Gun Violence Makes Us Feel Powerless, But We're Not - General

[QUOTE=BlackWolf97;52865118] I think it's naive to assume that all celebrities are inherently incompetent at politics, or would be as corrupt as the current administration. I think some celebrities are capable of using their star power to speak to large portion of the population and either educate or persuade them on hot topics. [/QUOTE] Using Trump as an argument against celebs for president is also kinda silly given how Trump being a giant turd was already well known and documented [editline]7th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52866166]America didn't act like nothing could be done after 9/11, not sure why guns are radically different.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://youtu.be/DF8RRhN0KA4"]Because we shouldn't politicize tragedies, duuh[/URL]

[QUOTE=Redcoat893;52866183]Limit access and recall Assault/Fully Automatic rifles[/QUOTE] Limit access... more than it already is? I know the meme phrase is that "you can go out and buy an assault rifle at walmart omg the us is fuuuuckkeedd" but no, you can't. Automatic weapons are so restricted that legally owned ones have been used in crimes all of 3 (three!) times since 1934. But no, let's ban those cause obviously they're a menace to society, right?

How one can be shoot, if gun no is there? Silly man. Make have me gun, then see bad shoots be gone!

[QUOTE=Nukedrabbit95;52866267]Limit access... more than it already is? I know the meme phrase is that "you can go out and buy an assault rifle at walmart omg the us is fuuuuckkeedd" but no, you can't. Automatic weapons are so restricted that legally owned ones have been used in crimes all of 3 (three!) times since 1934. But no, let's ban those cause obviously they're a menace to society, right?[/QUOTE] And let's be realistic, you can still buy NFA firearms, but they're [URL="http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?db=nfafirearms&category=All+Items+in+this+Category&query=category&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=headlines&website=&language=&session_key="]fucking expensive.[/URL] And NFA doesn't mean automatic, [URL="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/which-firearms-are-regulated-under-nfa"]it can mean a whole lot of shit.[/URL] I'd put the average price of an NFA firearm at around $20k. You can get MAC 10's for a few thousand but they are still almost an order of magnitude above the cost of any decent quality semi-auto AR-15. You can't just go into Walmart and get a full auto death machine for the price of a Big Mac like some people think. Also, not only are NFA firearms expensive, there is a paper trail, too, so it's not exactly a criminal market.

[QUOTE=Flameon;52866190]If only the CDC could research gun violence... oh wait they cant because of the gun lobby[/QUOTE] They can ya dingus, in fact, the CDC did a report after Sandy Hook that was quietly buried by the Obama administration after it was completed because it did not follow the narrative.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52866166]America didn't act like nothing could be done after 9/11, not sure why guns are radically different.[/QUOTE] the actions taken after 9/11 included but were not limited to: enacting policies which massively compromise the rights of all Americans, engagement in the least supported wars since Vietnam, propagation of a culture of fear, exploitation of that propagated culture to enact even more policies which compromise the rights of people both domestic and world wide, campaigns of government-sanctioned extrajudicial detention, torture, and killings in foreign countries, encouragement to profile a vast group of people based on the actions of a few i'd say 9/11 is a pretty damn good example of why it isn't a bad thing to mistrust how the government might handle things after a tragedy. it has proven itself to be all about exploiting people's fears in order to do highly unethical things

Catbarf summed up what can actually be done pretty well. [QUOTE=catbarf;52861719]Every single gun debate thread is chock-full of gun owners providing suggestions to mitigate gun violence. Here's a few off the top of my head from previous threads: -Allocate the DoJ funds specifically for prosecution of straw purchase, the #1 source of illegal firearms, but which they currently lack the resources to pursue. -Allocate the ATF funds specifically for prosecution of unscrupulous FFL holders, the #2 source of illegal firearms, but which they currently lack the resources to pursue. -Raise liability on stolen firearms, or introduce safe storage laws. -Further restrict handguns, the overwhelmingly most common weapons used in crime. -Open the NICS to non-FFLs, then mandate background checks on all sales. -Fix the broken interaction between state and federal databases (due to HIPAA) which often causes mental issues to not be reported to the federal background check system. -Address suicide in some meaningful capacity. Address gang violence in some meaningful capacity. These are the social issues that are the most common root causes of gun violence. Like, I'm sorry that these aren't simple 'ban all guns!' or 'ban assault weapons!' soundbites, but that's because these suggestions are born from an understanding of the issue and the statistically-relevant factors. And we've also helpfully pointed out numerous laws on the books that do nothing to make people safer, but a repeal of which could be used as a bargaining chip to pass any of the above, should you encounter resistance. Do you understand how frustrating it is for us to explain why simplistic solutions won't work, provide some alternatives that address the root causes and common methods of gun violence, suggest means of compromise that could get such measures through Congress, and then be told we're not trying to help? What more do you want from us?[/QUOTE] And look at that, no feel good dumbass assault weapons bans needed.

[QUOTE=DuCT;52866885]They can ya dingus, in fact, the CDC did a report after Sandy Hook that was quietly buried by the Obama administration after it was completed because it did not follow the narrative.[/QUOTE] Didn't CDC research into gun violence drop 96% after that NRA sponsored rule came in, saying that the CDC cannot advocate for increased gun control?

[QUOTE=Sharkcheater;52864867]iv'e heard this thousands of times. Why not come up with that "something" then talk to us.[/QUOTE] That something has been called for time and time again: Stronger gun control. Comprehensive healthcare that INCLUDES mental healthcare.

[QUOTE=GamerKiwi;52867921]That something has been called for time and time again: Stronger gun control. Comprehensive healthcare that INCLUDES mental healthcare.[/QUOTE] What guns specifically? What weapons are okay for people to own for self defense or recreational use? iirc handguns are used in 90% of gun related crime, but nobody ever seems to bring that up, just rifles. And, again, it also requires those laws be enforced (which they evidently werent in this case) Also, what about the underlying causes of crime in which firearms are used aside from mental health? Such as social inequality and poverty and what have you. From what i've gathered across these threads, its really not a simple solution in which theres an easy fix. [editline]7th November 2017[/editline] I'm also not even really trying to take a side on this, it just seems every time that people try to point to incredibly vague solutions without elaborating on exactly what it entails, then get angry when people dont agree or have questions (thats not pointed at you specifically, just a general observation).

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52866912]the actions taken after 9/11 included but were not limited to: enacting policies which massively compromise the rights of all Americans, engagement in the least supported wars since Vietnam, propagation of a culture of fear, exploitation of that propagated culture to enact even more policies which compromise the rights of people both domestic and world wide, campaigns of government-sanctioned extrajudicial detention, torture, and killings in foreign countries, encouragement to profile a vast group of people based on the actions of a few i'd say 9/11 is a pretty damn good example of why it isn't a bad thing to mistrust how the government might handle things after a tragedy. it has proven itself to be all about exploiting people's fears in order to do highly unethical things[/QUOTE] I don't disagree with what you're saying but none of them have anything to do with making airline flights more secure. Which did happen after 9/11.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52868015]I don't disagree with what you're saying but none of them have anything to do with making airline flights more secure.[/QUOTE] The only time i ever hear about airport security is about how lazy and ineffective it is while also being a giant breach of privacy.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52868019]The only time i ever hear about airport security is about how lazy and ineffective it is while also being a giant breach of privacy.[/QUOTE] Watched my brother in law be “randomly searched” by the TSA multiple times. Couldn’t possibly be due to his darker skin and Levantine features, no way!

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52867984]What guns specifically? What weapons are okay for people to own for self defense or recreational use? iirc handguns are used in 90% of gun related crime, but nobody ever seems to bring that up, just rifles. And, again, it also requires those laws be enforced (which they evidently werent in this case) Also, what about the underlying causes of crime in which firearms are used aside from mental health? Such as social inequality and poverty and what have you. From what i've gathered across these threads, its really not a simple solution in which theres an easy fix. [editline]7th November 2017[/editline] I'm also not even really trying to take a side on this, it just seems every time that people try to point to incredibly vague solutions without elaborating on exactly what it entails, then get angry when people dont agree or have questions (thats not pointed at you specifically, just a general observation).[/QUOTE] People are going to hate me for this, but I personally believe guns should be illegal entirely. I live in the UK and we have not had a single mass shooting since 1996, the year guns were banned due to a massacre at a school. In fact, our murder rate is 1/4 of America's, partly as a result of this. Of course, there are plenty of deeper, systemic reason for the difference in murder rates, so I don't claim that it would fix all of society's ills. I would never tell Americans what they should do in their own country, but I do think Australia and the UK have demonstrated that regular mass shootings stop if guns are illegal. It is up to you to decide whether you want to lose a freedom in order to reduce death.

-merge [editline]7th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Dan The Man;52868035]People are going to hate me for this, but I personally believe guns should be illegal entirely. I live in the UK and we have not had a single mass shooting since 1996, the year guns were banned due to a massacre at a school. In fact, our murder rate is 1/4 of America's, partly as a result of this. Of course, there are plenty of deeper, systemic reason for the difference in murder rates, so I don't claim that it would fix all of society's ills. I would never tell Americans what they should do in their own country, but I do think Australia and the UK have demonstrated that regular mass shootings stop if guns are illegal. It is up to you to decide whether you want to lose a freedom in order to reduce death.[/QUOTE] What firearm legislation would stop the rampant, growing and increasingly prevalent gang violence in Chicago. The city had a handgun ban that did largely nothing. There are cases of criminals being caught for firearm violations that are already felons, who cannot legally purchase a gun. How could you stop this without making Robocop, essentially

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52868035]People are going to hate me for this, but I personally believe guns should be illegal entirely. I live in the UK and we have not had a single mass shooting since 1996, the year guns were banned due to a massacre at a school. In fact, our murder rate is 1/4 of America's, partly as a result of this. Of course, there are plenty of deeper, systemic reason for the difference in murder rates, so I don't claim that it would fix all of society's ills. I would never tell Americans what they should do in their own country, but I do think Australia and the UK have demonstrated that regular mass shootings stop if guns are illegal. It is up to you to decide whether you want to lose a freedom in order to reduce death.[/QUOTE] From what i understand, the locations where most gun crime happen are in the big cities like LA, Chicago, Detroit, and whatnot where theres issues in regards to poverty and infrastructure problems and it results in gang indoctrination, gang on gang violence (iirc thats the majority of gun related homicides), and overall crime. Outside of those kinds of locations, its generally similar statistically to counties like the UK and Australia, i believe. I could be wrong on that but thats what i remember reading.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52868058]From what i understand, the locations where most gun crime happen are in the big cities like LA, Chicago, Detroit, and whatnot where theres issues in regards to poverty and infrastructure problems and it results in gang indoctrination, gang on gang violence (iirc thats the majority of gun related homicides), and overall crime. Outside of those kinds of locations, its generally similar statistically to counties like the UK and Australia, i believe. I could be wrong on that but thats what i remember reading.[/QUOTE] I don't disagree with your first point, but the last part is definitely not true. Gun crime is extremely rare in Britain. In terms of which policies I recommend, I would say doing what Australia did with a gun buy back program would be the way to accomplish it, before subsequently making guns illegal. My issue with guns is that they serve no other purpose than fun at this point, and a lot of innocent people die as a result.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52868072]I don't disagree with your first point, but the last part is definitely not true. Gun crime is extremely rare in Britain.[/QUOTE] Well, yeah, unless i'm severely mistaken its generally pretty rare outside of those kinds of inner city environments. Its still probably more, but its not as high. Its more in the general ballpark. I might just be completely wrong on that, i dunno. [QUOTE=Dan The Man;52868072]In terms of which policies I recommend, I would say doing what Australia did with a gun buy back program would be the way to accomplish it, before subsequently making guns illegal.[/QUOTE] That would never happen, not just because of like, public opinion on it, but also because of how its part of the bill of rights and whatnot, you'd need to hold an amendment convention which itself requires i believe a two-thirds majority vote in the house and senate (good look with that lmao), then you'd need three-fourths of all the states (38) to agree to it. Thats also relying on people to actually turn them in. [QUOTE=Dan The Man;52868072] My issue with guns is that they serve no other purpose than fun at this point, and a lot of innocent people die as a result.[/QUOTE] Well, aside from recreational activities and sport, theres also self defense and hunting. Self defense is self explanatory, but the hunting is necessary in a number of states to help control certain animal populations like deer. [editline]7th November 2017[/editline] Also i want to reiterate that i dont really have any particularly strong feelings one way or the other (on principle i think its fine to have stuff so long as theres no sufficiently convincing reason not to, and personally i've been somewhat uncomfortable whenever i've actually been around a firearm), its more the practicality that i think is important. What would certain things actually necessitate, how effective would they actually be, what would actually be effective to get the desired result i think is more important than only (and consistently) questioning if getting rid of a certain type of object will curb a certain type of action.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52868094]Well, yeah, unless i'm severely mistaken its generally pretty rare outside of those kinds of inner city environments. Its still probably more, but its not as high. Its more in the general ballpark. I might just be completely wrong on that, i dunno. That would never happen, not just because of like, public opinion on it, but also because of how its part of the bill of rights and whatnot, you'd need to hold an amendment convention which itself requires i believe a two-thirds majority vote in the house and senate (good look with that lmao), then you'd need three-fourths of all the states (38) to agree to it. Thats also relying on people to actually turn them in. [editline]7th November 2017[/editline] Well, aside from recreational activities and sport, theres also self defense and hunting. Self defense is self explanatory, but the hunting is necessary in a number of states to help control certain animal populations like deer.[/QUOTE] I know it will never happen, but you asked what people would do policy wise, and that is my answer. Self defence is a silly reason though, because you are more likely to die as a result of owning a gun when in a dispute. Hunting is a legitimate use, but it is rare and not all that important other than as a hobby. Look, I think guns are really cool and would definitely fire one at a range for fun if I went to America, but I feel a lot safer in Britain, where even 99% of police don't have firearms, yet we still shot dead that terrorist fucker within 6 minutes of the emergency number being dialled.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52868118]I know it will never happen, but you asked what people would do policy wise, and that is my answer.[/QUOTE] I suppose, its just that its not that simple is all. [QUOTE=Dan The Man;52868118]Self defence is a silly reason though, because you are more likely to die as a result of owning a gun in a dispute. Hunting is a legitimate use, but it is rare and not all that important other than as a hobby.[/QUOTE] From what i understand, generally having a firearm for self defense is enough to curb say a home invader, not even firing it. It also seems like a hard thing to document since it'd require recording stuff that didnt happen alongside stuff thats justifiable, its weird. Iunno, i wouldnt have one for that purpose personally, a knife or big stick is good enough. [QUOTE=Dan The Man;52868118]Look, I think guns are really cool and would definitely fire one at a range for fun if I went to America, but I feel a lot safer in Britain, where even 99% of police don't have firearms, yet we still shot dead that terrorist fucker within 6 minutes of the emergency number being dialled.[/QUOTE] Different strokes for different folks, at the end of the day. Or different legislations for different nations, but that doesnt have the same ring to it. Needs to be contextual and tailored to the specific needs of where stuff is at, i feel. Its good it works for Britain, but i'm unsure if a similar method of attack would be effective in the states.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52868132]I suppose, its just that its not that simple is all. From what i understand, generally having a firearm for self defense is enough to curb say a home invader, not even firing it. It also seems like a hard thing to document since it'd require recording stuff that didnt happen alongside stuff thats justifiable, its weird. Iunno, i wouldnt have one for that purpose personally, a knife or big stick is good enough. Different strokes for different folks, at the end of the day. Or different legislations for different nations, but that doesnt have the same ring to it. Needs to be contextual and tailored to the specific needs of where stuff is at, i feel. Its good it works for Britain, but i'm unsure if a similar method of attack would be effective in the states.[/QUOTE] It is pretty simple to demonstrate that firearms increase the likelihood of a gun owner's death in the case of a home invasion. You simply investigate how often those with and without guns die during one. In one-off cases, that would be a spurious statistic, but with enough data one can make fairly reliable predictions about probability.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52868118]Hunting is a legitimate use, but it is rare and not all that important other than as a hobby.[/QUOTE] going to disagree with this. hunting is very popular in the US, about 17 million people got hunting permits in 2016. it is also very important for managing deer populations. truth be told, a lot of the natural predators for deer had their populations decimated quite some time ago, and now humans have to pick up the slack. a government-run culling program would be incredibly expensive to run year after year, so it just makes more sense to sell permits to private citizens to let them do it for fun (and livelihood, for some). that way, the meat doesn't go to waste, the population stays in control, and the government actually makes money from it for further fish and wildlife management that they honestly would probably not get the funding for otherwise.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52868118]Hunting is a legitimate use, but it is rare and not all that important other than as a hobby.[/QUOTE] You have clearly never spent any time in rural America where varmint hunting is a necessity.

Even in England, farmers are allowed firearms- we just have a rigorous screening process, that's all. I totally understand that America wants to keep their guns; they're cool as fuck; I just feel like it is not worth the 35,000 deaths a year.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52868118]I know it will never happen, but you asked what people would do policy wise, and that is my answer. Self defence is a silly reason though, because you are more likely to die as a result of owning a gun when in a dispute.[/QUOTE] Do you have a source on this? I'm genuinely curious, as I've always been under the impression that a well trained and armed person would typically be quite successful in preventing themselves from being killed by an attacker.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;52869229]Do you have a source on this? I'm genuinely curious, as I've always been under the impression that a well trained and armed person would typically be quite successful in preventing themselves from being killed by an attacker.[/QUOTE] I imagine somebody well trained would, but most gun owners probably don't have a tonne of experience. I don't have a source though mate, sorry. It is something I have heard a few times, but can't put my finger on where and am not sure exactly what I would search for to find it, as it is quite a granular set of variables. I know this is trite, but if we need a test to be able to drive, can't there be a test for getting gun ownership rights? I would be fine with that compromise.

I'm just gonna chime in on the self defense point here (and maybe bite off a bit more): [IMG]http://wp.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/injury-rate-by-self-defense-means.png[/IMG] In addition, based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[24] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[25] A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons across the U.S. found: 34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.” 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun.” 69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.” And as to the point of gun ownership increasing the risk of death for the owner, this explains why that statistic is really misleading. [URL]http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times[/URL] And I really dislike the idea of sweeping gun control, because not only does it use the 35,000 statistic (which is 2/3rds suicides, as well as including justifiable homicides) I just don't see how it's right to restrict everyone's freedoms because of criminal hotspots. And yes, the majority of gun violence does come from a very small portion of the country ([URL]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-01/51-murders-us-come-just-2-counties[/URL]) so why should we, the law abiding citizens of America, be held responsible and punished by having our rights and freedoms restricted for the actions of a very small number of criminals, whom the new laws proposed wouldn't even affect? But hey, if gun violence is an issue, and the police encounter firsthand much of it, then surely they would support more gun control, right? Wrong! (thumbed because huge, open in new tab and zoom in) [t]https://i.imgur.com/q5DyITN.jpg[/t] Sources / More info if interested: [URL]http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#intro[/URL] [URL]http://www.gunfacts.info/[/URL] [URL]https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime-resources[/URL] [URL]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls[/URL] [URL]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-states-with-higher-gun-ownership-dont-have-more-gun-murders/article/2573353[/URL]

it always baffles me that we have this national outrage and uproar every time this happens about "assault rifles" needing desperately to be banned 300 deaths a year are attributed to rifles. 300, that's it. heart disease and obesity killed 600,000. but we're kicking and screaming over 300 (most of which were gang related, surprise surprise). our priorities absolutely fucking baffle me

[QUOTE=Whibble;52869338]it always baffles me that we have this national outrage and uproar every time this happens about "assault rifles" needing desperately to be banned 300 deaths a year are attributed to rifles. 300, that's it. heart disease and obesity killed 600,000. but we're kicking and screaming over 300 (most of which were gang related, surprise surprise). our priorities absolutely fucking baffle me[/QUOTE] The funny thing is that number includes all rifles, so "assault weapons", and hunting rifles, and even 10/22's. And that number has been steadily decreasing over the past years, in 2014 (the last year measured by the FBI), there were only 248 rifle deaths, while during that same year, edged weapons killed 1,567 and hands/fists/feet killed 660. ([URL="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls"]sauce[/URL])

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52869328]I'm just gonna chime in on the self defense point here (and maybe bite off a bit more): [IMG]http://wp.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/injury-rate-by-self-defense-means.png[/IMG] In addition, based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[24] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[25] A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons across the U.S. found: 34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.” 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun.” 69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.” And as to the point of gun ownership increasing the risk of death for the owner, this explains why that statistic is really misleading. [URL]http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times[/URL] And I really dislike the idea of sweeping gun control, because not only does it use the 35,000 statistic (which is 2/3rds suicides, as well as including justifiable homicides) I just don't see how it's right to restrict everyone's freedoms because of criminal hotspots. And yes, the majority of gun violence does come from a very small portion of the country ([URL]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-01/51-murders-us-come-just-2-counties[/URL]) so why should we, the law abiding citizens of America, be held responsible and punished by having our rights and freedoms restricted for the actions of a very small number of criminals, whom the new laws proposed wouldn't even affect? But hey, if gun violence is an issue, and the police encounter firsthand much of it, then surely they would support more gun control, right? Wrong! (thumbed because huge, open in new tab and zoom in) [t]https://i.imgur.com/q5DyITN.jpg[/t] Sources / More info if interested: [URL]http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#intro[/URL] [URL]http://www.gunfacts.info/[/URL] [URL]https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime-resources[/URL] [URL]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls[/URL] [URL]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-states-with-higher-gun-ownership-dont-have-more-gun-murders/article/2573353[/URL][/QUOTE] I'm at work right now so I can't really do a full time response to everything but that police survey thing is pretty much entirely irrelevant. They're not scientists working on the statistics. Question 20: 75% of them answered confident or very confident that a legally armed populace reduces gun crime, while: [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/[/url] [QUOTE]Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that [B]for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.[/B][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.csus.edu/faculty/m/fred.molitor/docs/firearms%20and%20violent%20crime.pdf[/url] [QUOTE]Results: Higher levels of firearm ownership were associated with higher levels of firearm assault and firearm robbery. There was also a significant association between firearm ownership and firearm homicide, [B]as well as overall homicide[/B].[/QUOTE] Question 16: They said that gun buyback programs are ineffective (when handled lazily, like the US does), while: (This is Australia after the huge national buyback thing they did.) [url]http://ftp.iza.org/dp4995.pdf[/url] [QUOTE]To preview our results, we find that the withdrawal of 3500 guns per 100,000 individuals reduced the firearm suicide rate by close to 80 per cent, and had no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. Estimates of the effect on firearm homicides are less precise, but point estimates suggest the firearm homicide rate also dropped by a substantial proportion. [/QUOTE] (Australia again) [url]http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/Lemieuxijcjs2014vol9issue1.pdf[/url] [QUOTE] For example the study conducted by Leigh and Neill (2010) found that the buybacks contributed to a decline in the firearm suicide rates by almost 80% with no significant effect on non- firearm death rates. [B]The effect on firearm homicides followed a similar correlation[/B].[/QUOTE] Question 15: Law enforcement officers saying they won't enforce the law is more worrying than anything to do with gun violence or law. Question 10: Mental health checks would probably not reduce homicide rate: They're actually correct there. Gun ownership is the problem, not mental health. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/#__sec1title[/url] [QUOTE]Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum,25 less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness. Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Belying Lott’s argument that “more guns” lead to “less crime,”52 Miller et al. found that homicide was more common in areas where household firearms ownership was higher.53 Siegel et al. found that states with [B]high rates of gun ownership had disproportionately high numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides[/B].54 Webster’s analysis uncovered that the [B]repeal of Missouri’s background check[/B] law led to an additional 49 to 68 murders per year,55 and the rate of interpersonal conflicts resolved by fatal shootings [B]jumped by 200% after Florida passed “stand your ground” in 2005[/B][/QUOTE] Question 7: [url]https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/CBC%20White%20Paper%20Final%20Report%20022013.pdf[/url] [QUOTE]The dual system of firearm commerce in the United States, in which [B]perhaps 40% of all transfers are anonymous and undocumented[/B], facilitates firearm acquisition by prohibited persons and purchasers with criminal intent. It is an important contributor to the prevalence of firearm violence in the United States. Comprehensive background check requirements apply the safeguards that have long been in place for firearm sales by licensed retailers to transfers by private parties. They restore a simple, single, equitable structure to retail commerce in firearms. [B]They have been shown to be feasible, and the best available evidence is that they provide many concrete benefits. [/B]The United States should adopt a comprehensive background check requirement for firearm transfers. [/QUOTE] So yknow, the actual research and evidence shows that [B]beat cops and police sergeants are wrong lol.[/B] Question 6 is obvious since it's gun ownership that's the problem, not magazine size. Magazine size only affects mass murderers. So is question 5. I used to think that banning assault weapons would have a significant effect, but research shows that the effect is negligible. So my position has hardened from "Civilians shouldn't be able to own assault rifles" to "the vast majority of civilians shouldn't be allowed to own any guns"