"Gun Control Equals Crime Control"


PDA






9mm+
February 23, 2011, 10:04 AM
Ok, my son's Civics class is at it again. Yesterday, the class was divided into "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" groups (decided by the students), which turned out to be 50/50, a figure I found surprising since I thought there would be more antis than pros. The exercise was for one side to debate the merit of their stance against the other side. It sounded like a good idea to me until my son pointed out what the student-teacher put on the board:

"Gun Control Equals Crime Control"

Well, we've all seen this before and know the fallacy of this statement, but many of the "pro-gun" students didn't have the factual data to refute this, so they left empty-handed. Last night, I gave my son plenty of information to fight back (mostly in terms that high schoolers can remember and phrased in the form of a question so that the antis would be forced to answer them). Some of these included:

1) If gun control equals crime control, then why do countries with such restrictive gun control laws like Russia and Mexico have such a high violent crime rate per capita? By this argument, wouldn't Russia and Mexico be some of the safest places in the world?

2) Conversely, why is it that Switzerland, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, has one of the lowest violent crime rates? Shouldn't the opposite be true?

Anyway, I am sure that there will be more fireworks in today's class. More to report later... ;)

If you enjoyed reading about ""Gun Control Equals Crime Control"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasBill
February 23, 2011, 10:11 AM
You might add that London, England, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, now has police officers armed with submachine guns patrolling the streets in certain parts of the city and there is now open debate as to whether the Metropolitan Police, for the first time in its history, should arm all of its sworn officers.

In addition, Washington, D.C., a city that virtually prohibited handgun ownership, had the highest murder rate per 100,000 people of any city in the U.S.

griff383
February 23, 2011, 10:14 AM
I guess I was lucky with the majority of my teachers. No teacher that I can remember ever gave their opinions if they felt that it would influence us.

A few years ago I took a short government class over the summer. Everytime the instructor would ask about the stance of the class on a particular subject he would always follow up with:

"I dont care what side your on, just pick one"

He would then cite sources to find information to base our decisions on.

Hopefully the questions, and teacher, will influence the students to research real information and make up their own minds.

9mm+
February 23, 2011, 10:26 AM
Washington, D.C., a city that virtually prohibited handgun ownership, had the highest murder rate per 100,000 people of any city in the U.S.

Yep, I mentioned that one, too. Ditto for Chicago.

TexasBill
February 23, 2011, 10:38 AM
For a school discussion, it might be worth mentioning the number of Chicago students killed by gunfire: 26 in one year. Over 70 in a three-year period. Most of the shooters were other students using stolen or black market guns.

9mm+
February 23, 2011, 10:40 AM
For a school discussion, it might be worth mentioning the number of Chicago students killed by gunfire: 26 in one year. Over 70 in a three-year period. Most of the shooters were other students using stolen or black market guns.

Bingo! Keep 'em coming. This debate is going to continue in his class all week, so I'll be sure to load him up every night before the next day's class.

LawScholar
February 23, 2011, 10:49 AM
It's less effective than the arguments you already have, but you might put forward these points.

Since cars are used in many more crimes than guns, does car control = crime control?

Since hate speech is a crime, does speech control = crime control?

Banning things, it seems, often has a more drastic negative effect.

USAF_Vet
February 23, 2011, 10:57 AM
Have him point out that our military overseas all have 'assault rifles' but you never hear about soldiers blasting each other down en masse. Also, point out the Fort Hood shooting. Fort Hood does not allow soldiers (or anyone else for that matter) to carry weapons on base unless it is in the course of their garrison duties (of which, only MPs and a handful of others fall in this category). Then have him point out how many died in the shooting that could have been prevented if the victims could have been armed. Point out the Pensacola, Fl school board meeting where a gunman could have caused serious harm, but was stopped by a man with a CCW (even though it was in the car).
Better yet, just print off a few dozens clips from the Armed Citizen, and then ask the anti's how many of these people would have been harmed by a criminal if they had not been armed.

9mm+
February 23, 2011, 11:28 AM
Great ideas, thanks! I will Xerox a few "Armed Citizen" pages from my old copies of the Rifleman and give that to him as well.

txhoghunter
February 23, 2011, 11:54 AM
Just make sure your son knows how to properly use this knowledge you are giving him. It is best to use this in a controlled argument rather than letting it get out of hand. A properly made argument will have his classmates understand the positives of gun ownership without feeling like they are being slapped in the face for what they previously believed.

Good luck and keep us posted!

DWC
February 23, 2011, 12:08 PM
9mm+

Your son has a 1st Class Dad!

john81276
February 23, 2011, 12:18 PM
Print him up a copy of gun facts to take. Mucho Ammo for arguments in there...

http://gunfacts.info/

9mm+
February 23, 2011, 12:18 PM
@ txhoghunter -- Good advice and I will keep everyone in the loop as this unfolds.
@ DWC -- Many thanks! It helps to have great kids and I am truly blessed...they can make any dad look good. :)

youngda9
February 23, 2011, 12:29 PM
Here are a couple more links for the win:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Some highlights:
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:
• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives

• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime

• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once[24]

http://www.lizmichael.com/ninemyth.htm
"* Myth #4 "Guns cause violence"
For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and,
despite such gun control, the African-American teenage male homicide rate
in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average![5] The US
group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence,
middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 -
about half of the US average.[6]

If the "guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the
alleged "easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns,
have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one-ninth of DC's overall homicide
rate of 80.6?[7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun
control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa
2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian
gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2,
California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)?[7] The
"guns-cause-violence and "guns exacerbate violence theories founder.
Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media
violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership."

Vyacheslav
February 23, 2011, 12:42 PM
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime&all=1

here's a good site for statistics, btw, Russia isn't even in the same league as Mexico as far as crime, and gun laws in Russia are fairly good compared to most other European countries

9mm+
February 23, 2011, 12:56 PM
Thanks, guys...these are great!

danprkr
February 23, 2011, 01:13 PM
Well if you mean good shot placement then yes, gun control equals crime control. But with any other definition then no it doesn't, and any one saying otherwise is criminally misinformed.

awgrizzly
February 23, 2011, 01:15 PM
Two simple concepts:

1) Taking away a person's ability to defend himself makes him more vulnerable.

2) Creating a law against having a gun does little to prevent a person who does not obey laws from owning a gun.

Simple questions to pose:

Since people who dislike guns would tend to be in favor of gun control, is there not some risk that the gun control movement is based upon emotion rather than fact?

Is it reasonable to take away something useful to others because you don't like it?

Perhaps some simple logic and soul searching would add impact to the statistics.

awgrizzly
February 23, 2011, 01:17 PM
Well if you mean good shot placement then yes, gun control equals crime control. But with any other definition then no it doesn't, and any one saying otherwise is criminally misinformed.
Heh... I like this. :D

benEzra
February 23, 2011, 01:18 PM
If anyone tries to bring up the "assault weapons are the weapons of choice of criminals" BS, point them to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon:

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

If you download the Excel version from that page and sum the columns, you get the following figures:

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

And that's for all rifles combined. The 5-year trend in rifle homicide 2005-2009, again per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348

Modern-looking rifles aren't a crime problem in the United States and never have been.

jeepmor
February 23, 2011, 01:30 PM
A properly made argument will have his classmates understand the positives of gun ownership without feeling like they are being slapped in the face for what they previously believed.



I say slap them in the face with the data, but softly. Pointing out the fallacy that less guns equals less crime is pretty easily backed by facts from all over the world where the government has taken away the right of a citizen to protect one's person. I don't see any mention of Australia, but like England, I think the timing is close enough that it will also provide a lot of data to the con on antis stance. I truly like the DC and Chicago examples being they are within our borders and should provide easy access to data. Also, I see no mention of FBI data which should also empirically support a pro gun stance well.

hope this helps,

jeepmor

9mm+
February 23, 2011, 01:49 PM
It's interesting to note that half of the class is pro-gun and the other half is...hmmmm...horribly misinformed. ;) These stats will be very welcomed by the pro-gun group and I think that they'll divide them up amongst themselves in their class debate with the anti's. I'm sure my son will be working the printer hard tonight to have enough to distribute to the others. Thanks!

youngda9
February 23, 2011, 02:01 PM
I wonder if all of the other side's parents are doing research for them as well.

I hope you're not taking away from your child's learning and discovery experience by doing this. He should be researching this on his own.

One thing that he may want to research is the other side of the debate, the enemy camp. Figure out what their moves(arguments) will be and come prepared to squash them right away.

Vern Humphrey
February 23, 2011, 02:06 PM
Another question is, how is it that as gun ownership goes up, crime goes down?

How is it that as more and more states adopt liberalized concealed carry laws, crime goes down?

Shadow 7D
February 23, 2011, 03:00 PM
Sorry, but playing the teachers game is a loosing bet

Directly attack it,
Ask HOW, make the opposition PROVE that there is any correlation.
state that DISARMING VICTIMS INCREASES CRIME, and make them defend their side, as what you are going to get is a bunch of emotional appeals (gun accidents at home, shoot shootings etc.) and NO numbers.

So don't bore them with detail, Just say NO IT DOESN'T, and make them PROVE IT.

txhoghunter
February 23, 2011, 03:04 PM
I say slap them in the face with the data, but softly. Pointing out the fallacy that less guns equals less crime is pretty easily backed by facts from all over the world where the government has taken away the right of a citizen to protect one's person

The reason I disagree with this is because teenagers just know what their parents and the news tell them. Much of which is not based on fact or, in the case of the news, is manipulated to make an opposite opinion sound true.

Just give them the TRUE facts and they will understand. (yes there will be those that don't want believe the facts, but there will never be help for them anyways)

stogiegila
February 23, 2011, 03:20 PM
Two simple concepts:

1) Taking away a person's ability to defend himself makes him more vulnerable.

2) Creating a law against having a gun does little to prevent a person who does not obey laws from owning a gun.

Simple questions to pose:

Since people who dislike guns would tend to be in favor of gun control, is there not some risk that the gun control movement is based upon emotion rather than fact?

Is it reasonable to take away something useful to others because you don't like it?

Perhaps some simple logic and soul searching would add impact to the statistics.


The above is what I believe needs to be stressed as gun control advocates will never agree to or believe the statistics presented to them. However, if we look at criminals and criminal behavior by definition laws will not prevent them.

A criminal by definition is

1: one who has committed a crime
2: a person who has been convicted of a crime
3: guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>

So if a criminal willingly breaks the law, then what good would gun control laws do if criminals by definition will break them anyway. Guns can easily be purchased on the black market or stolen. Gun laws will only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens thereby empowering the criminals even further.

Then there is the whole constitutional argument and how this country was founded in the first place.

9mm+
February 23, 2011, 03:55 PM
@ Youngda9 -- No worries...my son does most of the heavy lifting. I am helping gather some of the starting points for his research, because...well, it's just fun to do! :)

Again, excellent comments, everyone, and many thanks. The best approach as others have said is to stick with the facts. The anti's rely mostly on emotion in their arguments which ultimately falls apart in a debate when contrasted with factual data.

MikeNice
February 23, 2011, 03:57 PM
Make them prove the point. Then when the anti-gun crowd starts talking about accidental shootings hit them with the facts. According to the CDC only 617 people are killed annually by firearms accidents. You are more likely to die due to an accident related to bicycling, malpractice, poisoining, overexertion, or riding in a vehicle. Emergency room visits for accidental gun shots make up about 0.04% of all emergency room visits. They only make up 0.5% of hospitalizations from the emergency room.

I agree that to be the most effective in the debate your son needs to check out the common talking points of the opposition. Then he can anticipate what to bring to the debate. There is no use in getting caught completely off guard. Then he'll just stand there floundering with statistics that don't matter.

One of my favorite questions for anti-gunners, If gun control makes you safer why did the UN declare Scotland the most dangerous "developed nation" in the world in 2005? Why are you more than twice as likely to be violently assaulted in gun free Scotland than in the United States?

If banning guns ends gun related crime why are there over 7,000 firearms offences every year in England?

The best one, the one that no anti-gun proponet has even attempted to answer after I ask, When has prohibition ever worked in America? Can you tell me why gun prohibition will work out any better than alcohol, pornography, or drug prohibition?

TX1911fan
February 23, 2011, 04:00 PM
If that is correct, why are prisons so dangerous? The only guns there are those in the hands of the corrections officers, and even THEY won't walk through the yard alone and unarmed. Criminals will use any weapon available to commit crimes.

MikeNice
February 23, 2011, 04:12 PM
You could just tell them that constitutionally the issue has been settled by the supreme court in DC V Heller.

According to the majority opinion:
The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition ... would fail constitutional muster.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.


Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right.


He can also take the words from Justice Thomas in the McDonald v Chicago case.
[An 1876 decision by the Supreme Court] holding that blacks could look only to state governments for protection of their right to keep and bear arms enabled private forces, often with the assistance of local governments, to subjugate the newly freed slaves and their descendants through a wave of private violence designed to drive blacks from the voting booth and force them into peonage, an effective return to slavery. Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the Fourteenth Amendment had just made citizens.


Then be sure to make the point that because African-Americans were denied their second amendment rights they were also denied their fourteenth amendment rights to citizenship. They were denied the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness because the were denied their second amendment rights.

txhoghunter
February 23, 2011, 04:21 PM
The only guns there are those in the hands of the corrections officers, and even THEY won't walk through the yard alone and unarmed. Criminals will use any weapon available to commit crimes.

Actually most guards are NOT armed because of the guard-to-prisoner ratio. If one had a gun in the yard they would be killed when one of the many criminals wrestled it away from them.

The guards that are armed on a daily basis are usually in the guard towers. Out of the reach of prisoners.

Panzercat
February 23, 2011, 04:27 PM
Fun note... The middle ages sans firearms of any sort were the most violent periods in European history. Likewise, these periods usually featured extended periods where the government was the sole purveyor of said arms.

Feudal Japan had a policy banning civilians from owning blades which in turn promoted their wholesale slaughter as per the whim of any passing samurai- ie, a government offical -often without any crime being commited.

So, I guess your teacher needs to clarify who's crime is being controlled, assuming one buys into the falicy to begin with. In lieu of guns, any sharp pointy object will do.

Double Naught Spy
February 23, 2011, 04:44 PM
1) If gun control equals crime control, then why do countries with such restrictive gun control laws like Russia and Mexico have such a high violent crime rate per capita? By this argument, wouldn't Russia and Mexico be some of the safest places in the world?

There are a couple of reasons. First, not all violent crime is with guns. Second, actual gun control is never achieved. The true myth is that gun control will be achieved and that has yet to ever be proven true.

2) Conversely, why is it that Switzerland, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, has one of the lowest violent crime rates? Shouldn't the opposite be true?
Ah, I see you have bought into the equally biased and incorrect pro-gun arguments without equally critical evaluation of the data. It is problematic when a point of error is argued with another erred point. Switzerland doesn't have one of the lowest violent crime rates. It is lower than the US, but of the countries studied, falls pretty much in the middle of the entire pack. Simple assaults are low. Kidnappings are high. Murders are smack dab in the middle. Rape is 28ths of 50, so about in the middle. Switzerland does rank as one of the countries with the highest overall suicide rate.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz-switzerland/cri-crime

In general for crime including violent crime, Switzerland is somewhat better off than we are in the US. However, it isn't some sort of Utopian Haven because of the presence of guns.

Shadow 7D
February 23, 2011, 04:50 PM
I saw a great article this weekend, England is now the most 'Violent' developed country in the world, surpassing even South Africa.

browneu
February 23, 2011, 05:20 PM
A criminal by definition is

1: one who has committed a crime
2: a person who has been convicted of a crime
3: guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>

So if a criminal willingly breaks the law, then what good would gun control laws do if criminals by definition will break them anyway. Guns can easily be purchased on the black market or stolen. Gun laws will only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens thereby empowering the criminals even further.



This is the meat of the argument. The anti's can counter many of our arguments with other reasons. For example someone stated that DC has the highest crime rate per capita and the strictest gun laws. An anti can counter by saying that the amount of urban sprawl contributes to the crime rate.

I would make them prove their statement. It assumes that someone will not commit a crime if they do not have access to a gun. They need to give examples of where someone was going to commit rape, burglary, murder but stopped because they didn't have a gun.

They should also argue for capital punishment. If laws truly deter someone from committing a crime then death should be the ultimate deterrant. However, most in the class would agree that the statement is probably not true.

They put it out there and they need to prove it. The teacher's sentence wasn't "why we need guns" it's "more gun contorl equals crime control."

Remo223
February 23, 2011, 05:27 PM
I think you are going about this the wrong way. There is no provision in the constitution for government to control my firearms. There is a provision in the constitution for government to LEAVE MY FIREARMS ALONE.

whether or not crime is affected by gun control is not relevant.

Calibre44
February 23, 2011, 05:33 PM
I saw a great article this weekend, England is now the most 'Violent' developed country in the world, surpassing even South Africa.

:D:D:D of all the nonsense I read on THR about my country this has got to be the best ... do you have a link to the article so I can print it off and use it as toilet paper? ... no stop it ... I'm creasing up ... that's a good one :D:D:D

DeepSouth
February 23, 2011, 05:34 PM
Again, excellent comments, everyone, and many thanks. The best approach as others have said is to stick with the facts. The anti's rely mostly on emotion in their arguments which ultimately falls apart in a debate when contrasted with factual data.

Use their cards against them mix the emotion they love with facts.

Near the end of the video there is some inappropriate language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Could also look into "Mass Shootings" and see how many were in "gun free zones" vs legal carry locations, the results would very lopsided.

browneu
February 23, 2011, 05:43 PM
I think you are going about this the wrong way. There is no provision in the constitution for government to control my firearms. There is a provision in the constitution for government to LEAVE MY FIREARMS ALONE.

whether or not crime is affected by gun control is not relevant.


I agree with you 100% however; I would be afraid that the antis would state that the pros are avoiding the argument by taking this route.

No one can argue that the second amendment exists but someone can argue a hypothetical situation where eliminating the second amendment or controling firearms will control crime.

Please keep us posted. I'm surprised and dismayed that the students didn't have time to prepare for this debate. They needed time to research and develop a strategy. Arguing without doing proper research doesn't teach anything.

youngda9
February 23, 2011, 07:59 PM
:D:D:D of all the nonsense I read on THR about my country this has got to be the best ... do you have a link to the article so I can print it off and use it as toilet paper? ... no stop it ... I'm creasing up ... that's a good one :D:D:D
I Googled "england most violent" and it was the 3rd on the list.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

England is the most violent "civilized" country on the planet. The US is not even in the top ten. Even Canada is more violent than the US. What is really funny about the article is that while it does mention that the rates began climbing in 1997 when the Labour Party took over, it fails to mention that that political upheaval was accompanied by a complete ban on handguns throughout the entire nation.

So the most gun restrictive country in the world has the highest rate of violence and the newspaper that writes about it is too dense to mention the most probable cause- because unless they laid off half the police force and cut every single social service in 1997, I'm not sure how a shift in political leadership can result in a 77% jump in violent crime in a single year.

spazzymcgee
February 23, 2011, 09:07 PM
I, personally am a High School Student, and more than likely the only one of my kind on this forum. So I figured I'd put in my $.02. I've actually had a debate very, very similar to this one in my school. My side won because I was placed in this school of mostly niave, stupid children, and my side was filled with the four in the classroom that had some sense. I won with facts, and simply making the other side explain to me what correlation Gun control and crime reduction had, With facts. They were completely unable to do so. Though that was a battle of wits against unarmed people.

Zanad
February 23, 2011, 09:20 PM
you weren't/aren't the only high school student in this forum, but we are few and far found.

9mm+
February 23, 2011, 10:01 PM
Ah, I see you have bought into the equally biased and incorrect pro-gun arguments without equally critical evaluation of the data. It is problematic when a point of error is argued with another erred point. Switzerland doesn't have one of the lowest violent crime rates. It is lower than the US, but of the countries studied, falls pretty much in the middle of the entire pack. Simple assaults are low. Kidnappings are high. Murders are smack dab in the middle. Rape is 28ths of 50, so about in the middle. Switzerland does rank as one of the countries with the highest overall suicide rate.

I stand by my assertion that Switzerland has one of the lowest violent crime rates, especially murder, in the world (not THE lowest, just one of the lowest). Per the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention) -- also quoted in the Nationmaster.com site -- Switzerland ranked #56 out of the 62 countries surveyed (or, 0.00921351 murders per 1,000 people). Suicides *ARE* high, but not murder. The point here, though, was the correlation of the data per the anti's argument. If gun control equals crime control, then the converse must also be true, and by that argument, Switzerland would have one of the highest violent crime rates (especially murder) in the world. Clearly, this is not the case.

mnrivrat
February 24, 2011, 02:05 AM
Mandatory reading for all who want to discuss this type issue is the report of the Juditial subcommitee of the 97th congress - 2nd session, 1982 . It was our tax dollars that funded this government study - take the time to look it up and read it folks.

happygeek
February 24, 2011, 03:02 AM
Nobody else seems to have mentioned the CDC study attempting to find a crime reduction benefit to any of the various gun control schemes that have been tried in various parts of this country over the years, so I will:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.


Bolding done by me. The CDC is hardly the NRA or John Lott, some might even say they're a tad anti-gun. For them to be unable to find any benefit from any gun control scheme, well I'd say that means something.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Gun Control Equals Crime Control"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!