New research suggests mass shootings might be the grim outlier when it comes to the effectiveness of gun laws.
“I don’t know if there is a law that can be enacted related to mass shootings that would prevent them. Though I’d also say that doesn’t mean such laws aren’t useful, or that having scientific evidence that a law would work should be why it should or shouldn’t be (enacted),” said Andrew Morral, a behavioral scientist at the RAND Corporation and co-author of The Science of Gun Policy project, an ongoing study launched in 2018 that issued its third update earlier this month. …
In their research, Morral and other RAND scientists track thousands of studies looking at how different types of gun laws affect everything from gun violence, such as homicides and suicides, to the price of guns and the legal use of guns, such as self-defense, hunting and sport shooting. Though such research is relatively new – in part because from 1992 to 2018 federal funding was not allowed to be used to collect gun violence data – RAND’s study of the studies has found some patterns.
For example, studies show that gun-related violent crime is more common in communities with “stand your ground” laws and in communities that make it easy to carry concealed weapons. Also, stricter rules about storing and locking up guns, known as “child access prevention laws,” may reduce violent crime, suicide and accidents – but possibly at the cost of making it harder to use guns for self-defense.
But RAND didn’t find a lot of strong research into how laws prevent mass shootings. Though Morral said there is “limited” evidence that banning the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines curtails mass shootings, he was quick to point out that “limited” is “our weakest evidence rating short of ‘inconclusive.’”
— Andre Mouchard and Tony Saavedra in The Press-Enterprise in Would Any Law Be Able to Prevent Mass Shootings?
Even uber liberal news like VICE has came to this realization. But of course there is still that group of entitled gentrificationists that believe they can solve cultural issues with their marketing skills and propaganda. The whole “no guns” thing is 100% a “vote for me” campaign. Nothing more and nothing less. The only people that are behind it have never once lived through a situation where they would have to defend themselves. They rely on others to protect them.
lanza would have scored higher if he stole the car keys and ran over hapless school kids like the guy who ran over parade goers with a motor vehicle. Of course there were no signs saying, The Problem Is Motor Vehicles because the sickos fixated on firearms forget they all possess those wheeled weapons of mass destruction that can be criminally misused like anything else.
Bottom line…History clearly tells us the solutions Gun Control zealots propose all circle back to being rooted in racism and genocide…Therefore only racists and nazis would want to proceed with Gun Control….That’s chiseled.
the only way to eliminate mass shootings is to eliminate the guns…and, despite their best efforts…we all know that is an impossibility….
adam lanza
was planning what he did
at msd high school
for 5 years
before he did it
if there were no guns
he was smart enough
to have procured for himself
some fertilizer and some diesel fuel
and done it that way
its a hard heart that kills
and america has been mass producing those
for decades
so until we figure out how to stop that
things are going get a lot worse
before they get any better
That’s the most unusual hiaku I’ve ever read.
“America has been mass producing [a hard heart that kills] for decades”
Bingo! You reap what you sow.
committing an immoral act of that magnitude was once out of the question for most people…still is to a large extent…but our self-centered society is allowing it to happen more often than before….the moral walls that once existed within all of us seem to have weakened for some…..
well then, they should pass it.
I absolutely love this: Though I’d also say that doesn’t mean such laws aren’t useful, or that having scientific evidence that a law would work should be why it should or shouldn’t be (enacted),” said Andrew Morral
And:
Still, Morral said a lack of scientific support for a particular gun law shouldn’t be a reason for legislators to abandon any effort to make it harder for mass killings. He noted that strong scientific support isn’t the threshold used in non-firearm legislation, and suggested gun research “shouldn’t be a substitute for common sense.”
“Trust the science, unless you don’t want to, whatever, I don’t care.”
And of course the favorable statistical comparison of a giant state filled with homogeneous rural emptiness to tiny states of packed cities.
Democracy is the abuse of statistics.
“Follow the science as long as it agrees with your heart.”
“Go Figure: Research Reveals There Isn’t a Law That Would Prevent Mass Shootings”
I just this morning basically made that same point > https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/after-two-mass-shootings-california-rep-judy-chu-demands-gun-control-laws-that-are-already-on-the-books/#comment-6370581
I’m glad it TTAG has shared this article, there’s several on point observations:
“For example, studies show that gun-related violent crime is more common in communities with “stand your ground” laws and in communities that make it easy to carry concealed weapons“
Once again Miner49er, your confirmation bias got ya.
“studies” thing was the article authors comments not the Rand study. Of course ‘studies’ show that, anti-gun studies always do, and they have all been debunked by Rand as junk science.
So the on point ‘observation’ is the article authors make a reference to these ‘studies’, without including they have been debunked, in an attempt to bolster what overall is a biased anti-gun article.
See this one: Study shows Democrat-run cities have highest homicide rates
https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-baltimore-detroit-study-shows-democrat-run-cities-highest-homicide-rates
IMHO, kinda falls into the “Yeah, no kidding!” category.
And then there is this one: California’s Share Of Mass Shootings Remains High Despite Strict Gun Laws
https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/24/california-accounts-mass-shootings-despite-gun-laws/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
It comes from Mother Jones, so take that with a grain of salt, or a box.
We’re they violent before the laws were passed in response to the violence or did they become violent after the laws were passed. All of my neighbors with con carry in whatever form didn’t see a notable increase after passage or during the 2 centuries they had unrestricted carry to begin with.
It is not easy for the populations of LA, Chicago, and NewYork to have concealed carry licenses.
March 20th for next major hearing in NY on this topic. If the state keeps screwing around we may get traditional Vermont gun laws as a historical analog. Well we can dream anyway.
Hey, here’s my impersonation of whiner…….
“sTuDeEz sHoWz….. 🤪”
🤣
Yeah whiner, everyone’s STILL laughing at your comments here on TTAG.
Thank you, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Too ignorant to insult.
👍
MINOR Miner49er. So what? It seems that the people with ‘Stand your ground laws” are prone to SELF DEFENSE and there are very few prosecutions.
Here is the READING MATERIAL that is the BASIS of this article.
Maybe you would like to review? https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088.html
would you feel safer in a back alley in West Virginia…or one in Chicago?
I know, pass a law that is specific to the mass killer something like no more than two murders in any one shooting since DON’T KILL anyone does not seem to work maybe that would get their attention…
Mad,
That’s funny because I could see these idiots doing exactly that! Stop giving them ideas! They could easily turn it on a victim taking out more than one criminal.
“because from 1992 to 2018 federal funding was not allowed to be used to collect gun violence data“
Oh yes, the ‘head in sand’ scientific method.
The intellectual equivalent to “Naa Naa, I can’t hear you!”
“because from 1992 to 2018 federal funding was not allowed to be used to collect gun violence data“
Then how do you explain the crime statistics published by the FBI and other federal agencies?
Oh, one more thing:
“CDC removed stats on defensive gun use over pressure from gun control activists —
The CDC commissioned the gun use study itself, but removed it last year” — Fox News
@Muiner49er
“because from 1992 to 2018 federal funding was not allowed to be used to collect gun violence data ….
Oh yes, the ‘head in sand’ scientific method.
The intellectual equivalent to “Naa Naa, I can’t hear you!”
100% false because its based on a false statement from these anti-gun biased authors.
“because from 1992 to 2018 federal funding was not allowed to be used to collect gun violence data”
is 100% false
1992 to 2018 federal funding was not allowed to be used to promote gun control. The research still continued on gun violence with federal funding.
The authors don’t want to mention that because the research (for at least two democrat presidents. Obama and Clinton) showed that law abiding gun owners in the millions annually used firearms for valid legal justified self/home defense – and one of the core things of anti-gun is to ‘re-write history’ so any trace of that doesn’t exist in the media or federally funded studies and their latest attempt to do that involves trying to remove such traces from CDC.
correction….not 1992
it didn’t start until federal Fiscal Year 1997 which started calendar October 1 1996. The federal fiscal year ends Sept 30 each year, the new fiscal year starts 1 October each year.
Huh thought it was only a ban on research for the express purpose of justifying the restricting of civil rights regarding firearms.
It was, it was a ban on federal funds being used to promote gun control. It did not ban the use of federal funds for gun violence research and indeed contrary to that lie stated by the article authors gun violence research did continue using federal funds.
Oh I know, state level research continued largely unhindered and you would barely believe how loose and fast we treat data to meet message goals……. even then the best we could show is gang bangers prefer pistols to rifle/shotgun/misc other and suicide is slightly more convenient with a firearm than overdose or a bridge/building in terms of simplifying the attempt. Citations are always fun to read in reports.
MINOR Miner49er. When Federal money is kept out, it also means that the conclusion will be a REAL conclusion that is based on all the facts, not cherry picked like dacian, the DUNDERHEAD’s “studies”.
“…studies show that gun-related violent crime is more common in communities with “stand your ground” laws and in communities that make it easy to carry concealed weapons. Also, stricter rules about storing and locking up guns, known as “child access prevention laws,” may reduce violent crime, suicide and accidents…”
If this is true, the authors of this drivel would have shown more credibility by actually citing them specifically as evidence. Their broad-based speculation can hardly be brought forward as real evidence, and flies in the face of real, and academically-accepted research by John Lott, Steven Halbrook, and others who have actually crunched the numbers. For all we know these two might be quoting Michael Bellesiles, which was utter, made-up BS. (I keep his once-celebrated, but quickly rejected book in my library, just for laughs.
It would appear that years of being presented with concocted garbage from “unnamed sources” by media and quasi-government sources have dulled the abilities of people like Minor 49er and others to analyze data and think things through for themselves.
What a pair of Maroons. “Gat crimes” are generally lower in Red states & cities than Blue states. They lie. Compare Chiraq to Indiana. Take out holes like Gary. Presto! They’re full of guano. Ban all you want.I won’t comply…
everybody knows where the bulk of the crime is…we see it every night on the news….
“…from 1992 to 2018 federal funding was not allowed to be used to collect gun violence data…”
They’re likely trying to refer to the Dickey Amendment, except
1) It prohibited the CDC from using federal money “to advocate or promote gun control”. It didn’t address any other organization’s use of federal funds (including for gun control advocacy), and it didn’t prohibit anyone collecting data on violence, including violence involving guns.
2) The prohibition didn’t start in 1992, it began in federal Fiscal Year 1997.
3) The prohibition remains, with the same language passed in every spending bill since. Since 2018, “the language in a report accompanying the Omnibus spending bill clarifies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can indeed conduct research into gun violence, but cannot use government appropriated funds to specifically advocate for gun control.” (Washington Post)
Every time they trod out that dead horse they’re essentially saying the quiet part out loud: that federal funds should be used to advocate for gun control.
Most people are too stupid to see the distinction and will fall for the con.
The proper response to any government demand for more money is fuckoff followed by what are you cutting to get it if it may actually be beneficial.
Money = power. The more funding they have, the more power they have. There’s a reason they just voted to give the alphabet agencies massive raises. We need to have a balanced budget amendment while also defunding multiple federal agencies.
Notice how their answer to every problem involves spending more money.
In an armed society mass shootings are prevented. I don’t know of any mass shootings that occurred during the 19th century. Because everyone had a gun. Unless the population was disarmed. Like the indian tribes at Wounded Knee.
But in an armed society, if someone started shooting, another person with a gun could pull a gun and kill that individual.
Shopping centers in Oregon and Indiana where good guys with guns we’re able to stop mass shooters.
I believe it was the James/Younger Gang, that was stopped in their bank robbery by civilians with guns. And that was 150 years ago.
The James/Younger Gang met their end on September 7, 1876 in Northfield, Minnesota when they attempted to rob the First National Bank………..https://www.northfieldhistory.org/the-bank-raid/
According to the article the towns people used mainly single shot rifles.
Strange back then there doesn’t seem to be any mention of the evil guns. The emphasis was on catching and prosecuting the crooks.
Modern day version you may want to see is, “Killing in a Small Town” starring Brian Dennehy which is about an actual killing in Wylie, Texas in 1980.
Correction; See “In Broad Daylight” instead.
Based on the death of Ken McElroy the town bully in Skidmore, Mo. in 1981.
No one was ever charged with the murder.
https://youtu.be/Q_A3N75uV-4
Sorry for the confusion. Brian Dennehy is a favorite of mine and I get titles mixed up at times.
took hollywood awhile to admit the truth about Northfield….the idea that ordinary citizens could defeat a bunch of lethal bad guys was something they were loathe to admit….
Wow, LA Sheriff Says Mass Shooter Didn’t Use An Assault Rifle, He Used An Assault Pistol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twzWDZcC37E
The sheriff just made a huge strategic mistake. “Handgun Control inc” in the 1970s wanted the confiscation, banning of all handguns. That didn’t sell very well back then. So they switched to complaining about long gun ownership. But they have always wanted handguns the most.
This is wonderful news. Now we can start with a debate that they really want to avoid. The banning of all guns regardless of their size.
They have crossed the Rubicon, and now they can’t go back.
magazine capacity seems to be the main issue….
Assault pistol–is that any pistol more powerful than my finger shooting a rubber band? I tell you, leftists are shameless liars and grifters.
My grandfather drove a delivery semi for a furniture factory, and they wrapped the pieces in big, thick pads that were like heavy quilts. They used large rubber bands to hold the pads in place. As kids, we figured out pretty quickly how to shoot those rubber bands so that they flew through the air like an arrow, and they left a pretty good welt. Those could be called “assault” rubber bands.
in a perfect world someone like Noir would be incharge of the NRA…not Wayne and his sleazeballs…
There isnt a law that can prevent mass shutezings.
There can be a law that prevents gunm possession.
There isn’t a law that could prevent gunm possession.
Felons cant possess firearmns.
? ? ?
The construction companies are going to get rich building prisons. Funeral Crematoriums will probably go broke, there is a point were volume depreciates expenditures. Gee theBiden wasn’t looking that far ahead when it raised the price of petroleum. Itd take a lot of juice to fry somebody to cinders. Soylent Green has a future if we can just get humans accustomed to it, eaten bugs could be a start.
Well anyway if they ban gunms I guess I’ll just have to be a felon for a little while.
That kinda sucks, I was so enjoying which direction Americas been headed under theBiden. DAMN.
“Gee theBiden wasn’t looking that far ahead when it raised the price of petroleum“
Now Joe Biden is in control of the worlds multinational Big Oil corps and the nationals like Saudi Arabia?
Wow, for a senile old dude he seems pretty clever.
Maybe he’ll put the CEO of Exxon back in as US Secretary of State like Trump did.
“Rex W. Tillerson, (born March 23, 1952, Wichita Falls, Texas, U.S.), American business executive who served as secretary of state (2017–18) in the administration of U.S. Pres. Donald Trump. He previously was chairman and CEO (2006–16) of Exxon Mobil Corporation”
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rex-Tillerson
” … a senile old dude … “
watching this guy is actually painful at times…having him in charge of our nukes is a bit frightening….
“Wow, for a senile old dude he seems pretty clever.”
He can be both. He’s rich from being a grifter and he won’t be held accountable because he’s a dem and the MSM is in the tank for him. Except now they want him gone and he will be but still no consequences for his corruption.
That senile old dude got rich as hell off a civil service paycheck.
I wonder how that happened.
@jethro
All you have to do is rent your house out to your drug and prostitute-addicted son for $50k a month.
“Now Joe Biden is in control of the worlds multinational Big Oil corps and the nationals like Saudi Arabia?”
The Puppet was the one bragging about lowering gas prices. Take it up with his handlers.
Saudi Arabia telling Joe “NO NO NO NO NO NO NO”.. Now taking oil payments other than US $$$$$$..
Yep it sure looks like Joe controls the Saudi’s!!!
Working with Russia!!!!!
Yep sure looks like your “PROPAGANDA SPIN” is “TRUE”!!!
Nice try “PROPAGANDA MINISTER #2”!!!
it will be back to camels for those A-rabs when hydrogen shows up…until then they will lead guys like Joe around by the short hairs
MINOR Miner49er, and you point is? Government is just as much a business as any private business or corporation.
@Miner49er
“Now Joe Biden is in control of the worlds multinational Big Oil corps and the nationals like Saudi Arabia?
Wow, for a senile old dude he seems pretty clever.
Maybe he’ll put the CEO of Exxon back in as US Secretary of State like Trump did.”
The only oil hes in charge of is that in the national reserve. And when that’s gone, him using it to artificially lower the price at the pumps, the price of gas at the pumps will sky rocket.
Gee … But I guess it was pretty clever for him to hide those classified documents in the garage. After all Hunter had hidden his coke stash there and no one had ever found it.
I guess they will have a new policy now about classified documents security, it will maybe read something like “Classified documents shall be stored in the Biden garage next to the Hunter Biden coke stash.”
But we really know what type of people the Biden’s are though.
Hunter Biden asks judge to stop his 4-year-old daughter, who he had with a stripper, from taking his surname, say reports > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hunter-biden-asks-judge-to-stop-his-4-year-old-daughter-who-he-had-with-a-stripper-from-taking-his-surname-say-reports/ar-AA16n0Hx?ocid=BingHp01&cvid=caf440da87574c1e8dd14141b970e117
“Hunter Biden asked a judge to stop his four-year-old daughter, who he had with an Arkansas stripper, from taking his surname, the New York Post reported.
President Joe Biden’s son made the request to an Arkansas court on January 6, arguing that the name would rob the child of a “peaceful existence.”
The child’s mother, Lunden Roberts, had asked Circuit Court Judge Holly Meyer on December 27 to allow daughter Navy Joan Roberts to take Biden’s name, arguing that she would benefit as the name is “now synonymous with being well educated, successful, financially acute and politically powerful,” the paper reported.”
This is the type of people Joe Biden and his son Hunter are, what the Biden’s are – cruel and liars. Hunter has a child with this woman and now wants to ‘dis-avow’ the child denying the child what is rightfully hers, and he does it with the lame and false excuse of “that the name would rob the child of a ‘peaceful existence’ ” while he enjoys the fame and money and status and education and lifestyle and benefits and comfort that comes with the Biden name and he refuses to publicly acknowledge her and it took a court case to force him to do so and then he does it it in a manner as to slight her and deny her. And on top of that Joe and Jill will not even acknowledge actively the child as their grand daughter.
All this by the Biden’s is intentionally inhumanly cruel and inflicting emotional and psychological, and financial, and quality of life, damage on a child. They inflict intentional damage without regard for the lives of others. This is a life long and career thing with all of them, its a way of life for them, its the Biden flavor of their intentional inhuman cruel damage they inflict that they thrive on and enjoy, and their intentional lies. Now Joe Biden is doing it to law abiding gun owners in the millions – inflicting the Biden flavor of intentional lies and cruel damage to remove/restrict/deny our inherent constitutional right to deny to us what is rightfully ours by acts of tryanny, and rule by fiat by executive order to cause unconstitutional and illegal activity while issuing veiled threats to use the military against American citizens for simply exercising their rights.
Joe Biden, the Biden’s, are far more ‘criminal’ in nature by their acts of cruelty and lying than Trump ever was in anything he did. This Biden lying and cruelty is an evil the world does not need.
a true assault rifle was a weapon that provided suppressive fire as you advanced on an objective…not something that just looks like one….the left just hi-jacked the term to target civilian owned weapons they didn’t like us having access to…the original MAC-10 was once considered as a replacement for the grease gun but failed because of durability issues…in its civilian semi-auto version its difficult to hit anything at a distance…this particular shooter had attached a home made suppressor which made it more controllable.but also more easy to wrest it out of his hands…he was an old guy, after all…
he was an old guy, after all…
And?
Laws do not prevent; they punish.
Period
End
Full stop.
But there could be several that would certainly REDUCE them considerably so thatyou average parent would not be scared to send the kids to school. .
There is nothing that will prevent a mass shooting if the perpetrator is determined and clever enough and I would have thiough that blindingly obvious and it applies world wide. In my klifetime, and I’m now 84 and I can remember 4, no 5, in the UK though the exact figures are no doubt there to be ‘googled’. . The last quite recently when an obvious nutter had had his shotgun returned to him by the police [yes it happens in the UK though fortunately execeedingly rarely] who topped his family. I’m quite surprised that this incident has not appeared on this site.. There have been a spate of shootings recently though whethewr or not three or four incidents would be callled a ‘spate’in the USA I have no idea. Three of them cases of ‘mistaken’ identity. Which just goes to show that in the UK we too have idiot’s with guns.
Seven miles from wher I am writing this we had an illegal,arms factory turning very poor copies I believe of 1921 Model BROWNING 9mm SLP’. Even though they were going on the market at something like £GB1000 or more apparently most of them only fired a single bullet [which on the UK market are £10.00 each or around US13.00] before jamming.
“But there could be several that would certainly REDUCE them considerably …”
Oh, please — do elaborate. This should be quite illuminating.
We have over 20,000 firearm laws in the US. Don’t you think (rhetorical question) that’s plenty to reduce crime? What new laws should be passed that are proven to reduce or prevent criminal use of firearms?
Keep in mind that criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. What new laws would they suddenly be inclined to obey?
Albert L J Hall.. You know we keep hearing about all these kids that are “afraid to go to school”. Funny but I’ve never seen or met one.
Comments are closed.