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.
“1994 Federal assault weapons ban, United States. This law banned the sales and ownership of semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines. Koper and Roth (76) using UCR data (1980–1995) found no association between the law and homicide rates in 15 states after adjusting for the presence of other firearm laws and crime laws in New York and California. A recent study by Gius (48) showed that the federal assault weapons ban was associated with higher rates of firearm homicides.”
But scary black gun is bad right?
“Saturday night specials, United States. Saturday night specials are inexpensive poor quality guns commonly used in crime activity.”
There was no association between these laws and homicide rates, according to two of three studies while the third showed it to be effective in Maryland when comparing to 2 neighboring states. Which two? Maryland is bordered by 4 states. Why were those two chosen as controls and not the others?
Interestingly, one study showed a decrease in overall suicide rates but not in firearm suicide rates.
“The 1988 Victoria state law, Australia. Ozanne-Smith et al. (78) examined the Victoria law that tightened restrictions on semiautomatic long-arms and pump action guns, by comparing pre versus post trends of annual death rates in Victoria compared with other states in Australia. The law was associated with a 17.3% decrease in the rate of firearm
deaths and lower rates of firearm suicides, but not with firearm homicides (78).”
This is the one we were talking about before. It worked in Australia! …Well, if you’re only counting accidental deaths and firearm suicides, or whatever isn’t included in that 17.3% decrease that wasn’t homicide.
"Laws targeting sentences and punishment for gun offenders Deutsch and Alt (79) examined the 1975 Bartley-Fox amendment to Massachusetts’ gun control law that mandated a 1-year minimum prison term for carrying firearms without a license and a 2-year sentence for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm. Examining the following 6 months post implementation, these authors found no association between the law and homicide rates. 2 other studies found similar results.
One study did find a large (55.7%, damn lol) decrease in the rate of homicides when using different controls.
Duetsch later showed that there were in fact fewer homicides when studying a longer timeline.
It does appear that these and similar laws work pretty well. I’d imagine because those committing the crimes that got arrested were no longer able to commit said crimes from prison, though I admit that’s speculation.
I thought this Detroit thing was interesting:
"the 1986 Detroit law (mandatory jail sentence for unlawfully carrying a firearm in public) was associated with *higher rates of firearm indoor and nonfirearm homicides but not with firearm homicides or those committed outside."
On the whole for this section, it showed mixed results. Lots of studies say they have no effect, lots say there were some reductions.
Laws promoting voluntary rendition of firearms.
“Rosenfeld (93) found no association between firearm buyback programs implemented in St. Louis, Missouri (1991 and 1994) and firearm homicides. More recently, Phillips et al. (94) found that yearly firearm buyback programs implemented in Buffalo, New York, from 2007 to 2012 were not associated with reductions in firearm homicides.”
This part made me laugh out loud:
**Leigh and Neill (95) evaluated the 1997 Australian gun buyback program and found no association between the program and firearm homicides but a reduction in suicide rates associated with the number of firearms that were bought back."
I am happy about reduced suicide rates.
Simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of regulations
US Gun Control Act of 1968.:
Magaddino and Medoff (96), using data for the period 1947–1977 in structural models adjusted by state characteristics, found that the law was not associated with changes in homicide rates.
District of Columbia 1976 law:
“This law banned residents from owning automatic and semiautomatic firearms and handguns, placed stronger requirements for home firearm storage, and required registration of all firearms”
One study finds an abrupt reduction in homicide and suicide rates with no similar changes in controls, while another study disputed those controls and found no abrupt or gradual changes in the homicide rates.
1996 Maryland Gun Violence Act.:
“Stronger regulations including background checks and registration of handguns sold by private gun owners, 1 handgun purchase per month, and greater authority given to police and judges to confiscate firearms from domestic violence offenders.”
“The law was associated with reductions (from 10.3% to 11.4%) in firearm homicide rates
in Maryland, assuming an immediate or delayed start, and constant/gradual effects”
A legitimate win, it seems. Fuck yeah!
Canadian firearm-related bills:
The effectiveness of these laws is debatable. Studies showed conflicting data all around.
They did seem to reduce accidental death rates.
**The 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) and the
South Australia Firearms Act.:
“This regulation required a license for firearm purchases; new owners were required to pass an examination on the handling and safety of weapons. The law also included increments in the severity of penalties for firearm offenders and registration of all firearms”
This law seems to work well, especially when compared to the buyback. Lower rates in homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, and mass shootings. Hell yeah. This has been a good law for Australia.
The Estatuto do Desarmamento in Brazil.:
“This law tightened restrictions on the possession of firearms and ammunition, implemented requirements for the registration of owned firearms, increased firearm costs, and established stronger penalties for illegal trafficking of firearms”
“… using time-series models (1996-2004) found that observed deaths were lower than predicted ones in the next 6 postlaw months.”
But… What kinds of deaths? And, why only over 6 months? Also, how’s Brazil looking today?
The 1997 Austrian firearm law. :
“This law placed restrictions for some firearms (including handguns and semiautomatics) and mandated background checks, minimum age requirements for purchases, safer firearm storage regulations, and waiting periods”
4.8% reduction in firearm homicide and 9.9% reduction in firearm suicide.
This one seems to work, using some of the things that worked from the above sections.
The New Zealand Amendment to the Arms Act:
“Bans on certain firearms, licensing for dealers and firearm owners that required passing training tests, police assessments of applicant and applicant’s home, and interviews with family members.”
Seems overly invasive and only reduced firearm suicides, but not all suicides, and homicide wasn’t mentioned.
Conclusions
"In a comprehensive review of firearm-control legislation worldwide, we identified a range of studies examining the association between firearm-related laws and firearm deaths.
Three general observations emerge from this analysis:
The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multi-
ple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related
deaths in certain countries;
some specific restrictions on
purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with re-
ductions in firearm deaths;
challenges in ecological design
and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study
findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them."
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
either way with regard to more than half of those laws.
And the other half?
Oh, someone opposing gun control with poor rhetoric and “I don’t believe in your science it’s not actually science you can’t actually say that for sure something will happen”.
There’s plenty of evidence. You just choose to ignore it.
How does it feel to be against something that works literally everywhere where it’s been implemented on a national level, with the excuse of “well I don’t care for the dying children, I’m not convinced by these hundreds of studies all saying the same thing, it’s not enough evidence”?
Honestly, it’s sickening. It’d be different if there weren’t children constantly dying of gun violence in the states. But with all your school shootings and you still parrot this shit? It’s disgusting.
You’re conflating have objectively little evidence for a policy having had a large effect to that policy being the reverse of itself.
You went "hahahaha thanks for the laughs with that ‘science’ and pretended you’ve read the thing and that it doesn’t show that gun control works, when ofc it fucking does.
Weird how you don’t have any of that science you promised, eh? Almost as if I’ve had this same exact “debate” hundreds of times and knew what was gonna happen. So weird. Right…?
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.
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.
Laws targeting specific firearms and ammunition
“1994 Federal assault weapons ban, United States. This law banned the sales and ownership of semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines. Koper and Roth (76) using UCR data (1980–1995) found no association between the law and homicide rates in 15 states after adjusting for the presence of other firearm laws and crime laws in New York and California. A recent study by Gius (48) showed that the federal assault weapons ban was associated with higher rates of firearm homicides.”
But scary black gun is bad right?
“Saturday night specials, United States. Saturday night specials are inexpensive poor quality guns commonly used in crime activity.”
There was no association between these laws and homicide rates, according to two of three studies while the third showed it to be effective in Maryland when comparing to 2 neighboring states. Which two? Maryland is bordered by 4 states. Why were those two chosen as controls and not the others?
Interestingly, one study showed a decrease in overall suicide rates but not in firearm suicide rates.
“The 1988 Victoria state law, Australia. Ozanne-Smith et al. (78) examined the Victoria law that tightened restrictions on semiautomatic long-arms and pump action guns, by comparing pre versus post trends of annual death rates in Victoria compared with other states in Australia. The law was associated with a 17.3% decrease in the rate of firearm deaths and lower rates of firearm suicides, but not with firearm homicides (78).”
This is the one we were talking about before. It worked in Australia! …Well, if you’re only counting accidental deaths and firearm suicides, or whatever isn’t included in that 17.3% decrease that wasn’t homicide.
"Laws targeting sentences and punishment for gun offenders Deutsch and Alt (79) examined the 1975 Bartley-Fox amendment to Massachusetts’ gun control law that mandated a 1-year minimum prison term for carrying firearms without a license and a 2-year sentence for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm. Examining the following 6 months post implementation, these authors found no association between the law and homicide rates. 2 other studies found similar results.
One study did find a large (55.7%, damn lol) decrease in the rate of homicides when using different controls. Duetsch later showed that there were in fact fewer homicides when studying a longer timeline.
It does appear that these and similar laws work pretty well. I’d imagine because those committing the crimes that got arrested were no longer able to commit said crimes from prison, though I admit that’s speculation.
I thought this Detroit thing was interesting:
"the 1986 Detroit law (mandatory jail sentence for unlawfully carrying a firearm in public) was associated with *higher rates of firearm indoor and nonfirearm homicides but not with firearm homicides or those committed outside."
On the whole for this section, it showed mixed results. Lots of studies say they have no effect, lots say there were some reductions.
Laws promoting voluntary rendition of firearms.
“Rosenfeld (93) found no association between firearm buyback programs implemented in St. Louis, Missouri (1991 and 1994) and firearm homicides. More recently, Phillips et al. (94) found that yearly firearm buyback programs implemented in Buffalo, New York, from 2007 to 2012 were not associated with reductions in firearm homicides.”
This part made me laugh out loud:
**Leigh and Neill (95) evaluated the 1997 Australian gun buyback program and found no association between the program and firearm homicides but a reduction in suicide rates associated with the number of firearms that were bought back."
I am happy about reduced suicide rates.
Simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of regulations
US Gun Control Act of 1968.:
Magaddino and Medoff (96), using data for the period 1947–1977 in structural models adjusted by state characteristics, found that the law was not associated with changes in homicide rates.
District of Columbia 1976 law:
“This law banned residents from owning automatic and semiautomatic firearms and handguns, placed stronger requirements for home firearm storage, and required registration of all firearms”
One study finds an abrupt reduction in homicide and suicide rates with no similar changes in controls, while another study disputed those controls and found no abrupt or gradual changes in the homicide rates.
1996 Maryland Gun Violence Act.:
“Stronger regulations including background checks and registration of handguns sold by private gun owners, 1 handgun purchase per month, and greater authority given to police and judges to confiscate firearms from domestic violence offenders.”
“The law was associated with reductions (from 10.3% to 11.4%) in firearm homicide rates in Maryland, assuming an immediate or delayed start, and constant/gradual effects”
A legitimate win, it seems. Fuck yeah!
Canadian firearm-related bills:
The effectiveness of these laws is debatable. Studies showed conflicting data all around.
They did seem to reduce accidental death rates.
**The 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) and the South Australia Firearms Act.:
“This regulation required a license for firearm purchases; new owners were required to pass an examination on the handling and safety of weapons. The law also included increments in the severity of penalties for firearm offenders and registration of all firearms”
This law seems to work well, especially when compared to the buyback. Lower rates in homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, and mass shootings. Hell yeah. This has been a good law for Australia.
The Estatuto do Desarmamento in Brazil.:
“This law tightened restrictions on the possession of firearms and ammunition, implemented requirements for the registration of owned firearms, increased firearm costs, and established stronger penalties for illegal trafficking of firearms”
“… using time-series models (1996-2004) found that observed deaths were lower than predicted ones in the next 6 postlaw months.”
But… What kinds of deaths? And, why only over 6 months? Also, how’s Brazil looking today?
The 1997 Austrian firearm law. :
“This law placed restrictions for some firearms (including handguns and semiautomatics) and mandated background checks, minimum age requirements for purchases, safer firearm storage regulations, and waiting periods”
4.8% reduction in firearm homicide and 9.9% reduction in firearm suicide.
This one seems to work, using some of the things that worked from the above sections.
The New Zealand Amendment to the Arms Act:
“Bans on certain firearms, licensing for dealers and firearm owners that required passing training tests, police assessments of applicant and applicant’s home, and interviews with family members.”
Seems overly invasive and only reduced firearm suicides, but not all suicides, and homicide wasn’t mentioned.
Conclusions
"In a comprehensive review of firearm-control legislation worldwide, we identified a range of studies examining the association between firearm-related laws and firearm deaths. Three general observations emerge from this analysis:
“Well they conclude that these laws work, but I think they’re invasive and STOOOPID.”
Wow, SUCH SCIENCE.
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
Oi
Had you read the entire article, you’d know that AT BEST there is no real evidence either way with regard to more than half of those laws.
But I don’t deserve your time or respect and you get no more of mine. Talking to walls is more productive.
And the other half?
Oh, someone opposing gun control with poor rhetoric and “I don’t believe in your science it’s not actually science you can’t actually say that for sure something will happen”.
There’s plenty of evidence. You just choose to ignore it.
How does it feel to be against something that works literally everywhere where it’s been implemented on a national level, with the excuse of “well I don’t care for the dying children, I’m not convinced by these hundreds of studies all saying the same thing, it’s not enough evidence”?
Honestly, it’s sickening. It’d be different if there weren’t children constantly dying of gun violence in the states. But with all your school shootings and you still parrot this shit? It’s disgusting.
If you’d read what I wrote you’d see I agreed with a lot of the laws that worked, minus New Zealand’s you dense prick.
I will not be replying further.
Oh… and pray tell which ones of the didn’t?
You’re conflating have objectively little evidence for a policy having had a large effect to that policy being the reverse of itself.
You went "hahahaha thanks for the laughs with that ‘science’ and pretended you’ve read the thing and that it doesn’t show that gun control works, when ofc it fucking does.
Weird how you don’t have any of that science you promised, eh? Almost as if I’ve had this same exact “debate” hundreds of times and knew what was gonna happen. So weird. Right…?
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.