why do we need gun control laws
Passing an assault weapons ban might prevent 170 mass shooting deaths a year in the US, experts who support gun control estimate. Passing a universal background check law could prevent 1,100 gun homicides each year. Raising the age limit for buying firearms could prevent 1,600 homicides and suicides. These are some of the new estimates in a groundbreaking study of the potential impact of American gun control laws. The non-partisan analysis, based on a review of existing gun policy research and a survey of the best guesses of both gun rights and gun control experts, was, which spent two years and more than $1m on the project. RandÁs review of the existing research concluded that only a handful of gun control laws were backed by strong research evidence. Child access prevention laws, which are designed to keep guns out of the hands of children, had the strongest evidence behind them, the researchers concluded, and appeared to reduce gun injuries and suicides. The review also found Ámoderate evidenceÁ that background checks reduce firearm suicides and homicides, and that certain mental health gun prohibitions reduced violent crime. The Rand review also found Ámoderate evidenceÁ that Ástand your groundÁ laws, which allow Americans to use guns to defend themselves without first attempting to retreat from a confrontation, may increase state homicide rates. What the two-year project revealed most starkly were the gaping holes in both the research and the basic data needed to understand what gun laws might save the most lives. There was only ÁinconclusiveÁ research evidence about the impact of a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines on mass shootings and on violent crime. There was no rigorous research of any kind about the impact of gun-free zones. The research on the impact of laws making it easier to carry concealed firearms was ÁlimitedÁ or inconclusiveÁ. That lack of evidence is not an accident, but a political choice, shaped by more than two decades of opposition to federally funded gun research from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights advocates.
Having no research to answer crucial gun debate questions Ácreates a fact-free environment, where people can make claims that make problems for legislation moving forwardÁ, Andrew Morral, the lead researcher on the project, said. Congressional Republicans passed the 1996 Dickey amendment to pressure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) away from conducting public health research on gun violence. The political pressures have never amounted to a total ban on federal funding for gun-related research. The justice department, for instance, has continued to fund important studies in this area, often focused on policing and community strategies for preventing shootings. But the amount of money the US government spends on research to prevent gun deaths is a fraction of the amount it spends on comparably prevalent causes of death and injury. To fill in those gaping holes in what Americans know about how different gun control laws might work, Rand did what policymakers might do when there is no study offering a simple answer: they surveyed longtime gun policy experts about their best guesses about the impact of different laws. The experts, who included gun policy researchers and affiliates of advocacy groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, provided their best guesses about how much a given law might affect gun homicides, gun suicides, gun accidents and mass shooting deaths, as well as how much each policy might affect gun industry sales. Rand sorted out experts by their self-described affinity to gun rights or gun control groups, and these two groups of experts often provided opposite estimates of what impact the policies might have.
Gun rights advocates guessed than a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines might lead to a 1% increase in gun homicides, or 100 more lives lost. Unlike most in-depth research studies, RandÁs project is designed to be accessible to the public. It includes
that allows users to explore the potential human impact of passing individual gun laws, or packages of potential gun law compromises. I DONÁT NEED GUN CONTROL LAWS, I NEED WHITE PEOPLEá LAWS Nikolas Cruz, 19; shooter who killed 17 people in Parkland, FL Another day, another mass shooting. By now, youÁve heard about the where a white man, 19 year old Nikolas Cruz, shot multiple students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. As of today, it has been reported that he killed 17 of those people. By now, youÁve seen the tweets, Facebook posts, and media pundits engaging the same conversations we always have when thereÁs a mass shooting in America. ÁGun control laws now! Á the white liberals scream. ÁThoughts and prayers,Á say the white conservatives. ÁWe need more mental health resources,Á says just about everyone who conveniently, and ignorantly, conflates mental illness with violence when the perpetrator is a white man. Meanwhile, Black folks are rolling our eyes, saying what we always say: ÁStop white people. Á At some point in timeÁÁÁprobably not my lifetimeÁÁÁwhite people are going to have to stop talking in circles about gun control laws and have that hard conversation about how they continue to be a danger to others, and inevitably themselves, yet consistently underestimate how violent they are. You know why school shootings are more likely to happen in majority white school districts/communities? Society has historically lulled white people into a false sense of security due their whiteness. They donÁt believe that theyÁre as readily capable of violence because theyÁre not as frequently victimized by it as people of color are.
It always comes full circle, though. And white people never learn the right lessons. ÁItÁs kinda pointless talking about gun control when white people never admit that theyÁre the weapon of mass destruction. Á WhatÁs the point in gun reform when white people donÁt understand how destructive they are? Why limit access to weapons when, in the case of my Black body, white people ARE the weapon? At this point, I donÁt need laws making it harder for people to get guns (especially since the main people who will be affected by these laws are Black and brown folks). I need laws making it harder for white people to be white. I need a law that mandates white men receive a lifetime of counseling, not because of mental illness, but to prevent them from raping and killing other people when they find out theyÁre not entitled to everything on this land. I need a law that requires white women to report their brothers, fathers, boyfriends, and husbands whenever they even whisper something remotely prejudiced, or serve jail time with the men they enable. I need a law that makes history written by people of color the mandatory curriculum in every school, so white children can truly learn how violent their ancestors were so as not to repeat that violence over and over again. I need a law that requires white people pay reparations to Black women because maybe if they didnÁt have so much money, they wouldnÁt have the resources to destroy people and things. I need the FBI to stop monitoring ÁBlack identity extremistsÁ and watch these bored white suburban kids who have so much time on their hands that they start doing dumb and dangerous shit. I donÁt want to hear anything about gun control laws until we get laws that regulate whiteness. ThatÁs the only weapon of mass destruction that concerns me.
- Views: 7
why do you need to review the existing literature
why do we need stricter gun control laws
why do we need more gun control
why do we need gun control laws
why do we collect data for an hypothesis
why is there a shortage of 22 caliber ammunition
why do school busses not have seat belts