1. Gun violence research is not “illegal in America”, there’s currently a ban on the CDC doing gun violence research because studies they’ve already conducted, including the one initiated by Obama by Executive Order, do not support the constant claims the left makes about firearms gun violence that purportedly demand such funding/research. Harvard conducted similar a studies you also probably didn’t hear about due to their findings contradicting the anti-gun agenda, published back in 2007. There’s no sense repeatedly wasting tax dollars on something we already no in the hopes gun control proponents will eventually get the answers they want.
2. There absolutley no correlation in the US between gun ownership rates and the rates of both murder and mass shootings.
3. From 2ndamendmentfight.com
“The empirical data for suicide rates overall in the U.S. compared to gun sales rates do not logically support the idea that less guns results in less suicide. Gun sales have skyrocketed over recent years (with estimates ranging from 310 to 350 million), while suicide rates in the U.S. have plummeted. We have more guns and less suicide, which is the exact opposite correlation from the false narrative promoted by gun control advocates like Obama. Finally, on an international level, many nations with very strict gun control have much higher suicide rates than the U.S. does, which cannot be attributed to more guns in those nations. Japan, for instance, which virtually no gun ownership and no gun homicides but almost double the U.S. suicide rate. Australia, which is frequently referred to as a shining example of gun control in a developed nation, has higher suicide per capita than the U.S. does (13.8 per 100k vs 10.1 per 100k in the U.S.). The data does not support the claim that fewer guns results in less suicide. A Harvard-published study of 36 developed nations by professors Kates and Mauser found there is no link between gun availability and suicide rates.”
4. Australia’s facade as a shining example of gun control is just that, a facade:
University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”
“Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”
A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate.
The Australian gun-homicide rate had already been quite low and had been steadily falling in the 15 years prior to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. And while the mandatory buyback program did appear to reduce the rate of accidental firearm deaths, Baker and McPhedran found that “the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”
discoholicmusic
areudirty
tangentwithtanner
baratheonpilled
izzy806
andulkaphoto
ellievsbear
