Junk Science guns
Previous Post
Next Post

We’ve all heard stories — on a monthly basis, if not more often — about alleged “studies” that allegedly show that if we just pass a few more gun control measures, we can finally turn the tide on the criminal misuse of firearms. Various big gun control groups love to tout these studies to support their baseless claims that more commonsense restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ rights will make the difference where thousands of other gun control laws have failed.

Take, for instance, this one from the highly respected, straight-shooting (cough) news network, CNN . . .

Study: 3 federal laws could reduce gun deaths by more than 90%

Passing federal laws that require universal background checks for firearm purchases, background checks on ammunition purchases and firearm identification could reduce the rate of U.S. gun deaths by more than 90%, according to a new study.

“We wanted to see which restrictive gun laws really work, as opposed to saying ‘restrictive laws work,’ and figure out if we are pushing for a law which might not work,” said Bindu Kalesan, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University and lead author of the study, which was published on Thursday in The Lancet.

If you believed any of that, I have some lovely beachfront property in Arkansas I’d like to talk to you about.

Recently the RAND Corporation analyzed 27,900 studies like the one above that purport to  research gun control measures. Shockingly, they found that only a tiny fraction of them actually survive rigorous scientific scrutiny into their findings.

What’s more, of the legitimate studies that did followed scientific practices, even those didn’t affirm the effectiveness of gun control laws.

In other words, the vast majority of the 27,900 studies examined by RAND were junk “science.” In fact, RAND’s analysis suggests that in many of these faulty studies, “researchers may have suppressed results that suggest gun control measures are not working as intended.” Get outta town!

Screen capture by Boch. Via YouTube.

As Bloomberg columnist, statistician and risk analyst Aaron Brown puts it in the video above . . .

If you think that most published journal articles on public policy issues have clear causal conclusions, such as that a specific gun control regulation does or does not work, you would be mistaken. 

From Reason Magazine . . .

There has been a massive research effort going back decades to determine whether gun control measures work. A 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, parsed the results of 27,900 research publications on the effectiveness of gun control laws. From this vast body of work, the RAND authors found only 123 studies, or 0.4 percent, that tested the effects rigorously. Some of the other 27,777 studies may have been useful for non-empirical discussions, but many others were deeply flawed. 

We took a look at the significance of the 123 rigorous empirical studies and what they actually say about the efficacy of gun control laws. 

The answer: nothing. The 123 studies that met RAND’s criteria may have been the best of the 27,900 that were analyzed, but they still had serious statistical defects, such as a lack of controls, too many parameters or hypotheses for the data, undisclosed data, erroneous data, misspecified models, and other problems. 

…Tellingly, the studies that have gotten the most media or legislative attention aren’t among the 123 that met RAND’s approval. The best studies made claims that were too mild, tenuous, and qualified to satisfy partisans and sensationalist media outlets. It was the worst studies, with the most outrageous claims, that made headlines.

[emphasis added.]

Or as Brown found . . .

Of the thousands of studies that have been done on the effect of gun control laws, nearly all are so flawed as to be total nonsense. The hundred or so good studies are usually ignored or misrepresented by politicians and the media. 

So the next time you hear the mainstream media or a politician touting the latest groundbreaking “study” showing the salutary effects of gun control laws just remember this report. Using these to support claims that gun control actually prevents criminal misuse of guns is less scientifically accurate than claiming drinking milk causes car accidents.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. ‘Science’ is only as useful as the objectiveness of those conducting the research.

    • In the case of Liberal/Progressive Democrats. Science matters until political agendas matter more and political agendas always matter more.

      • The Democrat party is the party of science denial as well as racism, bigotry, misogyny and just about everything else they claim the Republican party is. The Republican party is the party of spinelessness, though.

        • “and just about everything else they claim the Republican party is”

          It turns out it was the Democrats colluding with foreign nationals to influence the 2016 election. The fine of $8,000 for Hillary and $105,000 for the DNC was a slap in the face to every American. That was the best campaign money ever spent. What a joke.

        • 𝑫𝒐 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒏 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚? 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕’𝒔 𝒉𝒐𝒘 𝑰 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒋𝒐𝒃 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑵𝒐𝒘 𝑰 𝒂𝒎 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 $200 𝒕𝒐 $300 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒒𝒘𝒆03 𝒅𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒉𝒐𝒎𝒆.
          𝑨𝒑𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝑵𝒐𝒘 𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆__________𝒏𝒆𝒕𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒉𝟭.𝒄𝒐𝒎

    • “‘Science’ is only as useful as the objectiveness of those conducting the research.”

      And since academia is so polluted with a hard-left bias in that research, that’s what you’re gonna get.

      In spades… 🙁

  2. I wonder how many of these junk science studies have been used by a certain individual to promote their viewpoint?

    • My first reaction, as well, Southern. Then I reminded myself that dacian the stupid rarely posts actual cites anymore (he’s been called out on too many of them). Now he mostly says “studies show” or some such euphemism for “I’m talking out my @$$, and making s*** up as I go”.

      He’s a special kind of stupid.

      • And Lamp the contemptible woman abuser knows what it is to be a ‘special kind of stupid’ 🖕🤡!

        • What’s the matter sweetie? Didn’t your mommy love you enough? or did daddy love you to hard? And it Hurt!!! Now go back to your safe place in Mommy’s basement and play with your stiffed toys and crayons. Daddy won’t be home for a little while yet. So you’ve got time to play.

  3. “…only 123 of 27,900 Gun Control Studies Meet Rigorous Scientific Standards

    The 123 studies that met RAND’s criteria may have been the best of the 27,900 that were analyzed, but they still had serious statistical defects, such as a lack of controls, too many parameters or hypotheses for the data, undisclosed data, erroneous data, misspecified models, and other problems.”

    I’ve been saying that for years. Seriously, I have. The same bias and defect issues are also present in the associated anti-gun studies such as the ones that claim defensive gun use does not happen or one is more likely to get injured if there is a gun in the home and all that associated anti-gun stuff, for example here > https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/when-doctors-practice-politics-instead-of-medicine/#comment-5743456 > and here > https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/when-doctors-practice-politics-instead-of-medicine/#comment-5743478 and here > https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/when-doctors-practice-politics-instead-of-medicine/#comment-5743999

  4. I’d be surprised if a political cause wasn’t built upon junk science. Politics and “political science” has always been essentially studies of mind control and emotional manipulation. Maybe, long ago, it was about hard data and quantifiable outcomes but now it’s just manipulating adult children and making money off of make believe sectors of fairy tale industries.

    • well, the 123 are just as bad but a different kind of bad which makes the overall false and useless. In the article Rand puts it nicely by saying

      “The 123 studies that met RAND’s criteria may have been the best of the 27,900 that were analyzed, but they still had serious statistical defects, such as a lack of controls, too many parameters or hypotheses for the data, undisclosed data, erroneous data, misspecified models, and other problems.”

      And the reason Rand was nice about it is because those studies were the only ones that actually tried to use true scientific methodology even though they failed to maintain that behind the scenes.

      The vast majority of these studies were funded by anti-gun/gun-control groups, and the pressure was real heavy to please those plus the vast majority of those conducting this research had an anti-gun bias their selves. In short, they produced studies to satisfy their biases and their funding sources. Then among all of the compromised researchers they met the peer review standards deceptively by only circulating it among peers already in the pocket of the anti-gun/gun-control groups instead of subjecting them to the rigors of independent peer review like they should have. All of them are tailored to say what the anti-gun/gun-control groups wanted them to say which means some things had to be “massaged” and Rand outlined these defects and intentional deviations from scientific methodology. So, in the end, all of them are lies every one of them.

      • Well damn here I was hoping there may have been a few I have had to review that might have been partly viable. Still will look them up to see if they were referenced ever at work when things quiet down before the thaw.

      • The vast majority of these studies were funded by anti-gun/gun-control groups,…

        Often with grants from taxpayer’s money.

        We are forced to surrender a significant amount of our earned income by people with guns, just so they can give it to other people that want to enslave us.

  5. Science serves those willing to pay for it. Just ask Galileo Galilei.

    “Galileo, recant your junk science, admit that the Sun rotates around the Earth, admit that man is at the center of God’s creation, or face imprisonment and torture.”

    I hope Galileo is in charge of judging those who pervert science for their own gain.

  6. You will only hear “follow the science” from people NOT interested in science.

    Science doesn’t operate that way.

  7. Wow!
    Never realized the connection between drinking milk and traffic accidents…gonna have to go back to single malt whiskey.

    People are going to use the “studies” that most coincide with their personal echo chamber…er, beliefs. Lil’Dweeb is no exception.

    However, I am enjoying the faux Dacian and Miner’s observations…the (mostly) humorous comments serve to illustrate what little toadies D / M are.

  8. Guess it’s my turn for random moderation…
    must be the “dweeb” word I used.

    • Enjoy while you can. The greens want to outlaw cows, and liquor stores are dumping vodka down the sewer. Ever hear a rat hiccup?

    • And now, citing just a few of those 26,777 pure bullshit studies, is our very own sponsored idiot dacian…

  9. The Paranoia of the Far Right make them oblivious to the history of all gun control laws. They scream gun control does not work which is of course ludicrous as Europeans and Asian Industrialized countries have far less crime and homicides with guns than the U.S. streets that run rivers of blood and carnage 365 days a year.

    You do not see dead bodies laying in the streets due to road rage in Japan and few in European countries as well. You rarely see mass murders with weapons of mass destructions like you do in Capitalvania. The few that have taken place in Europe were done by terrorists trained and supplied with weapons in Middle Easter Countries as took place in France several years ago. That is an act of war and no local gun laws can prevent that.

    Last year in Germany one nut case who was naturally refused the right to get a gun did make a crude single shot handgun that misfired most of the time and he only succeeded in killing 1 person before the cops got there. The church full of people were not harmed either that he attacked. In Capitalvania he would have used a weapon of mass destruction and wiped out the entire church congregation before he was stopped by the cops.

    In Britain at the “London Bridge Incident” a group of terrorists nut cases were denied the right to purchase shotguns so they went into a bar with knives and had the shit beat out of them by the local patrons with chairs and broken beer bottles. In Capitalvania they would have bought used assault rifles and wiped out everyone in the bar in a matter of minutes as happened numerous ties in numerous Bars in Capitalvania. The Florida Night club massacre comes to mind and that was only one of several in the last couple of years. One other one that took place in California a news reporter who had escaped a mass murder previously had her luck run out and this next time she was among the piles of dead bodies.

    Even poor East European countries have way less crime than the U.S. does. When I visited one poor Eastern European Country I observed the young women out and about on a weekend night. Unlike in the lawless land of Capitalvania where guns are more common than leaves on the trees the young girls were not always looking over their shoulders at night or jumping with fright when a strange male came upon them unexpectedly. The large city I was in had several more million people than the largest of the cities where I live, yet still they had way less violence and crime especially with firearms.

    Despite the Far Right propaganda and outright lies Japan does indeed permit their citizens to own shotguns and even rifles. Several years ago an American who lives there did a video on how to purchase both types of weapons there. You do not see the crime with firearms in Japan because of their excellent gun control laws which are lengthy and very thorough before you can purchase a firearm and their low crime rate especially with firearms proves that yes good gun control laws work and work very well.

    It does no good to show the History of gun laws to the Paranoids of the Far Right because they will scream “Do not confuse me with the facts because I have already made up my mind”.

    If more guns made a country safer the U.S. would be the safest country on earth but it is the most violent and murderous of all the Industrialized Countries, something the Far Right cannot lie their way out of except of course to themselves as they are incapable of logical or clear thinking when it comes to gun control.

    You just cannot communicate with the mentally ill people of the Far Right as they will ignore reality and the stats with just a wave of the hand. And they will tell you “losses can never be too high including the children”

    The nut cases that hang out on this forum do not represent the majority of gun owners who all realize we have a huge gun problem in the U.S.

      • “Why are you here? You are not converting anyone.”

        Actually, “Tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth” applies.

        He’ll never convert the POTG, but he *might* convert a fence-sitter.

        And that’s why he should be bitch-slapped every time he pops up… 🙁

        • He argues like an uneducated 13yo. He couldn’t convert anybody.

          He’s just fun to beat up on.

        • Fence-sitters skip walls of text.
          Everyone regardless of pro/con/fence spins their scroll wheel as fast as they can the moment tiny Alfred E Neuman shows his face. Only people caught by the trolling will read through it searching for nits to pick.

    • dacian,

      you need to watch the video at the reason link in the article. At one point in the video it explains why your claims of “Europeans and Asian Industrialized countries have far less crime and homicides” (as related to gun control) or similar are bogus too.

      • Japan, essentially without guns, has a significantly higher Intentional Death Rate (homicides + suicides) than the USA. Eliminating guns will not reduce the number of deaths, only the means of death.

    • Gun control might work if the penalty for crimes against which firearms are a legal method of defense were so savage that the perpetrators would wish for the good old days when the worst that could happen to them was to be shot by their victims. That still wouldn’t stop the fanatics and the crazies.

    • Spoken like if AOC and Hogg had a love child and learned english from Joe and Kamala.

    • Just for laughs, compare the US murder rate to Guatemala or Brazil, which are much higher than the USA. So is Russia and South Africa.

      Although the Russians are now implementing your disarmament process in Ukraine as they withdraw. Ironically inspired by the Japanese Imperial Army 3 ALLS policy. Kill all, burn all, destroy all.

    • Update

      Mass murder across the nation yesterday, the day before etc… and every day where multiple men, women, and children mowed down by drunk/intoxicated car drivers in possession of 2,000 pound chunks of plastic and metal weapons of mass destruction.

    • And without exception, EVERY ONE of them drank water at least once in their lives before committing their slaughter. By extension of dacian logic, we MUST ban the shameless, easy access to water, which is barely regulated and often available for FREE !

    • Excuse me, dacian the stupid, point to the place in the article where it even ALLEGES than an “assault rifle” (fake, made-up term), or even an AR15 (NOT an “assault rifle”) was used???? So, once again, dacian lies. Sorta like the sun coming up – except that only happens once a day.

    • I have no clue who you are, but after reading your “Update” your a Liberal Moron, it was a Glock w/ a switch NO rifle used, handguns and gang related. Sac has a huge gang problem. So just keep making your self look like a Tosser, you do a impressive job at it. So piss off wanker!

  10. If a series of studies were done with exceptional controls that proved without a doubt certain gun control schemes worked, it would be irrelevant.

    The only legal way to implement gun control is modify the Constitution. All gun control, that is to say, preemptive, prior restraint type of laws aimed at the populace as a whole, is unconstitutional.

    There is one form of gun control that is very effective, but the victims of it will not testify about it because they are either dead in the hibdreds of millions, or still alive but roo afraid to speak about it because where they live, speaking freely means you disappear and your organs are probably harvested.

    • To Mudhunter

      History has already proven you wrong. The lions share of gun bans have been held as constitutional because the criminals who founded the U.S. deliberately wrote 2A in the vaguest of terms so they could ban guns. As a matter of fact none of the numerous gun control laws in the major U.S. Cities before 2A were banned and they actually have had a steady increase since the signing of 2A right up to the present day proving how utterly useless 2A is and always has been.

      • “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        Even a complete moron of an uneducated chowderhead like you could not believe there is anything “vague” about that. You are lying to promote your Leftist/fascist wet dream of universal gun control – in your “mind”, leaving only you and your fellow Leftist/fascists in possession of guns.

        The most laughable part of that is your naive belief that even your fellow Leftist/fascists would allow an idiot like you to be armed.

      • ‘……deliberately wrote 2A in the vaguest of terms so they could ban guns….’

        Once AGAIN, lil’dtard proves to everyone on TTAG what a complete moron s/h/it is.

        There was much debate by the FFathers about including the 2nd A at all. Being a natural right, it was considered unecesssary to include.
        The government ‘gives’ NOBODY the RTBA lil’dumbass.

    • And of course your own link falsifies your claim:

      Sue Lockwood, 67, said she heard the shooting from her tent on the east side of City Hall, where she is living. “A lot of guns going off and they were big handguns, they weren’t rifles,” Lockwood said, adding that she served in the Navy and was familiar with gunfire.

      Nowhere is it said the shooters used rifles. But don’t feel bad. Everyone already knew you were a liar when you started stumping for gun control. Gun control nuts lie. It’s what they do. We don’t expect any better.

      • Yeah, DaveL, I busted his chops up above about that same pathetic lie. It seems dacian the stupid has reacted to getting his @$$ handed to him by doubling down on stupid. MinorIQ mostly slunk off, occasionally showing up to chuck out some (half) “witticism”, but dacian has just gone full-on bats*** crazy. He rarely cites anything, anymore (except “articles” from Leftist swamp rags like Salon and Vox and the (yecch!!) Sacramento Bee, but rants on and on about how evil the “Right” is. Poor boy has lost both of his remaining brain cells.

  11. The only real correlation I’ve seen is that when Democrats start talking about gun control, that causes more people to buy more guns. The more criminals that get released back into the general population, that too causes more people to buy more guns.

    If the Democrats want to get rid of guns then they need to back off, stop going nuts over them, and just leave people alone. It is their insanity that keeps pushing.

  12. Outside certain parts of certain cities, the US is a very safe place. Here in the semi rural, suburban, and rural county I live in, we have only a handful of murders, usually involving other crimes as well. The neighboring county with it’s metropolitan area, has as many murders in a month as we have in a year or 2. the 2 factors seem to be drugs, and gang affiliation. Yes, we have our share of drugs out here, but usually even the Meth Heads and other idiots poisoning themselves are not killing each other over who owns what street corner.

    • The reason crime rates are all done as the ratio of crimes to population is so your neighborhood can be accurately compared with another. If there are only 300 people in your town and you have a few shootings, you’ll easily surpass all but the most violent areas of inner cities. Just because it’s quiet doesn’t mean it’s safe.

  13. “Follow the science” is code for listen to me and don’t look behind the curtain. And the sheep obey.

  14. Science is about the hardheaded pursuit of truth, without fear or favor, using careful interrogation of the natural world. Academia, on the other hand, is built mostly upon posturing and pretense.

  15. What needs to be applied is gang-control, criminal-control, and crazy-control. But overall we really need crazy-control.

    Ok, some in the the medical mental health sector would blast me for using the word “crazy”. They would say that no one is “crazy”, they prefer terms like “mental illness” or “clinically insane” or sometimes other terminology.

    We already know what gangs are, what criminals are, or at least a basic understanding, but a lot of people don’t understand what “clinically insane” is.

    The basic overall definition of “clinically insane” is; mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.

    But the definition also includes those who are violent, or violent “habitual” criminals, or those prone to violence. The “uncontrollable impulsive behavior” can also be expressed in their need to associate and belong with those who also will be prone to violence so their violent “uncontrollable impulsive behavior” seems normal in that environment.

    The mental health profession likes to assign specific diagnosis to these “clinically insane” people instead of calling them “clinically insane”. The most common diagnosis usually has a combination of “symptoms”, for example, “bipolar disorder and depression”.

    As an example, those who followed the Rittenhouse-Kenoshia case where Rittenhouse successfully implemented necessary defensive gun use in valid self-defense, you were introduced to four “clinically insane” people. These are Anthony Huber, Gaige Grosskreutz, Joseph Rosenbaum, and the one that did not get shot and remained a mystery until the Rittenhouse trial was almost finished is Maurice Freeland (AKA ‘Jump Kick Man’ from the video and pics of the incident). All had criminal records involving violence stemming from, on deeper background research, using criminal “violence as an uncontrollable impulsive behavior” in an “habitual” manner. Although there was some mental health counseling and treatment along the way for three of them, only one had been an in-patient at a mental health facility and that was Joseph Rosenbaum who was diagnosed with “bipolar disorder and depression”. He was released that day from a mental health treatment facility and allowed to roam freely once again in society, despite his violent background and violence he also expressed in the past while actually taking his medications.

    Daily, in the United States, over 25,000 people are released from mental health care facilities who are violently “clinically insane”. ~75% will commit a violent crime within 72 hours of their release and ~90% of those will use either club, stabbing/cutting, or a gun if they can get one, the trending use is a ‘stabbing/cutting’ type of weapon and clubs are popular too. Of those 25,000 people only 2% will not commit a violent crime within 15 days of their release but will later, and only 1% will never commit a criminal act of violence again but remain in out-treatment and heavily medicated for the rest of their lives.

    These same people (excluding that 1%) are repeatedly caught and sent back through the criminal justice sentence and end up back in mental health facilities (unless their victims died), where they are again released. This has been happening for many years. These are just the ones who are considered “treated” in-patient. Those who are out-patient being treated continue to roam around freely all the time and this is estimated at ~231,000 who are known to be violent routinely and another ~468,000 who are known to be potentially violent or have been occasionally violent.

    Today its estimated that over 25 million violently “clinically insane”, treated and untreated, people are wondering around in society inflicting their violence by joining gangs, committing crimes, conducting mass shootings, committing assaults, and causing general violent mayhem in society with a multitude of actions. Every violent criminal caught in the last 50 years had traits of being “clinically insane”, every mass shooter in the last 30 years had traits of being “clinically insane”, every gang member caught for committing a violent crime in the last 40 years had traits of being “clinically insane”.

    We don’t need gun-control – what we need is crazy-control.

  16. Rand LONG ago became a leftwing prog organization (they know who their funds come from).

    Dr Bindu Kalesan – ANOTHER example to we have way to many, know it all, unassimilated immigrants. Lots of socialist 3rd world opinions and big mouths. If we have (unwisely) gifted you as a 1st generation STF and sit down.

    “Dr” is NOT enough reason to allow ANOTHER immigrant into our over populated country. GO HOME and fix YOUR cesspool (in this case India) and stop telling us how to “fix” the US.

  17. I would love to hear the reaction of the pearl clutching moms or the Giffords to the Rand report. I think that it would take some spin of epic proportion to make the Rand bend to their purpose.

  18. Interesting study by Rand, I’ll check it out.

    Meanwhile, there’s another study out!

    “But a comparison of violent crime rates in jurisdictions controlled by Democrats and Republicans tells a very different story. In fact, a new study from the center-left think tank Third Way shows that states won by Trump in the 2020 election have higher murder rates than those carried by Joe Biden. The highest murder rates, the study found, are often in conservative, rural states.

    The study found that murder rates in the 25 states Trump carried in 2020 are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won. (The report used 2020 data because 2021 data is not yet fully available.) The five states with the highest per capita murder rate — Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri — all lean Republican and voted for Trump.“

    Very interesting, focusing on the actual per capita rate is much more indicative of reality, as opposed to just looking at the raw numbers. Of course, low pop rural areas will have lower raw numbers, but the actual rate may be much higher.

    The study actually reveals that it’s not necessarily gun ownership or ethnicity that plays such a great role, the fact is that poverty and poor education play a greater role in this equation:

    “We as criminologists have known this for quite some time,” Jennifer Ortiz, a professor of criminology at Indiana University Southeast, told Yahoo News. “States like Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama have historically had high crime rates.”

    Criminologists say research shows higher rates of violent crime are found in areas that have low average education levels, high rates of poverty and relatively modest access to government assistance. Those conditions characterize some portions of the American South.

    “They are among the poorest states in our union,” Ortiz said of the Deep South. “They have among the highest rates of child poverty. They are among the least-educated states. They are among the states with the highest levels of substance abuse. All of those factors contribute to people engaging in criminal behavior.”

    And the article mentions another interesting bit of propaganda, I often see Republicans blaming the Democrats for higher crime rates when in actual fact, it’s the Republicans making it easier for criminals to ply their nefarious trade:

    “In February, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., blamed Democrats for a 2018 law that reduced some federal prison sentences — even though it was signed by Trump after passing a GOP-controlled Congress. “It’s your party who voted in lockstep for the First Step Act that let thousands of violent felons on the street who have now committed innumerable violent crimes,” Cotton said during a speech in the Senate.“

    Hilarious, Tom Cotton somehow failed to remember that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency in 2018… Is he just losing his memory because of dementia or is he intentionally lying in order to support the conservatives’ delusional narrative, you decide!


  19. According to this story and Rand, there are 123 scientifically valid studies. Your criticism of those for flaws not found by Rand is suspicious. What conclusions do those 123 studies reach about guns? That’s the real question.

Comments are closed.