Opinions on gun and violence?

Nice trips. Nobody is going to give you real statistics because there are statistics that make their side look bad regardless of which side they're on.

You could also just do the research on your own like a non-retard though.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

It was a joke, I know those stats, but it doesn't tell me anything about gun violence.

I mean, that's what I want to know. I want to see both sides in their flaws. But everytime I see arguments or studies saying gun doesn't affect violence it's always done by the NRA or funded by weirdos, making it look like guns do affect violence, but the studies I saw on that show a small effect, nothing too big or definitive. So I don't know, and I wanted some info on this by people more versed in the subject than me.

It's well established that high ownership of guns spikes the rate of domestic murder and suicides, as well as mass shootings. Violent crime maybe negligible.

Replace niggers with poor and desperate people and you have your answer. They're the same thing anyways, just not race specific.

That's not a study, though.

Wouldn't from those data one infer that there's no credible (at least obvious) correlation of link between the two?

>poverty causes crime
>not the opposite

Would such data benefit you in any conceivable way?

If we banned cars, car related deaths would go down too. If we banned sharp objects, stabbing related deaths would go down too. If we banned chemicals, poison or reaction related deaths would go down too. If we banned non-whites, non-white related crime would go down too.

OP is a fag. Shitty brainlet threads would be less common if we banned OP.

Lie, actually. The CDC was explicitly funding pro-gun control studies (which is something of a no-no for supposed "science" unless you think it's okay to reach a conclusion first then try to justify it). Congress told the CDC they couldn't do that, no more pro gun-control studies. No one ever said they couldn't study it neutrally, but they stopped it anyway. Funny how that is, it's almost like they were admitting they couldn't be neutral or objective, and were merely looking for ways to justify their ideology under the guise of "scientific" research.

Who said anything about a ban? OP said easiness to acquire.

cars are pretty easy to acquire. a license is dead easy for anyone with common sense and you can finance a car right at the dealership

Poverty causes robberies/mugging (with guns, sometimes with shooting), thus crime.
Now give us your evidence for the opposite, brainlet.

>Inb4 hurr durr middle-class people stole my house and bank account and there was nothing I could do

>For anyone with common sense
And that was exactly his point with easiness to acquire. So that brainlets/retards can't shoot up people.

It's negative correlation. Demographic racial-types have better correlation.

I couldn't care less about stats.
If my government doesn't let me get my weapon of choice legally I'll get it through the black market.

>crime filed areas make the creation of businesses riskier
>less businesses means less jobs and trading in the area
>less jobs and trading means poorer areas overall
>crime accentuates poverty or causes it

OP here, I don't really care about the solution, though, if one was up fro discussion, I'd be for the one that infringed on freedoms in the least possible way, like licenses or background checks. I just want to know the truth tbqh.

i suspect that correlation between gun ownership and gun violence heavily depends on race.

for black populations, it likely correlates with an increase in homicides, armed robberies, etc. this is because they're naturally violent and tend not to cooperate with each other. adding guns to the mix compounds the problem.

for white populations, i suspect the correlation is much less pronounced, and possibly even negative.

give guns to good people and they'll generally do good. give them to a population of impulsive violent people and bingo, you've got a "gun problem". it's not fucking rocket science.

and the only way the media knows how to deal with this problem is to scapegoat white gun owners, portraying them as backwards and dangerous, and pretending it's a problem with guns in general. so fuck you, OP.

Any studies on the fact that guns cannot be fired without a human holding it?

CDC isn't allowed to study gun violence because the NRA doesn't want them to.

You could try purchasing a gun yourself and seeing how easy or simple or complex it is.

I mean, it's obviously not the guns causing the violence, but it could still make the violence worse.

>Actually thinking poverty DOESNT cause crime
I spotted the burger

Brainlet detected

quit beating around the bush. if you can refute

then i'll eat my shoes

!, GUNS HELP TO WORSEN VIOLENCE ,!

justfacts.org/guncontrol.asp

Eat your heart out.

>biased
>eat your heart out

Yes.

>hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/
The Harvard School of Public Health has done numerous studies related to firearms, and their findings are in the link above. They also address common myths about guns like an over-prevalence of DGUs (defensive gun uses) and the "good guy with a gun" myth as well. Very eye-opening stuff t.b.h. And since you can directly see the studies/methodologies, it's somewhat immune to the baseless rhetoric you often hear in gun debates.