http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... und-checks

Gun control advocates examined data from January 2009 and 15 July – states that checked for a criminal history had 64% fewer domestic violence shootings

States with background checks for all handgun sales had 52% fewer mass shootings as states with more lax rules, according to a report by reform advocates who examined more than six years of data.

Researchers for Everytown for Gun Safety, a group that supports gun control checks, also found that between January 2009 and 15 July those states that checked for a criminal history in buyers had 64% fewer mass shootings related to domestic violence.

Does that mean a 7-month period? That's a small sample.

Sounds like they are cherrypicking data. Why not two years? Why 2009?

Wasn't that the height of the Great Recission? Did they run a control comparing unemployment rates in those states?

2009 through 2015 actually. Full details here:

http://everytownresearch.org/documents/ ... pendix.pdf

A couple of points from a quick review of the data- Out of the 133, 6 involved what is branded an "Assault Rifle". The other rifles mentioned to get to the 15 included a couple of 22lr's, a 25-06 (Not sure if there is even a semi made in 25-06), an SKS, and a number of "high-powered" rifles or unknown rifles.

Other notes, a large majority of the handguns used, which were overwhelmingly the weapon used, were 45 cal- very few have a capacity of more than 7-10, I'm only aware of the Glock and Para?

38% were prohibited possessors already and owned the guns illegally.

44% were murder/suicides. This calls out for stepping up suicide prevention/help/outreach.

Here's a quote from it:

California and Texas – the most populous states and one with checks, the other without – had the most mass shooting incidents, each with 12. Three of those 12 in each state were committed by someone who should have been withheld a firearm.

To me, that means the data correlating mass shootings to background checks provided no useful data.

Again, UBC costs money. Those states who can afford to waste that money will do UBC's, and states who can't, won't. But a UBC has little effect either way.

CDFingers

shinzen wrote:2009 through 2015 actually. Full details here:

http://everytownresearch.org/documents/ ... pendix.pdf

A couple of points from a quick review of the data- Out of the 133, 6 involved what is branded an "Assault Rifle".

Which indicates--at least in most instances--a deliberate attempt to convey false information. This is a staple of MAIG/Everytown/MDA and something Bloomberg himself is known for doing, even though I have no doubt the leadership can differentiate between simple terms. It appears they use the term incorrectly 8 times. Perhaps Everytown should get back to us when they can properly identify the hardware on which they claim to be demonstrating some expertise.

Everytown is not using the FBI's definition of mass shooting. The FBI definition limits its definition to public places, so many of the murder-suicides that Shinzen mentioned (along with home invasions) inflate the number of mass shootings in Everytown's research. That's not to say that those murder-suicides and home invasions aren't tragedies -- they are -- but the impression Everytown wants to make is that there are helluva lot more Umpqua-style mass shootings than there really are. That's rather deceptive.

The conclusion that BGC-strict states have less mass shootings may be an incorrect assumption to make. The implication is that stricter BGCs means less wanton violence, possibly because criminals will have a harder time obtaining guns because of stringent BGCs. A better metric would be to see where and how these criminals get their weapons. And that research is out there already. It's through family/friend straw purchases, or the black market or stolen guns.

Allowing anomalies and outliers to drive legislation is weak.

pdoggeth wrote:Everytown is not using the FBI's definition of mass shooting. The FBI definition limits its definition to public places, so many of the murder-suicides that Shinzen mentioned (along with home invasions) inflate the number of mass shootings in Everytown's research. That's not to say that those murder-suicides and home invasions aren't tragedies -- they are -- but the impression Everytown wants to make is that there are helluva lot more Umpqua-style mass shootings than there really are. That's rather deceptive.

The conclusion that BGC-strict states have less mass shootings may be an incorrect assumption to make. The implication is that stricter BGCs means less wanton violence, possibly because criminals will have a harder time obtaining guns because of stringent BGCs. A better metric would be to see where and how these criminals get their weapons. And that research is out there already. It's through family/friend straw purchases, or the black market or stolen guns.

If they are using their own definition of mass shooting, who's to say they are applying it equally to all states?

Can someone tell me how UBCs for handguns stops people from using rifles to shoot people? Shouldn't Everytown only look at handgun deaths if they're telling us that we need UBCs for handgun sales?

pdoggeth wrote:Everytown is not using the FBI's definition of mass shooting. The FBI definition limits its definition to public places, so many of the murder-suicides that Shinzen mentioned (along with home invasions) inflate the number of mass shootings in Everytown's research. That's not to say that those murder-suicides and home invasions aren't tragedies -- they are -- but the impression Everytown wants to make is that there are helluva lot more Umpqua-style mass shootings than there really are. That's rather deceptive.

The conclusion that BGC-strict states have less mass shootings may be an incorrect assumption to make. The implication is that stricter BGCs means less wanton violence, possibly because criminals will have a harder time obtaining guns because of stringent BGCs. A better metric would be to see where and how these criminals get their weapons. And that research is out there already. It's through family/friend straw purchases, or the black market or stolen guns.

Couldn't agree with you more. They are trying to change the definition to fit their agenda and make it to appear to be a much larger problem than it really is. Disingenuous at best. Realistically, as a politifact rating would say, almost to the point of being pants on fire.

SG, also right. The UBC would not address much if any of these events. We know where the guns come from. Instead going hard after straw purchasers might make a difference. And that law and punishment is already on the book.

Side note- It might not be a bad idea to have available to FFL's and encourage the use of large posters in their stores that have a message about straw purchases and jail time. Might be a little bit of a discouragement to those who are on the fence about doing it for someone.

shinzen wrote:

pdoggeth wrote:Everytown is not using the FBI's definition of mass shooting. The FBI definition limits its definition to public places, so many of the murder-suicides that Shinzen mentioned (along with home invasions) inflate the number of mass shootings in Everytown's research. That's not to say that those murder-suicides and home invasions aren't tragedies -- they are -- but the impression Everytown wants to make is that there are helluva lot more Umpqua-style mass shootings than there really are. That's rather deceptive.

The conclusion that BGC-strict states have less mass shootings may be an incorrect assumption to make. The implication is that stricter BGCs means less wanton violence, possibly because criminals will have a harder time obtaining guns because of stringent BGCs. A better metric would be to see where and how these criminals get their weapons. And that research is out there already. It's through family/friend straw purchases, or the black market or stolen guns.

Couldn't agree with you more. They are trying to change the definition to fit their agenda and make it to appear to be a much larger problem than it really is. Disingenuous at best. Realistically, as a politifact rating would say, almost to the point of being pants on fire.

SG, also right. The UBC would not address much if any of these events. We know where the guns come from. Instead going hard after straw purchasers might make a difference. And that law and punishment is already on the book.

Side note- It might not be a bad idea to have available to FFL's and encourage the use of large posters in their stores that have a message about straw purchases and jail time. Might be a little bit of a discouragement to those who are on the fence about doing it for someone.

I see straw purchases signs at my LGS, but they could be more prominent.

senorgrand wrote: I see straw purchases signs at my LGS, but they could be more prominent.

Not sure I've seen one, but I could have just not payed attention since it hasn't ever been relevant. Could also have a sheet that you make people read prior filling out the paperwork. If you were serious about it.

pdoggeth wrote:Everytown is not using the FBI's definition of mass shooting. The FBI definition limits its definition to public places, so many of the murder-suicides that Shinzen mentioned (along with home invasions) inflate the number of mass shootings in Everytown's research. That's not to say that those murder-suicides and home invasions aren't tragedies -- they are -- but the impression Everytown wants to make is that there are helluva lot more Umpqua-style mass shootings than there really are. That's rather deceptive.

The interesting thing is, if you apply Everytown's definition of mass shooting to Australia, the claim that Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since their mandatory buyback suddenly stops being true.

shinzen wrote: Other notes, a large majority of the handguns used, which were overwhelmingly the weapon used, were 45 cal-

Whoa. So, 9 mm buyers are calm and rational, and 1911 owners be crazy? I'll have to remember that, for profiling purposes. Also could be useful for trolling people who mention the .45 in their sig files.

44% were murder/suicides. This calls out for stepping up suicide prevention/help/outreach.

I don't know if this is valid, but when I hear "murder/suicide," I think "domestic violence." Does that even fall under the rubric of suicide prevention? Knowing next to nothing about psychological counseling, I would guess DV is a very different animal from most motives for solo suicides.

TheHunterOfSkulls wrote:

pdoggeth wrote:Everytown is not using the FBI's definition of mass shooting. The FBI definition limits its definition to public places, so many of the murder-suicides that Shinzen mentioned (along with home invasions) inflate the number of mass shootings in Everytown's research. That's not to say that those murder-suicides and home invasions aren't tragedies -- they are -- but the impression Everytown wants to make is that there are helluva lot more Umpqua-style mass shootings than there really are. That's rather deceptive.

The interesting thing is, if you apply Everytown's definition of mass shooting to Australia, the claim that Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since their mandatory buyback suddenly stops being true.

That IS interesting. Is there a cite for that?

Did the rate of "mass shooting" by this definition go down significantly, though, after the Aussie gun buyout? That might somewhat undermine our point.

Buck13 wrote:That IS interesting. Is there a cite for that?

Did the rate of "mass shooting" by this definition go down significantly, though, after the Aussie gun buyout? That might somewhat undermine our point.

Well, there's this to start with - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Australia Scroll down to the bottom and you'll see there are three incidents that fit the Everytown definition that occurred after the Port Arthur killings and subsequent draconian firearms laws. Also, the claim isn't that the rate of mass shootings went down. The claim is that there have been ZERO mass shootings since Port Arthur, as in none, as in the three incidents I mentioned apparently don't count because reasons.

And honestly, I would be more interested to see what their rate of mass murder was before and after Port Arthur, since dead is dead and people who are shot and killed aren't magically more dead than people who are bludgeoned and killed. I'd almost be willing to bet cashy money that the mass murder rate has barely changed and the method probably hasn't changed much either.

I'd be very interested to find out if the research on this page is correct:
http://www.donotlink.com/hcoy

I don't trust Lott, and it's his newly built "research" arm at the CRPC, but if the data is correct, it puts a very different perspective on things.



I've often felt that the piece missing from the conversation is one of population. Australia has a population less than the size of Texas. The UK and Germany are about 1/5 the size of the US, so comparing a total number of incidents to any one of them is disingenuous at best.