that wherever there are more firearms, there are more homicides. In the case of the United States, exponentially more: the American murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries, which have much tougher laws controlling private ownership of guns.

There’s another important difference between this country and the rest of the world. Other nations have suffered similar rampages, but they have reacted quickly to impose new and stricter gun laws.

Australia is an excellent example. In 1996, a “pathetic social misfit,” as a judge described the lone gunman, killed 35 people with a spray of bullets from semiautomatic weapons. Within weeks, the Australian government was working on gun reform laws that banned assault weapons and shotguns, tightened licensing and financed gun amnesty and buyback programs.

At the time, the prime minister, John Howard, said, “We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.” The laws have worked. The American Journal of Law and Economics reported in 2010 that firearm homicides in Australia dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006. In the 18 years before the 1996 laws, there were 13 gun massacres resulting in 102 deaths, according to Harvard researchers, with none in that category since.

Similarly, after 16 children and their teacher were killed by a gunman in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, the British government banned all private ownership of automatic weapons and virtually all handguns. Those changes gave Britain some of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world on top of already strict rules. Hours of exhaustive paperwork are required if anyone wants to own even a shotgun or rifle for hunting. The result has been a decline in murders involving firearms.

In Japan, which has very strict laws, only 11 people were killed with guns in 2008, compared with 12,000 deaths by firearms that year in the United States — a huge disparity even accounting for the difference in population. As Mayor Michael Bloomberg stressed on Monday while ratcheting up his national antigun campaign, “We are the only industrialized country that has this problem. In the whole world, the only one.”

Americans do not have to settle for that.

It seems before long we will see the second amendment repealed. This is a good move. Also the second amendment never gave the individual the right to own a gun.

Actually strummie the the supreme Court reversed themselves on that decision as they stated they made an error. The supreme court then went onto state the individual had NO rights to gun ownership.

A. POWERS'S is correct that the second amendment never gave the individual the right to own a gun.

the commies are out in force. Repealing the Bill of Rights in any way they can....

sad. the Founders and those who died to create and protect this uniquely free nation must be rolling over in their graves that their own relatives are actively, willingly and aggressively trying to negate their sacrifices.

Republicans support everything that destroys.. They are Anti America

Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives

Guns and Crime, 2012
The Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) is a national public interest law center dedicated to preventing gun
violence and to providing legal assistance in support of gun violence prevention.
With nearly 400,000 gun crimes committed every year, the United States has the highest rate of firearm
deaths (more than 30,000 each year) among twenty-five high-income nations. Clearly, stronger and more
effective gun control laws are needed to keep guns out of the wrong hands and to better protect the
public. Furthermore, despite what the gun lobby claims, most Americans are in favor of common-sense
gun laws because they understand that such laws will, in fact, help reduce gun violence.
If guns really kept us safe, the United States would be the safest nation in the world, since we own an estimated
270 million firearms—approximately 90 guns for every 100 people. Far from keeping us safe, guns are used to kill
more than 30,000 Americans each year and injure approximately 70,000. Guns are also used to commit nearly
400,000 crimes each year. The rate of firearm violence in America far exceeds that of other industrialized nations,
where gun ownership is strictly regulated.
Although many people own guns for self-protection, studies have repeatedly shown that a gun in the home
increases the risk of firearm-related death or injury to a household member. According to those studies, a gun kept
in the home is more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be
used to injure or kill an intruder in self-defense.
Convicted felons and other prohibited persons are able to buy guns easily from unlicensed sellers in
undocumented transactions.
In addition, no evidence exists to support the claim that society would be safer if more people carried concealed
guns in public. Evidence shows that permissive concealed carry laws may increase crime. Moreover, common
sense tells us that putting more guns into more hands does not make anyone safer: it merely increases the odds
that everyday disputes will escalate into deadly encounters.

This New Study Proves That Background Checks Save Lives

Missouri’s decision to repeal its law requiring all handgun purchasers to obtain a “permit-to-purchase” (PTP) verifying they passed a background check led to a 16 percent increase in the state murder rate, a new study from Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research has found. The additional gun murders occurred as the national and regional homicide rates decreased.

State legislators eliminated the permit requirement in June of 2007, as part of a larger firearms bill granting criminal and civil immunity to homeowners who use deadly force against intruders. Proponents of the change, which included the local chapter of the National Rifle Association, boasted that the measure would streamline the purchasing process, save residents the $10 processing fee, and reduce the wait times.

“It’s something we’ve advocated for some time,” Kevin Jamison, president the National Rifle Association affiliate in the state, told the Kansas City Star in August 2007. “This makes it easier for people to buy firearms. They don’t have to get permission first.”

Using state-level murder data for the time period 1999-2012, researchers concluded that
removing the licensing requirement contributed to an “additional 55 to 63 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012.” The increases occurred in the first full year after the repeal, during which the state saw “large increases in the number of guns diverted to criminals and in guns purchased in Missouri that were subsequently recovered by police in border states that retained their PTP laws.”

The analysts controlled “for changes in policing, incarceration, burglaries, unemployment, poverty, and other state laws adopted during the study period that could affect violent crime,” a press release for the study says.

“This study provides compelling confirmation that weaknesses in firearm laws lead to deaths from gun violence,” said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and the study’s lead author. “There is strong evidence to support the idea that the repeal of Missouri’s handgun purchaser licensing law contributed to dozens of additional murders in Missouri each year since the law was changed.”

Federal law only requires background checks and record-keeping for sales by federally licensed firearms dealers, but 14 states and Washington D.C. also mandate checks for private handgun sales (10 of these states require that the buyers obtain a permit-to-purchase license). Research has found that states with more expansive background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults.

Here you go ROBBIE we had our RIFLES TAKEN AWAY but what does it do for chrime and deaths. NOTHING COMPARED TO HAMMERS. >>>>>>>>>>>>According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional. We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters' tools and a caveman's stick.

And it seems fairly obvious that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.

@ ROBBIE you should at least get you facts straight. You liberals beat all and do not have a clue as usual. You really should finish drinking the KOOL AID!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

England is a perfect example of how gun laws save lives. Repeal the second amendment.

Yes Dirty Duck it is true that gun laws save lives. It is just common sense. Less guns less gun deaths. Unfortunately the right seems to lack common sense.

New Gun Laws Can't Save Lives? False. Just Ask The Auto Industry
One of the mantras of the American gun lobby, and one repeated constantly by its right-wing media allies, is the absolutist view that new gun restrictions aren't needed because they won't work. That argument is often quickly joined by the fatalistic view that there's nothing we can really do to cut down number of gun deaths in America; that government regulations, including expanded background checks for all gun purchases, would have no impact.

Both views have been on constant display as President Obama urges Congress to take action and pass new control measures.

Fox News contributor Bill Kristol last week insisted he'd seen "zero analysis, zero argument" that any of the proposed regulations would "make any appreciable difference in reducing gun violence and murders." On CNN, conservative Dana Loesch claimed "we have gun laws already on the books," and that new gun proposals would simply represent redundancies.

The companion case to right-wing claim is that gun control regulations won't reduce deaths is that the only way to achieve that goal is to have more guns in circulation will achieve that goal. (That argument is false. Obviously.)

But the clear flaw in the anti-regulation claim is that new government rules have been credited in recent years with drastically reducing the number of U.S. fatalities surrounding another potentially dangerous consumer product: Automobiles.

Look at the data: In 2011, the number of people killed in traffic accidents fell to 32,367, the lowest annual U.S. tally since 1949. (Automotive deaths peaked in 1972, with 54,589.) That decline came despite the fact that in over the last five-plus decades the number of drivers on American roads has exploded: 62 million then vs. 210 million now.

More recently, vehicular deaths plummeted 25 percent between 2005 and 2011, according to the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (Those numbers rose in 2012, ending a seven-year decline.)

What do experts point to for the recent overall reduction in automotive deaths? They credit, in part, state and federal efforts, often done in tandem with car manufacturers, which have made the potentially dangerous act of driving much less deadly.

From CNN in 2011 [emphasis added]:

Experts attribute the change to a variety of reasons, including changes to cars -- such as vehicle rollover protection -- and programs to change driver behavior -- such as campaigns addressing drunk driving, distracted driving and seat belt use. Laws aimed at young people also likely have had an impact, notably older minimum drinking ages and graduated drivers' licenses.

In other words, government regulations have helped dramatically reduce the number of vehicular fatalities in recent years. By treating driving as the obvious public safety issue that it is, and after new regulations were put in place in an effort to improve product safety and consumer behavior, the number of fatalities quickly dropped. Impelled by federal regulations, car manufacturers have made a concerted effort to make their products more safe via air bags, anti-rollover technology, and stronger vehicle roofs. For decades however, automakers waged the "regulatory equivalent of war" against the government's push for airbags and other safety initiatives. Today, those same manufacturers aggressively market new safety features to consumers.

Could a similar government push, aided by manufacturer cooperation, produce a comparable decline in gun deaths? Public safety experts insist the answer is yes. "Absolutely," says Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.

In an interview with Media Matters, Wintemute noted how auto deaths have been reduced thanks to a coordinated effort to change perception and behavior. "We used to blame the user and we used say bad drivers were the problem," said Wintemute. "Then we learned we could modify the product and improve the roadways and we changed the consequences of bad driving. We could do the same thing with firearms."

A new study from the Center for American Progress found that states with looser guns laws have a higher rate of gun violence. And the Harvard Injury Control Research Center has concluded, "where there are more guns there is more homicide."

Gun manufacturers, taking their cues from the National Rifle Association's obstinancy, remain firmly opposed to attempts to regulate the industry in an effort to reduce deaths. "The firearm industry is where the auto industry was, which is fighting regulation tooth and nail," said Wintemute.

It's that refusal, and the inability of legislators to pass tighter gun regulations, that explains why in 2015 firearm fatalities are expected, for the first time, to surpass auto deaths as the leading cause of non-medical deaths in America.

That, according to a recent analysis from Bloomberg:

When will the US learn from Australia? Stricter gun control laws save lives

After our own mass murder, Australia didn't ban guns, but we passed stronger regulations. Gun deaths dropped dramatically

The mass murder in Newtown Connecticut a year ago caused shock and sorrow all around the world. In Australia it also revived memories of our own horror on a similar scale, when dozens of people innocently going about their day were gunned down by a disturbed young man.

Our tragedy occurred in 1996 at the Port Arthur historic site in Tasmania, one of Australia's most popular tourist destinations. The dead numbered 35, with more than 20 others injured. The victims ranged in age from 3 to 72. They included children, teens, adults and seniors; tourists and local workers; several couples, a pair of brothers, a mother and her two little daughters, and members of a retirees' club on an outing.

This was not the first shooting massacre we had suffered, but it was the largest in living memory. The tragedy ignited an explosion of public outrage, soul-searching and demands for better regulation of guns. We changed our laws. As a result, gun deaths in Australia have dropped by two-thirds, and we have never had another mass shooting.

Every country is unique, but Australia is more similar to the US than is, say, Japan or England. We have a frontier history and a strong gun culture. Each state and territory has its own gun laws, and in 1996 these varied widely between the jurisdictions. At that time Australia's firearm mortality rate per population was 2.6/100,000 – about one-quarter the US rate (pdf), according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the US Center for Disease Control. Today the rate is under 1/100,000 – less than one-tenth the US rate (pdf). Those figures refer to all gun deaths – homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun homicide rates, the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.

The 1996 reforms made gun laws stronger and uniform across Australia. Semi-automatic rifles were prohibited (with narrow exceptions), and the world's biggest buyback saw nearly 700,000 guns removed from circulation and destroyed. The licensing and registration systems of all states and territories were harmonised and linked, so that a person barred from owning guns in one state can no longer acquire them in another. All gun sales are subject to screening (universal background checks), which means you cannot buy a gun over the internet or at a garage sale.

Gun ownership requires a license, and every sale is subject to a 28-day waiting period. The licensing process considers not only the applicant's age and criminal convictions, but also a range of other factors relevant to possession of a product that is (a) designed for killing and (b) highly coveted by people who should not have it. Relevant factors include the applicant's living circumstances, mental and physical health, restraining orders or other encounters with the law, type of gun desired and for what purpose, safety training, storage arrangements, and the public interest.

Police make whatever inquiries they think necessary to inform the decision on whether (or under what conditions) the license should be granted. This can include checking with neighbourhood police, the family doctor and especially spouses or partners. There are many red flags that do not appear in an automated computer record of criminal convictions: substance abuse, mental instability, conflict at home or at work, to name a few. Another risk factor is whether granting the license might make guns accessible to another household member whose own circumstances would disqualify them from a license – for example, a depressed teenager or a person with criminal convictions.

The screening process serves to block dangerous or irresponsible candidates, but also underscores for applicants and their families that bringing home a gun is a serious decision which affects the entire household, and indeed the entire community. Many applicants abandon their request during the waiting period – dissuaded by family members, or simply because the momentary enthusiasm for gun ownership passes.

Australia also requires a justifiable reason for the type of weapon the applicant wants to own. If you say you plan to hunt rabbits, your license doesn't allow you to a high-powered rifle. And if you already have a couple of guns suitable for hunting rabbits, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify acquiring more. This is a measure against the accumulation of private arsenals. A significant legal and cultural difference between our two countries: Australia doesn't accept anticipation of killing another person (self-defence) as a reason for owning a gun. To qualify for a handgun license, you must belong to and regularly attend a target shooting club.

An important feature of a licence is that it must be renewed every few years, and it can be cancelled or suspended if the bearer no longer meets the standard required – for example, due to domestic violence or a dangerous mental condition.

Australia didn't ban guns. Hunting and shooting are still thriving. But by adopting laws that give priority to public safety, we have saved thousands of lives.

In July of 2013, Illinois became the last state in the union to enact a concealed carry law. In January of this year, the state began accepting applications for permits. This week, Chicago police announced that the city’s first quarter murder rate was the lowest since 1958.
Via ABC-affiliate Eye Witness News in the Windy City:
The first three months of the year saw 6 fewer murders than the same time frame in 2013–a 9 percent drop–and 55 fewer murders than 2012, according to a statement from Chicago Police.
There were 90 fewer shootings and 119 fewer shooting victims, drops of 26 and 29 percent respectively, according to police statistics.
Compared to the first quarter of 2012, there have been 222 fewer shootings and 292 fewer shooting victims. Overall crime is down 25 percent from last year, and police said more than 1,300 illegal guns were recovered in the last three months.

“When state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.” More guns mean less crime.

Only 11% of Connecticut residents live in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport. But these three cities combined are
home to 67% of homicides, 62% of armed robberies and 81% of aggravated assaults involving firearms in the state. And 100% of the guns are obtained illegally. So much for the new laws that only effect honest law abiding CT citizens. Someone should point that out to all these LOW INFORMATION VOTERS IN THAT PHOTO. What a KODAK MOMENT!!!

In the Same time How many people were killed by Soccer Moms driving their SUV's to meeting such as this while texting or Talking on their CELL PHONES ???? For the Good of the Few, the MANY are suffering.
I support Background checks but what about the Mental Health issue or the Laws restricting Mental/Physical health issue exchange between Doctors or better yet how did the School system fall down?? IT"S NOT JUST ABOUT THE GUN ISSUE !!!!