Gun Policy Research

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-23-2017, 09:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, we don't have all of the data because the collection of it is so spotty. Your claim is that black people are to blame. Well, what do we do about that? Do you have an answer that would be effective and constitutional? You said eradicate gangs, but that is, again, only 10% of gun deaths. So the majority is not gang related. How do we make an impact on that number?

This is why data is needed. You say we have it all, but we don't. We have people who think they know the answers but have no idea how to actually interpret data and think critically about the issue trying to say they have solutions which are really just playing a blame game.

I advocate for evidence based policy decisions, but we need the data to have the evidence to make those decisions. This is data we don't have, whether you see that or not. You've bought the story the NRA has been selling which is that any legitimate research in this issue will result in gun control efforts. But if the evidence tells us those won't work, then the policy community won't push for them. If the evidence tells us to look at another solution, we will. But we need the evidence because we need to do something.

Black people are not "to blame". Obviously everyone has a hand in contributing to the violence. You asked how to *CURB* it, not eliminate it. (Which would be impossible, we're evolved, but still animals.) So if you're looking to curb it, then yes, it is obvious that the best effort-to-results demographic there could be to target would be black males from the age of 12-28 range or so.

I have no idea how to go about that, but you're no longer looking for gun policy research now. You're looking for racial/social research now. No amount of "oh, magazines can only hold 6 bullets now" is going to change that number.

I don't really listen to what the NRA says. I have made my own opinions upon what I have viewed happening. The Sandy Hook shooting happens and so immediately they push through a law without any kind of vote retroactively making a large portion of their law abiding population into criminals if they refuse to sell certain (now suddenly illegal) weapons to the state or risk being a felon, and register their magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and aren't allowed to load more than 10 rounds in it or it's illegal. (Because criminals will be sure to follow that.) In California they tried just in the 2016 election to retroactively make owning high capacity magazines illegal, forcing a turn-in. It was passed, but dropped because it was blatantly unconstitutional to make your citizens criminals for something that was previously legal.

Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. It doesn't work. "But they get the guns from other states." you might say.. well then what's the solution, ban guns in the entire country. Then guns will just come in from Mexico and Canada. It doesn't work. Criminals are *CRIMINALS*, which is a disregard for the law. No law you make will stop that. It just punishes the law abiding citizens.

It doesn't matter if the evidence tells us it won't work. Unless you believe evidence showed Connecticut that banning certain weapons and telling people to not put more than 10 rounds in their 30 round magazines would stop a criminal from stealing weapons and loading them to the max anyway, and then shooting people.

If someone wanted to research into banning Free Speech because they believed if they did, it would remove all hate speech and racism in the world. Would you be upset if the ACLU constantly tried to stop that research from happening?