You have proven time and time again that you pick your information from biased anti-gun sources who have an agenda and an axe to grind
The right to keep and bear arms is no longer subject to means-end tests. This negates whatever cost-benefit argument you might make.
"Mass shootings were defined as independent events in which four or more people were killed by a firearm. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting System from 1998-2015 were used to calculate annual rates of mass shootings in each state." https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542 "When they compared those scores to mass shootings per million residents, they found that for every 10-point relaxation in a state’s gun laws, the rates of mass shootings in that state increased by 11.5 percent. This trend showed up even after the models were adjusted for population demographics like household income, unemployment, poverty, education, incarceration rates, and race. The eight most restrictive states include Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, California, Illinois, and New York. Leading the pack in both permissive laws and mass shooting rate were Vermont, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Arizona. (Florida, where the Parkland shooting took place last year, was the only state not included in the analysis because it doesn’t participate in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program.)" https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser-a-states-gun-laws-the-more-mass-shootings-it-has/
Another study from that site: "When additional individual-level risk factors for homicide were added to the model (model 2), both abuser’s access to a firearm (adjusted OR = 7.59; 95% CI = 3.85, 14.99) and abuser’s use of illicit drugs (adjusted OR = 4.76; 95% CI = 2.19, 10.34) were strongly associated with intimate partner femicide, although the abuser’s excessive use of alcohol was not... A small percentage (5%) of both case and control women lived apart from the abuser and owned a gun, however, and there was no clear evidence of protective effects." https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089 So an abuser's access to a firearm is strongly associated with an increased risk of an intimate partner being murdered, but there is no clear evidence that women who own guns are less likely to be victimized.
The right to keep and bear arms is no longer subject to means-end tests. This negates whatever cost-benefit argument you might make.
sounds like no real proof. DC has the most mass shooting BTW and your risk of being a victim in a mass shooting is highest in that city you do understand that your attempt to establish that less idiotic gun control laws make us less safe in no way has any value in defeating our arguments
I don't have time to spend 21 minutes watching some nobody's you tube comments. why not tell us what is relevant
Idiots and criminals with guns are the only problem, not the gun itself. All your points listed here can be traced back to this. Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
What are the metrics you're using to define 'civilized'? I ask because there are plenty of societies I would consider 'civil' without there being a monopoly on force, both historically and presently. It seems you're suggesting that only delegated authorities can be trusted with the capability of force, and that just doesn't jive with how often, both historically and currently, that delegated authority abuses the force its been authorized to weild.
some people worship government and despise the citizenry, while people like me trust the citizenry while seeing government as a necessary evil. And I am speaking as someone who spent 24 years working for the DOJ, a job I believe I did well and I was proud to do
you do know that site you cited is a leftist organization? which means it mostly finessed the facts to meet its goal of advocating more gun restrictions. It's "ten point" ratings is based on what? certainly not sound legal or criminological standards.
LOL, it's amazing, the gun banners have a faith based belief that more gun laws make us safer even though the facts supporting that are no better, and are often weaker, than the facts that show that an armed citizenry stops thousands of crimes a week
wtf is that TEN POINT scale-why is it valid? it sounds like bullshit to me-crap pushed by anti gun extremists to validate their outcome based findings.
Researchers collect data then use it to reach conclusions. Liberals concoct a conclusion then find opinions to "justify" it.
yep, there are several gun rights advocates who ended up being pro gun because their research led them to that- JOHN LOTT being one-Paxton Quigley (Armed and Female) is another. I don't know too many pro gun researchers who ended up being gun banners do to their research. I remember at DOJ there was some ATF guy who was anti gun-claimed he wasn't-retired and went to work for one of the big gun banning grifter groups. It would sort of being like a US diplomat who is accused of being say a Jihadist, leaving the diplomatic corps and becoming a spokesman for Black September or Hamas
