Posted on 12/30/2018 9:24:05 AM PST by rktman
A study done by officials at the University of California-Davis Violence Prevention Research Program and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has uncovered the fact that the much-praised mandatory background checks in California – had no impact on gun deaths.
According to a report by the Foundation for Economic Education the result has left researchers puzzled.
“In 1991,” FEE explained, “California simultaneously imposed comprehensive background checks for firearm sales and prohibited gun sales (and gun possession) to people convicted of misdemeanor violent crimes. The legislation mandated that all gun sales, including private transactions, would have to go through a California-licensed Federal Firearms License dealer. Shotguns and rifles, like handguns, became subject to a 15-day waiting period to make certain all gun purchasers had undergone a thorough background check.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Maybe because criminals that intend murder or other violence do not bother with background checks?
Ineffective gun laws should be repealed. Gun ownership will ultimately be throttled by a thousand layers of red tape that will kill ownership by making compliance with all of them impossible. A defacto ban without calling it a ban.
“Red Flag” laws will destroy gun ownership.
Even the GOP is buying into them.
Gotta be careful when commenting to “health professionals” about ANYTHING. “No” seems to be a standard answer for me any more. Of course then you may get an annotation that you could be “anti-social” and have a “negative attitude” and you bear watching.
The next round of laws will fix the problems caused by the previous law.
LOL! You mean in the same way that Bernie and aoc will get socialism right this time?
No matter which failed socialist country you mention, liberals will insist that it only failed because the “right people” weren’t in charge.
Ergo, Bernie and occasional cortex.
You mean gang bangers were not deterred?
Could it be that strict "gun control" only serves to disarm law abiding citizens?
Could it be that when the general populace is disarmed, or far less likely to be armed - thanks to strict "gun control" laws - that violent criminals are actually more prevalent, more likely to commit crimes knowing they are less likely to run into an armed victim?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.