Talking Points to Refute the "Studies" that prove gun control works

Ahhh.... a study on the studies! I like it. But alas, why would facts and appropriate application of same ever ever be allowed to interfere with an agenda.

We are never going to change the agenda driven hard core anti's but we elect politicians to represent our own agenda and their job is easier when the truth is on their side and the talking points are clear, concise and irrefutable. It has been said that a lie can run half way around the world before the truth has even put it's shoes on. This has never been more true than now, in this age of disinformation and mass deception. The truth is our biggest gun and we should ensure that it is always loaded and ready to deploy. In my humble opinion.

I see your point, but the intent of some better control is to reduce needless deaths by gun which are the highest by far in America. Seems to be a good start.

MaverickDMD said:

I see your point, but the intent of some better control is to reduce needless deaths by gun which are the highest by far in America. Seems to be a good start.

Click to expand...

Laws don't prevent crime. They allow the government to prosecute AFTER the law is broken. The myriad of laws already on the books aren't enforced, allowing those who break said laws to do so again. More control will never overcome human wickedness. Countries with more laws and fewer guns have higher violent crime rates, proving that evil people will find a way to do evil deeds, regardless of the law.

( I see your point, but the intent of some better control is to reduce needless deaths by gun which are the highest by far in America. Seems to be a good start.) Nope South Africa has the highest rate of gun deaths 3 times what the USA has. Better yet ask Elon Musk about how bad shootings are in South Africa

Good video, but the value of it to formulate talking points is questionable. Maybe in a very general sense it has value, like stating 'social science research doesn't produce useful data'. But without the whole 16 minute presentation to back that up, it will be regarded as opinion by most. Also, how this can be applied in a practical manner isn't clear.

Most importantly, there's a statement made regarding how this cuts both directions at approximately the 5:10-5:42 mark. The subtext may not sit well with all posters.

MaverickDMD writes:

I see your point, but the intent of some better control is to reduce needless deaths by gun which are the highest by far in America.

Click to expand...

Admittedly, it's been a few years since I last checked murder rates by country but, when I did, the US didn't even make the top 25. I think that was around 2017. I doubt it has suddenly sprung to the top "by far" since then.

Generally the "gun violence" numbers always include the suicide by firearm numbers in the US, which is over half the total number. It is not to say that isn't tragic - but it is using "numbers" to obfuscate and inflate the perception of the actual crimes (homicide and non-fatal shootings). The figures often also include "justified" shootings by police and private citizens in self defense. When taken into account, and adjusted for population differences into a rate per 100K population, things look very different.

Then again, using "per 100K population" numbers often is used by control-advocates to make their highly regulated, highly restricted large cities look better than they really are and seem like more of a success story for gun control working, when the observed reality is that there are many times more shootings in those cities every day than we typically have in our entire state throughout a year.

Factual evidence that gun control laws are ineffective against criminal use of guns is all around us but those that want to destroy the 2nd Amendment don't care about statistics. The removal of guns from the hands of the public by leftist "liberals" has a much more sinister purpose and nothing to do with public safety. The misinformation spread by anti-gun groups is assisted by misinformation from Hollywood and even the supposedly conservative media. I was shocked to hear a member of the conservative Fox News team this morning describe the AR rifle used by the elementary school murderer as "an incredibly powerful gun". Nothing insinuates "gun control" more than this kind of misleading misinformation.

Charlie Martinez said:

Factual evidence that gun control laws are ineffective against criminal use of guns is all around us but those that want to destroy the 2nd Amendment don't care about statistics. The removal of guns from the hands of the public by leftist "liberals" has a much more sinister purpose and nothing to do with public safety. The misinformation spread by anti-gun groups is assisted by misinformation from Hollywood and even the supposedly conservative media. I was shocked to hear a member of the conservative Fox News team this morning describe the AR rifle used by the elementary school murderer as "an incredibly powerful gun". Nothing insinuates "gun control" more than this kind of misleading misinformation.

Click to expand...

So I will go on a limb and say that not everyone who supports gun control has a sinister anti-2A plan, at least not one with the intent of total government control with the citizenry having no means to resist. A LOT of people see a tragedy like this and they truly do have a noble desire... for someone to "do something" to help prevent some looney tunes evil monster from shooting up kindergarteners. I also have that same desire. I wish we would never see a day where school kids are slaughtered by an 18-20 year old white psycho again. I think it's important that we don't lose sight of the gravity of that in our (justifiable) defense of the 2nd Amendment.

Sounds like I'm sympathetic to gun control doesn't it? I'm not. Gun control is a red herring. There are so many guns in circulation in the US now, even a total (or near total) ban would be almost pointless. It might, MIGHT, prevent some young adults from doing something like this when they otherwise would. MIGHT. But gun crime is most often (by a very wide margin) committed by gangs and drug dealers who are already prohibited from possessing firearms under existing laws. Even if half of the guns in America are turned in, there would still likely be enough guns in private possession for every adult in America. What an outright ban, even a soft "assault weapons" ban, would do is push those firearms underground. Many otherwise law abiding citizens would refuse to turn them in, so they will be stashed in the back of the crawl space. After a few years of not being able to use it, the first time money is tight, they will be sold private party black market style. Probably to someone willing to flip it to a gang banger. No, gun prohibition is not the answer. That would only INCREASE violence and flood the black market with even more guns IMO.

In most school shootings, there are major red flags grossly ignored by someone who should not have. The Parkland shooter had FBI complaints and a long track record. The Sandy Hook shooter had an enabling mother that neglected due caution and taught an unstable kid who didn't come out of his room months at a time how to shoot, and apparently gave him access (or failed to sufficiently restrict it) to an AR. The Boulder Colorado theater shooting was committed by a man whose psychiatrist should have taken him befofe a judge to restrict his firearms rights under existing law. There are numerous other examples (pulse nightclub shooter was flagged by FBI, so were the Tsarnev Boston bombing brothers). There were reports that the Las Vegas shooter had an open FBI investigation on him at the time of the shooting, but now I can find no reference to that. I swear I've seen this in major media reports around the time of the incident. No we have a sordid history of inaction when referrals were made to law enforcement or other parties who should have acted under LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST. In the case of the Parkland shooter local LEO and prosecutors declined to take the steps to make him a prohibited person when they should have. The Southerland Springs Church shooter was a prohibited person, but the Air Force dropped the ball in reporting his DV conviction to NICS.

Making it a crime (or at least a tort law) for persons in a position of responsibility or authority to fail to take action to legally report unstable individuals to NICS, which would prevent their legal purchase of a firearm under existing law, should be priority number 1. There are too many examples where the existing system and framework flat failed.

The only other new restriction that would, quite likely, prevent school shootings is an age prohibition. Most school shooters are under 21. I know many here will have a knee jerk reaction against such a prohibition. I have largely been against it myself. Offender profiles are what they are though. If there is a gun control measure that MIGHT reduce the number of school shootings,, it would be an age restriction for pistols and semi-auto rifles. And even then, someone determined enough could buy through underground channels.

Most school shootings involve minor (under 18) shooters, and thus by definition are "prohibited persons" without some level of direct parental supervision, and I have yet to see ANY of these events where a parent or other responsible adult was on-site making the minor shooter "supervised". I'm sure there are some lawyers on these forums who'll chime in and correct me about their specific jurisdiction/federal law (hey, I'm not a lawyer but DO teach a lot of youth in Hunter Education, Scouts, etc. where adult supervision and/or permission is required), but generally speaking, the whole "murder is illegal" thing not withstanding, I just don't see a new age limit law helping much.

This isn’t about stopping school shootings!!!

It’s about stopping the resistance our Founding Fathers foresaw in their infinite wisdom.

Look at the draconian lockdowns in Australia!!! We have numerous “Leaders” here that would have loved to do the same thing!!!! But they knew we wouldn’t put up with it.

our system of checks and balances is the best system ever put into place on this planet!!!

Some people believe that laws can mold a perfect society and perhaps they would be right if everyone was law abiding. Unfortunately we all know that a percentage of all populations does not respect the law so if the thousands of laws we already have cannot stop crime what makes anyone believe that thousands more will do the job? The fact is that if everyone simply obeyed God's Ten Commandments we wouldn't need any more laws.
I don't have the solution to the problem of growing crime but I do not believe imposing more taxes, more restrictions and more bureaucracy on law abiding citizens is going to solve anything.

Gun control was attempted at Lexington and Concord. Didn't work out so well for the British.

I have a solution;
Repeal the gun free school zones act, and allow those that are legally able, and of the mindset to do so, to carry a concealed sidearm to be used for meaningful defense.
Post signs outside of schools, informing the public that staff "may be armed".

I feel it's the demonization of the tool that leads us down the path of restricting the rights of the law abiding population... while doing zero to actually inhibit the acts of soulless idgits.

instead, we can enable the competent and responsible use of a tool that may come in very handy, if evil rears it's head

Since Chicago has most of the gun laws that the anti gunners want to put into law nation wide why do they have such a large amount of gun violence. This is about the violence over the Memorial Day weekend that just proves gun laws don't work.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/...JVxNCJDm5LzIpSCxThN4Y4-RPyU0lVeHoY5XfkHnXQj5U

Facts and figures don't mean a thing to those who are driven by an emotion fueled agenda. If it "feels right" then it must be right.

MaverickDMD said:

I see your point, but the intent of some better control is to reduce needless deaths by gun which are the highest by far in America. Seems to be a good start.

Click to expand...

Governments kill many thousands of times more civilians than civilians do. The intention of the 2A is to protect the right of the people to keep and bear the tools needed to keep their government in a perpetual state of fear. And BTW, not that it's relevant to a discussion of 2A issues, but why would you single out the homicide tool, rather than just homicides in general, when comparing countries, states or regions? Doing that might lead a thinking person to question whether the agenda is perhaps something other than saving lives.