IMI Systems Quote of the Day: Waiting Periods Would Save Hundreds of Lives Each Year – Enter to Win 1000 Rounds of IMI 9mm Ammo

Harvard professor Deepak Malhotra

“We can say confidently that waiting period laws reduce gun homicides. There seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest that suicides also are reduced, but further research might be necessary on that issue. … What is nice about this study is that it identifies a policy change which does not take guns away from anybody and yet can have a significant impact on gun deaths.” – Harvard professor Deepak Malhotra in Study: Delaying Purchase Of Guns By Couple Days Could Save Nearly 1,700 Lives A Year [via cbslocal.com]

ENTER TO WIN 1000 ROUNDS OF IMI 9MM AMMUNITION


Click here for more information about IMI System Ammunition

Entries will be added to TTAG’s mailing list and shared with IMI Systems

comments

  1. avatar DLewis says:

    Why would it matter if it took an extra 3-5 days for me to get another gun? I already have several.

    1. avatar nativeson says:

      Why am I not surprised that this ‘study’ comes from an Ivy League professor – and a business professor at that who attended Oxford. All immigrants seeking citizenship should be required to pledge allegiance to the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, ship them the hell back to where they come from so that the rest of us can enjoy our unalienable rights.

      1. avatar Higgs says:

        If I remember correctly this experiment has been tried several times in California. Some one wrote and article ( Which I can not find) which discussed the waiting times
        vs Homicide/Suicide in since California has increased the waiting period several times since the 1920s. If i remember correctly there was a brief drop in gun suicides for a short period of time, and increase in other types of suicides during that time, and no change in homicides.

        They can be confident in their theory, but in the real world the facts do not support it.

        1. avatar Omer says:

          Here in Illinois there’s a 24 hour wait period for long guns and 72 hour for handguns and you can see the amazing results that has had on gun (read gang) violence in Chicago.

        2. avatar JasonM says:

          But just imagine how much higher the death toll would be in Chicago, if those black market gun dealers didn’t abide by the 72-hour waiting period…

      2. avatar ProfessorManque says:

        Now class here we have the Americanus Ignorantia Parochialis in its native habitat, we see the impressive gibberish reflex when confronted by someone of superior intellect and education at the prestigious Oxford University and a soon to be Distinguished Professor at the renowned Harvard Business School, this species has been known to gibber for days and countless pages in an effort to camouflage their ignorance, knee jerk xenophobia and facile wrapping of themselves in fethishized and misunderstood parchment are a favorite this unusual and anachronistic species…

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          Now class, here we actually have the Americanus Ingoratia Adminiculum in its natural state. We see the lack of reading comprehension needed to even address the substance of what is being said, and a consequent lack of articulation when confronted by someone critical of whom they see as a superior. Even when the alleged superior conveniently ignores the complete lack of empirical evidence to support their assertions, they simply commit an Appeal to Authority fallacy to try and shut down debate at all costs. This is a commonplace tactic among this species, and is typically buried under pages and pages of damning counter-arguments that it can only meet with more formal fallacies of logic which typically accompany more sophomoric name-calling that never fits the description of their opponents. These are but a few of the signature moves of this dull and increasingly out-of-place species.

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Why would it matter, you ask?

      Any waiting period more than a few minutes literally doubles the cost to get a gun because now two trips to the gun store are required, at least if the California model is followed: one to initiate the wait and a second to actually pick up the gun. That at least doubles the cost of obtaining a new gun, whether the buyer already has one or not.

      As a personal example I live about two hours away from my preferred gun store by car (the closest one is only an hour and a half, but they’re expensive jerks). Right now, if I buy a new gun, it’s basically a lost day of wages or work time around the ol’ homestead. A waiting period would double that.

      But the doubled burden effext is true whether we’re talking me, or someone who lives half a block away from the store; or someone who is buying a first gun, or their hundredth.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Ole’ Deepak may be coming up for tenure and is so desperate to make himself more visible to the Tenure and Promotions Committee, that he’ll peddle any kind of shabby “research”. The guy’s not dumb although he obviously thinks the rest of us are. He knows full well that claiming “x-lives will be saved . . .) is an inherently weak methodology based on correlated “facts” called variables. Depending on how you order the variables, you can correlate anything with anything else. Political activists will thus take the most crappy “research” and use it as “proof”. Imposing waiting periods will not save lives, except in the fevered imagination gun-controllers looking for a cheap win.

  2. avatar million says:

    here’s the PNAS link..

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/11/1619896114

    i hope there’s a synthetic control group buried in there somewhere!

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      What is this “control” group you speak of? Feefees trump little details like the scientific method.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Control group? Who needs a control group?!

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Because it’s better to be stabbed or bludgeoned to death than to be shot.

    1. avatar Evan says:

      Don’t forget have your face melted off with Liquid Plumr or pool chemicals. Or hit by a truck.

  4. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I wonder how many lives would be saved if folks would just wait a few days to see their doctor…

    1. avatar paulr says:

      Off topic I know, but its just the opposite. If more people would GO to see their Doctor and actually listen to what they have to say, many, many lives would be saved and that is just the diabetics and pre diabetics.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        I wish. But not likely. As an APRN, I spent a lot of time teaching diabetic management to home patients. They all saw their doctors regularly, and had all of the drugs, equipment and so forth to manage their disease, but very few would be bothered to take real responsibility for any of it. Most wanted to continue their life as it had been, eating and drinking what they wanted… insisting that a pill or shot totally overcome the terrible consequences of those choices.

        Expecting a doctor to solve all your problems is no less delusional than “waiting periods” for guns.

        1. avatar paulr says:

          I agree with your 1st paragraph wholeheartedly. With respect to the 2nd, I didn’t suggest that MD’s could solve all of your problems. Please note that I said people should listen to their Doc. Things like losing weight, eat healthy, exercise, stop drinking smoking etc. Being proactive is the key to staying healthy and medical professionals can have a very positive impact in this regard.

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Of course, but that’s not what is happening. And it won’t happen unless people are willing to take responsibility for themselves. What they “should do” and what they actually do are very different, and nobody can fix that except the individual. Just going to see a doctor doesn’t change that.

          I’ve known an awful lot of doctors, and worked with and for many of them. There are as many idiots and criminals among doctors as any other group of people. The responsible person understands this and does their own thinking, makes educated choices the best they can, and lives with the consequences. Of course, Obummercare and other government control of medicine makes this increasingly difficult, even for rational, self responsible people.

          Blindly trusting a doctor (or anyone else) is a sure path to serious problems, and often leads to an unnecessary early death.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        paulr,

        I believe Tom in Oregon is referring to the fact that physician errors kill something like 400,000 people every year. If people waited a few days before seeing their physician — and presumably many conditions would clear up on their own and the person would end up not seeing their physician at all — then the number of people that would have otherwise seen their physician and died from a resulting physician error goes down, which could definitely save thousands of lives every year.

        1. avatar paulr says:

          I agree with you and understand Tom’s point.

      3. avatar GunDoc says:

        Nope.

        As a medical doctor, I can say with some authority that most doctors are hacks. Especially of late, since the standards are being lowered to ridiculous levels.

        Iatrogenic disease is one of the top killers.

        Unless you need to be fixed up after an accident, stay away from hospitals and doctors.

        1. avatar paulr says:

          What complete nonsense. As an EMT, I see people all the time who have stayed away from their doctor for long periods of time. Included in that are diabetics who are grossly overweight and have no idea how to manage their condition. Catching and treating conditions in advance is the key to medical care; not waiting until you need emergency care.

          You are giving really bad advice “doctor”; hopefully no one listens to you.

        2. avatar million says:

          diet is the key to medical care, not treating the symptoms. diabetes, heart disease, cancers.. diet related.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “You are giving really bad advice “doctor”; hopefully no one listens to you.”

          paulr, ‘GunDoc’ is a conspiracy nut-job.

          He *actually* believes nuclear weapons don’t exist. According to him, no nuclear explosion has *ever* taken place, it has all been a staged gigantic hoax of piles of conventional explosives being detonated.

          He denies the realities of *world-wide* seismic data records of shockwave propagation circling the earth *several times* for the larger megaton-range detonations.

          paulr, you will *never* convince him, and he will never convince you or anyone else with a functional brain…

      4. avatar paulr says:

        Hey mama, show me where I said that one should “blindly trust their doctor”? What is wrong with you? Question for you; can most people run their own LIPID panel? I go twice a year for checkup’s and to monitor my panel. If I don’t know that my triglicerides level is up how can do anything about it? If I don’t know that my cholesterol is up how can do anything about it? If my glucose is high how am I supposed to figure out that I may be pre diabetic?

        I think we are saying the same thing but for some reason you appear to more interested in an argument.

        1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Without serious personal responsibility and rational choices… going to a doctor can’t help being “blind trust.” Or the problem one would have after a serious accident in a strange city…

          Only you can decide what is important – for you. I have not had any “tests” done in almost 20 years, and probably never will. I understand and do what is necessary for health and wellness, rather than dwelling on disease and expecting to find it. Different strokes for different folks. I’ve not seen any doctor in ten years, and don’t expect ever to… unless I develop a serious leak or break something, of course. 🙂

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    Full text: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/11/1619896114.full.pdf
    Simple correlation. This thing is hot garbage.

    1. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

      Missing is any analysis of the negative effects of waiting period laws. For example, how many potentially beneficial defensive gun uses were foregone? By examining only one single effect of waiting periods, the authors display their intent to build a “study” to support their existing biases.

      1. avatar paulr says:

        Right you are Alan! Here in NJ (I know, I know) Carol Bowne was made to wait to obtain her pistol permit. Before she could get it, she was stabbed to death by her “boyfriend”.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          To be fair, NJ law requires applications to purchase a firearm to be processed in 30 days, but they never are (and one investigative report I watched suggested that the NJ police are willfully ignorant of the requirement), and this woman had been waiting for months. If it really had been a three day wait, she would have been able to arm herself.

        2. avatar Gman says:

          @ MarkN – To be fair, any delay to obtain a firearm when one really needs one is not fair, it’s criminal.

          In most other states Carol would have walked into her LGS and walked out within an hour with a solid gun, plenty of ammo, and range training (if desired).

  6. avatar million says:

    “Waiting periods for gun purchases are supported not only by the American Medical Association but also by a majority of Americans and a majority of gun owners”

    Deepak should not be so cavalier with his appeal to mob rule. that’s not a standard of justice typically friendly to minorities.

    1. avatar paulr says:

      Agreed but I seriously doubt the “majority” of gun owners support waiting periods. Just as I seriously doubt that “90% of gun owners support ‘universal’ background checks”.

      1. avatar million says:

        i’m sure whatever study Deepak will cite for the 90% claim was also edited by some gun grabber out of Berkeley.

    2. avatar Catt says:

      Your statement about gun owners saying a waiting period would be fine, is a lie that you and the left keep making up. (Fake news)
      Gun owners don’t want any of their rights taken away.
      You can’t do a survey of 100 people and say this is what everyone wants….

  7. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Because nobody’s held a grudge, or wanted to commit suicide, or whatever, longer than three days / a week / 10 days / whatever arbitrary time.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      While your assertion is true, the author’s assertion could also be true as well.

      Imagine the following simple scenario:
      — Mr. Average is 5 feet, 9 inches tall and weighs 155 pounds.
      — Mr. Smooth is 6 feet, 3 inches tall and solid muscle at 235 pounds.
      — Mr. Smooth puts the moves on Mr. Average’s drunk girlfriend at a party.
      — The drunk girlfriend tells Mr. Average that she is now Mr. Smooth’s girl.
      — Mr. Average is furious and wants to seriously hurt Mr. Smooth.
      — Mr. Average knows that he cannot take on Mr. Smooth hand-to-hand.
      — Mr. Average drives three miles to the nearest gun store and purchases a firearm.
      — Mr. Average returns and shoots Mr. Smooth.

      That scenario is entirely realistic and has probably played out (at least up the point that Mr. Average leaves to purchase a firearm) 100s of thousands of times in the past 70 years. The only question is whether or not Mr. Average would have cooled down enough to no longer desire to seriously hurt/shoot Mr. Smooth after a couple days. I imagine it could go either way from one case to the next.

      In the end none of that matters because the proposed “solution” (waiting periods) seriously infringes on the rights of good people who have demonstrated no capacity or propensity to harm anyone.

      Think about that scenario a little bit further. Mr. Average’s ex-girlfriend and Mr. Smooth, having just heard Mr. Average state that he was going put both of them in the grave for their “misdeed”, want to immediately purchase a firearm for righteous self-defense. Guess what? They would not be able to purchase a firearm for self-defense either if there are waiting periods. Of course gun-grabbers would say, “No problem because Mr. Average was not able to purchase a firearm, either.”, which is meaningless if Mr. Average borrows or buys a gun from a friend — or just shows up with a machete.

      And we can use a parallel example to demonstrate the absurdity of waiting periods. Suppose date-rapists almost universally use condoms in order to ensure that they do not leave incriminating DNA evidence on their victims. In response some government mandates 3 day waiting periods on condom purchases in order to prevent date-rapists from “running out in the heat of the moment to purchase a condom so that they can rape women”. The GIANT problems with that “solution” should be obvious. So it is with waiting periods on firearm purchases.

      1. avatar Rebel says:

        Sorry, but your whole premise I’d a straw man argument. If ” what if’s” and ” buts” were candy and nuts, We’d all have a Merry Christmas.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Well, nanny-nanny-boo-boo to you, too! Try this, then. Rape is against the law. Murder is against the law. Trying to make them somehow more illegaler is a waste of time and energy. And a waiting period for condom purchases is no stupider than a waiting period on firearm purchases, neither would accomplish anything positive.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Rebel,

          What is my premise and what makes it a strawman argument?

          I will spell out my premise for you:
          Waiting periods may or may not reduce the lethatlity of violent attacks or the number of victims of violent crime. Either way, it does not matter because “solutions” are a no-go when they infringe on the rights of people who have demonstrated no propensity to harm anyone.

          How is that a “strawman” argument?

      2. avatar Mike B in WI says:

        Mr. u_c, I was very involved in repealing Wisconsin’s 48 hour waiting period for handgun purchases, including testifying in support of the bill to eliminate it. No one who opposed the elimination of the waiting period could produce one instance where someone had become angry, purchased a gun and used it to shoot someone else. Ever.

        The supporting side could produce concrete examples such as Carol Bowne.

        Also, if Mr. Average in your strawman example already owned firearms, a waiting period would not do anything to promote a “cooling off” period. The original purpose of the Wisconsin waiting period was to allow the local police department to do a background check on the buyer. Once NICs was in effect, there was no need to wait for that. It was only when the waiting period was going to be eliminated that its purpose became a “cooling off” period.

  8. avatar Ironhead says:

    The Derpak is strong with this one.
    Also proves that being a professor at Harvard really doesnt mean anything anymore.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      That’s probably been true for about the past 50 years.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        I “can say confidently that” you are correct.

        “Professor greaser” it is irrelevant how “confident” you are in your ability to spew BS. Your silver tongue still won’t turn it into choc ice cream. The US does not entirely consist of gullible children eager for your indoctrination.

  9. avatar El Bearsidente says:

    Let’s see.

    It would not prevent suicides (which make up 2/3s of all firearms deaths.)
    It would not prevent good shootings in self defense, etc.
    It would not prevent spur of the moment violence, like someone killing family members, because lack of one tool will simply lead to the use of another tool.
    It would not prevent actual gun violence, aka illegal use of a firearm to inflict harm on other people, because lack of one tool will simply lead to the use of another tool. Those make up around 5,000 of all firearms deaths. 25% of those are in only 4 cities: CD, Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit. Those are usually done with illegal weapons, because criminals don’t really buy at gun stores.

    Mr Malhora has zero experience in reality. He teaches theory. He has spent exactly 0 minutes on the beat. Another theorist throwing around statistics based on wishful thinking.

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      El Bearsidente,

      Please do not let the left define the language.

      There is no such thing as “gun violence”, there is only people violence. They use various tools to perpetrate violence, of which firearms may be one.

      Otherwise agree with everything you said.

      1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        Exactly. Focusing only on gun related crime is intrinsically misleading. Secondly, the left frames just about every issue in dishonest terms.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      El Bearsidente,

      “It would not prevent spur of the moment violence … because lack of one tool will simply lead to the use of another tool.”

      While your statement is entirely true, you failed to consider the lethality of alternate tools. Therefore it is entirely possible that eliminating firearms would not reduce the number of attacks although it would reduce the lethality of attacks which would be a good result. Of course eliminating firearms could actually increase the lethality of attacks which would be a bad result.

      At any rate it doesn’t matter because it is wrong to infringe on the rights of good people, who have not demonstrated any propensity to harm other people, in an attempt to reduce the lethality of criminals.

      I’ll provide an example. Every criminal relies on good shoes or boots to quickly pounce upon their intended victim and to promptly escape, regardless of what tool or weapon they use. So, if all shoes had cleats on the inside of the shoe and aimed at the wearer’s feet which made it impossible to move quickly on your feet, we could radically reduce violent crime. And we will not do that because it also prevents good people from moving quickly away from danger, as well as interfering with various types of recreation. So it is with firearms. Proposed “solutions” that infringe on the rights of good people are a no-go, period.

  10. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Newsflash: Massachusetts, MA.(R=RINO.) Gov. Charlie “The Barker” Baker was a guest on rock radio WAAF, Where he gleeful answered Gun and Gun Accessories control questions. About how a bill to ban “Bump-Fire” stocks, and any other type of device that makes a firearm operate like a full automatic machine gun…The governor exclaimed He would sign the bill into law because ” machine guns are banned in Massachusetts…And No one should own one of these “bump-fire” devices…Only if your in the military, or police community….MA. Gov. Baker went on to say Massachusetts gun laws work, and that we have the safest state compared to others…(re: Fellow Americans, please help me spread the word that this piece of Shit Globalist governor is absolutely no friend of the US Constitutional-Bill of Rights, or the 2nd Amendment itself…He is a F-ing RINO Statist that pulls the party line for the DNC LibTards…Please help me eliminate any future political aspirations for this man, here, or outside of Massachusetts…May his political future be short lived!!! Spread the Word ! )

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      Hear, hear!

    2. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      Aaron, et al,

      Machine aren’t actually banned in MA, you just can’t get a green stripe LTC, 8>)

  11. avatar Parnell says:

    Pass National Reciprocity, rescind the NFA and then we’ll talk about waiting periods. Oh and don’t forget ridding us of the Hughes Act.

  12. avatar Warlocc says:

    I’ll give him credit. At least he’s not trying to ban or confiscate anything.

    That’s a change of pace for these types.

    1. avatar paulr says:

      Sure he is, he’s just not admitting it!

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      I’ll give him credit for understanding that the slippery slope starts with waiting periods and leads to confiscation.

    3. avatar robby says:

      To quote Bill Buckley “I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”

  13. avatar DerryM says:

    Epitomizes this: “Those who can DO. Those you cannot TEACH.”

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      And those who butcher pithy quotes do so in comment sections?

  14. avatar paulr says:

    Hey Deepak, here is what we think of your “waiting periods”; not one inch. Not one step back.

  15. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    He can confidently say anything he wants: doesn’t make it true.

  16. avatar MDH says:

    Guns are fundamentally tools. If my life, my constitutional rights and liberties, or my family’s lives are under threat, I need a particular lifesaving tool when I need it. If your function is to deny that lifesaving tool to me, or to obstruct me in obtaining that lifesaving tool, you become the threat.

  17. avatar Here's Common Sense: Arm the Good says:

    “Dear ma’am,

    You know that crazy stalker that just confronted you on your front porch while you were taking out the trash by saying, ‘see you later,’ while making the thumb across the throat gesture? Well now you can’t get a firearm in a timely manner to prevent a probable rape/murder.

    Sowwwyyy,

    Government Official”

  18. avatar Avid Reader says:

    So, let’s see-just in Chicago:
    -gangs targeting shipments of guns in the rail yards. Nope, waiting period won’t help there.
    -gangs hiding guns in places where they can share them and drop them. Nope, waiting period won’t help there.
    -gangs using stolen guns. Nope, waiting period won’t help there.

    I could go on, but. . .

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Wait. How about a law restricting how many guns you are allowed to steal each day? That would help, right? It’s just common sense!

  19. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Sadly, I don’t think we’ll get much support from gun stores, manufacturers or the NSSF in the fight against waiting periods.

    Any law that requires every customer to make a second trip to the gun store is a retailer’s dream. They understand that it will increase sales. You may not buy another gun on that second trip, but you’ll buy ammo and accessories.

    In Illinois, I have had to wait one to three days for every gun I have ever bought. The stupidity of such a law in Illinois should be pretty obvious, because if it’s your first gun, you have to wait a month or so to get a FOID card first, before you buy that gun and wait another day or three.

  20. avatar Joe R. says:

    “We can say confidently that” . . . you’re a hipster douche who is INFECTED WITH THE POS (D) PROBLEM.

    THE PROBLEM DOESN’T GET TO DEFINE THE PROBLEM OR OFFER ANY SOLUTIONS.

    YOUR MOTHER WAITED TOO LONG TO HAVE AN ABORTION. SHE STILL OWES US ONE.

  21. avatar DaveL says:

    A 17% reduction in firearm homicides? Um, wouldn’t that amount to nearly ALL firearm homicides not committed by prohibited persons? You know, seeing as how ~80% of killers have a prior felony history, a result that appears to be quite stable. If California had entered eliminated firearm homicides by non-prohibited persons, it’s news to me. Or are they suggesting that waiting periods reduced homicides by people not allowed to take possession of a firearm at all?

  22. avatar GS650G says:

    Hundreds of criminals lives would be saved. Victims not so much.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      Some politicians need the votes of those criminals. The law abiding victims, not so much.

  23. avatar LHW says:

    When the seconds count, your gun is only 3 days away.

  24. avatar EJQ says:

    If I remember correctly, a woman who had separated from a violent husband or boyfriend did apply for ownership of a gun in New Jersey. N.J. has a waiting period. Meanwhile, she was murdered by said husband/boyfriend.

  25. avatar fteter says:

    From the original news story: “Researchers at Harvard Business School analyzed waiting period laws for handguns in 43 states and the District of Columbia from 1970 to 2014. Their results showed that waiting periods were associated with a 17 percent decrease in gun homicides and a 7 percent to 11 percent decrease in gun suicides per year.”

    How did the researchers established causation between the waiting periods and the decreases? Or did they just grab two statistics that supported their theory and assumed that one caused the other?

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      There could not have even been any bare correlation, either.

      The District of Criminals has one of THE highest homicide rates in the country.

      In fact, Texas has a similar rate of homicides committed with guns to KKKommiefornia. The statistics below are nominally used to debunk any alleged correlation, much less causal link, between gun ownership and homicide rates. But, the principle is still the same.

      Florida is not included because it does not appear in Table 20 of the FBI’s UCR Data Tables.
      Alabama is not included due to limited homicide and supplemental weapons data.

      Alaska: 12 total for 1.63 per 100K || Ownership rate: 61.7%
      Arizona: 184 total for 2.78 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.3%
      Arkansas: 110 total for 3.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 57.9%
      California: 1,224 total for 3.19 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.1%
      Colorado: 88 total for 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.3%
      Connecticut: 60 total for 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 16.6%
      Delaware: 33 total for 3.56 per 100K || Ownership rate: 5.2%
      D.C.: 81 total for 12.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 25.9%
      Georgia: 411 total for 4.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.6%
      Hawai’i: 6 total for 0.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 45.1%
      Idaho: 15 total for 0.93 per 100K || Ownership rate: 56.9%
      Illinois: 364 total for 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.2%
      Indiana: 238 total for 3.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%
      Iowa: 18 total for 0.58 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%
      Kansas: 78 total for 2.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.2%
      Kentucky: 111 total for 2.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.4%
      Louisiana: 356 total for 7.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.5%
      Maine: 12 total for 0.9 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
      Maryland: 268 total for 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.7%
      Massachusetts: 78 total for 1.17 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
      Michigan: 440 total for 4.44 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
      Minnesota: 60 total for 1.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 36.7%
      Mississippi: 110 total for 3.68 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.8%
      Missouri: 273 total for 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
      Montana: 9 total for 0.89 per 100K || Ownership rate: 52.3%
      Nebraska: 39 total for 2.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.8%
      Nevada: 87 total for 3.12 per 100K || Ownership rate: 37.5%
      New Hampshire: 5 total for 0.38 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
      New Jersey: 291 total for 3.27 per 100K || Ownership rate: 11.3%
      New Mexico: 59 total for 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 49.9%
      New York: 362 total for 1.84 per 100K || Ownership rate: 10.3%
      North Carolina: 315 total for 3.2 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.7%
      North Dakota: 4 total for 0.55 per 100K || Ownership rate: 47.9%
      Ohio: 309 total for 2.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.6%
      Oklahoma: 127 total for 3.3 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.2%
      Oregon: 43 total for 1.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.6%
      Pennsylvania: 440 total for 3.44 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
      Rhode Island: 18 total for 1.71 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
      South Carolina: 224 total for 4.69 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.4%
      South Dakota: 3 total for 0.36 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.0%
      Tennessee: 223 total for 3.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 39.4%
      Texas: 760 total for 2.87 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.7%
      Utah: 31 total for 1.07 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.9%
      Vermont: 5 total for 0.8 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
      Virginia: 225 total for 2.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 29.3%
      Washington: 86 total for 1.23 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.7%
      West Virginia: 30 total for 1.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 54.2%
      Wisconsin: 103 total for 1.80 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.7%
      Wyoming: 9 total for 1.54 per 100K || Ownership rate: 53.8%

      Most dangerous states, homicides committed with firearms

      Top 10

      1. Washington, D.C. – 12.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 25.9%
      2. Louisiana – 7.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.5%
      3. South Carolina – 4.69 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.4%
      4. Maryland – 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.7%
      5. Missouri – 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
      6. Michigan – 4.44 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
      7. Georgia – 4.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.6%
      8. Arkansas – 3.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 57.9%
      9. Mississippi – 3.68 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.8%
      10. Indiana – 3.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%

      avg. 5.35 per 100K @ 35.75%

      11. Delaware: 3.56 per 100K || Ownership rate: 5.2%
      12. Pennsylvania: 3.44 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
      13. Tennessee: 3.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 39.4%
      14. Oklahoma: 3.3 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.2%
      15. New Jersey: 3.27 per 100K || Ownership rate: 11.3%
      16. North Carolina: 3.2 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.7%
      17. California: 3.19 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.1%
      18. Nevada: 3.12 per 100K || Ownership rate: 37.5%
      19. Texas: 2.87 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.7%
      20. Illinois: 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.2%
      21. New Mexico: 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 49.9%
      22. Arizona: 2.78 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.3%
      23. Virginia: 2.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 29.3%
      24. Kansas: 2.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.2%

      avg. 3.09 per 100K @ 29.01%

      Bottom 25

      25. Ohio: 2.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.6%
      26. Kentucky: 2.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.4%
      27. Nebraska: 2.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.8%
      28. New York: 1.84 per 100K || Ownership rate: 10.3%
      29. Wisconsin: 1.80 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.7%
      30. Rhode Island: 1.71 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
      31. Connecticut: 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 16.6%
      32. Colorado: 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.3%
      33. Alaska: 1.63 per 100K || Ownership rate: 61.7%
      34. West Virginia: 1.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 54.2%
      35. Wyoming: 1.54 per 100K || Ownership rate: 53.8%
      36. Washington: 1.23 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.7%
      37. Massachusetts: 1.17 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
      38. Minnesota: 1.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 36.7%
      39. Oregon: 1.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.6%

      avg. 1.69 per 100K @ 31.69%

      Bottom 10

      40. Utah – 1.07 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.9%
      41. Idaho – 0.93 per 100K || Ownership rate: 56.9%
      42. Maine – 0.9 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
      43. Montana – 0.89 per 100K || Ownership rate: 52.3%
      44. Vermont – 0.8 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
      45. Iowa – 0.58 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%
      46. North Dakota – 0.55 per 100K || Ownership rate: 47.9%
      47. Hawai’i – 0.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 45.1%
      48. New Hampshire – 0.38 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
      49. South Dakota – 0.36 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.0%

      avg. 0.69 per 100K @ 36.89%

      National average: 2.54 per 100K @ 32.8%

      https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls

      https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

      http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2015/06/09/injuryprev-2015-041586.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=doj6vx0laFZMsQ2

      And, now, for a graphical representation of the above data. Almost ZERO correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

      http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p199/LewisAcid/Data/GunHomicideRate_vs_GunOwnershipRate.png

      Note: r^2 = -0.0096

      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

  26. avatar Dale from Kansas says:

    If you can’t be trusted with a gun RIGHT NOW, you can’t be trusted with one in 3 days.

  27. avatar Jason says:

    I will never buy anything from IMI Systems.

    Shall not be infringed.

    1. avatar Gaston's love child says:

      That wasn’t IMI’s opinion, it was some tool from Harvard that spouted that nonsense.

      IMI just sponsors content so that you and I can come here and read all about it.

  28. avatar James Earl Hoffa says:

    Waiting periods do not save hundreds of lives every year that is full of crap. People die every year waiting for a handgun in there 3 to 10 day weights being legal and following the law and get murdered by someone they have a restraining order against while waiting to get their firearm or their carry permit it happens every year. Not to mention the fact that if I want to kill my spouse or my boss or someone else all I have to do is wait till they’re outside on the street and run them over with my everyday used car. More people are killed every year by blunt force trauma then hand guns and knives put together. So much crap in these gun control people’s minds or lack thereof I should say. If someone wants to hurt themselves or someone else they’re going to use whatever object they can get their hands on at the time that they wish to do this heinous crime. I can’t afford a machine gun I can’t get a gun today because there’s a waiting list guess what I’m going to go steal a big truck and do the exact same thing and probably most likely kill twice as many people and wound twice as many people just like that moron that drove a truck into a crowd of people and killed 40 and wounded 400. Not to mention people that build bombs. And while we’re on the topic we might as well look at how many children died in the State of Florida where I live from drownings weather in swimming pools Lakes streams oceans swamp areas you name it someone’s drown there what are we going to band swimming holes Lakes streams oceans estuaries no more getting your feet in the water you might swim or you might sink like a brick to the bottom. Look life is dangerous get it through your thick head that it is not safe to live as a human being you can breathe in some chemical that escaped out of a factory somewhere you can be driving a big front end loader and back off some property and fall down a hill you can die any way possible just like in those movies Ten Thousand Ways To Die. You cannot possibly ban all things that are dangerous that’s like saying I’m never going outside again because a meteor might fall on my freaking head. Just a bunch of crap live life enjoy yourself and most of all have a good time you’re not going to be here forever if you worry about all the little things and ways you can die you are going to have a miserable existence.

  29. avatar Xanthro says:

    There are not 1,700 homicides, where a firearm was used, in a year where the murderer legally purchased a firearm without a waiting period, hence, it would be impossible to prevent that many homicides.
    In 2016, there were 10,970 homicides where a firearm was used, including all States, expect Florida, and the District of Columbia.
    3,012 of those homicides occurred in States where there are mandatory waiting periods. That leaves, 7,958 homicides. 400 of which are committed by people under the age of 18, so they are not legally purchasing firearms.
    The FBI Reports that 67% of those convicted of murder already had a prior conviction that would disqualify that person from legally purchasing a firearm. That eliminates another 5,332 people, from our 7,958 leaving us with 2,626 remaining homicides committed using a firearm where the person was neither a convicted felon and lived outside a State with mandatory waiting periods.
    But, that doesn’t include those who stole firearms, or obtained them outside of legal means, such as borrowing or buying from a prohibited person.
    It shows an exceedingly poor grasp of the numbers involved to somehow conclude that waiting periods were save 1,700 lives, when, as shown, the vast majority of homicides are committed by those who would never be subject to such waiting periods, because they cannot legally purchase a firearm, or illegally obtain firearms.

  30. avatar Gaston's love child says:

    This is a ploy to reduce gun sales period.It adds a layer on inconvenience, and will eliminate a certain number of spontaneous purchases.

  31. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    A focus on “gun homicides” is an indicator that the study is either dishonest or at best useless.

    People use those guns to stop knife homicide and head-being-smashed-into-concrete homicides. .

    If they don’t look at all homicides and violent crime, is not relevant.

  32. avatar pg2 says:

    Beautiful study. Looks like us gun owners are finally getting the cooked studies and CDC statements that we deserve.

  33. avatar zombietimeshare says:

    I get the feeling his preferred waiting period would be 120 years.

  34. The conclusion here is irrelevant:

    WAITING PERIODS = DEATH BY INFRINGEMENT

    Simple fact, a mathematical certainty: People will be murdered while waiting for permission to have a gun. You can’t get more “infringeful” than that! Want to reduce homicides? The right of the people says: No waiting period; find another way.

  35. avatar Mark N. says:

    California’s 10 day waiting period was NOT enacted a a cooling off period–at least according to the legislative history–but in order to allow the State sufficient time to complete its background check. California does its own through its own system, although it also runs a NICS check as part of its process. Not that this stopped the AG from arguing that it was a “cooling off” period in a lawsuit challenging the requirement as to persons who have CCWs or otherwise own guns already.

  36. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Waiting periods are, of course, absolute foolishness. We know from data collected from several sources, including surveys of the criminals themselves, that they generally aquire their guns illegally, either by stealing them directly or by buying them from the thief. The percent of criminals that actually go to a store and buy a gun from a gun dealer, 4473, NICS check with the FBI, and all? Vanishing small, because of the fear of being caught.

    On the other side of the coin are the women we hear about every year who live in fear of an abusive ex that has made a mission of beating, or raping, or murdering them. Some of them die every year because they live in a state with a waiting period. Most of these women have a restraining order against the ex, but the only real value of that piece of paper is as documentation of the history, should she have to shoot him.

    The real reason these anti-gun people want waiting periods is they see any additional burden placed on legitimate gun buyers and dealers as a benefit to their disarmament cause.

  37. avatar Darkman says:

    Harvard professor.(sic) NUFF Said…

  38. this guy needs to have more medical pot. there was a woman who wrote in to a gun magazine and stated that her and her husband were being bothered by some gang. the husband went to the police and they said there was nothing they could do since no actual crime was commited at the time. so the husband decided to by a gun, at that time there was a 5 day waiting period, the husband complied and was going to wait, but as the wife- who is telling the story said, on the 3rd day of the waiting period she had to watch the same gang kill her husband. what crime did the waiting period reduce? this story was read by me sometime I think in the late 80s or early 90s and I do not have that article anymore, and I do not remember what state it was. I do remember that soon after that the waiting period nonsense was overturned.

  39. avatar sound awake says:

    deporting all criminal illegal aliens would do the same thing

  40. avatar Doesky2 says:

    Dennis Prager often suggests the following reply…….”So what?”

    I want my guns yesterday not when some pencil neck government nitwit suggests.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email