Elizabeth Warren's New Plan On Guns Has A Goal: Reduce Gun Deaths By 80%

craigslist would still be a face to face sale.

craigslist doesn’t sell guns in my neck of the woods

i didn’t think facebook allowed gun sales

seems like more spin

1 Like

Any online sale of a firearm has to be shipped to an FFL, where the buyer then undergoes a background check. A firearm cannot be shipped directly to an individual’s home.

Again, this is a straw man. There is zero evidence that forcing private citizens to conduct background checks during private sales has any effect on violence or especially mass shootings. Several studies support this. It is an empty “feel good”, “do something” measure that would involve massive government interference in the private lives of citizens, involve gun registration, and have zero impact on the problem it pretends to address.


California of course leads the nation in absurd gun laws. Two years ago they outlawed (among other things) rifles with pistol grips and adjustable stocks, because, you know, pistol grips and adjustable stocks are evil. Within a very short time, if not immediately, Californians could simply buy the exact same rifle with a “featureless” stock setup.

Anyways, there is a stay on Cali’s magazine ban as far as I am aware. A similar ban in NJ has resulted in approximately zero magazines turned in to the police.

About the inner cities, seems we have nothing but crickets from Ms. Warren. I guess the inner city black gun deaths don’t count hence she isn’t serious about that 80% target.

1 Like

Maybe not on mass shootings (which is a small part of the problem) but on gun deaths in general there is evidence:


The three most effective state laws in reducing homicide rates were universal background checks, prohibiting people who have committed a violent offense from owning a handgun and “may-issue” as opposed to “shall-issue” concealed-carry permits. A may-issue permit is granted at the discretion of the police, while a shall-issue one allows no discretionary judgment provided the permit seeker is not disqualified on some other ground.

Of the 10 state laws reviewed, prohibiting handgun purchases for violent offenders reduced the homicide rate by 18%. Universal background checks, by themselves, reduced the rate by 15%, and may-issue concealed-carry laws reduced the rate by 10%. States where all three laws were enforced had a 36% lower homicide rate. States in which two of the three were enforced had a 13% lower rate, and in states where any one of the three was enforced the rate was 6% lower.


I suspect your research given that it’s the only piece making these determinations of public data. It was behind a paywall so it’s hard to comment on their work. Gun laws that have an impact would be refreshing though.

On a humorous note

The “research” I cited was first cited to me by one of the pro-gun members here as evidence that banning guns was not effective. I guess the research is good only in as far as it supports the pro-gun movement and it is suspect otherwise.

There is oodles of research supporting ‘gun bans’ don’t work. Your research is the first I’ve seen making an argument for new effective gun regulation. As such, doesn’t it deserve validation?

Perhaps you would like to site some of the oodles of research supporting ‘gun bans’ don’t work.

What happened to your “arm every child” Schtick?
Though annoying, I had gotten used to it.

1 Like

Oh, I’m all for arming every child. It’s their God given right and the only way that we can be sure that they can defend themselves against the bad guys.

I was just trying to help because your post where you say there is plenty of research showing that ‘gun bans’ don’t work and then don’t actually give any is pretty lame and well below the usual high standard you set for yourself.

You actually proof texted me out of context.

It was Leaf who said his research said “banning guns was not effective”. I replied and repeated his error. His research was on various gun regulations, not ‘banning guns’.

I wonder what the ban gun people have in mind for inheritance. Lots of people die owning guns. Typically, the family members just divide them up or one buys the others out. Sometimes they then are gifted to the next generation.


Ah, so “banning guns was not effective” was an error. Not what I’m looking for. Do you have any research that banning guns was not effective?

Ought to have a look at Mexico. It’s not a total ban, but they do have the most restrictive gun laws in the western hemisphere. Then there is their gun death rate. Granted it is nearly all cartels doing the shooting, but it has to be said the gun laws mean nothing to them.

Speaking of which, I’m still hearing crickets on how Warren plans to reduce gun deaths in the inner cities.


Yes, but Mexico’s economy stinks and the place is reeking with corruption. I’ve thinking first world here.

According to the PBS Newshour, legislation on background checks that looked so promising when Trump seemed to go along are now dead after Trump called Wayne LaPierre on the phone and then did a quick 180:


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.