Based on the percent of firearms licenses, about 1 to 5 percent of adult residents had a firearms license in Massachusetts counties. But Iwama found no consistent effect of the new legislation on reducing four types of violent crime (murder or nonnegligent manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery, rape). Her study did find that a one-percent increase in denied firearm licenses and denied firearm licenses following statutory disqualifications increased robberies 7.3 and 8.9 percent, respectively.
While the percentage of denied firearms licenses and firearms license applications had little to no effect on violent crimes, Iwama suggests state lawmakers revisit their legislation to ensure that it is being implemented as intended and address challenges identified. In particular, are these findings the result of a longer-than-expected lag in enforcement following passage of the legislation? Are they due to individuals obtaining firearms in nearby states with looser gun laws? Or is it possible that the 2014 law is being enforced differentially by county?
October 22, 2021
Study: Massachusetts Gun-Control Legislation Has Had No Effect on Violent Crime
[Or is it possible that what I and others have been saying, for almost 20 years, gun control has not and will not make the general public safer?
Study after study agrees with me but researcher Janice Iwama confirms the findings of dozens of other researchers using data from all over the country (for example: a 2018 study on background checks and my thoughts on background checks in 2013) and concludes it must be an implementation problem specific to Massachusetts. She doesn’t understand (or believe) that it was never the intention of the law to increase public safety.—Joe]
the problem among our unimaginative and incurious laptop class is that they fail to ask good questions. Of the data, and of themselves.
The claim of public safety for the chirrun is glittery emotional bait. The hook is in there somewhere. The fish probably don’t even know that they’ve been hooked. The public claim of intent is only the outer layer.
“She doesn’t understand (or believe) that it was never the intention of the law to increase public safety.—Joe”
Thats the most common of common sense. And somehow it always gets missed as the answer?
And with all the examples available? Like,,,,,Damn!
“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Was invented in the 60’s? And somehow, it’s simple logic has been missed by academia for 60 years now. As communism goosesteps down main street.
And now Joe Biden is what passes for leadership.
With and education like that. I’m proud to be a high-school drop-out.
I’m sure the following logic would also escape her. Which has also been common sense, well understood before and since the Revolutionary war in America.
Gun-control is a dead issue. Don’t believe me? Come try and take mine.
Something is going to die.
“Are they due to individuals obtaining firearms in nearby states with looser gun laws? ”
I doubt this has been the case for many years, legally. Stolen and then sold elsewhere may occur, but why would a criminal bother to travel with stolen items any real distance? Then again, those North East original pocket sized states are like Europe, you can cross multiple borders in a day.
“a one-percent increase in denied firearm licenses and denied firearm licenses following statutory disqualifications increased robberies 7.3 and 8.9 percent, respectively.”
Pure unadulterated bullsh!t!
Just how did the denial of licenses increase robberies? She states clear causation with no basis in fact (or statistics, for that matter).
I tend not to contemplate overmuch on whether a certain politician actually believes this or that Romish leftist authoritarian talking point. They’ll go along with the script whether they believe it or not. Therefore it is not about what a given politician believes. Whoever is in the role is going to stick to the script. It’s the job.
They’re actors. Do you assume that an actor on a movie set is really the person he is trying (however skillfully or incompetently) to appear to be? Or do you understand that he’s a professional actor, following a director’s instructions, while the director, in turn, is reinforcing and promoting the author’s story in such a way as to achieve maximum interest and maximum emotional engagement from the public?
You’re free to critique any actor’s performance, of course, but if you don’t like the storyline then you should be criticizing the writers, along with the childish and foolish among us who actually believe that what they’re watching is genuine. The poor actor is sort of caught in between. The writers are more guilty, as are the promoters, and we among the public who either think it’s real or are influenced by it enough that it doesn’t matter whether or not we think it’s real.
As for the individuals involved in the production, regardless of which actor gets a certain part, it’s still the same part, and regardless of which director or production crew gets the gig, it’s still the same industry, promoting the same fiction.
Sure, some actors are more enthusiastic about playing certain roles compared to others, but once they accept a role, any role, they’re going to play it for all they’re worth if they value their careers. Therefore if we could throw out all the actors and replace them with new actors, it’s still the same handful of production companies, in the same industry, promoting the same narratives and dialectics, designed to uphold the same perceptions and mindsets which lead to the same authoritarian outcomes.
Or in other words;
“…we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12
I believe this is what they call “doubling down on stupid”……