Anybody know what the scientific consensus on gun control is?

Anybody know what the scientific consensus on gun control is?

Anti-gun people say there's a consensus supports them, pro-gun people say that the consensus supports them.

Or is the research inconclusive?

crimeresearch.org/2015/02/new-survey-on-the-views-academic-economists-who-research-guns/

latimes.com/nation/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html

Other urls found in this thread:

crimeresearch.org/2016/02/new-cprc-study-comparing-the-views-of-economists-and-criminologists-on-gun-control/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The gun control debate is a value judgment between freedom and security, you can't settle it with facts alone. This is how most politics is.

The government trying to ban anything is heinous, they have no more right to govern than anyone else, the only reason they can? Access to physical control via the threat of violence.

It's devolved into a name calling contest between overzealous firearms owners and soccer moms who think anything black and scary looking must be a machine gun that fires unlimited exploding bullets

Heres another survey on criminologists and economists in contrast to hemenway's survey.

crimeresearch.org/2016/02/new-cprc-study-comparing-the-views-of-economists-and-criminologists-on-gun-control/

There's a lot of conflicting research.

It can't really be resolved in a way you might find "scientific"

It depends on how much you value personal liberty.

I would personally say nothing should be banned or be the subject of overburdening or unnecessary regulations.

Firearms are something with only a handful of practical uses and are mostly a hobby for the typical person and enable someone to kill quite easily. This makes it a natural legal battleground to establish just how important personal liberty is to us as a society.

This pretty much.

Think of it this way:

Would you support CCW in bars if it meant an increase in 1-victim shootings on the off chance that a CCW holder might prevent a mass shooting? Because that's the kind of ethical problem you're dealing with.

The jury still seems to be out on CCW permits and their effects on violent crime.

I think gun control is essentially a prisoner's dilemma problem, pic related. We're both probably a lot safer without firearms (ignoring use cases like hunting), but nobody wants to be the guy without a gun vs the guy with one, so the equilibrium is that we're all armed. Thus, we're less safe than if nobody had guns and more safe than if guns were disproportionately owned by one class of people.

Funnily enough, this is a solid argument against the government owning guns but enforcing gun control similar to what stated

The scientific consensus is over my dead body, commie.

A free people isn't disarmed in front of their government.

>Firearms are something with only a handful of practical uses
Yeah, like freedom.

I've done some research about it in the past.

Basically from what I've found is that banning guns will not be the end all be all of ending violent crime. A country with stricter gun control will still be a shittier place if it has a higher homicide rate than a place with loose laws and less homicide. You should instantly toss a study in the trash if it tries to argue that more crimes happening with guns is an argument that guns should be banned because of fucking course more crimes happen with guns. The question should be whether more crime happens in general.

That being said, there is really no strict link between availability of guns and the level of general crime. You could find a lot of case studies where there are a lot of guns an crime, guns and little crime, and vice versa.

Mass shootings, however, are a separate issue.

research is inconclusive by design

the government is banned from collecting the information that would settle the debate once and for all

thanks lobbyists