Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
There would be less gun violence if we had slightly more restrictions. It's been proven. At this point, it's a debate between our rights to bear arms and safety. Putting some more restrictions on buying arms doesn't make the US a country void of rights. It means that there's more restrictions of buying firearms.
No, it hasn't been proven. In fact, the largest plurality of criminology studies shows that it has no effect (the next largest is the "more guns, less crime"
. Some ER doctor publishing a flawed study in a medical journal, where it isn't peer reviewed by experts in the subject, or simply not peer reviewed at all. At best, these studies are examples of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The last restrictions did nothing, slightly more will do nothing. If it were that simple, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela would be less violent. Two have stricter gun laws than the UK, the other completely bans private ownership.
"studies" by any advocacy groups should be closely scrutinized if not dismissed out of hand.
Worldwide, there is no correlation between gun ownership, or gun laws, and crime. There is with the GINI Coefficient, a very strong one at that.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read