Restricting high-risk individuals from owning guns saves lives

[SecularMotion]

On July 20, a gunman in Aurora, Colorado, used an assault rifle to murder 12 people and wound 58 others. Although this was one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, all mass shootings account for a small percentage of gun violence that occurs in the U.S. every day. In the past 100 days since the Aurora shooting, an estimated 3,035 Americans have died as a result of gun violence.

A new report by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health examines policies and initiatives for reducing gun violence in the U.S. by reforming current gun policies. The report, a synthesis of prior research and analysis conducted by researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, includes the following key findings:

• Easy access to firearms with large-capacity magazines facilitates higher casualties in mass shootings.
  
• "Right-to-carry" gun laws do not reduce violent crime.
  
• Prohibiting high-risk groups from having guns–criminals, perpetrators of domestic violence, youths under age 21, substance abusers, and those with severe mental illnesses–and closing loopholes that enable them to have guns are integral and politically feasible steps to reduce gun violence.
  

"Mass shootings bring public attention to the exceptionally high rate of gun violence in the U.S., but policy discussions rarely focus on preventing the daily gun violence that results in an average of 30 lives lost every day," said Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and lead author of the report. "Addressing weaknesses in existing gun laws by expanding prohibitions for criminals, perpetrators of domestic violence, youth, and drug abusers, and closing the loopholes that allow prohibited persons to obtain guns can be effective strategies to reduce gun violence. It is important to note that making these changes to our gun laws would not disarm law-abiding adults."

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-10-restricting-high-risk-individuals-guns.html#jCp

[Kolesar]

1. "82 percent of gun owners want that loophole fixed."

"Federal gun laws allow private gun sellers to sell their guns with no questions asked of purchasers or proof that the purchaser has passed a criminal background check. Survey research shows that 82 percent of gun owners want that loophole fixed." The report also addresses the Constitutional legality of the reforms posed in the paper, and finds the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would not prohibit the kinds of gun policy reforms in the report. ...

Despite the majority support among the general public and gun owners to remedy several current weaknesses in U.S. gun laws relevant to keeping firearms from dangerous people, the majority of gun-related state and federal laws passed in recent years have made it easier for high-risk people to purchase guns.
...
Behold, the dreaded Teaparty/weapons makers' nexus
Making our streets less safe

[jenw2]

2. Gun owners want mass shootings.

That's the only logical explanation as to why they always fight common sense gun laws like banning all of those dangerous clip fed weapons.

[pipoman]

4. Duh, auto owners want more drunk drivers,

thats the only logical explanation why they fight common sense laws like breathalyzer installations in all vehicles..Duh...

[PavePusher]

10. There's a smilie for sarcasm....

Just sayin'....

[rrneck]

13. Gun control advocates want mass shootings.

By making it difficult if not impossible for law abiding citizens to acquire the best means of self defense, they will facilitate the death and injury of thousands of people - a mass murder by any standard. And the fact that they so vociferously advocate for ideological panaceas in response to real world tragedies without actually offering a workable solution for the realities of the disparity of force between assailant and victim is actual proof they need mass murders to maintan their ink and money supply lines in the culture wars.

They don't give a fuck about people. They only care about making money off tragedy. And anyone that parrots their bullshit is just another mindless cultural troll.

It's the only logical explanation.

[pipoman]

3. Yeah..

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health I know, I know...this is just a legitimate, completely unbiased, science based study conducted by a completely impartial group of concerned physicians , eh? LOL

[57_TomCat]

5. It is already...

illegal for those groups to own guns. What actual law do you want? Laws that maybe restrict the lawful use and ownership? Let us enforce the laws already in place.

[Trunk Monkey]

6. A gunman in Aurora, Colorado, used an assault rifle to murder 12 people

No, he didn't

When the article starts with a lie why should I read anymore of it?

[glacierbay]

7. I got as far as used an assault rifle

and I stopped right there. Utter bullshit, why would I read or believe someone who can't get the facts straight?

[Clames]

8. Facts need not apply to anti-gunners.

Just an inconvenience to them...

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Let's not overlook another howler in the fifth line of that OP:

Easy access to firearms with large-capacity magazines facilitates higher casualties in mass shootings.

Um, HELLO, they seem to have forgotten (or deliberately omitted) Virginia Tech- where that particular maniac was 'functional' enough to
practice reloading with ten-round magazines and managed to commit the worst mass shooting in the last decade in the US.

[ileus]

9. It wasn't even a rifle, it was a carbine...

much less a full auto.

[PavePusher]

11. Well, technically 'carbine' is a subset of the group 'rifle'.

Semantics, of course.

[PavePusher]

12. ""Right-to-carry" gun laws do not reduce violent crime. "

Do they increase crime?

There are quite a few people who will testify that the right to carry reduced their personal level of crime....

[Pacafishmate]

15. Restricting low intelligence gun grabbers from legislating their ideals saves the lives of guns.

[Francis Marion]

16. So what.

You won't discuss what you post.