Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309755075_Does_Gun_Control_Reduce_Violent_Crime
I can play this game too. Progressist havard scientits with biased frauds again.
Do gun control laws reduce violence? To answer this question, a city-level cross-sectional analysis was performed on data pertaining to every U.S. city with a population of at least 25,000 in 1990 (n = 1,078), assessing the impact of 19 major types of gun control laws, and controlling for gun ownership levels and numerous other possible confounders. Models were estimated using instrumental variables (IVs) regression to address endogeneity of gun levels due to reverse causality. Results indicate that gun control laws generally show no evidence of effects on crime rates, possibly because gun levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates. Although a minority of laws seem to show effects, they are as likely to imply violence-increasing effects as violence-decreasing effects. There were, however, a few noteworthy exceptions: requiring a license to possess a gun and bans on purchases of guns by alcoholics appear to reduce rates of both homicide and robbery. Weaker evidence suggests that bans on gun purchases by criminals and on possession by mentally ill persons may reduce assault rates, and that bans on gun purchase by criminals may also reduce robbery rates.
The world spins around him,bunny man. C4N does whatever he wants.
I can play this game too. Progressist havard scientits with biased frauds again.
Do gun control laws reduce violence? To answer this question, a city-level cross-sectional analysis was performed on data pertaining to every U.S. city with a population of at least 25,000 in 1990 (n = 1,078), assessing the impact of 19 major types of gun control laws, and controlling for gun ownership levels and numerous other possible confounders. Models were estimated using instrumental variables (IVs) regression to address endogeneity of gun levels due to reverse causality. Results indicate that gun control laws generally show no evidence of effects on crime rates, possibly because gun levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates. Although a minority of laws seem to show effects, they are as likely to imply violence-increasing effects as violence-decreasing effects. There were, however, a few noteworthy exceptions: requiring a license to possess a gun and bans on purchases of guns by alcoholics appear to reduce rates of both homicide and robbery. Weaker evidence suggests that bans on gun purchases by criminals and on possession by mentally ill persons may reduce assault rates, and that bans on gun purchase by criminals may also reduce robbery rates.
Post automatically merged:
The world spins around him,bunny man. C4N does whatever he wants.
I think the gun debate is almost a moot point. Our political system is so messed up everyone in power is pushed too far right and too far left to meet in the middle and make any meaningful change in the US.
I'm starting to wonder if my real problem isn't with the left but the messed up system that has forced me into one corner that protects my family's rights and my financial needs the most.
OH and this other huge right. My parental rights to raise my children and not have the government interfere.
I'm starting to wonder if my real problem isn't with the left but the messed up system that has forced me into one corner that protects my family's rights and my financial needs the most.
Post automatically merged:
OH and this other huge right. My parental rights to raise my children and not have the government interfere.
You realise it said this: There were, however, a few noteworthy exceptions: requiring a license to possess a gun and bans on purchases of guns by alcoholics appear to reduce rates of both homicide and robbery. Weaker evidence suggests that bans on gun purchases by criminals and on possession by mentally ill persons may reduce assault rates, and that bans on gun purchase by criminals may also reduce robbery rates.
Home schooling is illegal in Brazil.
did you even read the abstract you copied, cause that just proved my point
It said notable exceptions and says there is no correlation. Learn to read stuff and stop cherry picking.
Gun control and Nat is prejudiced against Mexicans and Brazilians.
Post automatically merged:
did you even read the abstract you copied, cause that just proved my point
Post automatically merged:
Gun control and Nat is prejudiced against Mexicans and Brazilians.
A few noteworthy exceptions
Exception: . a person or thing that is excluded from a general statement or does not follow a rule
Example: he always plays top tunes, and tonight was no exception
In those few places,yes?As a standard rule?NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
She said all Mexicans are drug dealers. Look it upim joking
I need to eat.Do you want to drop this?
Exception: . a person or thing that is excluded from a general statement or does not follow a rule
Example: he always plays top tunes, and tonight was no exception
Post automatically merged:
In those few places,yes?As a standard rule?NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Post automatically merged:
She said all Mexicans are drug dealers. Look it upim joking
Post automatically merged:
I need to eat.Do you want to drop this?
Last edited:
Yup, so it would reduce homicide rates if you banned guns to certain groups of people, and gun regulation does in fact lower the murder rates.
You made it easy
You made it easy
1-They buy illegal guns.
2-Drunk fools can't buy legal guns because chemical dependants can't buy guns,so they buy illegal guns.
So what did the Brazilian legislation achieve in reducing this type of crime?It didn't achieve anything,because they didn't adress illegal market.
Btw,i think training,education,background checks,mental health checks and so on are necessary to buy a firearm. And from time to time you should undergo everything again. Just like we do with our car legislation. The legislation is like that,but there are a few problems here:
1-They add in a "prove necessity" rule that makes it so pretty much anyone gets randomly denied,even if they did in fact suffer some kind of death thread. people need to help of theirs lawyers to buy guns here.
2-They tax guns a lot. So the victims of criminality(poor people) can only dream about legally buy a gun.
3-Concealed carry is pretty much non-existant from civillians. So you are pretty much defenseless while in the Streets.
I'm for Ar15s and shit but this is distant dream right now. I want the people i voted for to actually aprove some damn laws so our rights become solid right now. There is no juridical security concerning guns in Brazil. Legal guns could all be gone tomorrow.
Post automatically merged:
Yes.I'm serious.The schools themselves can't choose what they will teach kids.Its the federal gov that decides what kids will be taught.This is communism for you.
Last edited:
I did not invent this notion
That's what pacifism as always been.
Indeed.. I've been literally screeming that its what is currently happening for month now.. But people who keep denying the situation like Nameless will only see the danger of fascism when its too late, once this system turns against them or hurt the one they love.
Sadly, I can only help people who try to question the status co.
So you stopped playing the adult then ?
I would love too, but this would mean letting toxic rethoric go without contradiction. I just can't allow me to do that.
I allow myself to let thing pass when I'm not here, but when I am, I try to keep the barrier up. Even if it means writing a wall of text.
My goal is not for my post to be read, its for them to be here in the case where someone with more progressive values happens to fall in here. I want to keep those people in this thread instead of making them think that bigoted people are allowed to say whatever they want without contradiction and give up because of that.
Well, take a look at the consens :
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-agree-guns-dont-make-society-safer/
Also, in the conclusion of the article you provided is this: "[...] Consequently, some reduction in violent crime could be produced by a federal law requiring background checks on all persons seeking to obtain a firearm, regardless of the source." Which proves our point
The reality of the study is a bit more nuanced that you might think..
That's what pacifism as always been.
Indeed.. I've been literally screeming that its what is currently happening for month now.. But people who keep denying the situation like Nameless will only see the danger of fascism when its too late, once this system turns against them or hurt the one they love.
Sadly, I can only help people who try to question the status co.
So you stopped playing the adult then ?
I would love too, but this would mean letting toxic rethoric go without contradiction. I just can't allow me to do that.
I allow myself to let thing pass when I'm not here, but when I am, I try to keep the barrier up. Even if it means writing a wall of text.
My goal is not for my post to be read, its for them to be here in the case where someone with more progressive values happens to fall in here. I want to keep those people in this thread instead of making them think that bigoted people are allowed to say whatever they want without contradiction and give up because of that.
Well, take a look at the consens :
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-agree-guns-dont-make-society-safer/
Also, in the conclusion of the article you provided is this: "[...] Consequently, some reduction in violent crime could be produced by a federal law requiring background checks on all persons seeking to obtain a firearm, regardless of the source." Which proves our point
The reality of the study is a bit more nuanced that you might think..
Where in the US?Near the border?Texas?New york?The text is clear that it is an exception(not the rule of thumb) meaning that there are PLACES where it wasn't effective.In fact,for the most part it wasn't,that is why they call it noteworthy exceptions.
"Results indicate that gun control laws generally show no evidence of effects on crime rates, possibly because gun levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates. "
Its is nuanced,the correlation is non-existant though. Crime is a multifactorial matter. More guns=more crime is dumb and wrong.
"Results indicate that gun control laws generally show no evidence of effects on crime rates, possibly because gun levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates. "
Post automatically merged:
I did not invent this notion
That's what pacifism as always been.
Indeed.. I've been literally screeming that its what is currently happening for month now.. But people who keep denying the situation like Nameless will only see the danger of fascism when its too late, once this system turns against them or hurt the one they love.
Sadly, I can only help people who try to question the status co.
So you stopped playing the adult then ?
I would love too, but this would mean letting toxic rethoric go without contradiction. I just can't allow me to do that.
I allow myself to let thing pass when I'm not here, but when I am, I try to keep the barrier up. Even if it means writing a wall of text.
My goal is not for my post to be read, its for them to be here in the case where someone with more progressive values happens to fall in here. I want to keep those people in this thread instead of making them think that bigoted people are allowed to say whatever they want without contradiction and give up because of that.
Well, take a look at the consens :
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-agree-guns-dont-make-society-safer/
Also, in the conclusion of the article you provided is this: "[...] Consequently, some reduction in violent crime could be produced by a federal law requiring background checks on all persons seeking to obtain a firearm, regardless of the source." Which proves our point
The reality of the study is a bit more nuanced that you might think..
That's what pacifism as always been.
Indeed.. I've been literally screeming that its what is currently happening for month now.. But people who keep denying the situation like Nameless will only see the danger of fascism when its too late, once this system turns against them or hurt the one they love.
Sadly, I can only help people who try to question the status co.
So you stopped playing the adult then ?
I would love too, but this would mean letting toxic rethoric go without contradiction. I just can't allow me to do that.
I allow myself to let thing pass when I'm not here, but when I am, I try to keep the barrier up. Even if it means writing a wall of text.
My goal is not for my post to be read, its for them to be here in the case where someone with more progressive values happens to fall in here. I want to keep those people in this thread instead of making them think that bigoted people are allowed to say whatever they want without contradiction and give up because of that.
Well, take a look at the consens :
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-agree-guns-dont-make-society-safer/
Also, in the conclusion of the article you provided is this: "[...] Consequently, some reduction in violent crime could be produced by a federal law requiring background checks on all persons seeking to obtain a firearm, regardless of the source." Which proves our point
The reality of the study is a bit more nuanced that you might think..
