Not really. 8 states ban them, but in the others, anyone who can legally buy a gun can legally buy a silencer. I have 2.
The CDC studies health, safety, and security. I know we all think of orgs like the office of infectious diseases when we think CDC, but orgs like the national institute for occupational safety and health fall under it as well.
As for the FBI studying it, I bet the CDC does a lot more research than the FBI, and have more expertise on how to conduct a good study.
Seems to be almost as much as we can know something apriori with the existing correlations. But maybe if we studied it …
Buybacks would be an obvious answer. But even if you did nothing with them and restricted transfers, that’d likely help by removing the buttloads of new guns from entering circulation every year.
How does their rule of law generally compare? How many of their guns come from the US due to our lax gun laws?
Isn’t the claim that gun owners are generally more law abiding? So this is a lie? I think most people would turn in guns, if it were the law.
You have to get a form 4, if buying, form 1 if making. Pay 200 dollar transfer tax, get permission from the ATF.
In the EU, you have a gun with license, you buy silencer from a store, no registration, no transfer tax, no permit. They are often required for most sporting activity because of noise concerns. But in the US they treat it like some assassin tools. Yes EU has stricter gun laws, but as far as silencers, they are not regulated at all.
That Hearing Protection Act aimed to deregulate silencers so more people will use them and gun range can require them if they are located in a city, so that they don’t get turfed out due to noise complaints.
Yes, I know, as I said, I have 2. oh no, you have to fill out a form (you have to get photo taken and fingerprinted for it, but if you use something like a silencershop kiosk, it’s cake. set up a trust while you’re at it.)! That’s harshly regulated? If you’re not a prohibited person, you’ll “get permission.” The only thing harsh about it is the wait.
Texas should pick one: mandatory religious attendance and gun laws or secular nihilism, outlaw guns and kneecap smashing, car denting, baton wielding cops. The citizenry needs to be kept in check by something, something official or unofficially sanctioned.
Or, alternatively, I could stay the hell out of it and watch it all burn from afar.
I think nobody really knows. Mental health in the US is kinda taboo topic, and not to mention counseling/therapy is expensive as hell. But we’re seeing a lot of mass shooter/killer/whatever coming from middle class families, not homeless population. I say this because a lot of Republican types think it’s because the US no longer commits people involuntarily unless they’ve committed violent crimes, and we can see a lot of homeless people have mental health issues.
I don’t think anyone knows, but thinks gun restrictions will somehow stop the killing. I believe some experts did an in depth analysis after Columbine (the very first few mass shootings) and concluded stronger mental health system would help, not gun restrictions. Those advise were more or less ignored.
Because look around the room, I bet you can find no less than 10 objects you can use as a weapon. Mass beating of people with bars of soap inside socks or whatever can occur if someone has the inclination to hurt someone. Yes you can kill someone with that.
A little off topic, but if you do any of the cyberpsycho quests in Cyberpunk 2077 you will discover a cause behind every cyberpsycho incidents, that has absolutely nothing to do with the stated cause of it. Perhaps mass shooting is similar? Perhaps there’s unresolved domestic issue society is unable to solve (or caused) causing people to go on a murder rage because he feels he has no other recourse?
And it seems to happen in America more than anywhere else.