Brady law has not affected U.S. homicide rates

The fact that Brady hasn't affected violent crime is irrelevant.

What counts is that 100,000/200,000/400,000/whatever number DOJ is spouting this week firearms sales were "prevented." Never mind that most of those denials were incorrect, or that the real criminals who got rejected simply went to Sam The Friendly Neighborhood Gat Dealer, instead of being arrested by FBI on the spot.

Brady: wasting your money in new and exciting ways!
 
You'll notice at the bottom they put that they saw no evidence that the law should be abandoned.

Sheesh.


Battler.
 
Considering that the original article is in the JAMA, I'm amazed that they authors were allowed to say what they did. Of course, they blew their credibility by wanting to keep Brady despite the evidence, if CNN's reporting is accurate (never a safe assumption).
 
What issue of JAMA what that article in??? I would like to read it.

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
See also the General Accounting Office report on Brady's failings as well as a scholarly study done by Jacobs and Potter and published in the Northwestern University Criminology journal.

Give these findings, the best reason to repeal the law would be to restore our rights to privacy and to save a couple 100-million bucks per year in NICS expenditures.

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
There is also another study out.... done by a scientist? that is being reported on the HCI site, which states that Brady is saving lots of lives. The article referencing the report is also posted else here on TFL



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Every time the gun grabbers open their mouths they prove their position is visceral and not cerebral. Let's see, "We passed a law based on an erroneous assumption. But it had an effect. Therefore, tighter laws would have greater effect.

We Passed a law based on an erroneous assumption. It had no effect. Therefore, tighter laws are required."
Rich
 
I read about this report on abcnews.com, which provided a link to the ATF Brady Bill web site. (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/bradylaw/
index.htm)

I was stunned by the insanity of some of the provisions of the law I read there. Examples:
1. If you pawn a gun, you have to pass a NICS check when you pawn it, and you have to pass a NICS when you "buy" it back. Even if both events occur on the same day.
2. If you give a gun to a licensed dealer to sell on consignment, you have to pass a NICS if you decide to take it back.

People who write laws like this should find more useful and socially beneficial employment, like holding targets at the local firing range.
 
Never mind the fact that many of those 'prevented gun sales' were lawabiding gunowners without any violent criminal record and like a friend of mine had to go through the appeal process.
Just think about it if you spread that number across the US it looks like a decent number of 'criminals' being stopped from buying guns but not enough in anyone one area to make a real case out of and whats more exspensive taking the feds to court over it or going through the appeal process,
after your attempted purchase has been listed a triumph for Clinton and civil disarament.
Again Ill refer to Larry Pratts what Id call summation of the NRA supported NICS
If a total gun ban in England is having basically 0 effect on criminals getting guns theirs no way government checks could stop them, but they can do as they did in england and NYC and help make sure the lawabiding that obey such unconstitutional laws will be disarmed.
The upside to it is that the thugs on the street and in office will be a hell of a lot safer as they continue to pillage our homes and our rights and we continue to cry
'vote republican their better'. www.gunowners.org
the only no compromise gun lobby in washington www.jbs.org
leave the UN bring our troops home

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
I have read the article. It is aggravating to me (as a physician) to see faulty conclusions drawn and policy made as a result of a particular interpretation of the data. TFL'ers can help me out by listing links to as many other studies (particularly if they are goverment data/reports refuting the Brady law, or other medical/sociological/legal etc; this holds more water in the scientific/medical arena) as they can. I will be writing a rebuttal/letter to the editor this week. The lag time for publication in JAMA is usually several weeks to a couple of months, so once accepted for publication I'll post a draft here.

Thanks

Bob
 
KODB: Go ahead and write your letter; You've got to at least give them a chance to do the right thing before complaining. But you should be aware that the lag time for JAMA publishing letters complaining about anti-gun articles is, according to all available evidence, infinite.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top