Michigan State University Study: Broader Gun Restrictions Lead to Fewer Intimate Partner Homicides

Police response to domestic violence (courtesy eurekaalert.org)

Press release from Michigan State University [links and italics added]: State laws that restrict gun ownership among domestic abusers and others with violent histories appear to significantly reduce intimate partner homicides, indicates a groundbreaking national study led by a Michigan State University researcher.

The findings, which come on the heels of the Texas church massacre by a man with a history of domestic violence, suggest state laws with broader gun restrictions are more effective at preventing homicides among romantic partners – even if the laws do not exclusively target domestic abuse.

Currently, 13 states and federal law prohibit gun purchases by individuals convicted of domestic violence; the study finds that states that extend this ban to people convicted of any violent misdemeanor experience 23 percent fewer intimate partner homicides.

Reductions in domestic partner homicides were also more pronounced when gun-restriction laws included dating partners (not just spouses or ex-spouses) and a requirement that abusers surrender their firearms.

April Zeoli, MSU associate professor of criminal justice and primary investigator on the research, said broader gun-restriction laws could potentially save the lives of hundreds of domestic violence victims every year. Of the 1,352 intimate partner homicides in 2015, 55 percent were committed by firearms, according to the FBI.

“The evidence from this study and previous research highly suggests that firearm restrictions work to reduce intimate partner homicides and that laws need to be comprehensive when we think about populations most at risk for committing intimate partner violence,” Zeoli said. “Expanding restrictions from those who have been convicted of domestic violence to those who have been convicted of any violent misdemeanor, and including dating partners in domestic violence firearm laws would likely result in even greater reductions.”

The study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, is co-authored by Alexander McCourt, Shani Buggs, Shannon Frattaroli and Daniel Webster, all from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, and David Lilley from the University of Toledo. The work is funded by The Joyce Foundation.

The researchers studied the effects of firearm restrictions on intimate partner homicides in the 45 states with available data over a 34-year period, 1980 to 2013.

Twenty-nine states had laws restricting firearms in domestic violence cases when a restraining order had been issued. These laws were linked to a 9 percent reduction in intimate partner homicides, reinforcing past research with strikingly similar findings, Zeoli said.

But the MSU-led study went deeper than past research by examining other state laws that restrict gun access. Among the findings:

– Restraining orders for dating partners that include firearm restrictions (present in 22 states) were linked to a 10 percent decrease in romantic partner homicides and a 14 percent reduction in partner homicides committed with firearms. Dating partner statutes go beyond traditional domestic violence restraining order laws, which cover spouses, ex-spouses, couples that live together or have lived together and couples that have children together. Zeoli noted that nearly half of intimate partner homicides are committed by dating partners who often aren’t covered by these traditional partner categories in firearm-restriction laws.

– Gun restrictions that cover emergency restraining orders in domestic violence cases were associated with a 12 percent reduction in intimate partner homicides.

– Permit-to-purchase laws were linked to a 11 percent reduction in intimate partner homicides. These laws, active in ten states including Michigan and New York, require a permit from a law enforcement agency – and thus a criminal background check – to purchase a firearm. (While federal law requires a criminal background check to buy a gun from a licensed dealer, most states allow the purchase of firearms from private sellers without a background check. Other states mandate background checks for all gun sales, but don’t require a permit or interaction with law enforcement.)

– Laws requiring individuals with domestic violence restraining orders to relinquish firearms were associated with a 22 percent reduction in firearm intimate partner homicide.

The man who authorities say fatally shot 26 people at a Texas church had been court-martialed in the Air Force after pleading guilty to domestic abuse. The Air Force is investigating how it failed to report the information that would have blocked the shooter from buying the rifle he used in the attack from a store in San Antonio.

But even if the information had been submitted and the shooter had flunked his background check, he still could have bought guns through unregulated private sale in Texas or most other states.

Zeoli said the mounting scientific research on the issue clearly indicates that broader gun restrictions may be one answer to curbing homicides by intimate partners.

“Our findings are consistent with prior research, supporting the claim that prohibiting domestic violence abusers from having firearms saves lives,” she said. “This new evidence suggests that laws that disarm the largest number of people with histories of violence, require permits for handgun purchasers and require relinquishment of firearms for those who are prohibited from having them are effective in reducing domestic homicides.”

ED: Here is the paper’s abstract:

In this research, we estimate the association of firearm restrictions for domestic violence offenders with intimate partner homicides (IPHs), based on the strength of the policies. We posit that the association of firearm laws with IPHs depends on the laws’:

1) breadth of coverage of high-risk individuals and situations restricted;

2) power to compel firearm surrender or removal from prohibited persons; and

3) systems of accountability that prevent prohibited persons from obtaining guns.

We conducted a quantitative policy evaluation using annual state-level data from 1980 through 2013 for 45 US states. Based on the results of a series of robust negative binomial regression models with state fixed effects, domestic violence restraining order firearm prohibition laws are associated with 9% reductions in IPH.

Statistically significant protective associations were evident only when restraining order prohibitions covered dating partners (−10%) and ex parte orders (−12%).

Laws prohibiting access to those convicted of non-specific violent misdemeanors were associated with a 23% reduction in IPH rates; there was no association when prohibitions were limited to domestic violence.

Permit-to-purchase laws were associated with 10% reductions in IPHs. These findings should inform policymakers considering laws to maximize protections against intimate partner homicide.


  1. avatar Ralph says:

    “The work is funded by The Joyce Foundation.”

    And nothing more needs to be said.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Yes, one would think the conclusion was already determined before the JF would pay for the study to come to that conclusion.

      One more thing to say:

      Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        Ah, another of Doomberg’s pet projects!

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      This is typical gun-control advocacy junk science. It’s about the same as saying most people prefer comfortable beds to uncomfortable beds and then claiming that you’ve arrived at that conclusion through the use of scientific methodology.

      1. avatar CP Cornils says:

        Lansing ,MI has the highest amount of alcohol abuse and pot use of any other city or area of MI. I believe they are impaired.

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    Doesn’t matter. My rights trump any projected reduction. That’s why they are rights.

    1. avatar BLoving says:

      Even if their claims aren’t cherrypicked manipulation of statistics: I am not a domestic abuser, and the only violence I’m concerned about would come from someone not in my family.
      Therefore, none of these “findings” would have any effect on my decision to have weapons in my home or on my person.
      I suppose some gullible types might read this study and conclude that those domestic abusers would miraculously convert to nice, decent people if only those evil talismans we call guns were removed from their homes…

      1. avatar Hellofromillinois says:

        To be fair, other studies have confirmed, quite logically, that domestic abusers are more likely to kill their partners if they have access to firearms. Its simply a lot easier to shoot some one and kill them while in a fit of rage than beat them or stab them to death.

        1. avatar Honzo says:

          No, the studies show that if a domestic partner is murdered with a firearm, a firearm was present.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          To actually be fair, other studies have confirmed that domestic abusers are less likely to kill their partners if they access to firearms — they are actually more likely to use them to simply threaten them. Most IPHs are in fact done by beatings, anyway. TTAG has already fisked your claim in an earlier article.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Doesn’t matter. My rights trump any projected reduction.”

      And some “intimate partners” require more than “five across the face”…


  3. avatar T.H.E. Bear says:

    Another liberal gun control wing nut tailoring her conclusions to match her hoplpphobic ravings. If the powers that be would enforce the current laws there would be no need for more useless unenforced laws to curtail non violent people.
    Incarcerate violent offenders.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      The current laws against assault, rape, murder and intimidation, yes indeed – useful after the fact, of course. Current OR future anti-gun owner “laws” are another kettle of fish. Those do not prevent any kind of aggression against innocents, but all too often render those innocents helpless to defend themselves.

  4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    “American Journal of Epidemiology” – Since I don’t have the time to read every study about gun control’s effectiveness, I just assume that every study done by doctors and such instead of a criminologist or economist is deeply flawed because if it isn’t deeply flawed, that would be a black swan event.

    1. avatar AdamTA1 says:

      “April Zeoli, MSU associate professor of criminal justice and primary investigator on the research”. Sounds like it was done by their criminology department or at the very least the head researcher is part of the criminology department at the school.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Yes, it does sound like that.

        “She earned her PhD from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, where she studied health and public policy, specializing in violence prevention, and a master’s in public health from the University of Michigan.”

        “Most criminologists have a degree in psychology or sociology, often with an emphasis in criminal science, though schools offer criminology degree programs online and on campus. Your coursework will focus on areas such as criminal theory, behavioral sciences, social deviance, law, the justice system, types of crime, and the causes and effects of crime.”

        Her education is about studying disease. Criminology is about studying crime. I still feel justified in assuming she makes all the same mistakes of other public health professional/academic make when studying crime.

        If I had infinite time, I would carefully examine everything without relying on generally reliable logical fallacies (common sense).

  5. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    Yeah because not having a gun makes all the difference. I guess stabbing, strangulation, and suffocation just take too much work.

    Really this only works on IPH incidents involving guns, it doesn’t mention what the rate with other means are in those less gun friendly areas nor does it mention IPH rates in accordance with regular Homicide rates. She should really get back in the lab and finish her homework…. In order to prove it reduces anything you must first show the overall murder rate and what percentage of those are IPH. You must divide them by causes and show them overall. Sure the rate of gun murders could be lower in those states but that difference could be made up in other means (cars, knives, poison, or a soft pillow for instance). Overall this study says nothing other than what this “scientist” wants it to say.

    1. avatar Denton says:

      No, I think the conclusions are specific to what she was studying: intimate partner homicides. You are right that in order to suggest that the gun control policies are right for the population at large you have to balance the cost to intimate partners compared to the gains for others and judge accordingly. This study is focused and concise to just intimate partner homicide as it should be. It should be left to other papers to gather studies like this one to draw policy conclusions.

      1. avatar John Hankwitz says:

        Yes, and that’s the problem with her research. It doesn’t take into account how much overall rates changed over the same period. It could be that the rate for domestic violence people dropped less than the overall rate, which would nullify her report objectives. Also, note the use of the “correlation” term instead of “cause and effect” throughout the report. This CYA style of reporting makes the entire effort useless.

  6. avatar jwtaylor says:

    There is always one statistic missing from these studies. There is always one question that remains unasked.
    How many women had a gun in their hand when they were killed by men?
    I imagine it is the same number of armed gays that got bashed, and the same number of blacks that got strung up and lynched with a rifle in their hands and hot brass at their feet.

    1. avatar little horn says:


    2. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

      Please, everyone knows that women, gays and minorities can’t be trusted to save themselves with firearms, they’re more likely to cause more harm than good. That’s why our benevolent overlords need to take them all away.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        I think you’ve got it all wrong. The people you describe should not be able to protect themselves with firearms because they exist to serve as sacrifices proving evermore why only dependence on government to keep the peace is the path to peace and safety. If we allow “victim” groups to become self-reliant, we lose such wonderful talking points, don’t we?


        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          You’re both wrong. Women and minorities can’t have guns because the 2A is all about the militia, as the left tells us. As the militia was all able bodied white men when the amendment was drafted, that means women and minorities don’t have any 2A rights. /s

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          There ya’ go.

  7. avatar i1uluz says:

    There has never been a “study” published that didn’t support the group or person who funded it. Otherwise the researcher would have to find a real job.

    1. avatar little horn says:

      so to back this claim you have examined ALL studies, ever?

    2. avatar Patrick H says:

      That seems like a great excuse to ignore any data that you find inconvenient.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Just like gun control “researchers” are wont to do, now that you mention it. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be gun-grabbers. Period.

  8. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…In this research, we estimate the association…”

    We estimate the results most likely to get us some more of that sweet sweet Anti-gun money that Bloomberg is always handing out.

  9. avatar Peggy says:

    In other news, 95% of Flat-Earth grant recepients agree that the Earth is flat.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Excellent. Just excellent.

  10. None of this, even if true, has anything to do with my gun.

  11. The obvious real solution here is more armed women.

  12. avatar Joe R. says:


  13. avatar burley says:

    Reality finds that: no, it doesn’t.

  14. avatar hoosier_grand_daddy says:

    So, funded by the ever leftist Joyce Foundation and headed by Daniel Webster employed by Mike Bloomberg’s John Hopkins Center for Antigun Policy and Pseudoresearch. That must be why they don’t examine total IPH’s to see if that is affected or if there is merely a change in the tool used as a weapon. Certainly seems to be the case in suicide. And strict gun control is associated with higher overall rates of violent crime.

  15. avatar cisco kid says:

    I might add that because we have failed to vet all gun purchases the wave of mass shootings resulted in the recent and total trashing of the Second Amendment by the corrupt Supreme Court that has always been heavily influenced by public opinion. Even Clarence Thomas who previously has spoken out in favor of the Second Amendment went dead silent on this latest decision to let the assault rifle ban stand which is complete reversal of the Heller decision showing how corrupt the Court is and has been in the past making a complete mockery not just on gun rights but many other civil rights as well. This is exactly what I had predicted would happen because of your failure to vet all gun purchases and failure to enact safe storage laws as well. We guaranteed ourselves the loss of gun rights by preventing these two common sense Federal Laws from ever being enacted and now have suffered the complete destruction of the Second Amendment. In conclusion take your Constitution and wipe your ass with it as it has never amounted to than anything more than a fantasy of the American people.

    1. avatar BLoving says:

      Looks at today’s headlines: no gun-confiscation announcements, just more Democrats getting busted for grabbing body parts of coworkers.
      Looks in gun safe: Yup. Still full. Need a bigger safe.
      Looks up United States Constitution: Yup. Still the supreme law of the land, despite all those who oppose it.
      Sorry, Crisco. I’m not ready to give up yet. I still have several more decades in me yet (God willing) and still many more elections I can vote in. And the older I get, the fewer damns I give what popular opinion is. 🤠

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Pretty sure you misspelled “media opinion”, since how the heck would you think you know what “popular opinion” might be?

    2. avatar jwm says:

      What’s this “ourselves” bullshit. You’re not a gun owner.

      If you did you’d be the fuddiest fud that ever fudded thru this site. Instead of just another gun control troll.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “This is exactly what I had predicted would happen because of your failure to vet all gun purchases and failure to enact safe storage laws as well.”

      And yet various news sources have told us that ALL of the recent spree killers who used firearms passed their federal background check. (Never mind the fact that the background check list failed to include disqualifying factors for some of the recent spree killers.)

      So, as it turns out, fedzilla DID vet recent spree killers.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        If we had a required mental health background check as well as forcing the military and the various states that have refused to supply mental health records we would have prevented many of the previous mass shootings. In Japan they have used mental health requirement tests for years and yes you can own a shotgun or rifle in Japan as was documented recently on a program that went through all the steps necessary to purchase a firearm in japan. It was a real eye opener on how other nations far more civilized and intelligent have indeed cut way down on mass shootings and crimes with guns.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Civilized and intelligent? Have you heard of Pearl Harbor? How about the Bataan death march? And we should eliminate welfare in order to fund tens of millions of mental health evaluations each year? I don’t think that will fly.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          We already do require a mental health background check in the NICS. It’s actually one of the three databases comprising the NICS that every prospective buyer attempting to purchase from an FFL is checked against. Good luck trying to force the several states and the military to turn over records, too, by the way. Also, what happens in Japan is completely irrelevant and inapplicable to the U.S. and they are definitively not an example to follow, either. The real eye-opener here is that you’re still a gun-grabbing tool because we are already far more civilized and intelligent than anyone you could mention.

    4. avatar Ironhead says:

      Wah wah wah…. stfu
      Dont like it? Nothing is stopping you from leaving.
      Great Britain, Australia and France have alot of gun control laws…. shootings never happen there right?
      Oh wait…. yeah they do.
      You know what the problem with gun control is?
      It means only the bad guys have guns when seconds count and the police are only minutes away.
      Hey crisco. Go get fried.
      You dont want to defend yourself with the best means available? Thats fine. You dont have to. DO NOT FOR ONE SECOND TRY TO TELL ME HOW TO DEFEND MY FAMILY OR MYSELF.

    5. avatar Hank says:

      Don’t you have some steel helmets to shoot through at 125 yards with a 9mm, there, crisco? Hah! 😂

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “The researchers studied the effects of firearm restrictions on intimate partner homicides in the 45 states …”

    Why did the researchers only use data from 45 states? Do the other five states screw up their “conclusion”?

    1. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

      The article said those were the only states with data available. I’d be curious to know which states were left out and why that data wasn’t available.

  17. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Bottom line here, folks, is that the majority of people respect “scientific research” into whatever subject; POTG do not have the volume of research (or researchers) to counter this sort of thing.

    Oh yes, the above combined with the fact that most people do not want to bother understanding how research is conducted, good testing/bad testing, anything more complex than published “proof” of whatever question is being answered.

    1. avatar Remmi300blk says:

      How would you go about responding to someone using these studies to bolster their anti-gun position without invoking rights? In other words(if you think the studies are wrong/flawed), how do explain to people that the conclusions are false?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Your question lies at the very heart of the conflict over constitutional rights. How are we to interest people who do not care if constitutional rights they are not particularly interested in at the moment are violated?

        We know the core of the anti-gun mafia will not alter their position for any reason whatsoever. The pro-gun mafia will not alter their position for any reason. There is alleged to be a mythical group of undecideds who can be persuaded either way. Apparently this band of wishy washy people are enough to forever end the discussion of “gun rights”, and we just have to take each one to the range to gain their allegiance and permanent vote.

        When it comes to science, “rights” are of very little interest. The underlying proposition is that scientific proof that guns are too dangerous to be in the hands of the average person (dullards of the left projecting that all Americans are dullards) means that guns should be restricted out of existence, by whatever political means possible. Once the gun-grabbers claim “scientific research”, POTG are hobbled by the lack of an equal (or better response).

        Essentially, like the criminal law requirement to “prove” someone guilty, the majority of people simply believe that if one is accused, the lack of a counter attack (defendant does not testify) is evidence of guilt. Neither do those people accept that “rights” can override “scientific proof”. And the courts are supporting that conclusion. It is a similar concept of the old saying, “All things are legal to me, but all things are not profitable”.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “Apparently this band of wishy washy people are enough to forever end the discussion of “gun rights”, and we just have to take each one to the range to gain their allegiance and permanent vote.”

          That’s not the argument. The argument is that if someone gets involved in firearms and it becomes there hobby, then not only will they be knowledgeable on the subject of firearms and know that virtually everything the gun grabbers claim about firearms themselves (the mechanics, “30 caliber magazine clip,” “shoulder thing that goes up,” etc.) is absolute nonsense, but they won’t take gun grabbers as credible authorities on firearms policy either. Furthermore, if the people taken to the range become enthusiasts, in addition to disbelieving the gun grabbers, they will oppose them because the gun grabbers want to take their stuff.

          Will all the people taken to the range become enthusiasts? No. Will most of them? Probably not. How about 1 in 5? 1 in 10?

          Additionally, you don’t need a majority to win in politics. A passionate, vocal minority can easily convince representatives that they one, vote, and two, won’t vote for them if they don’t support pro gun policies. If a Democrat had 100 black people (or any other known core/key Democratic supporters) show up to his or her office and say “we’ll vote Republican if you don’t have an NRA A+ rating,” or even just “we won’t vote for you,” how passionate of an anti-gunner would that politician be? If they stayed on the anti-gun train, how long would they be in office if their core constituents we’re telling the truth?

        2. avatar Sam I A, says:

          “Additionally, you don’t need a majority to win in politics. ”

          In order to end this constant assault on 2A, POTG need a devastating majority of voters. Those voters need to provide a devastating majority of legislators (at whatever level), who will not put up one minute with efforts to constrain the second amendment. Those legislators (politicians) need to be a devastating majority to ensure every court in the land is devastatingly majority populated with judges who honor the entire constitution as written.

          Nibbling at the edges has done very little for us over the last decade.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          You don’t need a devastating majority of voters. It’s about having the right amount of leverage in the right place. Sure it would be better to have 70% of people believe in the Constitution and vote politicians out if they stepped on it, but I doubt that will happen.

          Anti-gun voters are seldom single issue voters. Pro-gun voters often are. A minority of pro-gun voters taken from Democratic constituencies would be enough. If the average Republican has to be pro gun to get elected and a small but significant minority of Democrats have to be pro-gun to get elected, you have a solid majority in at least one chamber all the time to block anti-gun measures. Then when things swing the other way, you have the devastating majority of legislators.

          Let’s use Trump’s election as an example of how a minority can be a crushing majority. Trump won with a minority of voters (so did Hillary by the way). He did so because he won the electoral college. The votes in the electoral are based on the numbers of congressional seats in each state, plus 3 for D.C. With 46.4% of the vote, Trump won 306 out of 538 electors. Not counting D.C.’s three electors, trump won 57% of the electors. Trump won 30 states. If we translate the percentages to the Senate, you could get 57 senators with 46.4% of the vote. If we look at the voting percentage and the states won, you could get 60 senators with 46.4% of the vote.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Using Trump as an example doesn’t work. Trump won because we have an Electoral College. There is no equivalent at the state or local level.

          The reason for needing a devastating majority is that the nation needs to settle this “gun rights” issue firmly. Remaining almost evenly divided leaves the question unresolved, sucking up too much time and effort to end up where we started.

        5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Using Trump as an example does work. Where do the 538 votes in the electoral college come from? 3 from D.C., 100 from the Senate, 435 from the House of Representatives. The electoral college is based on Congress.

          The electoral college to Senate elections is a one to one analogy as far as numbers are concerned. The analogy isn’t perfect for the House of Representatives, but due to gerrymandering, the argument there is even stronger there.

          The point isn’t that those numbers will hold out every time or really anything other than that it only takes a minority to have a “devastating” edge in an election.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Overall, there is a near 50-50 split on “gun rights” in the Senate (picture more cloudy in HR). There is a near 50-50 split among the electorate regarding “gun rights”. There is no overwhelming majority opinion (vote?) for keeping, expanding, protecting the second amendment. As we saw with all those “rip out Obamacare” Republicans, there is not a hard majority of national politicians in favor of enforcing the second amendment as written. A determined minority of voters cannot effectuate and hold a position against a committed and relentless majority (even one only reed-thin) indefinitely. If 2A supporters cannot control the culture and the education system, 2A will remain under attack into the next generation, and the one after that. I think we are seeing the high water mark for “gun rights”.

        7. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “A determined minority of voters cannot effectuate and hold a position against a committed and relentless majority (even one only reed-thin) indefinitely.” Fortunately that’s not the case. Most people don’t care about the issue. Vocal minorities control in all sorts of issues in which most people are apathetic. Look at Iowa and corn subsidies.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Do you find satisfaction in incessant warfare over the Second Amendment? I want this thing settled, permanently, with gusto. Diddling around with this bill, or that ruling is not the answer. But the question is, “how do we actually gain a devastating majority?” So far, no one has come up with a workable solution, and I am among them. I would vote for Roy Moore if he declared he would vote for any and every piece of legislation to turn back the wimpy crowd of freedom haters. Heck, I would vote for Blagojevich, Al Franken, Rahm Immanuel if they would vote to end “gun control” (regardless of whatever else they may do). In this day of political corruption as sport, why can we not buy enough of the right politicians to put an end to threats against the Second Amendment?

        9. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “Do you find satisfaction in incessant warfare over the Second Amendment?” – No, but I do generally enjoy going back and forth with you because you listen even if you don’t agree and you aren’t a moron.

          “I want this thing settled, permanently, with gusto.” – Me too, I’m just saying that in our system a minority can firmly control policy on key issues because no one else cares enough to vote on that issue. That’s actually where the “gun lobby,” as the left calls it, and most specifically, the NRA get most of their power on capitol hill. It can also be seen in all the welfare for old people, corn subsidies, public employees unions, and a bunch of other things if someone cared to look into it (I don’t care to). I would much rather everyone supported the 2A with such gusto that the general public would be willing to lynch government officials who purposefully opposed it. (At that point of support, they wouldn’t be lynched because everyone would have faith in the system to take care of them, that’s why Americans didn’t go all Dutch on Muslims after 9/11. We all trusted W. to take care of it).

          “why can we not buy enough of the right politicians to put an end to threats against the Second Amendment?” – Because no matter what Jimmy Kimmel says, the NRA doesn’t have Congress’s “balls in a money clip.” Also, money doesn’t matter in elections as much as everyone says. The talking heads are often flummoxed when money doesn’t correlate directly with votes. On key issues, money doesn’t matter that much. I knew a Congressman who told his donors that no matter how much money they gave him, he couldn’t win an election for dog catcher if he voted the way they wanted on certain issues that mattered to his constituents. It was a Hillary Clinton in West Virginia situation.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Do you find satisfaction in incessant warfare over the Second Amendment?”
          – Was not specific enough. Referring to the constant, national warfare over 2A; my bad.

          Your examples of minority voters controlling certain issues may not fit the situation regarding 2A. Those other issues are relatively benign (politically). 2A is hugely emotional (not new information), and a political litmus test (as with abortion). When logic and reason cannot persuade, there is only raw political power remaining. Thus, my insistence that the “gun lobby” (all of us) needs to smother the opposition convincingly.

        11. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “Was not specific enough.” Me either. I followed you, and was saying I want the crushing victory, but that’s not what I’ve been saying. I’m saying the crushing victory is not necessary.

          On your other point, I don’t think guns and the other examples are exactly the same, but there is an enthusiasm gap between the pro-gun and anti-gun people in favor of the pro-gun people (not to the degree necessary to have a lock on policy though). I’d bet most of the anti-gun enthusiasts are not single issue voters, but leftist enthusiasts.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’d bet most of the anti-gun enthusiasts are not single issue voters, but leftist enthusiasts.”

          Given the choice to trade completely open borders in return for absolutism on 2A, liberals, leftists, Demoncrats would reject the proposition out of hand.

        13. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I disagree because on policy, you always get a second bite at the apple. With an influx of voters who they believe would be on their side, I think they would make that deal. And for the same reason, I would not.

        14. avatar Roymond says:

          Every Democrat I know rejects the idea of completely open borders without tying it to any other issue. A far better example would be Medicare for all combined with repealing all gun laws — it would draw a few Democrats, but most would reject the deal.

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Good comparison.

  18. avatar Patrick H says:

    I have no problem restricting the rights of people who bash their intimate partners. It doesn’t affect me, because I don’t assault women. If you don’t assault your woman, it won’t affect you either.

    1. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

      Until you have an ex who decides she wants a little revenge so claims you hit her. It’s not hard to do. My uncle’s ex-wife (who is bipolar) did it while they were getting divorced. He got arrested even though he had never laid a hand on her, ever.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        And most likely will never get his RKBA back, because those laws are all “guilty until proven innocent”. Looks like we’re moving to that level for “sexual misbehavior”, also.

  19. avatar pieslapper says:

    Lies. Damn lies. And liberals making up statistics.

  20. avatar James69 says:

    I’d say if the guy can’t get a firearm for whatever reason, his “honey” will buy him one….. I’ve seen it 100 times…. No BS.

  21. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

    If I’m not mistaken, it is already illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited person. So requiring a background check on private sales is just making an already illegal act illegaler. I’m no expert on criminology or psychology, but I’m guessing the type of person willing to abuse and possibly murder their significant other is also willing to purchase a firearm illegally.

    1. avatar Grumpy says:

      I hate to argue, but it is possible to sell to a prohibited person without knowing they are prohibited. So background checks on private sales could help some cases. Personally I don’t have a big issue with expanding background checks, but the side effects of doing this is close to defacto registration which I do have an issue with. Bottom line though is few people just pick up a gun and shoot their partner. They typically have a long history of escalating violence. Address the problem when it first starts and you will probably never let the perp get to the point of using a weapon. Better yet, teach your kids to take total responsibility for all their actions instead of asking the government to be the nanny.

      1. avatar John Hankwitz says:

        Well said!

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        Making background checks universal would be fine if the system was set up the way Tom Coburn proposed.

        read: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/coburn-proposes-common-sense-universal-background-check-system-gun-control-advocates-hate-it/

  22. avatar Macofjack says:

    Liberals prove that ‘Figures don’t lie, but lier’s figure’!

  23. avatar MCV says:

    States not included: Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, and Nebraska.

    Interesting study–though note that it’s incorrect to state this shows cause/effect (which most left-leaning press will utterly ignore and jump straight to cause), since the method yields correlational data. More scrutiny of the controls is probably warranted as well. Still, interesting read.

    A PDF of the report can be found here: http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/michigan/files/gun_laws_accepted_version.pdf?_ga=2.156037051.1428243660.1511981244-1282647051.1440964267

  24. avatar BluesMike says:

    One of the reasons Lott used city and county data was that there were too many variations in state laws to deal with in the models. And he was trying to figure for a lot of variables (over 100 if I remember right) instead of just a few. I also noticed the “Statistically significant protective associations were evident only when…” statement. I haven’t read the study but I wonder if the appropriate model was chosen for the incident count data. Maybe so but negbin is not a panacea. Again, that pesky state data with all those other variables. And of course the 5 states that were left out.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      For my college statistics class, I did a study using state level data. Part of the assignment was to critique our own study and say what we would have done differently now that we had done it. I said I would have used county data because of the reasons you stated.

  25. avatar DaveL says:

    I notice the study goes back 34 years. That’s long enough to capture the drastic drop in homicides that happened in the early to mid nineties, a drop that happened all across the Western world and for which nobody really knows the cause. It makes me wonder whether a lot of these state laws were enacted at the height of the crack epidemic. Because anything that happened around that time can be made to look like it caused a precipitous drop in homicides.

  26. avatar Stu says:

    So what you’re saying is that if you take away all of their guns, there’s a higher chance they’ll use something else to murder their partner with? Interesting…

  27. avatar Tyler Cruse says:

    I would expect a much larger reduction if we would train and arm the potential victims.

  28. avatar Sian says:

    “the study finds that states that extend this ban to people convicted of any violent misdemeanor experience 23 percent fewer intimate partner homicides.”

    Yes, imagine the benefits if we categorically deny all constitutional rights to everyone though. On the street after dark? Papers please. It’s fine, the State will keep you safe.

  29. avatar oldshooter says:

    You’re all missing an important point – read their results. The authors said that they found NO statistical significance to laws prohibiting potentially abusive SPOUSES from having guns. They apparently only reached a statistically significant level when the laws included ex-parte and non-spouse (ie boyfriends) partners. Thus, their study found that the existing laws banning guns from those who were convicted of spousal abuse or domestic violence were probably INEFFECTIVE. They could REALLY have improved the statistical significance if they had any states that banned gun possession by any males.

  30. avatar Roymond says:

    And people who own boats are more likely to drown.

    And folks with stairs are more likely to fall down them.

    And . . . and . . . and . . . .

  31. avatar cisco kid says:

    To Excedrine headache

    We already do require a mental health background check in the NICS. It’s actually one of the three databases comprising the NICS that every prospective buyer attempting to purchase from an FFL is checked against. Good luck trying to force the several states and the military to turn over records, too, by the way. Also, what happens in Japan is completely irrelevant and inapplicable to the U.S. and they are definitively not an example to follow, either. The real eye-opener here is that you’re still a gun-grabbing tool because we are already far more civilized and intelligent than anyone you could mention.———————-quote

    The Instant background check does not monitor mental health info on second hand purchases because their is no background on such. Even a money in a zoo would be aware of that. Talk to the monkeys in the zoo they will fill you in on it.

    Jeff Sessions has just raised holy hell with the military on their failure to provide the info to the background check system, its already the law and you would have known that if you paid any attention to the news media reports on that subject.

    There is a current bill to soon be presented to Congress that will level heavy fines and jail time to people in those States that do not obey a law that is already a law and that is to forward mental health info to the instant background check which by the way negates your previous statement that all is heaven in regards to states providing the info to the background check system thereby contradicting your original statement. I just saw several zoo monkeys falling out of their trees with laughter at your post.

    And yes what happens in Japan is relevant to the gun control history of the world and how it pertains to our problems here. Only an uneducated xenophobic racist moron would fail to see the connection or the relevance in regards to the history of gun control laws in regards to solving our problems here because of our complete lack of such.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      The NICS check does not need to monitor second-hand purchases in the first place, and any attempts at extending it without turning it into a defacto registration scheme (which IS the ultimate goal of gun-grabbers like you by the way), a la Tom Coburn’s proposal waaay back in 2013, have been shot down by shrill autistic screeching from your lot.

      (Tom Coburn’s idea is explained here: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/coburn-proposes-common-sense-universal-background-check-system-gun-control-advocates-hate-it/ I know you won’t click on it, being that’s literally against your best interests to actually be informed about anything under the sun whatsoever, but, I have to offer it, anyway.)

      Jeff Sessions is actually just doing his job (for once.. astonishing, I know). You would have know that if you actually ever took your own advice and paid attention to.. well.. anything.

      And no, what happens in Japan is actually not at all relevant to the gun control history of any place but Japan. It doesn’t pertain, in any way, to our problems here. Only a miseducated, hoplophobic, projectionist moron like you would attempt to construct any connection where there was absolutely none before to the history of gun control laws in regards to solving our problems here. Only a miseducated, hoplophobic, projectionist moron like you would readily ignore the racist history, and racist core, of gun control laws in America.



      Clayton E. Cramer, Master of Arts in History from Sonoma State University, whose works informed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999) and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as well as McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).


      David Kopel, Bachelor of Arts in History from Brown University, won the National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis with a biography of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. He graduated magna com laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He was also a contributing editor of the Michigan Law Review.

      Gun ownership, whether you like it or not, is unquestionably a civil rights issue. Gun control always was and still is today written for the express purpose of discriminating against anyone who isn’t white.

      By extension, so too are you racist, classist, and sexist for merely supporting it.

      We are seeing several monkeys fall out of trees, laughing themselves to death, at your posts. Not the other way around.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        to Excedrin headache
        Quote——————And yes what happens in Japan is relevant to the gun control history of the world and how it pertains to our problems here. Only an uneducated xenophobic racist moron would fail to see the connection or the relevance in regards to the history of gun control laws in regards to solving our problems here because of our complete lack of such.

        What a bizarre response, first you agree with me and then reverse yourself. What kind of drugs have you been taking today Jethro?

        Ok I will explain it simply so that even a monkey in a zoo could comprehend this. Now pay attention I know this will be a challenge for you.

        If a thief breaks in to a home in Japan or in the U.S. and guns are left lying around so he cans simply scoop them up and run the laws for safe storage are valid in either country. NOW Jethro what part of this do you not understand. I can send Cheetah the monkey over to your trailer park to tutor you if you need further assistance which of course is almost a certainty.

        If a nut case undergoes a psychiatric test to get a firearms I.D. card and naturally fails the test he gets denied a firearm’s i.d. card so that he will be refused ammo and gun purchases which are require on all sales in Japan and it has worked very well there and would work here as well if all such sales were vetted like Japan and other civilized countries have done for decades and decades. Again culture has no bearing on the case, a nut case gets caught and denied. Is this getting to complicated for your walnut size brain. Again I can send Cheetah the Monkey over to tutor you on this.

        Give up Jethro your making a fool out of your self.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          The only bizarre nonsense here comes from you. I never at any point agreed with you, if you’re going to point to a typo then you’re just desperately grasping at straws like you always are. We can tell you’re out of Xanax. Go refill your scrip, pop a couple, and settle down, Ivan.

          You don’t get to explain anything to anyone because you know nothing and understand even less. So, no, you get to pay attention to what I am about to dictate to you.

          What happens in Japan is, as a matter of incontrovertible fact — meaning you don’t get to argue this with me or anyone else alive no matter how badly you want to, irrelevant and inapplicable to what happens here. We are not Japan and Japan is not us, and thank goodness for that. Now, with that SETTLED, Ivan, let’s move on to the also unarguable fact that there is no conclusive empirical evidence published anywhere that so-called “safe storage” laws are even enforceable, much less effective. I can send Cheetah the monkey over to your projects to tutor you if you need further assistance which, of course, will be an absolute necessity.

          Nut cases won’t undergo any psychiatric tests, and even if they did the government will simply drop the ball at some point or another and no one will ever be held accountable for it, and what happens in Japan is irrelevant and inapplicable to what happens here. Actually civilized countries don’t require poll taxes of any kind for their citizens to exercise any of their rights. Again, culture actually has everything to do with this case, a nut case doesn’t get caught or denied until he commits a senseless act. This is already far too complicated for your pea-sized brain. Again, I will send Cheetah the monkey to your projects to tutor you and your whole ‘hood on this.

          Give up, Ivan, I’m making a fool out of you.

          You’re also still a rabid racist, sexist, and classist for supporting gun control, too. Don’t forget that, either, Crisco Skinhead. 😉

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        Japan isn’t relevant because it’s closer to a hive society than anything in the U.S. But the antis love to invoke it because a hive society is exactly what they want, a politically correct version of Plato’s Republic where government is based on two things: lies, and birth caste.

  32. avatar Jay Dee says:

    BJS statistics show the murder rate dropped 50% from a peak of 10 per hundred thousand in 1990 to approximately 5 by 2008. Professor Zeoli claims that violent crime decreased 11% in states requiring permits, and other added restrictions. The obvious conclusion would be that these laws actually maintained violent crime while violent crime decreased even more than 50% in states that relaxed gun laws and increased the rights of the people to defend themselves. This is just another paper written to confuse the ignorant on our dime. Some might call it propaganda.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Got a link for that? It’s a set of figures I would love to be able to reference!

  33. avatar cisco kid says:

    to excedrine headache

    Quote———————The NICS check does not need to monitor second-hand purchases in the first place, and any attempts at extending it without turning it into a defacto registration scheme (which IS the ultimate goal of gun-grabbers like you by the way), a la Tom Coburn’s proposal waaay back in 2013, have been shot down by shrill autistic screeching from your lot.————————quote

    Brother you hid behind the door when they passed the brains out. The Brady Bill has been law for decades now and prevented thousands of felons and nut cases from getting guns and not taken any guns away through registration, absolutely none. The problem is it does not pertain to second hand guns sales which let tens of thousands of guns into the hands of crooks and nut cases and police tracings of these guns prove time and time again they came from states with lax guns laws and found their way into states with tough gun laws. Chicago being a prime example of blood running in the streets on a daily basis because of this problem of people getting second hand guns and stolen guns they never would have got under the Brady Bill and safe storage laws. NOW JETHRO WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND. Knock of the drinking all those six packs of beer in the back of your rusted out pick up truck Jethro or quoting the ranting’s of hillbillies even dumber than you are.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      Brother, you weren’t even in the same zip code when they passed the brains out. The Brady Bill hasn’t actually prevented any felons or nut cases from getting guns and and there is zero evidence — empirical or otherwise — stating that it ever has. Meanwhile, there actually is indisputable evidence showing that it has actually kept many hundreds of thousands of innocent people from buying guns, in effect taking guns away from people. The actual problem is that it would be equally worthless if extended to private sales, which aren’t even a major source of crime guns to begin with. That, and only that, is also what all available evidence suggests, as well. Police tracings of these guns as well as in-person interviews with federal inmates prove this, as well as at least half of all crime guns traced in places like CHIRAQ actually originate from within its home state of Sillynoise. Added to that the fact that “safe storage” laws have NEVER been proven to prevent any crimes whatsoever, either. NOW IVAN SKINHEAD WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? You need to knock off all the drinking 40s in the back of your rotted-out FEMA trailer, Ivan, or quoting the rantings of racist hipsters even dumber than you are.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      If the Brady bill had kept tens of thousands (Clinton claimed hundreds of thousands) of criminals from getting guns, there would have been a sharp downward spike in crimes committed with the use of guns. No such spike happened, which means all the Brady bill did was change where criminals got their guns. And since they weren’t getting them from gun stores, then they had to be getting them illegally.

      So what the Brady bill actually accomplished was to increase crime.

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