My opinion is that these shootings are a greater failure in this country than simply gun control. There is a LOT we need to work on to decrease mass shootings. While I admit, I am more on the personal responsibility side of the gun control debate, I am not against well thought through legislation. I don’t think that most of the proposals for gun control are rational, detailed, and written with an even cursory understanding of firearms.
To start to address mass shootings, I believe that we need to expand our healthcare in this country. Both physical and mental healthcare. If people are physically well, and can get treatment that doesn’t threaten to bankrupt them, then they will have more opportunities to develop better coping mechanisms. They will be able to seek healthcare options and not feel like they are left to fend for themselves. The isolation from a society that doesn’t care or help them is detrimental, and while I have no studies to back it up, I would think that a society with a healthcare system thats prerogative is the patient instead of profit would help.
I think the aspect of mental healthcare speaks for itself. So people don’t lash out and can seek other means of dealing with issues. I also believe that the stigma of seeking mental healthcare and it’s ability to impact people’s rights and job prospects is a hindrance. We should not make it so that if someone seems help, that they are punished for it.
I believe we have a big culture shift that needs to occur. Too much do we use rhetoric that reinforces that firearms and gun violence is the ultimate solution to a disagreement. “Fuck around and find out” when used in the context of firearms is terrible. Firearms should be considered the last resort to protect life. Not property and not your feelings.
Firearms are not conflict resolution! We need to work to give people better ways of solving and deescalating conflicts.
We need to work on our wealth disparity. We should be elevating our poorest so that they don’t have to resort to violence or crime. As most firearm crimes are not mass shootings, we need to address the other parts of firearm use.
We need to work on our community involvement. Bring people together, break down the walls between us, and get past the cliques.
There is a lot we need to do, but gun control is only a small piece of solving gun violence.
Fear of losing basic income is a great crime deterrent.
Are you going to steal from that gas station if you could lose your basic monthly check for 20+ years?
You think kids would drive drunk if you told them that if they were caught, they would lose their basic income for life? Most think it’s a slap on the wrist, maybe some community service, IF they get caught.
Losing it for life is too drastic and isn’t what any behavior specialist would suggest.
There needs to be a path to earn it back. For example, hours of community service based on the offense and that increase with each offense.
It would also want to incentivize future legislatures excluding people by targeting groups. The drug war and its imbalance towards treatment of minorities as an example.
I would expect you’d be in prison for at least five years so are you suggesting you’ve killed someone while in prison or that basic income is the only punishment?
In any case, I am not suggesting anything concrete here, just going forward with the thought experiment. Basic income first, then we can work on how to use it as a deterrence.
Oh, I was thinking of it as a replacement of the prison industry. So just let everyone remain free but just lose basic income instead. It interested me because I think I could do without the extra income, save the tax payers money, and accomplish some personal goals at the same time.
Y’all realize what you’re describing is just a poor tax, right? Anyone with significantly higher income over base income would…just break the law anyway.
If we’re talking using money to deter crimes, it needs to be a sliding scale. You’re a millionaire and got a speeding ticket? That’ll be $50,000.
Aw dang it, we are only allowed to use one punishment as a country so I guess you are right. Maybe we could like, lock the rich people that commit crimes in a small room with a bed and a toilet.
That’s along the lines of what I was thinking. Making care more available is good but still having to get financially destroyed for it potentially isn’t a great incentive to use services
So we just need to solve all depressive disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, etc., across the entire country. Only then can we solve gun violence.
In the vast majority of instances, having a gun in the home is more dangerous for those living in the house than for any potential threat. Its irresponsible at best and at worst it will cause the deaths of those closest to you.
And before you say it, I do believe some people need guns, but you should be required to have a valid reason to own one, and it should be appropriate amount of firepower for that reason.
Even if I agreed with you, gun control has been proven to work across the world, while not a single country has yet to solve mental health in a meaningful way.
I’m not saying that it’s not a part of what needs to happen. Well thought out, thorough gun control is something thats going to be a part of this.
But as shit as it may be to say, with current gun culture, the 2nd amendment, and the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable searches makes the sort of gun control adopted in other countries improbable here.
The suggested legislation that I hear typically revolves around storage, which leading up to a tragedy is unenforceable (4th amendment) and therefore can’t prevent a mass shooting. The banning of firearms wholesale, which is unpopular in so large a part of the population it would be practically impossible. Restrictions based on features that are so ubiquitous it would be like banning smartphones; it’s not that there aren’t guns without them but it’s most guns made within the last few decades.
My perspective is that gun control is the surface level way of dealing with a growing symptom in this country. One that taking away guns doesn’t actually fix. It’s the knee jerk reaction “quick fix.” That doesn’t really fix anything, just hides how deeply broken our society has gotten.
So personally, I’m not against gun control in principle. I’m against the “common sense” gun control proposals. Because many of them are formed with minimal understanding of firearms or from a narrow viewpoint on how people use guns.
(As an aside, I’m against the term “common sense” gun laws because it insults anyone that disagrees, puts them on the defensive, and makes having a good discourse on ways we can work together to solve the issue.)
Or maybe theres nothing different between someone here and in a different country.
People get upset everywhere. Upset people do irrational things. When the possible things someone can do include shoot every nearby person with a rapid fire rifle, then those will happen more often.
Other countries stab or burn or poison, but far less people are killed or injured.
I’ll put it like this, you will never make certain every single person at every moment of the day does not act out in anger. As long as people act out anger in violence, they will seak tools to aid that.
Hence, guns banned by default with exemptions for those that need it, rather than the other way around.
Gun control works on gun violence as surely as antibiotics do on infections. Now can proper hygiene and a healthy populace make it so there’s less need for antibiotics? Yes. But are they still extremely necessary exactly because of how well they work in bacterial infections? Yes.
Gun nuts never have any science to back up their indirect nra propaganda. Gun control advocates do. Here.
I’ll stay here to wait for any science at all, but it will never come. What I will get is angry gun nuts using shitty “rhetoric” instead of having a single peer reviewed study.
I never said there was “no way to prevent this” I’m saying there is a fucking shitload we need to do to prevent this and gun control, in whatever form it takes is going to be only a piece of the puzzle.
And no shit, does getting rid of guns get rid of guns violence. You aren’t spouting something revolutionary.
I’m not even against gun control. I’m against the knee jerk reactionary bullshit and narrow viewpoint of anti-gun individuals that don’t want to engage in any serious discussion of HOW to enact gun control other than take away guns.
I’m not a gun nut, and that’s just a rude thing to say. It’s divisive, insulting, and worst of all, it means you’ve already made an opinion and written off anything that I may say.
I’m tired of people pretending they’re for gun regulation while they’re pretending “it’s only a small part of the puzzle”.
Like honestly, you feel gobsmacked in how you can have such high gun violence rates with similar mental health issues as countries which do have proper gun control and for some reason don’t the issues that the US does.
It’s purely about gun regulation ffs. Oh no, am I being insulting to someone who doesn’t think gun control would really help. Someone who pretends mental health program would do more.
Yeah as close as this country is to civil war, anyone coming for guns will be met with the wrong end of said guns. It would create all out war here.
There are more guns than people in this country, I don’t see any way to reverse that statistic without further, much more massive and widespread bloodshed.
Other countries are like “we don’t have guns its the obvious solution”. Sure. But your entire culture isn’t predicated on the idea things like gun ownership is considered an inalienable right that can and should be defended with said guns.
I’m all for making things better but I don’t see guaranteed civil war as the best choice here.
Like I said and I’ll keep saying, people opposing gun control have literally nothing but wanna-be-gotcha shitty indirect NRA propaganda. Of which “no but it wouldn’t work here in the country which is the only country which can’t seem to figure out gun control, because it doesn’t try it, because our country has people who like guns and I’m sure no-one else ever has”.
Gun buybacks here have been tried probably thousands of times, on smaller scales than at a federal level. They don’t work. They get a few shitty actual guns and there’s even memes around people making zip guns for $5 and turning them in to collect whatever money is offered.
What would undeniably happen is that much of the left here would turn in some of their guns and the vast majority of the right would snicker at the “libtards gibbin up dere freedums” while they buy more guns.
This isn’t Australia, though that sounds like a wonderful place to live.
Also lol @ a 12 million gun “equivalency” when the US has like 320 million people and even more guns.
Let’s math:
Assuming only 1 gun per person, which is laughably low,
12m/320m = 0.0375 or 3.75% of guns
Congrats you’ve collected nearly 4% of the problem from people who were not the problem. Were they the problem, they’d have kept their guns.
Science shows us that when implemented on a national level, it’s not hard to incentivise it properly.
Just like I said, you never ever have any science, just pathetic “no no no I don’t buy that no no no no”.
Come back when you have even the tiniest bit of some science to show. But you won’t. You’ll reply instantly, but without any science, adamantly stomping your foot on the floor about how “murica so special even science doesn’t wurk”
You probably won’t even open those links, because you’ve decided you won’t accept science on the matter. You just like bang-bang-sticks and don’t care for other people, so… fuck science.
Come back with peer reviewed science, or sit down and shut up.
Here’s a breakdown, since you clearly didn’t read it:
Licenses to carry concealed firearms or “shall issue” laws
“In the United States, Lott and Mustard (15) using a times-series design approach and data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) (1977–1992) identified that shall issue laws were associated with lower rates of homicides at the county and state levels. Bronars and Lott (16) also noted evidence that shall issue laws were associated with an apparent increase in the rate of homicides in adjacent counties without shall issue laws (16). Seven other studies (17–23) supported Lott and Mustard’s findings.”
Heck yeah.
-but-
“Others found inconsistent results when using different modeling strategies (24–31) and suggested the presence of errors in the data used in this study (32).”
So, they found that shall issue laws were not associated with reductions in homicide rates.
In looking at the graph in Figure 2, (which I may be misunderstanding as it’s a graph type I am unfamiliar with. It’s like a box and whisker, but there is no box? I tried to look it up, but to no avail. If you know what it’s called, I’d love to see how it is actually supposed to work) only 3/25 showed a range that didn’t dip into the “reduction” in homicides and firearm homicides side of the chart. But, 10/25 (less than half) did indicate an increase in firearm homicide rates overall.
Further research showed:
“Using additional data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Rosengart et al. (38) and Hepburn et al. (39) showed no association between these laws and overall and firearm homicides. Studies comparing cities with a population of 100,000 or more (40) and others using samples of large cities in the United States (41, 42) found similar findings.”
One study about Southern Arizona showed an (amount unspecified in the article) increase in proportions of firearm injuries/deaths associated with shall issue laws.
“In recent years, studies by Strnad (44) using a Bayesian approach and by Moody and Marvell (45, 46), Lott (47), and Gius (48) showed that shall issue laws were associated with reductions in homicide rates (extending data to 2000)”
(Moody and Marvell struck-through by me because one article disagreed with their modeling and suggested not to use county level data due to inconsistencies)
“In Colombia, Villaveces et al. (52) examined the association between laws banning the carrying of firearms during weekends after paydays, holidays, and election days in Cali
and Bogota and the rate of homicides.”
So, they found a reduction of 13% and 14% in these cities, respectively, however with the exception of those whose candidates were not elected, weekends after paydays, holidays, and election days are all times in which people would be in a better mood. I’m unclear about the methods in this one with respect to “…comparing the rates of homicides on days with and without the restriction”. Does this mean comparing to weekends after paydays, holidays, and election days, or just like “those days were banned, lets look at the rest of the week?” If it’s the former, super cool that that worked for two Colombian cities. If it’s the latter, I don’t think that’s a good control.
Then there is the gem which is Table 2: A laundry list of things that are wrong with any of the given (unspecified as to which) studies’ methodologies.
Basically they compared two studies that covered a 10 year period (2000-2010) and showed an increase in homicide rates to a study that covered a 28 year period (1977-2005) which showed a 9% reduction in homicide rates. I’d like to see what Cheng and Hoekstra would conclude using the same 28 year period.
Laws targeting firearms sales
Cross-sectional studies assessing the association between background checks/waiting periods and firearm deaths provide mixed results and are therefore, inconclusive.
What I got from reading this section was:
Good background checks and bans on those with certain mental health conditions tend to work in reducing homicide, and they work better with more info and at more local levels. According to 3 separate studies, The Brady Act, in contrast, showed " No associations between the Brady Act and firearm homicides among adults (aged 21 years or older and 55 years or older) were observed.", though middle aged and older people used less guns when killing themselves in places where a waiting period was mandated. One study found the opposite was true.
The rest of the section talks about similar laws on smaller scales, some of which are more targeted toward very specific groups (domestic abusers and their victims), as well as laws regarding licensing of dealers. The former seemed to work, as did the latter for homicide, but not suicide.
Laws targeting firearms ownership
“… permits and licenses to purchase firearms were associated with lower rates of firearm suicides. In a longitudinal study using NCHS data (1970–1998), Marvell (65) found that laws restricting juvenile access to firearms were not associated with all or firearm homicide or suicide rates among youth. Studies using times-series analyses from Webster et al. (66) and Rosengart et al. (38) did not find evidence of reductions in firearm deaths associated with state and federal laws raising the legal age to 18 or 21 years for handgun purchases/possession. Rodríguez Andrés and Hempstead (61) in unadjusted models found that minimum age requirements were associated with fewer suicides among
males.”
These laws made it harder to commit suicide, which is cool. They seem to do nothing for homicide though. One study followed the repeal of one law in one state and found a drastic increase in homicide rates. That law “… required all handgun purchasers to have
a valid license to purchase handguns.”
Laws targeting firearms storage regulations
Several studies show these seem to work to keep guns away from children under 15. One study showed there was no correlation with these laws and accidental firearm deaths. All together, these laws seem to be effective in preventing accidental injury and death.
Next time you want to cite a scientific article. Make sure it actually agrees with your stance first.
The “Harvard page” is just an advertisement for a book and some publications written by mainly one guy.
As for your Oxford paper. Omg. Thank you for the laugh. I’ll review it for you in the following comments, since my review is too long for a single comment.
Your formatting gives me a headache, please learn to succinctly say what you’re trying to say. Are you trying to say there’s not enough evidence that gun control works? Because you’ll be here “debunking” science all day, and yet won’t be able to provide any showing that gun control doesn’t actually do anything, or is actively harmful. Just like you nutters always. You get just so mad that you’re on the wrong side, but you’re too proud to be able to change your opinion according to what we know to be true.
What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and
Firearm-Related Injuries?
Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world.
We systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm-
related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies
published from 1950 to 2014.
Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm
deaths.
Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms
are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively.
Weird how you had to skip the beginning of the article, huh? Almost like… picking cherries, huh?
You’re one of those gun nuts who thinks they’re not a gun nut and has a false sense of confidence of their own intelligence, so you think pasting several chapters would make me throw my hands up in the air and bow to your formidable intelligence as I could just never actually have read the things I link, could I? 100 bucks says you didn’t read half of that paper. So yeah; Thanks for the laughs and confirming yet again what I said.
Here’s a quick tip; press “ctrl-f” and write “reductions” and read at least those parts. :D
There’s a way to discuss a topic without name calling, pretending you know someone you’ve never met, putting words into someones mouth, or trying to belittle the other person. If you want people to listen to you and read your links (which I just opened and will be reading, thanks) maybe try not being a dick.
Until you can do that. Sit down and shut up.
ETA: I’ll be replying with science once I’ve read your articles.
I agree there needs to be a culture change. But on a global scale, the US is basically one of the leading countries in mental healthcare. Which, kinda shows a lot of isn’t evidence based
I agree there needs to be a culture change. But on a global scale, the US is basically one of the leading countries in mental healthcare. Which, kinda shows a lot of isn’t evidence based
My opinion is that these shootings are a greater failure in this country than simply gun control. There is a LOT we need to work on to decrease mass shootings. While I admit, I am more on the personal responsibility side of the gun control debate, I am not against well thought through legislation. I don’t think that most of the proposals for gun control are rational, detailed, and written with an even cursory understanding of firearms.
To start to address mass shootings, I believe that we need to expand our healthcare in this country. Both physical and mental healthcare. If people are physically well, and can get treatment that doesn’t threaten to bankrupt them, then they will have more opportunities to develop better coping mechanisms. They will be able to seek healthcare options and not feel like they are left to fend for themselves. The isolation from a society that doesn’t care or help them is detrimental, and while I have no studies to back it up, I would think that a society with a healthcare system thats prerogative is the patient instead of profit would help.
I think the aspect of mental healthcare speaks for itself. So people don’t lash out and can seek other means of dealing with issues. I also believe that the stigma of seeking mental healthcare and it’s ability to impact people’s rights and job prospects is a hindrance. We should not make it so that if someone seems help, that they are punished for it.
I believe we have a big culture shift that needs to occur. Too much do we use rhetoric that reinforces that firearms and gun violence is the ultimate solution to a disagreement. “Fuck around and find out” when used in the context of firearms is terrible. Firearms should be considered the last resort to protect life. Not property and not your feelings.
Firearms are not conflict resolution! We need to work to give people better ways of solving and deescalating conflicts.
We need to work on our wealth disparity. We should be elevating our poorest so that they don’t have to resort to violence or crime. As most firearm crimes are not mass shootings, we need to address the other parts of firearm use.
We need to work on our community involvement. Bring people together, break down the walls between us, and get past the cliques.
There is a lot we need to do, but gun control is only a small piece of solving gun violence.
universal healthcare and basic income, paid with increase in the top 1%'s marginal tax rate, would solve a LOT of Americans problems.
Fear of losing basic income is a great crime deterrent.
Are you going to steal from that gas station if you could lose your basic monthly check for 20+ years?
You think kids would drive drunk if you told them that if they were caught, they would lose their basic income for life? Most think it’s a slap on the wrist, maybe some community service, IF they get caught.
damn, now THAT’S a deterrent! Capital punishment? pfft. Losing your monthly living stipend? real shit.
Losing it for life is too drastic and isn’t what any behavior specialist would suggest.
There needs to be a path to earn it back. For example, hours of community service based on the offense and that increase with each offense.
It would also want to incentivize future legislatures excluding people by targeting groups. The drug war and its imbalance towards treatment of minorities as an example.
Its not UBI if not everyone gets it. We don’t have freedom unless everyone can vote, always.
If I murder someone and lose basic income for say five years does it go up to ten years if I murder another person or could it be served concurrently?
I would expect you’d be in prison for at least five years so are you suggesting you’ve killed someone while in prison or that basic income is the only punishment?
In any case, I am not suggesting anything concrete here, just going forward with the thought experiment. Basic income first, then we can work on how to use it as a deterrence.
Oh, I was thinking of it as a replacement of the prison industry. So just let everyone remain free but just lose basic income instead. It interested me because I think I could do without the extra income, save the tax payers money, and accomplish some personal goals at the same time.
Y’all realize what you’re describing is just a poor tax, right? Anyone with significantly higher income over base income would…just break the law anyway.
If we’re talking using money to deter crimes, it needs to be a sliding scale. You’re a millionaire and got a speeding ticket? That’ll be $50,000.
Aw dang it, we are only allowed to use one punishment as a country so I guess you are right. Maybe we could like, lock the rich people that commit crimes in a small room with a bed and a toilet.
I guess you missed the if. The topic is literally regarding monetary related punishments. That does even remotely imply forgoing anything else.
That’s along the lines of what I was thinking. Making care more available is good but still having to get financially destroyed for it potentially isn’t a great incentive to use services
So we just need to solve all depressive disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, etc., across the entire country. Only then can we solve gun violence.
In the vast majority of instances, having a gun in the home is more dangerous for those living in the house than for any potential threat. Its irresponsible at best and at worst it will cause the deaths of those closest to you.
And before you say it, I do believe some people need guns, but you should be required to have a valid reason to own one, and it should be appropriate amount of firepower for that reason.
To “solve” gun violence, yea. But to significantly reduce it, we only need to make progress.
It was sort of meant to be rhetorical.
Even if I agreed with you, gun control has been proven to work across the world, while not a single country has yet to solve mental health in a meaningful way.
I’m not saying that it’s not a part of what needs to happen. Well thought out, thorough gun control is something thats going to be a part of this.
But as shit as it may be to say, with current gun culture, the 2nd amendment, and the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable searches makes the sort of gun control adopted in other countries improbable here.
The suggested legislation that I hear typically revolves around storage, which leading up to a tragedy is unenforceable (4th amendment) and therefore can’t prevent a mass shooting. The banning of firearms wholesale, which is unpopular in so large a part of the population it would be practically impossible. Restrictions based on features that are so ubiquitous it would be like banning smartphones; it’s not that there aren’t guns without them but it’s most guns made within the last few decades.
My perspective is that gun control is the surface level way of dealing with a growing symptom in this country. One that taking away guns doesn’t actually fix. It’s the knee jerk reaction “quick fix.” That doesn’t really fix anything, just hides how deeply broken our society has gotten.
So personally, I’m not against gun control in principle. I’m against the “common sense” gun control proposals. Because many of them are formed with minimal understanding of firearms or from a narrow viewpoint on how people use guns.
(As an aside, I’m against the term “common sense” gun laws because it insults anyone that disagrees, puts them on the defensive, and makes having a good discourse on ways we can work together to solve the issue.)
Or maybe theres nothing different between someone here and in a different country.
People get upset everywhere. Upset people do irrational things. When the possible things someone can do include shoot every nearby person with a rapid fire rifle, then those will happen more often.
Other countries stab or burn or poison, but far less people are killed or injured.
I’ll put it like this, you will never make certain every single person at every moment of the day does not act out in anger. As long as people act out anger in violence, they will seak tools to aid that.
Hence, guns banned by default with exemptions for those that need it, rather than the other way around.
I don’t think anyone is saying that those need to be solved before we can attempt to solve gun violence.
But there is a definite mental health crisis in the USA, and that’s certainly not helping our gun violence issue.
That and abject, perpetual, and generational poverty.
And I’m sure the latter contributes to the former.
deleted by creator
Weird how other countries haven’t solved these “other issues”, yet have managed to curb gun violence.
“No way to prevent this, says only country in the world where this regularly happens”
Gun control works on gun violence as surely as antibiotics do on infections. Now can proper hygiene and a healthy populace make it so there’s less need for antibiotics? Yes. But are they still extremely necessary exactly because of how well they work in bacterial infections? Yes.
Gun nuts never have any science to back up their indirect nra propaganda. Gun control advocates do. Here.
https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html . https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/
I’ll stay here to wait for any science at all, but it will never come. What I will get is angry gun nuts using shitty “rhetoric” instead of having a single peer reviewed study.
I never said there was “no way to prevent this” I’m saying there is a fucking shitload we need to do to prevent this and gun control, in whatever form it takes is going to be only a piece of the puzzle.
And no shit, does getting rid of guns get rid of guns violence. You aren’t spouting something revolutionary.
I’m not even against gun control. I’m against the knee jerk reactionary bullshit and narrow viewpoint of anti-gun individuals that don’t want to engage in any serious discussion of HOW to enact gun control other than take away guns.
I’m not a gun nut, and that’s just a rude thing to say. It’s divisive, insulting, and worst of all, it means you’ve already made an opinion and written off anything that I may say.
I’m tired of people pretending they’re for gun regulation while they’re pretending “it’s only a small part of the puzzle”.
Like honestly, you feel gobsmacked in how you can have such high gun violence rates with similar mental health issues as countries which do have proper gun control and for some reason don’t the issues that the US does.
It’s purely about gun regulation ffs. Oh no, am I being insulting to someone who doesn’t think gun control would really help. Someone who pretends mental health program would do more.
Fucking ridiculous man.
Yeah as close as this country is to civil war, anyone coming for guns will be met with the wrong end of said guns. It would create all out war here.
There are more guns than people in this country, I don’t see any way to reverse that statistic without further, much more massive and widespread bloodshed.
Other countries are like “we don’t have guns its the obvious solution”. Sure. But your entire culture isn’t predicated on the idea things like gun ownership is considered an inalienable right that can and should be defended with said guns.
I’m all for making things better but I don’t see guaranteed civil war as the best choice here.
Yeah this is the exact type of bullshit I was talking about.
Australia had a very strong gun culture as well. Then Port Arthur happened.
They had a voluntary buyback program and got back what would be the equivalent of about 12 million guns with the current US population.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html
Like I said and I’ll keep saying, people opposing gun control have literally nothing but wanna-be-gotcha shitty indirect NRA propaganda. Of which “no but it wouldn’t work here in the country which is the only country which can’t seem to figure out gun control, because it doesn’t try it, because our country has people who like guns and I’m sure no-one else ever has”.
Yeah I don’t buy it.
Gun buybacks here have been tried probably thousands of times, on smaller scales than at a federal level. They don’t work. They get a few shitty actual guns and there’s even memes around people making zip guns for $5 and turning them in to collect whatever money is offered.
What would undeniably happen is that much of the left here would turn in some of their guns and the vast majority of the right would snicker at the “libtards gibbin up dere freedums” while they buy more guns.
This isn’t Australia, though that sounds like a wonderful place to live.
Also lol @ a 12 million gun “equivalency” when the US has like 320 million people and even more guns.
Let’s math:
Assuming only 1 gun per person, which is laughably low,
12m/320m = 0.0375 or 3.75% of guns
Congrats you’ve collected nearly 4% of the problem from people who were not the problem. Were they the problem, they’d have kept their guns.
Your local small time buybacks don’t work.
Science shows us that when implemented on a national level, it’s not hard to incentivise it properly.
Just like I said, you never ever have any science, just pathetic “no no no I don’t buy that no no no no”.
Come back when you have even the tiniest bit of some science to show. But you won’t. You’ll reply instantly, but without any science, adamantly stomping your foot on the floor about how “murica so special even science doesn’t wurk”
https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html .
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/
You probably won’t even open those links, because you’ve decided you won’t accept science on the matter. You just like bang-bang-sticks and don’t care for other people, so… fuck science.
Come back with peer reviewed science, or sit down and shut up.
Here’s a breakdown, since you clearly didn’t read it:
Licenses to carry concealed firearms or “shall issue” laws
“In the United States, Lott and Mustard (15) using a times-series design approach and data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) (1977–1992) identified that shall issue laws were associated with lower rates of homicides at the county and state levels. Bronars and Lott (16) also noted evidence that shall issue laws were associated with an apparent increase in the rate of homicides in adjacent counties without shall issue laws (16). Seven other studies (17–23) supported Lott and Mustard’s findings.”
Heck yeah.
-but-
“Others found inconsistent results when using different modeling strategies (24–31) and suggested the presence of errors in the data used in this study (32).”
So, they found that shall issue laws were not associated with reductions in homicide rates.
In looking at the graph in Figure 2, (which I may be misunderstanding as it’s a graph type I am unfamiliar with. It’s like a box and whisker, but there is no box? I tried to look it up, but to no avail. If you know what it’s called, I’d love to see how it is actually supposed to work) only 3/25 showed a range that didn’t dip into the “reduction” in homicides and firearm homicides side of the chart. But, 10/25 (less than half) did indicate an increase in firearm homicide rates overall.
Further research showed:
“Using additional data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Rosengart et al. (38) and Hepburn et al. (39) showed no association between these laws and overall and firearm homicides. Studies comparing cities with a population of 100,000 or more (40) and others using samples of large cities in the United States (41, 42) found similar findings.”
One study about Southern Arizona showed an (amount unspecified in the article) increase in proportions of firearm injuries/deaths associated with shall issue laws.
“In recent years, studies by Strnad (44) using a Bayesian approach and by
Moody and Marvell(45, 46), Lott (47), and Gius (48) showed that shall issue laws were associated with reductions in homicide rates (extending data to 2000)” (Moody and Marvell struck-through by me because one article disagreed with their modeling and suggested not to use county level data due to inconsistencies)“In Colombia, Villaveces et al. (52) examined the association between laws banning the carrying of firearms during weekends after paydays, holidays, and election days in Cali and Bogota and the rate of homicides.”
So, they found a reduction of 13% and 14% in these cities, respectively, however with the exception of those whose candidates were not elected, weekends after paydays, holidays, and election days are all times in which people would be in a better mood. I’m unclear about the methods in this one with respect to “…comparing the rates of homicides on days with and without the restriction”. Does this mean comparing to weekends after paydays, holidays, and election days, or just like “those days were banned, lets look at the rest of the week?” If it’s the former, super cool that that worked for two Colombian cities. If it’s the latter, I don’t think that’s a good control.
Then there is the gem which is Table 2: A laundry list of things that are wrong with any of the given (unspecified as to which) studies’ methodologies.
Castle doctrine / stand your ground laws
Basically they compared two studies that covered a 10 year period (2000-2010) and showed an increase in homicide rates to a study that covered a 28 year period (1977-2005) which showed a 9% reduction in homicide rates. I’d like to see what Cheng and Hoekstra would conclude using the same 28 year period.
Laws targeting firearms sales
Cross-sectional studies assessing the association between background checks/waiting periods and firearm deaths provide mixed results and are therefore, inconclusive.
What I got from reading this section was:
Good background checks and bans on those with certain mental health conditions tend to work in reducing homicide, and they work better with more info and at more local levels. According to 3 separate studies, The Brady Act, in contrast, showed " No associations between the Brady Act and firearm homicides among adults (aged 21 years or older and 55 years or older) were observed.", though middle aged and older people used less guns when killing themselves in places where a waiting period was mandated. One study found the opposite was true.
The rest of the section talks about similar laws on smaller scales, some of which are more targeted toward very specific groups (domestic abusers and their victims), as well as laws regarding licensing of dealers. The former seemed to work, as did the latter for homicide, but not suicide.
Laws targeting firearms ownership
“… permits and licenses to purchase firearms were associated with lower rates of firearm suicides. In a longitudinal study using NCHS data (1970–1998), Marvell (65) found that laws restricting juvenile access to firearms were not associated with all or firearm homicide or suicide rates among youth. Studies using times-series analyses from Webster et al. (66) and Rosengart et al. (38) did not find evidence of reductions in firearm deaths associated with state and federal laws raising the legal age to 18 or 21 years for handgun purchases/possession. Rodríguez Andrés and Hempstead (61) in unadjusted models found that minimum age requirements were associated with fewer suicides among males.”
These laws made it harder to commit suicide, which is cool. They seem to do nothing for homicide though. One study followed the repeal of one law in one state and found a drastic increase in homicide rates. That law “… required all handgun purchasers to have a valid license to purchase handguns.”
Laws targeting firearms storage regulations
Several studies show these seem to work to keep guns away from children under 15. One study showed there was no correlation with these laws and accidental firearm deaths. All together, these laws seem to be effective in preventing accidental injury and death.
Next time you want to cite a scientific article. Make sure it actually agrees with your stance first.
The “Harvard page” is just an advertisement for a book and some publications written by mainly one guy.
As for your Oxford paper. Omg. Thank you for the laugh. I’ll review it for you in the following comments, since my review is too long for a single comment.
Yeah, they do agree.
Your formatting gives me a headache, please learn to succinctly say what you’re trying to say. Are you trying to say there’s not enough evidence that gun control works? Because you’ll be here “debunking” science all day, and yet won’t be able to provide any showing that gun control doesn’t actually do anything, or is actively harmful. Just like you nutters always. You get just so mad that you’re on the wrong side, but you’re too proud to be able to change your opinion according to what we know to be true.
Weird how you had to skip the beginning of the article, huh? Almost like… picking cherries, huh?
You’re one of those gun nuts who thinks they’re not a gun nut and has a false sense of confidence of their own intelligence, so you think pasting several chapters would make me throw my hands up in the air and bow to your formidable intelligence as I could just never actually have read the things I link, could I? 100 bucks says you didn’t read half of that paper. So yeah; Thanks for the laughs and confirming yet again what I said.
Here’s a quick tip; press “ctrl-f” and write “reductions” and read at least those parts. :D
There’s a way to discuss a topic without name calling, pretending you know someone you’ve never met, putting words into someones mouth, or trying to belittle the other person. If you want people to listen to you and read your links (which I just opened and will be reading, thanks) maybe try not being a dick.
Until you can do that. Sit down and shut up.
ETA: I’ll be replying with science once I’ve read your articles.
No, you won’t be “replying with science”, as you have none, hun. You might as well be fetching me science on how the Earth is flat.
It is beyond moronic to claim gun control doesn’t work.
Oh I’m perfectly capable of having a respectful conversation with people — when they deserve it.
I notice you’re trying to get your little tushy off the seat, but still haven’t got any science. And never will.
Can you imagine nukes being considered a conflict resolution?
Technically, they are.
deleted by creator
I agree there needs to be a culture change. But on a global scale, the US is basically one of the leading countries in mental healthcare. Which, kinda shows a lot of isn’t evidence based
I agree there needs to be a culture change. But on a global scale, the US is basically one of the leading countries in mental healthcare. Which, kinda shows a lot of isn’t evidence based