Washington Post: A sensible, state-based answer to gun violence?
...Debate about this issue, which encouragingly is getting some attention on the presidential campaign trail, ought to be driven by evidence of what has proved to be effective.
In particular, attention should be paid to studies showing the efficacy of state permits for gun purchases. Research by the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health shows that state permitting systems reduce gun availability to dangerous people and prevent homicides, suicides and shootings of law enforcement officers.
One study released in June examined effects of a law implemented in Connecticut in 1995 requiring a license, contingent on passing a background check, to purchase a handgun. Using sophisticated statistical modeling, researchers compared Connecticuts homicide rates during the 10 years after the laws implementation with the rates that would have been expected had the law not taken effect. The conclusion: a 40 percent reduction in the states firearm-related homicide rate....
Ten states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring permits for gun purchases and, according to center director and report author Daniel W. Webster, the strongest require the applicant to apply in person to local enforcement, which has access to more information and has discretion in granting the gun purchase permits. Local police chiefs typically know more about the people in their community than does a national computer, said David Hemenway, who headed a team from the Harvard School of Public Health that surveyed Massachusetts police chiefs. It found applicants who would have passed the federal background check and were denied permits due to worrisome behavior, including arrests for violent offenses or making threats....
To encourage states, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Connecticuts lawmakers in sponsoring legislation that would provide funding to states to expand background checks. States, said Mr. Van Hollen, require licenses to drive a car or even to fish in local rivers, so requiring a license to buy a deadly handgun is a commonsense step that could save countless lives. That common sense has been borne out by solid research.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-sensible-state-based-answer-to-gun-violence/2015/07/28/f779dc0c-113a-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)The first step is get rid of all the nonsense NRA backed changes to regulation in the states. Stand your ground and "shall issue" being the first two.
Shall issue laws require applicants to get a concealed carry license if they pass the NICS background check, no other questions asked. If the local law enforcement knows the applicant is a troubled individual or a trouble maker there is no option but to let him walk the streets with a loaded gun.
Given this study linking alcohol to gun violence ( http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/chattanooga-shooter-mental-illness-alcohol-drugs-data-gun-violence/ ) if the police knew that the applicant has a history of public intoxication, itself not a NICS violation, that would be grounds for denial.
We have to get common sense human intervention back into the gun purchase/carry scenario.
DeepModem Mom
(38,402 posts)and I see that you've been actively contributing your knowledge. Literally, a life-and-death issue and so difficult to address!
sir pball
(4,946 posts)First, while it is legally may-issue, in practice once you've completed the mandatory NRA pistol course and passed the tests, and aren't a blatantly raving lunatic, you're good to go - there's no hard and fast definition of a "suitable person" and more to the point, there's no statutory requirement for you to have any particular reason to carry a handgun, just that you feel like it.
Which brings me to the second, bigger issue a lot of people might take with CT's permit - it's not just a permit to purchase but also a fairly broad concealed-carry permit (IIRC schools, courthouses, and no-gun-posted property are off-limits). I have neither the time nor the inclination right now to open the can of worms of discussing this myself, as I have to leave for work in 15, but I thought it's worth making it known.
I have zero problem with CT's PTP/FOID system, TBH I'd like to see something very close to it nationwide, for both long and handguns, but to those who favor stricter controls than I do there may be a couple of dealbreakers with using it entirely as a model.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)To walk around in public with a loaded lethal weapon should require a much higher standard than to own and to keep secured in a home.
It should require, at the very least, serious training on use and law covering the use of a gun.