Colorado sheriffs sue to block new gun-control laws

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Colorado sheriffs sue to block new gun-control laws

By Keith Coffman
DENVER | Fri May 17, 2013 11:46pm EDT

(Reuters) - A group of Colorado county sheriffs, angry about two new state gun control laws passed in the wake of last year's mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado, filed a federal lawsuit on Friday seeking to block the laws from going into effect.

The two laws, passed by the state's Democratic-controlled legislature with scant Republican support, ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and require background checks for all private gun sales and transfers.

All but 10 of the state's 64 county sheriffs signed on to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver. In their complaint, the sheriffs allege the new laws, which go into effect July 1, severely restrict citizens' constitutional right to own and bear arms.

The sheriffs, who in Colorado are elected, also complained that they were operating under tight budgets and did not have the money or manpower to enforce the new laws.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/18/us-usa-guns-colorado-idUSBRE94H02L20130518

[Flashmann]

1. severely restrict citizens' constitutional right to own and bear arms

How reassuring it is,to find that a group of traffic cops,who collectively learned to game the system sufficiently enough to be elected County Top Cops,Roscoe P.Coltranes,are also Constitutional scholars.

[LiberalLovinLug]

2. Interesting. Its the exact opposite here in Gun Control land

In Canada, its the police that are one of the biggest advocates for gun control. And it makes sense. With firearms harder to acquire, it means less confrontations with armed assailants. Also with gun registration a weapon can be traced back to its source if it is used in a crime, and even if it is stolen, that info still helps.

Only in America I guess.

[sarisataka]

3. It is pretty much only police chiefs

that are big supporters of gun control in the US. They mirror their mayor's stance because they are political appointees. Rank and file officers are generally supportive of armed citizens.

I do question whether the sheriff's suit will be tossed for lack of standing. I could see their point on funding and resources but Constitutionality doesn't seem to be a question from an enforcement standpoint.

[virginia mountainman]

7. A important point about "big city" police chiefs, and county sheriffs...

Big city police chiefs are appointed, as you mentioned and unfortanly it needs to be stated for clarity that county sheriffs, are ELECTED by the people..

So much for the 90% number... LOL....

[GreenStormCloud]

6. How does registration accomplish anything but waste money?

Due to the 5th Amendment, criminals can not be required to register a gun that they have illegally. Stolen guns aren't registered anyway.

Criminals rarely leave their guns at the crime scene, so you will rarely have a gun to trace, unless the criminals is capture/killed at the scene. Then you won't need to trace the gun to solve the crime as you have the criminal at hand.

So registration does nothing for solving crimes.

[Jim Levy]

19. I believe that registration can and will accomplish much

Just not what the people pushing it say it will accomplish.

[jimmy the one]

4. gun lobby behind it no doubt

The two laws .. ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and require background checks for all private gun sales and transfers. .. the sheriffs allege the new laws severely restrict citizens' constitutional right to own and bear arms.

The sheriffs were read their mirkbanda rights: "you have the right to remain stupid, anyone who cannot afford an education can become a rightwing colorado sheriff".

Gee, background checks severely restrict citizens' right to keep & bear arms? didn't you have to register to join the militia in 1791? tho for a background check back then they likely just asked you to spell your name & count to ten, then they looked at your teeth. Hey don't knock it, at least it would be something, eh? if the sheriffs prevail.
.. oh yes, first thing people think of when assessing their constitutional right to own a gun is - Such the important ME having to pass a background check??? and am I assured of getting a 20 round clip with my gun purchase??? how dare colorado severely infringe on my 2ndA rkba????

All but 10 of the state's 64 county sheriffs signed on to the suit.. The sheriffs, who in Colorado are elected, also complained that they were operating under tight budgets and did not have the money or manpower to enforce the new laws.

They couldn't've thought all this up by themselves. I smell the blood of the nra-mun.

[gejohnston]

5. a law written by Bloomburg employee

Since NYC taxpayers are picking up the tab for much of his personal crusade (such as IT support for their website), what difference does it make? I didn't see you decry out of state billionaires doing what you think "the gun lobby" is doing.

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=22224

[Robb]

9. Well, yeah.

Last edited Sun May 19, 2013, 05:56 PM - Edit history (1)

It's obvious who's water they're carrying.

A photo forwarded to us from today's press conference announcing the lawsuit against Colorado's new gun safety bills, Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute on the right:



See the man in the black shirt on the left? That's Clint Webster, a 2010 GOP candidate for House District 24.What's so special about Clint Webster, you ask? We reported on Mr. Webster as part of a 2010 release of the criminal records of a number of legislative candidates, mostly Republican:

Webster was arrested in 1987 for disturbing the peace, and in 1991 for assault. Webster pleaded guilty to felony assault and menacing. The arrest report obtained from the Jefferson County Sheriff shows that Webster was apprehended after firing two shots from a semi-automatic pistol at his ex-wife. When asked by arresting officers what his intention was when he fired, Webster stated something along the lines that he had warned his wife to stop bothering him and had even threatened to kill her, yet she ‘showed up at his home anyway.’

(snip)

Now, what do you suppose Clint Webster, of all people, was doing at this press conference today?

We can't shake the sense of amazement: these same county sheriffs stood before the Colorado legislature this year and testified against Senate Bill 197, a bill to protect victims of domestic violence from partners with guns. Today, they're standing with one of the worst Republican mistakes of the 2010 election season, a man whose biggest claim to fame is having fired shots at his wife?

Read More: http://coloradopols.com/diary/43184/here-come-the-sheriffs

Edited to add:

[ileus]

8. It's nice to see someone is on the 99%er's side.

[locks]

10. Colorado

I am not proud to live in a state that has had so many of its citizens killed by guns, in mass murders, for being gay, or black, or Muslim, or Jew, or too liberal, or in gangs. Our history of killing Native Americans and union workers and African-Americans is a sad one. We have elected Ku Klux Klan members in our past, corrupt and bigoted politicians, and forced Asian-American citizens into internment camps. We have elected sheriffs who now tell us that they have no intention of enforcing laws which were passed by Colorado representatives we elected, representatives who care more about protecting citizens from gun violence than they do about corrupting money from the NRA.
But I am very proud that a large majority of Coloradans not only passed sensible restrictions on gun ownership but they and most of our police officers will continue to work to make Colorado a safer and better place to live.

[gejohnston]

11. That is true of most states

We have elected Ku Klux Klan members in our past

Wyoming and Vermont are probably the only states (that were states in the 1920s) that haven't. The Northeast had segregation and racism just like the South, they just didn't use the power of the State.

While some of Colorado's new laws are reasonable, they were still written by out of state lobbyists.

No state or part of the country has clean hands.

[beopenminded]

23. They were democrats

Ku Klux Klan was in fact formed by democrats to stop republican votes.

[dballance]

27. Yep, KKK was formed by Southen Democrats. How Irrelevant of You to Mention It.

The people and their descendants who were Democrats then are all now Republicans thanks to their hatred for Kennedy, Johnson and the Civil Rights Act, and then Nixon's Southern Strategy. They certainly are not anything like today's Democratic party.

Should I once again post that picture of Reagan talking about banning weapons like the AK-47 and how no one needs them for sport or hunting? Just as a little assistance for you to see how far and how quickly a party's members' attitudes change?

[gejohnston]

28. It goes further back than that

it was their hatred of Lincoln, even though he ran as a third party called the "National Union Party" in 1864 because the Republicans dropped him as the nominee and chose John C. Fremont to run against McClellan. It was the Republican's worst election results to date because they won zero electoral votes.

[jimmy the one]

12. greeley gazette

johnston, advising us to check out the 'greeley gazette': Since NYC taxpayers are picking up the tab for much of his {nyc mayor bloomberg} personal crusade.., http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=22224

So I did, here's a snippet from greeley's article: The billionaire nanny might be sent home if republicans in the Colorado legislature would point out that in 2011 New York had a murder rate by guns that was over 66% above US average compared to Colorado’s rate which was 45% below US average. The message is clear, Bloomberg’s gun policies resulted in his state having a gun murder rate more than 2-3/4 times higher than Colorado. Is this the guy our state should be following?

vpc: State Firearm Death Rates (includes gunsuicides), Ranked by Rate 2010 (previous year)
24 Colorado11.04 --- 46 NewYork 5.22 - http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart13.htm
2001-2013, Coloradans used guns to kill themselves about 4 times more frequently than they used them to kill each other

--- GunMurd-%allmurd-GunMurdRate-GunRobbRate-GunAssltRate
New York 445 ---- 57% ------4.12 ------------ 23.28 ------- 20.06
Colorado 73 ------ 50% ------1.51 -------------25.74 ------- 45.72
USA-- 8,583 ------ 68% ------2.75 -------------39.25 ------- 43.77
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state#data

Yeah, colorado does better than new york in firearm murder rates 1.5 to 4.1 per 100k, but new york bests colorado in gun robbery rates 23.3 to 25.7 (parity), and new york bests colorado in gun assault rates 20.0 to 45.8. Colorado's gun assault rate was higher than the US average, while new york's gun assault rate was half the US average.
Greeley Gazette is GUILTY of one of your genetic fallacies, johnston, how come you didn't catch it before advising us to read greeley's gazette? (cont'd next post).

[jimmy the one]

13. Greeley Gazette's Genetic Fallacy

greeley gazette: The billionaire nanny might be sent home if republicans in the Colorado legislature would point out that in 2011 New York had a murder rate by guns that was over 66% above US average compared to Colorado's rate which was 45% below US average. The message is clear, Bloomberg's gun policies resulted in his state having a gun murder rate more than 2-3/4 times higher than Colorado. Is this the guy our state should be following?

That paragraph above is one of your 'genetic fallacies' johnston, so why aren't you harping about the genetic fallacy in the greeley gazette you advised us to read about? You miss it?

Bloomburg was elected MAYOR of new york CITY in 2001 when new york STATE's murder rate was 5.0/100k, and in 2011 new york STATE murder rate was 4.0, a 20% decline in murder rate. Greeley Gazette is comparing apples to oranges, new york city to new york state, AND, greeley is overlooking the fact that violent crime & murder rates in new york have fallen since bloomburg has been in office.
Greeley cannot validly imply mayor bloomburg's gun policies failed simply because colorado has a lower firearms murder rate, new york is more urban & has a higher population density of 415/sqmile while colorado has 50/sqmile.
Colorado's overall gundeath (including suicide) rate is twice that of new york states. Colorado's gun assault rate is twice as high as new york states (previous post). Greeley cherry picks a favorable stat & MISLEADS.

one of your links, johnston: A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. example: "The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of background, his so called 'reform' plan must be a facist program."

Similar to greeley's 'bloomburg was mayor of new york city when new york state had a 2.75 higher gun murder rate than colorado state, therefore bloomburg must not lead colorado because his gun policies have been a failure'.

Bloomburg was mayor not governor. Just an overall non sequitur as well from greeley.
Jump on it johnston. MORE GUNS MORE LIES.

[gejohnston]

14. of course

VPC includes suicides, which invalidates their statistic, nor does it involve all deaths.

New York 4.0, Colorado 2.9 In 2011, Wyoming had an unusually high year, but 2012 it was back to 1.4
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

Yeah, colorado does better than new york in firearm murder rates 1.5 to 4.1 per 100k, but new york bests colorado in gun robbery rates 23.3 to 25.7 (parity), and new york bests colorado in gun assault rates 20.0 to 45.8. Colorado's gun assault rate was higher than the US average, while new york's gun assault rate was half the US average.

that only includes guns, not all assaults and robberies. Epic disingenuous.

[jimmy the one]

15. spinning mt everest

VPC includes suicides, which invalidates their statistic, nor does it involve all deaths.

Guncontrol laws can indeed affect suicide rates, greeley shouldn't just cherry pick to falsely make it appear colorado has a better gun policy than new york state, by excluding gun suicides in colorado.
Greeley Gazette can validly claim new york gun murder rate was higher than colorado's, but it cannot validly lay the blame for that on mayor bloomburg. That's a GENETIC FALLACY johnston, as well as a couple other of them logic fallacies you so harp about, when it pertains to others but not you.

VPC includes suicides, which invalidates their statistic, nor does it involve all deaths.

You've convinced me you could spin mt everest just by standing next to it. Duh, the greeley article did NOT focus on all deaths it specifically focussed on gun murders - the whole point of the greeley paragraph was to asperse that bloomburg's gunpolicy was inferior since the 2011 gun murder rate in new york was 2.75 times higher than in colorado, but that is an invalid conclusion (see my previous paragraph).

johnston, citing 2011 overall murder stats:New York 4.0, Colorado 2.9 add US 4.7

Thanks johnston, you just made greeley's argument weaken by citing overall murder rates. Both new york & colorado had overall murder rates below the national avg of 4.7.

Feast your eyes on this johnston, & spinaway:
2011: .............new york ..... colorado
property crime ..1912 ..........2606
burglary .........336.0 ..............503.6
larceny........ 1,477.2 ............1,886.8
auto theft........ 99.2 ................215.9 http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cocrime.htm
Colorado's property crime rate has been higher & near DOUBLE new yorks rate for the past decade since bloomburg's been mayor of nyc. Aren't guns supposed to be protection against higher burglary rates? pffft, MORE GUNS MORE LIES.

[gejohnston]

16. there is no evidence

Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 03:41 PM - Edit history (1)

That gun laws affect suicide rates. BTW, meek Mike and the police commissioner under counts crimes stats. Then there is the stop and frisk thing thing. BTW, that is still New York State, not NYC. The lower number includes all of those easy to get CCW northern counties.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-b-silverman/low-crime-rates-nypd-eli-b-silverman-john-a-eterno_b_1772489.html

[jimmy the one]

17. guns & gun laws do affect suicide rates

johnston: there is no evidence That gun laws affect suicide rates.

Translation: According to the 2nd Amendment Mythology Bible, there is no evidence that gun laws affect suicide rates.

But, since gun laws affect gun ownership rates in states, they do affect suicide rates.

Apr 2013 —Residents of states with the highest rates of gun ownership and political conservatism are at greater risk of suicide than those in states with less gun ownership and less politically conservative leanings.. study U of Calif.. sociology professor Kposowa.. With few exceptions, states with the highest rates of gun ownership -- for example, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama, and West Virginia -- also tended to have the highest suicide rates. These states were also carried overwhelmingly by Bush in the 2000 presidential election. Kposowa is the first to use a nationally representative sample to examine the effect of firearm availability on suicide odds.
A higher percentage of church-goers at the state level reduced individual suicide risk. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064029.htm

2008: study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides.. found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63% of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

johnston: BTW, that is still New York State, not NYC.

Correct, that is why greeley gazette makes an invalid comparison between new york state & colorado & bloomburg. Bloomburg is mayor of new york CITY, which is a highly urban area with over 20,000 per square mile, while colorado the state has 50/sqmile. You generally cannot compare a large city with a state & get much meaningful info.

[gejohnston]

18. no.

There is a correlation between how people do themselves in. But to say people don't off themselves if there is no gun around as absurd. While it firearms are the most common method in the US and a few other countries, hanging is actually the most common in the world.
http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=262&name=DLFE-636.pdf
If you look at it, states that are higher happens to be more rural. Rural areas world wide have higher suicide rates. What Hemenway did not do was "what causes suicide" he started with the premise that "how can I convince people that guns make you kill your self." At best it shows a coorlation, but no cause and effect, a propaganda piece depending on people's inability to distinguish "correlation" and "cause"

give me something other than psudo science and cherry picking by David Hemenway and his Joyce Foundation funded department. This guy is to criminology and suicide prevention what Michael A. Bellesiles is to history.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/
This is the same Joyce Foundation that astro turfs the Brady Center and VPC.

The Joyce Foundation is a low rent Koch Bros.

[jimmy the one]

20. yes

johnston: give me something other than psudo science and cherry picking...

As I said previous, gun control laws do affect suicide rates (which you challenged). Here's a pro gun author who agrees, so go tapdance around him:

gc study: Another way to measure the effects of the {gun control}| Brady Act is to focus on suicides, .. We do find that the Brady states experienced a greater reduction than the non-Brady states in gun suicides to older people, who have the highest rates.
While this drop was partially offset by an increase in non-gun suicides, our evidence suggests that the Brady Act has saved lives by reducing the overall suicide rate among older Americans. Interestingly, the effects of the Brady Act on suicide seem to be caused in large part by the act’s original waiting period requirements, which were phased out in late 1998 as states moved to an “instant check” system.
progun author remarks: Now data on the causal relationship between suicide rates and guns can be murky and complicated, just like data on murder rates and guns. But the Brady Law isn’t the only case where a recent gun control measure had a clearer impact on suicide rates than on crime. In the much-debated case of Australia’s mid-1990s gun control law, for instance, a study touting the law’s effectiveness found a clearer impact on suicide than on homicide, and a study that cast doubt on its impact on murder rates still showed a reduction in suicide rates.
This pattern makes a certain intuitive sense. Almost by definition, but especially in a country where guns are as commonplace as they are in ours, gun regulations are more likely to shape the patterns of purchasing and ownership among law-abiding citizens than to prevent habitual criminals from having access to weaponry— and suicide is the form of gun violence that a normally law-abiding citizen is most likely to consider and carry out
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/gun-control-and-suicide/ pretty much junk science outside this tho.

PS: Checkmate.

[gejohnston]

21. not hardly

It doesn't say what you think it says. Besides, much of the Brady Bill was struck down. I have a question?

If these handgun denials were successful in preventing violence-prone people from arming themselves, we would expect to see a larger reduction in gun crimes committed in the 32 Brady states compared with the non-Brady states. Disappointingly, our study did not find significant trend differences between the Brady and non-Brady states in the most reliably measured gun crime – homicide. Thus the direct effect on gun crime that advocates expected from denying disqualified adults in the Brady states does not reveal itself in our data.

WTF is a "Brady state"? NICS background checks are required in all 50 states and the territories.

Other studies about the Australian NFA. Remember, some Australian states very strict gun laws before hand. The most liberal was Tasmania, which had a licensing scheme. The difference was that one could buy and own a full auto.

I

n 1997, the prime minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to monitor the effects of the gun buyback. The AIC have published a number of papers reporting trends and statistics around gun ownership and gun crime, which they have found to be mostly related to illegally-held firearms.[30][31]

Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[32] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[33] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[34]

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[35] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[36] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Contention_over_effects_of_the_laws
Checkmate? No. A pawn took your queen, taking me out of check.

[jimmy the one]

22. Checkmate, reread the rules

johnston: Checkmate? No. A pawn took your queen, taking me out of check

You're being utterly ridiculous johnston; even were your pro gun australian rebuttals valid, they would not legitimize what you wrote & what I have checkmated you for, when you wrote this:
johnston: .. there is no evidence That gun laws affect suicide rates.

There are several examples I posted above of valid 'evidence' that gun laws affect suicide rates in the USA (for the better), brady bill for one & states statistics in stricter gun control states.
You, just providing some pro gun contentions from australia which claim 'no evidence of suicide reduction after gun buy back', DOES NOT JUSTIFY WHAT YOU SAID. You could provide thousands of snippets from pro gun people all over claiming 'no change in suicide rates after gun control' but that WOULD NOT PROVE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
Capiche? resumis? panemaio? comprende? verstehen? understand?
You're trying to prove a positive with a hundred negatives.
CHECK MATE.

johnston: there is no evidence That gun laws affect suicide rates.
Translation: According to the 2nd Amendment Mythology Bible, there is no evidence that gun laws affect suicide rates. (see my previous posts)

You cited quotes from pro gun aussie sources, such as McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting), wheee, quelle surprise she found no evidence of reduction.
.. from your aussie link: A 2010 study claimed, on the basis of modelled statistical estimates, that the {australian} gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74%.The study, by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh, found no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise

[gejohnston]

24. no, those were from studies, not "pro gun people"

You cited quotes from pro gun aussie sources, such as McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting), wheee, quelle surprise she found no evidence of reduction.
.. from your aussie link: A 2010 study claimed, on the basis of modelled statistical estimates, that the {australian} gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74%.The study, by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh, found no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise

Which were published in a peer reviewed and published in UK criminology journal. Three other studies confirmed their findings. In other words, it was valid.

How did the "buy back" scheme affect suicides? It only affected semi autos and pump shotguns. The same number of gun owners remained, and number of privately owned guns are back to pre NFA levels. Legal gun ownership is raising. BTW

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”

Australia, however, has had three mass murders by arson since then. Each of them had higher death tolls than, except for Port Author, than the shootings.

Not checkmate, three of my pawns just made it to the other side of the board to become queens. I now have four queens. There is a checkmate coming.

[jimmy the one]

25. cowardice

johnston: Which were published in a peer reviewed and published in UK criminology journal. Three other studies confirmed their findings. In other words, it was valid.

Can't you get it thru your head that doesn't matter? what matters is that there is 'evidence' to link gun control laws with a reduction in suicide rates, which you contend there isnt.
That australia has a couple studies showing there wasn't a link IN AUSTRALIAN suicide rates, is completely irrelevant to this case of whether you lied, johnston, & only shows you blowing smoke as is your wont, in order to deflect onto a red herring.

johnston: Not checkmate, three of my pawns just made it to the other side of the board to become queens. I now have four queens. There is a checkmate coming.

Stupid juvenile retort.
You also were wrong when you claimed I 'undercounted' firearms in 5 countries, & you tapdanced & blew smoke then too.

Anyone who isn't man enough to admit when he's been proven wrong, I call that a cowered ego.

[gejohnston]

26. in other words

Last edited Thu May 23, 2013, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

You have nothing. "Link" is not cause and effect.

Johnston: Which were published in a peer reviewed and published in UK criminology journal. Three other studies confirmed their findings. In other words, it was valid.

Can't you get it thru your head that doesn't matter? what matters is that there is 'evidence' to link gun control laws with a reduction in suicide rates, which you contend there isnt.
That australia has a couple studies showing there wasn't a link IN AUSTRALIAN suicide rates, is completely irrelevant to this case of whether you lied, johnston, & only shows you blowing smoke as is your wont, in order to deflect onto a red herring.

I am saying that the studies that claim that are questionable if valid at all.

johnston: Not checkmate, three of my pawns just made it to the other side of the board to become queens. I now have four queens. There is a checkmate coming.

Stupid juvenile retort.
You also were wrong when you claimed I 'undercounted' firearms in 5 countries, & you tapdanced & blew smoke then too.

When you include illegal firearms, there are always undercounts. You don't know what is unknowable. In the US estimate, do they adjust for the ones destroyed or simply rusted away?

Anyone who isn't man enough to admit when he's been proven wrong, I call that a cowered ego.

You haven't proven me wrong.

[jimmy the one]

29. obnoxious

I previously wrote: You also were wrong when you claimed I 'undercounted' firearms in 5 countries... (my estimates were) Finland 3 million, Norway 2m, Canada 8m, Switz 3m, iceland negligible..
>>> johnston's red herrings: When you include illegal firearms, there are always undercounts... In the US estimate, do they adjust for the ones destroyed or simply rusted away?

.. obnoxious tap dance; what you contended was that I listed only registered guns (thus an undercount), when the totals I provided included all privately owned firearms, not just registered firearms - proof follows:

1 I wrote: No didn't undercount.. here is a listing {from gunpolicy dot com}: Norway 1.4 million guns; Switz4m; Finland 2.4m; Iceland 0.1 (90,000) negligible Canada 10.0 million,

2 gejohnston .. that is only the registered guns

3 I wrote, exposing johnston as A LIAR: reg'd guns are less and included: Finland, : Number of Privately Owned Firearms The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Finland is 2,400,000 The number of registered guns in Finland is reported to be 1,580,000
Norway: The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Norway is 1,320,000 The number of registered guns in Norway is reported to be 1,229,436 http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=122921

I provided my own estimated statistics for 'privately owned firearms' in those countries and you said I undercounted all of them by providing only registered firearms - YOU WERE WRONG, as the truer linked statistics revealed. I actually overcounted two.

johnston: You haven't proven me wrong.

Five or six times over now I've shown you to be lying, & you haven't the cajones to admit your errors.

[gejohnston]

30. I may have misread

the number of registered weapons. That is a trivial detail.
However, you have not proven that I lied. You have not proven me wrong about anything else. That said, any estimate is likely an undercount because no one knows about illegal guns. Total would include military and police. For example, Iceland has about 90K legal privately owned guns. About 3K between the police and defense force. Illegal guns are unknowable. Therefore, any estimate is an undercount.

[jimmy the one]

31. A certifiable joke

I may have misread the number of registered weapons. That is a trivial detail.
However, you have not proven that I lied. You have not proven me wrong about anything else. That said, any estimate is likely an undercount because no one knows about illegal guns. Total would include military and police. For example, Iceland has about 90K legal privately owned guns. About 3K between the police and defense force. Illegal guns are unknowable. Therefore, any estimate is an undercount.

[CokeMachine]

32. Yes you are! nt