Interesting video.
For those that dont want to watch, its basically about a Rand Corp meta study that tracked and analyzed 27,900 studies on the effectiveness of gun control legislations.
Out of these, only 123 were rigorous enough to provide meaningful results, but still failed to answer the basic question of whether gun control laws reduces violence.
Verdict: no proof that any of these laws had any effect on reducing gun violence whatsoever.
Interesting video.
For those that dont want to watch, its basically about a Rand Corp meta study that tracked and analyzed 27,900 studies on the effectiveness of gun control legislations.
Out of these, only 123 were rigorous enough to provide meaningful results, but still failed to answer the basic question of whether gun control laws reduces violence.
Verdict: no proof that any of these laws had any effect on reducing gun violence whatsoever.
I always ask the same questions when it comes to gun laws
Will it punish criminals with guns?
Will it punish criminal activity with guns?
Will it punish the illegal transportation, manufacturing, distribution of guns?
Will it actually make people safer?
Will it NOT punish law-abiding citizens?
Will it NOT empower criminals?
Australia's reaction to mass murder was swift and strong, But I'm not sure those actions would work here.
We (Americans) are a much larger populous country and have many more social problems.
Personally, I believe that equality, both societal and monetary problems here are the cause of so much anger and depression.
One big thing here is the knowledge that a major hospital bill can completely destroy one's future forever. ...and lower wages for service jobs, etc.
LMAO thanks for your feelings and opinionA gun ban would:
Punish criminals with guns
Punish criminal activity will guns
Punish the sale, transportation, ownership, use, possession of illegal guns
Will make people safer
Not punish the law abiding
Not empower criminals.
A huge international study of gun control finds strong evidence that it actually works
It looked at 130 studies from 10 different countries.www.vox.com
It would be a very high legislative hurdle indeed, as amendments tend to be.Yep, but step one for the US to pass similar “gun control” laws is to remove the 2A. Without step one, the rest would not be legally possible. Are you advocating for repeal of (or simply ignoring) the 2A?
another issue with stuff like this
there's no real control group
America is its own unique thing, size-wise, amount of guns already here, how our black market works and no access to ghost guns etc etc
so basically any info from any other country is at best a guess . . could be a guess that has some ideas and pointers in it but that's all it is.
If we were a country that never allowed guns or always had the heavily restricted then that would be different
I always ask the same questions when it comes to gun laws
Will it punish criminals with guns?
Will it punish criminal activity with guns?
Will it punish the illegal transportation, manufacturing, distribution of guns?
Will it actually make people safer?
Will it NOT punish law-abiding citizens?
Will it NOT empower criminals?
the more yeses the more likely id support it
I’d add one more, extremely important, ’test question’:
Will it convert existing 2A rights into mere state issued privileges?
Your country is the most incarcerated nation in the world. 25% of the prisoners in the world are in American prisons. There might be many reasons why gun control measures dont work in the US but being soft on crimenals sure isnt one of them. You could hardly be harder on crime than you already are.Gun control does not work -- especially in a "free" country such as ours and one with two long coasts and a border that is in effect a wide-open border.
The only thing that might work a bit is better control of bad people.
And that will not happen because for some inexplicable reason, many people in positions of authority simply do not want to punish bad people. (Although the people in San Francisco have just admitted that they were wrong to elect that horrible district attorney who loved perps more than victims.)
Your country is the most incarcerated nation in the world. 25% of the prisoners in the world are in American prisons. There might be many reasons why gun control measures dont work in the US but being soft on crimenals sure isnt one of them. You could hardly be harder on crime than you already are.
Every gun control bill that the Democrats have introduced includes incarceration as a punishment. Why is that?Much of that is because of strict enforcement of bad laws which create "crimes" with no victims. If the state puts someone in prison who has not harmed anyone nor damaged anybody else's property, then they are incarcerating an innocent person, regardless of what the idiotic legislature says.
what gun control will do and does do in nations where guns are banned, is make it harder for a madman to get a gun and murder innocent people.....and that would be an improvement over where we are now
It would be a very high legislative hurdle indeed, as amendments tend to be.
Personally, I wouldn't want to repeal 2A, but alter it to allow regulation, which again, would likely mean another amendment.
Handguns comprised 85 percent of the crime guns known to be recovered from 18 to 20 year olds in the 27 cities. Semiautomatic pistols accounted for 59 percent of all the crime guns known to be recovered from this age group. (Table 3).
Criminal Use of Firearms in the 18 to 20 Age Range
In 1997, 18, 19 and 20 year olds ranked first, second, and third in the number of gun homicides committed. Of all gun homicides where an offender was identified, 24 percent were committed by 18 to 20 year olds. (Figure 1). This is consistent with the historical pattern of gun homicides over the past 10 years.
Among murderers, 18 to 20 year olds were more likely to use a firearm than adults 21 and over. More specifically, in 1997, 74 percent of the homicides committed by 18 to 20 year old offenders involved firearms. In contrast, only 61 percent of homicides committed by offenders 21 or over involved firearms. (Table 1). The under-21 offender age groups showed a significant shift toward the use of firearms in committing homicides by the mid-1980’s. By the 1990’s, these offender groups were using firearms to commit homicides more than 70 percent of the time. Although the proportion of 18 to 20 year olds who use firearms to commit homicides has declined since the 1994 peak, it remains higher than levels recorded before 1990. (Figure 2). Similarly, in non-lethal crimes, including assault, rape, and robbery, 18 to 20 year old offenders were more likely to use guns than both younger and older offender age groups. For non-lethal crimes of violence from 1992 to 1997, in cases where the weapon and age of offender were identified, 15 percent of 18 to 20 year old offenders used a firearm, in contrast to 10 percent of adult offenders, and 5 percent of offenders 17 and under. (Table 2).
He also peddles crap whiskey, I am not sure of the relevance of bringing him up.When folks (like Matthew McConaughey) conclude that raising the minimum age to buy X type of gun from 18 to 21 is the most (or only?) effective way to prevent future mass shootings (like Uvalde) they are admitting that a complete ban is considered (by them) to be a “reasonable restriction”.
Of course, Matthew McConaughey had advocated for a complete ban of “assault weapons” in 2018. Thus he now calls doing so only for those below age 21 to be a “compromise”. Obviously, a complete ban is not a “compromise” it is clearly infringement of the 2A rights for those under age 21.
Taking that position also seems to be an admission that no other (lesser) “reasonable restriction” would be apt to work. Those at least 18 but under 21 have been unable to legally buy handguns since 1968, yet that did not stop those in that age range from committing lots of “gun crime” mostly (85%?) with “illegal” handguns.
well i dont really include 2A questions because the questions are for me and my decisions and 2nd amendment issues are kind of a given but it is a valid point
there are things i would support that people claim violate the 2nd though . . but IMO that's just the way it is with an issue that is littered with nutters on both sides
Australia's reaction to mass murder was swift and strong, But I'm not sure those actions would work here.
We (Americans) are a much larger populous country and have many more social problems.
Personally, I believe that equality, both societal and monetary problems here are the cause of so much anger and depression.
One big thing here is the knowledge that a major hospital bill can completely destroy one's future forever. ...and lower wages for service jobs, etc.
He also peddles crap whiskey, I am not sure of the relevance of bringing him up.
while we might have different views of that as a basic statement i would tend to agreeI consider those treating the 2A as being unimportant are “nutters”.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?