The Science is Settled: Gun Laws Do Not Reduce Violent Crime or Suicides

Again why truncate the study at six years?

 

Seems strange you claim to have debunked me, but won’t produce the evidence you did.

And, you will have to explaine what you mean with your last statement as I have no clue what you are on about.

 

Gun control schemes including gun bans make guns more valuable to criminals for rather obvious reasons.
More proof:

“This week the West Midlands was labelled “the nation’s gun crime capital” as figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that the region now has a higher rate of firearms offences for its population than London.”
THE GUARDIAN, UK's 'gun crime capital': rancour and regret over West Midlands label, Josh Halliday, 2/20/2015.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...l-rancour-and-regret-over-west-midlands-label

 

You keep waving the CDC report around as if it is some sort of validation when ALL it is is a review on current research and suggestions for future research

Tell me again what it is purported to “prove”

 

That is actually proof of gun control working. When simply having an illegal firearm can have you arrested then what can happen is that crooks are locked up before they commit crimes

 

In the united states, it is already illegal for prohibited individuals to possess firearms, regardless of the means used in acquiring them. If a prohibited individual is found in possession of a firearm, that is a federal-level felony offense and qualifies them for a minimum five year sentence, even if they did not commit any other crime at the time. It is not even that difficult to prove in a court of law that the offense actually occurred.

Why is such ultimately not producing any measurable good? Why are so many illegal possession charges being dropped rather than pursued in the united states?

 

In fact, it proves that gun control schemes including gun bans disarm the law abiding and encourage criminals to obtain guns and other illegal weapons that give them a decisive advantage when committing crimes.

"People are very concerned about the level of firearms availability and firearms offences," Commander Dick told The Independent on Sunday. "I don't think we do know enough about supply, either in terms of the sources or the volume. We need to know moreto suppress it."

Some of the guns brought into the UK are weapons beloved of gun fanatics: machine pistols such as Uzis, and semi-automatics including the ubiquitous AK-47.

But in recent years Customs officers have seen an increase in the number of weapons smuggled in from Central and Eastern Europe. These include dozens of east European Uzi-style pistols.

Hand grenades and Semtex, too, have been intercepted. Customs seized nearly 300 handguns, rifles and shotguns being brought in illegally last year."
THE INDEPENDENT, Up to 4m guns in UK and police are losing the battle
'IoS' investigation: Another week, another horrific shooting. The culture of illegal firearms is running out of control, By Sophie Goodchild and Paul Lashmar, 3/10/18.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-and-police-are-losing-the-battle-310182.html

 

Is there anything more recent than fourteen years ago?

 

Aside from the study being a bit more than just a review of research, a review of existing research, a good deal research often cited as ‘proofs’ of the effectiveness of gun control laws and not accepting those conclusions but identifying where more data and research is needed indicates the conclusions drawn in those studies weren’t accepted as the truth the GCA’s would have us believe, rather there, “was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”
If there is anything it proves, it is the following;
That the popular narrative that the CDC has been prevented from doing gun related research by the NRA is a deliberate lie, or at the best a severely misleading narrative.

Beyond that,

Disregarding where the following summary came from (not material because it can be fact checked), the report findings, summarized, were,
https://www.guns.com/news/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results

If there was any notable aspect, it was,
“In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes. “ Virtually, every argument presented for gun control in this forum was examined in the study, and those still advocated by GCA’s, do not have the facts, beyond hopeful, speculation, to support them at this point, and they can be dissected by reading the sections in the report pertaining to them.

The conclusion contradicts many in this forum claiming various existing studies, such as those from Harvard ‘prove’ effective in reducing gun violence. The science, as a couple of posters has suggested, is not overwhelming. Rather, the questions and suggestions for further research are indicative of a few things. There are no Simple remedies (like specific laws, restrictions or gun bans) that can be supported as effective in reducing gun violence give the complexities of the compounding factors and the areas suggested for further research. The questions themselves, indicate none of the anti-gun advocate claims stemming from existing research are definitive. That the study makes no policy recommendations is a conclusion of it’s own.

Rather than the continual rehashing of the arguments/claims continually being posted, I would suggest using the report as a staring point for discussion regarding existing research.

An entirely separate set of issues are the questions related to the Constitutional questions.

 

Wow! Let me stop you right there

First point that the NRA prevented gun research debunked

Continue

“Guns.com??? Bias much??

Yes it says more research is required. It is a scientific report what do you expect? I do note however you edging away from some of the claims your guns.com made - that it “proves” defensive gun use is more common than criminal use - that claim alone proves that neither you nor the author READ the report because that is very definitely not what it states. It throws a lot of doubt on the research, especially Kleck’s research

There IS no “conclusion” so want to read it again

 

Guns, grenades and explosives always available for criminals in the UK.

"Three AK-47 assault rifles, a sub machine gun and two shotguns were recovered
Handguns, hundreds of round of ammunition and 22 grenades were also found
Stolen cars, several kilos of class A drugs were also recovered from the scene"
THE DAILY MAIL, Armed police seize deadly arsenal of AK47s, shotguns and grenades along with stolen cars and stash of Class A drugs during raid on Essex farm, By DARREN BOYLE, UPDATED: 13:22 EDT, 27 March 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sault-rifles-22-hand-grenades-Essex-farm.html

 

That is certainly more recent.

 

Guns are easier to move around than drugs - dogs can't detect them.

"Pictured: Terrifying arsenal of 500 guns seized from parish council chairman who hoarded Britain's biggest ever collection of illegal firearms including a BAZOOKA "

THE DAILY MAIL, It is the biggest arsenal of illegal weapons ever found in the United Kingdom and has been revealed for the first time, By ANTHONY JOSEPH, 19 February 2016.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-chairman-collected-firearms-like-stamps.html

 

How did the NRA prevent gun research particularly since the Dickey amendment didn’t prohibit gun related violence research? The Dickey Amendment prohibited research using public funds for research with an agenda for advocating gun control by the CDC which was not a ban on conducting research on gun violence nor from such research being funded from other sources as was the study which was the object of this report.

Their bias in this case is in material as I prefaced when posting the link. That link was a path to the text of the report allowing anyone to fact check their summary. Should I have instead only quoted anything from Bon Appetite? We are talking about the ‘Report’ not the views of Guns.com...it provides the link to the actual report.

As an aside, it’s one thing to accept study conducted by or funded by a biased source, but when looking for valid critique, often the best place to look are opposition sources doing reviews. I have have published many works that have been publically criticized by others having vested interests and have had no issue letting the debate play out publically. I have been proven (and admitted being wrong), the opposite has happened, and sometimes new insights nobody foresaw emerged from debates I have had...that’s part of science and discovery. Nobody is served if there is only agreement and ideas aren’t tested...’the Titanic can’t be Sunk’. If you don’t have the stomach for it, science...or politics isn’t for you.

It’s not a claim I have ever made regarding the report.

As for what is said, this is the complete section pertaining to the discussion of DGUs

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration. “

Saying it casts doubt “Especially” on Kelck’s work is, in my opinion, disingenuous characterization as if it suggests more doubt than of others. But, folks can read the above and make their own judgements.

Page 10 of the report... big letters ‘CONCLUSION’.

As for the ‘more questions”... a repeated narrative by many GCA’s and posters over the last couple weeks have suggested those not accepting ‘Harvard’ studies as anti gun truth, or that the ‘science is overwhelming’, the report examines many, if not most of the studies from which conclusions being lauded by GCUs in support of their agendas and finds insufficient evidence to support them, rather, suggests additional research, improvements in data for analysis, and frames relevant research questions. If, beyond the section, titled CONCLUSION, anyone is looking for conclusions in the examination of the literature by the Committee addressing each topic such as Effectiveness of Gun Legislation, or any other remedy championed for mitigating gun violence by GCAs, each section is summarized by a conclusion of insufficient data, insufficient research, or as ‘inconclusive’, all of which cast doubt on any claims the fixes suggested by GCAs will be effective... the opposite of what Obama hoped would emerge from the Committee.... then, perhaps the NRA coerced that result.

 

Change my mind ...

 

Guns keep crime and suicides up.

 

There is no actual evidence to demonstrate the validity of such a claim. Even if there was, there is no evidence that would show, conclusively, that it is legally owned firearms that are a part of the problem as opposed to illegally possessed firearms by those who are prohibited from firearms ownership.

 

Having guns, keeps gun deaths up. Turn America into an Australia and take the vast majority of guns away, gun crime will be virtually wiped out, just like it is in Australia. Unless you think gun deaths in Australia are soaring to dizzy heights.

 

The above is nothing more than a statement devoid of fact and based heavily on ignorance of human nature. There is no way of removing firearms from the equation, or existence, so there is no legitimate point in even discussing such as if it were a valid argument. This is especially the case in the united states, with more privately owned firearms than are possessed in any other country in the world. Even if it could possibly done through as-of-yet unexplained means, the united states cannot be like the nation of Australia because it is not an island isolated from the rest of the world, but rather is land-locked with the nation of Mexico, regarded as being the most violent and corrupt nation in the entire world.

Even if firearm-related crimes could be "wiped out" as is being claimed by yourself, it would simply be replaced with all other manner of crimes and violence, thus meaning no significant or meaning change would have occurred. The implement of choice would simply be shifted to a different available implement.