Do Studies Show Gun Control Works?

Posted on by

Don’t get mad and leave until you get into the good stuff at about 1:38 into the video.

Share

7 thoughts on “Do Studies Show Gun Control Works?”

  1. Wow, that was cool. Now do health care.
    If we get rid of all guns, there would be less gun violence!
    If we got rid of taxes, we would have more money in our pockets too.
    This is the danger of politics and so called “professionalism”. And it’s totally obvious that when it comes to modern studies. You get the results you pay for.
    Something else that nobody wants to talk about is demographics.
    If I removed black and brown people from the equation, would the results be different?
    If I removed certain areas from the equation what would that change?
    And then finally the big one nobody talks about. Does anyone inside government have the authority to enforce any of these gun laws?
    Well, not under any rubric of legalism in this country. they don’t.
    But since when has black letter law ever stop a lawyer? Or worse a whole gaggle of them, all brainwashed to think alike. And all sitting in positions of power.
    Commies are going to commie. Till they’re forced to sit down, shut up, and/or go away.

    • I am guessing as to where you are going but let civil war kick off in some country with repressive gun control and see how many guns suddenly appear. The Troubles in N Ireland are one example and hey there are always bombs and knife jihads

      • I believe what he’s implying by “Define ‘work’…” is that so-called “gun control” laws are not, in fact, about reducing “gun violence” or “gun death,” but instead about controlling people by rendering them defenseless.

        After all, if the people are defenseless against criminals, they are also defenseless against government tyrants (i.e. criminals in uniforms).

        The question is, what is the real motive? IOW, are “gun control” laws actually intended to reduce violence and homicide, despite the lack of evidence that they do so? OR is the true intent to create a dependent population incapable of resisting criminal activity — whether from street gangsters or government agents — and “reducing violence and homicide” just the excuse given for enacting it?

        Those 27,000+ “studies” fail to draw any solid conclusions over whether “gun control” reduces violence or homicides, but the Left continues to want to pass more despite that lack of evidence. And historically, weapon bans and confiscations are the precursors to every authoritarian government and every genocide on the planet, dating back to Biblical times.

        If the goal of “gun control” is to reduce violence and homicides, they plainly don’t work as intended; that’s the only reasonable conclusion borne out by all those “studies” if looked at honestly. OTOH, if the true goal of “gun control” is to create a defenseless, dependent population, then such laws “work” fantastically.

        So… Define “work”….

        (As an aside: The video didn’t address it, but you also might notice a paucity of “studies” looking at the issue from the other direction: the study “question” is always “Does ‘gun control’ save lives?” and never “Do ‘gun rights’ save lives?” or “Does ‘gun control’ cost lives?”)

  3. As he hints, this is true of all social science research. Dig into the flawed research that was at the core of Brown v Board of Education. Or look at the replication problem in peer reviewed research in general.

    • The “peer review” process is fundamentally broken. It’s intended to ensure academic rigor and sound methodology in studies, but an author’s “peers” are more likely to “approve” a paper on ideological grounds — because it reaches the “right” conclusion — than do a deep dive into the methodology to make sure it’s academically rigorous and sound.

      That’s how we got mountains of “junk science” and 27,000+ papers on “gun control” that don’t pass muster.

      (I think this blog has posted on the “peer review” topic in the past.)

Comments are closed.