Why not watch it yourself? At point approx 12 minutes he analyses the effects of the national firearms agreement and whether we can say the decrease in gun deaths was causation or merely correlation
From 1993 to 2014 the US homicide rate declined from 9.5 to 4.4, a decline of 54%. https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm Without confiscation.
and with millions upon millions of semi auto firearms being bought by Americans and with the number of states that allowed citizens to carry firearms legally went from some to many
why should I care about his claims. What are his credentials that a professional such as me should care about.
Sorry I don’t bow to Brandolinis law why should I do your work for you? You want to refute it YOU a research it md get back to me
the real bullshit is arguing by proxy and finding some nobody with a 21 minute youtube video and telling us to watch it rather than making your own points. It would be akin to me telling your to read Sanford Levinson's seminal law review article on the second amendment Yale Law Journal 1989 and leave it at that. BTW the burden is on people who want to tell citizens of a country they don't even live in that our rights should be curtailed. Your posts completely fail that burden daily and you keep missing the essential point. EVEN IF YOU COULD prove your claims that unconstitutional Australian nanny state laws might make us safer, that doesn't rebut our arguments that our rights are more important than the ephemeral increase in safety that comes from leftwing authoritarian measures
there is nothing to refute since you didn't make the argument. the duty is on you to make an argument and then support it with credible sources. some nobody with no credentials bloviating on youtube is not support.
It is like some have memorized the inaccurate phrase or talking slogan : and repeat it as if it were fact and how about all those accidental shootings?? If the gun had not been present, they would have been avoided. Those that say, if guns are removed.....peple will find and use other objects as weapons. This raises the question of why are peple in some countries prone to so much violence?? (excluding those barbarian's that stay in a constant state of war)
Here is the question you all never can answer. there are 400 million guns in the USA. our police and military buy millions each year. CNC machinery and 3D printers get better and better and cheaper and cheaper. we have a border that cannot keep millions of dangerous terrorists and felons out of the USA. How are you going to get rid of guns? and what violence would it take to even attempt to do that?
Thats part of the problem. We don't have very good numbers on it. Partially because its really hard to measure how often something was going to happen and then didn't. But there is virtually no effort to even try to find a range either. The last attempt was a random phone survey that indicated DGUs to be over a million per year. But random phone surveys have a very high margin of error and scores of other problems. But that has been the only notable attempt to determine how often crimes are prevented by the mere suspicion of the presence of guns for some decades. Prior to that, back in the 80s iirc, a DOJ survey of incarcerated felons found the majority of them reported having avoided crime in the past when an intended victim turned out to be armed, and a large minority reported the same merely at the suspicion that the intended victim might be armed. So clearly it does happen, and we don't have any good idea of how often. But even without these studies, logic dictates that criminals, being human, will often avoid crime when they want to avoid a perceived dangerous target, and instead go after a target who is perceived to be not dangerous or less dangerous. Most criminals are not psychopaths seeking the thrill of violence, they're just looking for the quickest, easiest, low risk money. An armed victim is neither quick nor easy, and a big risk. And there has been some study into how criminals profile their victims. Not a lot, its kindof new, but there's been far more study on this than how often firearms prevent crime... Criminals tend to look for victims who, for lack of a batter term, 'don't seem have their **** together.' They look for a nonsynchronous gait, lack of fluid motion, wistfulness or inattentiveness to surroundings, all the things that (unsurprisingly) a predator in the wild would use to determine which deer is the easiest to catch and eat. Now, it could be that carrying a gun simply tends to have a psychological effect on the bearer that subconsciously changes how they move and makes then seem like less obvious prey. Given the subjective nature of how criminals profile, I'd say this is likely part of it. But also its clear that violent person on person attacks for money, such as muggings and random assault happen a lot more often in places where people are known to less often be armed. It would be silly to suggest that simple self preservation on the criminal's part has nothing to do with this. It seems to me that before we go about trying to reduce the amount of guns in civilian hands to reduce violence, we should get a better idea of how much violence is already reduced by having guns in civilian hands. Because its not none.
Who exactly are people with weapons afraid of?? You mention the border and the" undesirables" trying to get into the US. How does gun ownership help with that issue??
Kudos! That is a well articulated and thought out post. another question that comes to mind is :How often are these criminals mentally disturbed??? Resorting to crime is an act of despair or poor impulse control.and certainly poor judgement.
Probably somewhere between most and all. But then again, what exactly is 'mentally distrubed'? Is it just what is detailed in the most recent version of the DSM, or could we consider anyone willing to commit violence against their fellow for mere dollars as 'mental illness'? Either way, even the mentally ill, with rare exception, will tend to take self preservation into account when assessing options. Instincts that basic don't come unwired easily.
Actually the numbers are pretty bloody poor supporting DGU - Defensive Gun Use. There were a couple of so called “researchers” who put out flawed papers a while back but even they could not maintain the farce Let’s look at one aspect
Actually there have been more than a few research papers on this - it is just that the findings do not align with what the NRA would like to see. Having said that there are difficulties in measuring DGUs https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/defensive-gun-use.html It depends too on how you categorise DGU https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-022-00384-8
Thats actually not what I was talking about at all. Yes, it does depend heavily on how you categorize Defensive Gun Use. What I'm talking about is the overall tendency for criminals to hesitate in even targetting someone who is or simply may be armed. For example- a criminal considers mugging a random guy walking down the street alone after dark. But something doesn't feel right. Maybe the guy has a strange bulge on the side of his hip under his coat. Maybe he's looking off to his side a little too frequently. Maybe the random guy's stride suggests he's confident and feels secure in his safety for more reason than nothing. Maybe the criminal had an accomplice who recently had a gun pulled on him by one of his intentded victims. Whatever it is, the criminal decides this guy might be more trouble than his wallet is worth, and the criminal moves on to find more obvious victim. And lets say that guy DID end up to be carrying a gun. Was that a 'Defensive Gun Use'? Crime was prevented. A gun was involved. It wasn't exactly 'used' and the random guy never knew anything was about to maybe happen, so there's nothing to report, catalogue or analyze. And surely this happens to some extent. But what do we call it, how often does it happen, and how less often will it happen if the criminals know this random guy isn't allowed to carry a gun? Its worth noting that even if this random guy wasn't carrying a gun, the mere idea that he might be still has some deterence effect on the criminal who simply doesn't know. If none of us can carry guns (or none of us choose to), many more criminals will be happy to assume this average guy is not armed, and that deterence will have been negated. It would be useful to have an idea of just how much deterence effect there is here before we go banning this and that.
Those are all questions that she will never answer and if she does she will say that such things never happen..... Or if they do they're so exceedingly rare that they are unicorn farts and then she will blame the NRA on manufacturing those... Or possibly just complain about my post
