Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL IV (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And create a national gun regisry (6+ / 0-)

    My DailyKos diary explains this and provides a link to my petition on WhiteHouse.gov.

    Every little step increases gun safety in America.

    •  There is no gun control that has ever been passed (0+ / 0-)

      in the US that has been shown to reduce gun crime one iota.
      'Every little step' does nothing but lose elections for Dems.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:27:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And your solution is? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Story Teller
        'Every little step' does nothing but lose elections for Dems.
        If "every little step" loses elections for Democrats, maybe it's time to go big and see where it takes us.  If, as you believe, Democrats will lose, why not go for broke?  
      •  What? This is absolutely incorrect. (3+ / 0-)
        There is no gun control that has ever been passed in the US that has been shown to reduce gun crime one iota.
        I take it you're basing this off of NRA 'science'? Because even with the limited ability to study the problem (because the NRA has managed to cut off all funding), there are a number of obvious success stories. Just one example: usage of assault weapons in mass shootings declined dramatically during the years of the assault weapons ban. Which caused mass shootings to be less deadly. And since the expiration, they've come back, and mass shootings are more deadly again.

        Of course, this isn't 'proof', because it's just statistical. Just like the 'proof' that smoking causes cancer, just like the 'proof' that poor diet causes health problems, and so on. The only way that your statement is true is if you deny that statistical modeling is a valid method of study.

        And if you do that, then there is literally no way to know whether gun laws could possibly work. And no way to know whether anti-poverty programs could possibly work. (After all, if we use one, and a lot fewer people are poor, it might have just happened anyway by itself, right?) And no way to know whether anything we do has a measurable effect on anything.

        •  It is correct. Gun Control has never been shown to (0+ / 0-)

          reduce crime in the USA.

          A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

          In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.

           John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans. The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban. Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.  Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

          The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the AWB and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence,"

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:55:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "More guns, less crime" seems like an impartial (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Laconic Lib, Mathazar

            source. Makes sense to me.

            I'm going to go check up on President Obama in "Socialist Nazi Kenyan Marxist Quarterly."

            When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

            by PhillyJeff on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:16:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Center for Disease Control, USDOJ are there (0+ / 0-)

              also if you don't like the title of John Lott's researched book.
              The conclusion of the evidence led to the title, not vise versa.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:19:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site