We often hear gun control advocates complaining about the fact that there haven’t been many well-funded studies conducted regarding gun violence data, likely because they feel these kinds of studies would back up their crooked opinions about the Second Amendment.
Conservative Tribune explains:
Many of those same anti-gun advocates also argue that the rest of the country should adopt the same gun control measures implemented in California, such as “universal” and comprehensive background checks for firearms purchase — we already have a law mandating sufficient background checks, by the way — and widening the scope of who should be prohibited from possessing a firearm to include individuals convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, not just felonies.
But despite the lamentation from anti-gunners that there are no studies on gun violence or the efficacy of the gun control laws they champion, a major study was just published by two well-funded, prominent anti-gun research groups, and much to the shock of everyone, the study actually undermined a couple of the arguments routinely put forward by the anti-gun crowd.
A study was recently conducted by the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University and the Violence Prevention Research Program at U.C. Davis School of Medicine.
The gun-grabber study “delved into the data surrounding homicide and suicide rates in California both before and after the 1991 implementation of comprehensive background checks and the expansion of firearms possession prohibitions to individuals convicted of violent misdemeanor (MVP) crimes,” according to Conservative Tribune.
Researchers took a look at the combined homicide and suicide rate data from the years between 1980 and 2000. They used a secondary analysis which had data all the way up to 2005. They compared data that came from California with data that was similar, which came from 32 “control states.” (Most of these control states have the same kind of laws.)
Researchers working on the study didn’t find any link between firearm-related homicide and suicide rates in the Golden State and the CBC or MVP laws.
Basically, enforcing stricter gun control laws doesn’t fix anything.
Conservative Tribune writes:
Even the researchers attempted to downplay what their own study had revealed with a series of excuses in the study’s conclusion, blaming the ineffectiveness of the regulations on incomplete or missing records during background checks, a failure on the part of people to comply with the law and state to properly enforce it, and that the prohibitions against gun ownership remained too narrowly constructed.
In other words, not enough gun control had been applied yet — even in California.
That feeds the left’s perpetual “this time it will be different” narrative that they trot out whenever they are questioned on the past failures of gun control (or socialism, or other progressive pipe dreams).
For its part, pro-gun outlet Ammoland credited the researchers for actually publishing a study that undermined the arguments of the anti-gun crowd, but called out the researchers for some questionable methodology, suggesting the researchers may have attempted and failed to fudge the study’s results.
U.C. Davis was also slammed by the outlet after purposefully trying to spin the results by claiming that other states’ laws which require people to obtain permits to purchase firearms was a reason that the study deviated from other studies the researchers had conducted.
This excuse didn’t take into account that California implemented a “permit to purchase” law while the study was taking place.
Read more ILLICITINFO