Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the study means is that it had insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness. That doesn't mean gun laws are effective or ineffective, it just means there isn't enough evidence to show if they are either effective or ineffective.
If the Laws worked the evidence would be clear to you I am most sure.
Supreme Court say's your dead wrong and reasonable restrictions are constitutional in regards to the second amendment.
Reasonable restrictions pertaining to the 2nd were in place before the ink was dry on the BOR.
The only debate left is "what constitutes reasonable".
The only thing SCOTUS has said is reasonable is preventing felons and mentally ill from owning firearms. Everything the poster I was responding to is very different from those two things.
I find it laughable that the same people that are willing to quote a 10 year old CDC study with a thread with only half the title while the NRA and it's congressmen also don't trust the CDC to make any studies, which is it?
Rather the definition of chutzpah to pull the funding for CDC research and then claim there is no proof don't ya think
The title should add the words "no proof that gun laws are ineffective" to be fair but I understand that was never the intent.
Quote:
It’s well known that the National Rifle Association and its allies have fought to kill any kind of restrictions on firearm ownership. What was less recognized was the fact that the gun lobby also helped block basic data collection, to the point that there’s “no current scientific consensus about guns and violence,” in large part because the NRA “has been able to neutralize empirical cases for control.”
There is no mystery as how this happened. In the 1990s, the Clinton
administration’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began expanding its
research into gun-related deaths as a public health issue, so conservatives in
Congress added language to the appropriations bill that finances the CDC: “None
of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
That language never changed.
Crimes are not equal, getting your phone stolen is a crime, but it isn't the same as being murdered. But nice try.
Maybe you should re read your own link. The ratio held true for violent crime as well.
And I quote (from your link)
The FBI reports the 2011 rate of violent crime known to law enforcement within metropolitan areas was 410.3 per 100,000 persons. The rate of violent crime per 100,000 persons in cities outside metropolitan areas was 382.1, and for non- metropolitan counties it was 186.1.1
Maybe you should re read your own link. The ratio held true for violent crime as well.
And I quote (from your link)
The FBI reports the 2011 rate of violent crime known to law enforcement within metropolitan areas was 410.3 per 100,000 persons. The rate of violent crime per 100,000 persons in cities outside metropolitan areas was 382.1, and for non- metropolitan counties it was 186.1.1
Where does your statistics from from because even this one that is a little outdated disagrees with you?
Crime statistics are listed for U.S. cities with a population of 250,000 or greater. Rates are based on cases per 100,000 people for all of calendar year 2012.
Crime statistics are listed for U.S. cities with a population of 250,000 or greater. Rates are based on cases per 100,000 people for all of calendar year 2012.
The city with the highest homicide rate per capita Is Detroit. 54.6
Ah, I missed the climbed up to, yes, we all know crime is bad in Detroit. Detroit does not represent every American city. I doubt the homicide rate is as high as Detroit in Orlando.
The only thing SCOTUS has said is reasonable is preventing felons and mentally ill from owning firearms. Everything the poster I was responding to is very different from those two things.
That's not what they said at all, they said the 2nd has always been subject to reasonable restrictions and then gave two examples "such as, felons and mentally ill. They didn't limit reasonable restrictions to just felons and mentally ill. They left it to the legislative bodies to decide what restrictions to place on gun ownership and the judicial systems to determine if those restrictions were constitutional or not. Pretty much what we have now.
For the record, I do not align myself with most the anti gun people on this forum or others because IMO, most anti gun people have no knowledge or background to speak rationally about guns and control. They only know what they don't like and they want the random mass killings to stop. Their first reaction is to go after the guns.
Most the posters who argue the point do not want to take anyone's guns away in the first place. It's the pro gun faction that will claim that if one even mentions, background checks or other reasonable restrictions they want all the guns.
The fact is, the gun rights faction is right on at least one point. "Guns don't kill, people do." The solution is to place reasonable restrictions on the people who own those guns through licensing, mandatory training and background checks. Leave the restrictions on guns alone.
I can't tell you how many times over the years I've left one of the local unofficial, outdoor shooting ranges because of a covey of yahoos who didn't have a clue about gun safety, courtesy. They were disasters waiting to happen. And if the pro gunners who shoot a lot were absolutely honest, they would admit to similar situations. There's a lot of people who shouldn't have guns who do.
By the same token I find those constitutional absolutists who keep screaming "Shall not be infringed" to be just as clueless as the anti gunners. You mention any form of reasonable restriction or background check or safety training and they all start to scream, that the government will use the information to round up all the guns or that any law is a slippery slope that leads to a nation of tyrants.
Last edited by mohawkx; 01-26-2015 at 05:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
