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.
If anti-gun tards can pontificate gun control after every massacre, then we can pontificate at the grave sites of their victims that it was the anti-gun zealots that allowed the massacres to happen by mandating gun free zones and giving free publicity to psychos so new ones can follow in their footsteps for their 15 minutes of fame.
Some additional context is useful- this is a legal issue specific to the Canadian province of Quebec (though it may start showing up elsewhere). Quebec is implementing a number of new restrictions on gun owners, and is creating its own long gun registry. They are forcing gun owners in Quebec to engrave a new number on their long guns for the registry, along with some other nonsense regulations and additional restrictions.
The average Quebec gun owner is law abiding and peaceable. The government of Quebec treats them all like they’re one step away from snapping and going on a rampage. Is it truly surprising that many gun owners in Quebec are frustrated? Whatever the case may be, this protest will be used as yet another excuse when the anti gunners in government roll out their next series of restrictions- as if they hadn’t planned them long in advance.
There is a perfect word to describe that 1911, “fugly”. As in F’ing Ugly.
Yeah because not having a gun makes all the difference. I guess stabbing, strangulation, and suffocation just take too much work.
/sarc/
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.
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.
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.
so to back this claim you have examined ALL studies, ever?
As I have said on numerous occasions the Corrupt Supreme Court has down through its corrupt history always voted with public opinion and with mass shootings happening almost weekly it was not unexpected that they shit on the Scalia/ Heller Case which in no uncertain terms did say owning semi-auto guns were legal if anyone bothers to read through the ruling.
We can thank the original Swamp Rats the Founding Fathers who deliberately wrote the Second Amendment in the vaguest of terms to give them wiggle room to ban the future ownership of firearms by the public because the Founding Father Swamp Rats feared true democracy that’s why they fucked the American people out of true Democracy and instead of adopting a Parliamentary form of government instead adopted a representative government founded by the filthy rich and for the filthy rich. Except for the Heller decision down through the decades and decades of gun bans and confiscations the rats of the Supreme Court either refused to hear the cases or outright sided with the gun banners and that included Conservative Justices as well. So it goes today as well with even Clarence Thomas suddenly falling completely silent on the latest outright rape of the Second Amendment.
Yes my dearest Moron Conservatives the Republicans fucked you all big time this time around and you can as I have said time and time again whether you are liberal or conservative you may as well take the Constitution and wipe our dirty ass with it because the Constitution does not say what it means rather it says what the Rats who run the Supreme Court says it means no matter how big a blatant lie they have to vomit out about it. What a joke, what a laugh and don’t expect the Supreme Court to ever hear a Second Amendment case for decades and decades to come considering all the mass shootings we have in this country. With the coming 2018 and 2020 elections all modern semi-auto firearms will be on the Democratic hit list and you can kiss them all goodbye because the California style confiscation law that is now in effect will be next adopted by all the liberal east coast states as well and its only a matter of time before most other states will be sending the smiling jack booted thugs in sun glasses to scoop up thousands of semi-auto pistols and rifles thrown out into the streets to be scooped up Australian style and taken to the smelters while the News Media rants a new utopian second coming of the gun ban god of salvation is now upon us all.
What’s up to every , since I am in fact keen of reading this
web site’s post to be updated daily. It consists of nice material.
The obvious real solution here is more armed women.
A new Remington, you say?!? Just you try & stop me……Hold me back, boys! HOLD ME BACK!!!!!
These have a 14.7″ barrel while a M4 has a 14.5″ barrel. That extra 0.2″ makes the difference by allowing them to weld a standard A2 flash hider on rather than having to use an extended one.
Sent this to my parents when they moved to Colorado a few years back:
http://www.ballistics101.com/camping.php
TLDR version: “Tests will show that less than 60% of Brown bears are stopped with handguns, and when successful it took at least four shots to stop the charging bear. …. Alternatively, 97% of bears are stopped with a 9oz. can of bear spray.”
I didn’t write it; I just found it to be interesting information.
I have one of those with the Para badge on it. It needed a little fine tuning at first but it’s run about 20,000 rds of 9mm now. Still going strong.
I tawt I taw a puddy tat.
I did! I did tee a puddy tat!
Pretty gun. And you don’t have to be probed to get one.
Any idea how it would hold up to a larger or magnum caliber rifle? (308/300 win mag/338 lapua?) With an extended overall length… I don’t see any trays on the bottom for sandbags. Maybe you could place them on top of the frame. Was this designed for small rifle calibers only? Seems like it would work if it held a 12 ga shotgun…Forgive my ignorance I don’t own any Caldwell products – yet.
The 1851 is a great shooter. Arguably the best handling and easily the best looking of the major cap and ball revolvers, but if i had to bet my life on a cap and ball i would go with the Remington 44, my colts shoot better but eat caps every now and again. My Remi has yet to jam on a cap
I see a whole bunch of Johnny come lately’s complaining about Remington. They have drunk deeply at the font of TTAG and others making a name for themselves attacking established American name brands. I doubt seriously that the people complaining about Rem have even bought a gun from them in the last 10 years. Just a bunch of people complaining about a gun they don’t own based on another person’s subjective experience. Why don’t you try something for yourself? My R1 has 2500 .45 acp rounds in it with nary a hiccup. I doubt seriously anyone will take my admittedly subjective experience seriously because they have drunk to deeply at the font of “interweb” knowledge. Have fun in this one time only life living vicariously through someone else’s experience.
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.
Exact in detail and function. 44 in a 51 navy? It’s been my experience that the broken caps are usually caused by the hammer spring having to much tension. Play around with the screw located in the grip that tensions the hammer, you can actually make a hotter cap with a stiffer spring, as a kid did you ever notice the cap went bang, louder if you hit it harder,? Or barely have the cap ignite the powder with a light hammer strike, however your fps will very slightly on the low side. T T A My opinion, lol. I used pyrodex, just pyrodex is all I know. I d really get back into BP shooting the 51 Colt was my favorite, it was an old Urbrti and I’ve not found that type yet like it? Such as the steel in the barrel, the cylinder saftey stops and the chamber’s that hold the larger charge of powder.I m probably one of the most critical gun enthusiast on this site, And if this firearms in the plain Jane version is anywhere near the one I owned it is a definite buy…….. Besides the “I GOTS’ it’s also a wonderful weapon to teach a new shooter with, I think better then .22 as it teaches a little more physics. If wah wanna git all fancee. They’re just damned fun to shoot, and when you run out of bullets there ain’t nothing more then a twelve year old kid likes better then messin with molten metal. Lol … LIFE IS GOOD, MERICA.
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
I just completed a study that told that 4 out of 5 gun control advocates are just as worthless as the other one.
Not sure what you think you’re going to learn from a study that encompasses all of 500 gun owners, I’m guessing ~350 of them white males. Did the 3 black women gun owners in economic distress not ‘find comfort in guns as a means to reestablish a sense of individual power and moral certitude’? Does possessing the power to fend off a criminal attack instead of cowering and waiting 10 or 20 minutes for the state to respond to your pleas for help not establish a sense of individual power in all people regardless of race or gender? Or did was this study just an excuse to stereotype and demean white males who own guns?
Another statistic sold as research. Statistics has several tricks to make small groups appear to be representative, while in reality, they are not.
1,500 people were asked. No, that is not representative at all. That is a very small number.
The pseudo-science is strong in this one.
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…
“What are your names, Neil and Bob… or is that, like, what you do?”
HILARIOUS
I thought my privilege was my power.
Nice review, I think this can (in short mode) compares highly to the Silencerco Omega 9K, in terms of weight, size, style, etc. It is nice that short is really really short, basically cut in half rather than just talking an inch or two off like other modular cans.
It is cool that it has the long mode as well but it’s typically more expensive than the Omega 9K, so I guess one would have to decide if they really would use it in both configurations and pay the premium or get the Omega 9K and go short all the time. I don’t really like the torque cutouts in the middle in long mode, it looks cobbled together, I think I would rather use various other cans if staying long, like a Ti-rant, Rugged Obsidian, b&t SD cans, etc.
If this can had existed before I ordered an Omega 9K it would have been in the running for sure. Maybe it still will be down the road, just for fun.
Is this using sub-sonic ammo? or standard white box stuff?
I dont understand the long standing interest in the Royal family and our press.
There are far more important things going on around us. All they are talking about in the new is this prince and an actress. Who gives a crap!!! We fought a war to get rid of the royals. According to the news. We are still under their thumb and it seams even their intimate toilet habits………………………Again I ask.
Who really gives a crap about the Royals?????
If I was asked the same question by a Detective out of state the first thing I would have to say is “Let me check my receipts and get back to you. I’m not sure if I bought this gun new or used”
With regard to the weed thing:
I think they’ve opened a can of worms here that they’re going to wish they didn’t.
Holding such a card could be used as evidence of prohibited person status but in and of itself the card doesn’t really prove anything. The government would have to go to court and go through all that “due process” stuff and secure a conviction to actually prove anything that would allow for confiscation. Is Hawaii really prepared to do that? There’s gotta be someone there who has a card that doesn’t use and if they go after that person the city/state is gonna get it’s balls sued off. Do they really want that?
On top of that the whole thing is a murky area anyway. Say I am injured in a horrific car accident which is the result of a drunk driver hitting me and controlled substance painkillers are part of my treatment because it takes half a dozen surgeries to repair my leg or something. Nearing the end of this I tell the doc that I’m having some issues with the meds and he/she decides to wean me off them. Guess what? I’m now technically a prohibited person because I’ve admitted to a form of addiction to a controlled substance. Do I have to give up my guns? If so, for how long? Will anyone in government really prosecute that case? Doubtful.
Even further; how long does that prohibited person status last? Does it stop when I’ve been fully weaned from the drugs? Do I have to stay sober for a period of time? Am I an addict for life as AA/NA would have us believe?
Further still; what is a “user”? When I sit in my office chair am I a driver? Of course not. When I sit there am I a motorcycle rider? Nope. I can’t think of another area of life where a status requiring action is applied when the action isn’t occuring other than job titles. So as a technicality of English MMJ users are only users when using. They’re not lying on a 4473 unless they’re puffing a joint as they fill out the form. So, their status constantly alternates between prohibited and not prohibited.
Like I said, I don’t think they really want to open this can of worms.
It’s a registry, or more accurately, the source data for the registry (registries). There’s nothing conspiracy-theory about it.
The only problem I have with any “background check” scheme is the inclusion of serial numbers and product information. If the scheme’s true purpose is to determine eligibility, no serial numbers would be necessary.
I dry fire a lot.
My Glock 43 has required much work for me since it has that stupid-ass stair-step trigger with a crappy break.
Dry-firing makes it obvious when the gun moves as you pull the trigger – live fire does as well – but it’s a lot louder……and you have to go look at the target.
And I don’t put a catheter in my pistol when I dry fire…..Is that so wrong?
I have some good news: The LONDON Evening Standard did this in a British newspaper. Even American libel laws may have been violated, let alone the much easier to trigger British ones. They intentionally lied and caused (or at least seriously risked) major financial harm to AI and its pres and AI certainly has the legal team to sue. This will be fun.
Every range day I watch pistol shooters peppering their papers with random holes and taking minutes to clear jams while my snubby 642 and 3 inch 686 that I cc are shooting 2 inch groups at the same distance with any ammo I put thru them. I’ll gladly sacrifice capacity for reliability, the ability to fire with the barrel in contact with a bad guy, of from a jacket pocket, wider choice of reliable ammo, and ease of maintaining my firearm under adverse conditions.
TTAG’s readers might be interested in a little background information about the columnist, Peter Dorsen.
Here are some quotes from the Amazon page for his latest book:
“Up from the Ashes: One Doc’s Struggle with Drugs and Mental Illness” Kindle Edition
by Peter J. Dorsen
“What makes this book special is that Dr. Dorsen is a physician whose illness was so severe he lost his license to practice.”
Biography
“Dr. Peter Dorsen, aka Dr. D, is a retired internist, now a licensed alcohol and drug counselor specializing in individual chemical health counseling. His latest ebook, “Up from the Ashes: One Doc’s Struggle with Drugs and Mental Illness,” is about his struggle with bipolar illness and recovery from alcohol and drug addiction.”
https://smile.amazon.com/Up-Ashes-Struggle-Mental-Illness-ebook/dp/B071WDDRX3/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512304698&sr=1-1&keywords=Up+from+the+Ashes+-+dorsen
From the editorial:
“Peter Dorsen, a columnist and author of “Dr. D’s Handbook for Men Over 40: A Guide to Health, Fitness, Living, and Loving in the Prime of Life,” is the author of “Up from the Ashes” and “Men Over 60: Don’t Quit Now!” ”
http://www.swnewsmedia.com/eden_prairie_news/news/opinion/columnists/guns-guns-and-more-guns-is-no-solution/article_3bd09727-19ee-5924-a69d-3a8198552bd8.html
(Whether he would be a ‘prohibited person’ to even own a firearm, I don’t know.)
…
Meh…get high the old fashioned way. Keep the gubmint out of your affairs. “Addicted” to marijuana?!? Only if your tell them or have a mandated drug test. I haven’t partaken of the herb in decades either. I seriously don’t care unless you run into me on the highway in a daze…
went and bought sum xanax a couple months ago from some near retarded college student with a H&K USP and said the mag was filled with hollows when he passed me it and said to “point it towards the sky as they would pierce multiple stories below his apartment” and like any gun savy ammo collector i wanted to shoot him right there. Part of me is convinced people don’t understand hydra shoks and dum dums because of morons like this.
National Reciprocity should be our greatest priority right now. It’s time to stop playing defense. It’s not likely to pass the senate but that doesn’t mean we should give up. We still need to try. Keep pushing for this, and hopefully expand the senate majority in the mid terms, and try to primary as many RINO’s out of the equation as possible. Either way we have the momentum right now and we’re making the anti’s collectively Shit their pants. National Reciprocity is taking the fight to them. Now they are the ones crying about states rights and outsiders infringing on their locales. It’s time to lay on the gas hard and give them a taste of their own medicine.
BREAKING Today — DOJ & ATF have reopened inquiry into OUTLAWING Bump-Stocks.
From Rules Hearing on HR – 38 / 4477
https://rules.house.gov/video/rules-committee-hearing-hr-38