Thu Apr 23, 2020, 10:22 AM
BeckyDem (7,582 posts)
Researchers reviewed thousands of gun policy studies and teased out a consensus
The findings on stand-your-ground and child access prevention laws are conclusive, the report says
By Christopher Ingraham April 23, 2020 at 7:00 a.m. EDT Gun control discussions often get mired in competing academic claims regarding the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of various policy options. Do concealed carry laws increase violent crime or make communities safer? Do assault weapon bans reduce mass shootings or do they have no effect? Do background checks reduce homicides and suicides or are they ineffective? With so many disparate findings swirling about, it can be difficult to determine where the balance of evidence lies. But a new report from Rand Corp., a nonprofit think tank, has distilled reams of gun policy research published since 1995 to tease out the scholarly consensus. In other words, they’ve waded through thousands of findings so you (and your elected representatives) don’t have to. ( excerpt) First, there was a clear consensus (indicated by three or more high-quality studies in agreement) that stand-your-ground laws, which allow people to use guns to defend themselves in public even if retreating is an option, result in higher overall rates of gun homicide. The higher rates aren’t simply from “bad guys” getting shot; the research shows that the additional deaths created by stand-your-ground laws far surpass the documented cases of defensive gun use in the United States. There was also a broad consensus that child access prevention laws, which set requirements for how guns must be stored at home, are effective in reducing self-inflicted gun injuries among children and adults. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/23/definitive-guide-which-gun-safety-policies-actually-work/
|
7 replies, 1322 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
BeckyDem | Apr 2020 | OP |
lark | Apr 2020 | #1 | |
billh58 | Apr 2020 | #6 | |
lark | Apr 2020 | #7 | |
CrispyQ | Apr 2020 | #2 | |
keithbvadu2 | Apr 2020 | #3 | |
keithbvadu2 | Apr 2020 | #4 | |
DBoon | Apr 2020 | #5 |
Response to BeckyDem (Original post)
Thu Apr 23, 2020, 10:34 AM
lark (20,354 posts)
1. Great article.
I'd love to see "STand Your Ground" made unconstitutional as it's just intended to be a license to kill minorities.
|
Response to lark (Reply #1)
Thu Apr 23, 2020, 11:09 AM
billh58 (6,558 posts)
6. Stand your ground is
nothing more than legalized vigilantism and an incentive to carry out summary executions. It is the answer to every gun humper's dreams of becoming another famous "public protector" like George Zimmerman.
|
Response to billh58 (Reply #6)
Thu Apr 23, 2020, 11:11 AM
lark (20,354 posts)
7. It's a disgusting, dishonorable law made for bad purposes.
I truly hate it.
|
Response to BeckyDem (Original post)
Thu Apr 23, 2020, 10:38 AM
CrispyQ (31,948 posts)
2. Kick, kick, kick!
WaPo has a paywall, but here's the study from the link in the article:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html |
Response to BeckyDem (Original post)
Thu Apr 23, 2020, 10:52 AM
keithbvadu2 (26,204 posts)
3. To the gun industry, dead children are merely collateral damage/acceptable losses for gun industry p
To the gun industry, dead children are merely collateral damage/acceptable losses for gun industry profits and political donations.
|
Response to BeckyDem (Original post)
Thu Apr 23, 2020, 10:54 AM
keithbvadu2 (26,204 posts)
4. Joe The Plumber: 'Your Dead Kids Don't Trump My Constitutional Rights' To Have Guns
Joe The Plumber: ‘Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump My Constitutional Rights’ To Have Guns
Ironic how he chose that verb back in 2014 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/27/joe-the-plumber-guns_n_5397981.html |
Response to BeckyDem (Original post)
Thu Apr 23, 2020, 10:57 AM
DBoon (19,747 posts)
5. RAND generally slants right in a technocratic free market way
They are definitely NOT a liberal or progressive think tank. They focus on number crunching.
To me this gives the results additional validity. |