copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Kamala Harris “has not formally taken questions from the press a single time” since she was announced as Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick. (Dinesh D'Souza, 2020-09-23)
Evidence (2024-07-23): UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — President Joe Biden announced he is dropping out of the 2024 presidential race, leaving Vice President Kamala Harris the top contender for the Democratic nomination. Biden’s decision not to seek re-election comes after the states held their presidential primaries and his campaign raised tens of millions of dollars. [...] Speel: In coming weeks, we will see Kamala Harris choose a vice-presidential candidate. We will see if she chooses a running mate who excites and galvanizes the Democratic base — and some independents, the way her candidacy has so far — or if she chooses someone experienced and safe, like Hillary Clinton did with Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia in 2016, and Barack Obama with Biden in 2008, and Michael Dukakis with Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas in 1988. I expect that Republican lawsuits to try to prevent the Democratic National Convention from nominating anyone other than Joe Biden will fail. There is nothing in any law or in the U.S. Constitution regulating how political parties choose candidates, other than campaign contribution limits.
Claim: Kamala Harris “has not formally taken questions from the press a single time” since she was announced as Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick. (Dinesh D'Souza, 2020-09-23)
Evidence (2024-08-29): Three weeks ago, just days after being formally chosen as the Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris was pressed on her plans for a sit-down interview. [...] Barack Obama and Joe Biden sat for an interview with 60 minutes after Mr Biden was selected as the vice-presidential nominee in 2008. Eight years later, Hillary Clinton and her running mate Tim Kaine did the same. For Ms Harris and Mr Biden in 2020, they picked ABC’s 20/20. And less than a week after Trump announced JD Vance as his running mate, the pair were jointly interviewed on Fox. But since Mr Biden passed the torch to her late last month, Ms Harris has limited most of her engagement with the press to scripted and highly-controlled environments. Her last formal sit-down interview was on 24 June, more than two months and a political lifetime ago.
Claim: Kamala Harris “has not formally taken questions from the press a single time” since she was announced as Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick. (Dinesh D'Souza, 2020-09-23)
Evidence (2024-08-19): Since becoming the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, Vice President Kamala Harris has done myriad public appearances and given speeches. She will give her biggest one yet when she formally accepts the nomination Thursday night at the Democratic National Convention. But she has not, as of this writing, talked to journalists outside a brief session on the tarmac before a flight. [...] Because of her refusal to sit for an interview with any print or broadcast media, Harris has been the target of a lot of indignant insistence that she change her mind — that she’s not giving the American public answers they deserve. Critics say she’s subverting an expected system that all other elected officials have gone through. They say she’s hiding behind a wall of hype and "irrational exuberance" that is proof she lacks the toughness to hold the office she seeks.
Claim: Kamala Harris “has not formally taken questions from the press a single time” since she was announced as Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick. (Dinesh D'Souza, 2020-09-23)
Evidence (2024-07-24): On Sunday, President Joe Biden stunned the nation when he announced that he was no longer seeking reelection and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as his successor at the top of the Democratic Party ticket. The news came several weeks after a widely lambasted performance by Biden against Republican nominee Donald Trump, which reignited fears about the current president’s age, health, and fitness for office, and prompted a growing number of Democrats to urge him to drop out of the race. [...] Stephanopoulos: I think with the switch happening now, before there has been an official nomination, there aren’t going to be any serious legal issues about ballot access for Vice President Harris. It’s going to be exactly as if Biden were the nominee. There will be a roll call vote of all the different state delegations on August 7. As a legal matter, that roll call on August 7 is going to make Harris the official nominee for the party. That’s the exact same roll call vote that would have otherwise made Biden the nominee. And so, there’s going to be zero legal effect to switching from Biden to Harris at this point.
Claim: Kamala Harris “has not formally taken questions from the press a single time” since she was announced as Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick. (Dinesh D'Souza, 2020-09-23)
Evidence (2024-08-09): The Thursday news conference would be his first public appearance since Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee and selected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. [...] Trump’s running mate JD Vance has criticized Harris for not conducting news conference or sitting down for interviews since President Joe Biden stepped aside and she launched her presidential bid. Harris sometimes answers shouted questions while boarding or leaving her plane for campaign stops. [...] Vance used the stunt to jab Harris for not having conducted an extended interview or full press conference since she began her campaign July 21 after President Joe Biden ended his reelection bid.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2022-06-05): Experts say suicide deaths can be unpredictable, but are preventable. Research has found that most attempters act on impulse, but once the acute feelings ease, the vast majority do not go on to die by suicide. Recent studies have also shown a link between 48-hour waiting periods to purchase guns and suicide deaths by firearm. Though further research may be needed, many have found that such waiting periods have at least a moderate effect on reducing those deaths.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2024-07-16): Even if many distraught suicide attempters would seek alternative means of suicide, waiting periods may still reduce total rates of suicide because of the high case-fatality ratio of firearms when compared with other methods (Anestis, 2016; Miller, Hemenway, and Azrael, 2004; Vyrostek, Annest, and Ryan, 2004; Spicer and Miller, 2000). Additionally, waiting periods may reduce suicide rates by affording at-risk individuals time to seek help or receive intervention. [...] For those who already own guns, a waiting period may have little or no effect on suicide risk.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2024-04-22): After the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, the relevance of this evidence, and thus of the real effects of gun laws on people's lives, is limited. Bruen diminished the paper's legal significance, so an empirical legal paper had to become something else. In this case, an empirical paper became more about challenging the story or paradigm underlying the legal rationale. We ultimately found a lack of support for any positive effect of waiting period restrictions for handgun purchases on suicide or homicide rates, which suggests a poor fit between the law and the outcome variables of interest. From the empirical results, our paper argues that most waiting period restrictions misconstrue the reality on the ground or at least focus on the wrong paradigm, with most gun-related deaths in America in 2020 being suicides (54%). The paper argues that the law would be better served by rejecting the common-law concept of a cooling-off period to prevent impulsive acts, and instead focusing on another paradigm. [...] Finally, our paper raises the question of how to handle a gun regulation that may have historical support and thus be constitutional under Bruen, but would not be constitutional under intermediate scrutiny because it has little to no effect. Although it is doubtful that any waiting period restriction is sufficiently similar to historic gun regulation, at least one state has employed waiting-period-type restrictions since the 1920s. Our paper raises the question of whether historically supported but possibly ineffectual gun regulations are permissible under Bruen.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2016-01-09): There's no perfect consensus on how well background-check laws work. A 2000 study found that the 1994 Brady Act — which instituted not only background checks but waiting periods at first — did not reduce either homicide or suicide rates. [...] In addition, some states are doing a poor job of submitting mental health records to NICS, as Politico's Kevin Cirilli writes, allowing some sick people to obtain guns. Cirilli points to Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, who had a history of mental illness before he killed 32 people in 2007. [...] All of this very well may mean that, as gun-rights advocates like Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio often point out, criminals will simply obtain guns through some avenue other than stores. That would mean that background checks don't deter those people, and, therefore, that expanding them to more online or private or gun show sales would do little.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2015-04-21): No statistical evidence that a waiting period for handgun purchases reduces violence, lawmaker says [...] And a 2012 study by one researcher from the University of Cincinnati and another from Arizona State University found no statistical effects from waiting periods on gun crimes. [...] Wanggaard said, "There’s no statistical evidence that" a waiting period for handgun purchases "reduces violence whatsoever."
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2024-07-23): Waiting Periods - Waiting periods are arbitrary impositions with no effect on crime or suicide, introduce no additional investigative avenues, and only burden law-abiding gun owners without changing how or when criminals obtain firearms. [...] - Most gun-owners own more than one firearm[5] and a waiting period could not possibly have an effect on those purchasing an additional firearm. First-time buyers seeking a firearm for self-defense would be affected by a waiting period that limits their ability to safeguard themselves and their loved ones. [...] Two-thirds of gun owners own more than one gun.[12] A cooling-off period for these gun owners could not possibly have an effect as they already own other firearms. Anecdotal evidence about a person who purchases a firearm and then immediately uses it to harm themselves or somebody else are just that: anecdotal. There is no scientific evidence that waiting periods have an effect on suicide, homicide, or mass shootings.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2023-07-27): Which states require a waiting period before gun purchases? 13 states have adopted this policy [...] Waiting period laws require gun buyers to wait a specified period before completing a purchase. These policies create a buffer of time for a person in suicidal crisis, a cooling-off period that can be the difference between life and death. A full discussion on Waiting Periods is here.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2023-05-14): Waiting periods for firearm purchases are not a recent development. In fact, they were implemented over 100 years ago. The earliest instances of waiting periods occurred in the 19th century, with some states requiring waiting periods of up to two weeks for purchasing a handgun. The purpose of this waiting period was to allow law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on the potential buyer. [...] The debate about waiting periods for firearm purchases centers on finding a balance between public safety and individual rights. Supporters argue that waiting periods provide time for additional background checks and can prevent impulsive acts of violence. Critics argue that waiting periods infringe upon individuals’ rights and that criminals or those wanting to commit violence will find other means to obtain firearms. [...] Waiting periods for firearm purchases have a long history in the United States. While waiting periods may help reduce impulsive acts of violence and decrease suicide rates, they remain a controversial issue. The effects of waiting periods on mass shootings are still unknown, and there is disagreement on their impact on Second Amendment rights. Finding common ground and compromise may be the key to reducing gun violence while still preserving individual rights.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2022-06-05): According to a 2017 Harvard Business School review, waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%. But Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, called waiting periods "an ineffective policy to try to affect gun crime." [...] Daniel Webster, co-director of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health, said waiting periods are important, and it's obvious to him why more states don't require them: Many firearm laws, he said, are "written by people who sell guns." [...] Hawaii has the longest waiting period in the U.S., at 14 days. Alan Beck, an attorney representing residents who are challenging various aspects of the state's gun laws, said the two-week period seems arbitrary. If it's meant as a cooling off period for someone who is angry, he said it won't have an effect on potential gun buyers if they already own a firearm.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2018-03-21): Yes, waiting periods on gun purchases have been linked to suicide reduction [...] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "Handgun waiting periods reduce gun deaths," Nov. 14, 2017 CNN, "Handgun waiting period laws save lives, study says," Oct. 16, 2017
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2017-10-16): HomeNewsAll NewsGun waiting periods could save hundreds of lives a year, study says [...] Gun waiting periods could save hundreds of lives a year, study says [...] Formica says that though the study does a good job of describing the relationship between waiting periods and gun deaths, it does have one major limitation: Because the researchers looked at population-level data and not at outcomes for individual gun purchasers, it's a bit of a stretch to say with certainty that these waiting periods actively prevented deaths. "You can't tell if gun purchasers were the ones directly affected, so you can't know for sure that it's a causal relationship," she says.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2018-12-12): Yet research also suggests that these emotions are often transitory. Given sufficient time to cool off, the types of intense negative emotions that lead to violent tendencies can pass. This suggests that inserting even a short delay in the gun-buying process has the potential to reduce gun violence, without restricting anyone’s right to own a gun. (Delaying a gun purchase might have the additional benefit of closing the window of opportunity for would-be perpetrators of violence to harm their victims.) In a recent project, we set out to test the impact of handgun waiting periods, which impose precisely such a delay, on homicides. [...] Our main finding was consistent across the two approaches: waiting periods reduce gun homicides by 17 percent, with no increase in other types of homicide. In other words, perpetrators of violence do not simply shift to other means of committing homicide, and slight delays in obtaining a gun do not leave people defenseless against would-be attackers. [...] Behaviorally-informed gun policy has the potential to reduce violence without imposing new restrictions on anyone’s right to own a gun, making it particularly promising in the current U.S. political climate. Waiting periods are not only effective (as our research shows) but also supported by the majority of Americans, the majority of Republicans, and even approximately half of all gun owners. After all, waiting periods do not take guns away from anyone, and they do not restrict gun ownership in any way.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2017-11-08): Waiting periods saved 750 lives per year in the 17 states that had such policies in 2014, according to the study Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [...] A gun waiting period, typically between two and seven days, acts as a "cooling off" period, preventing would-be gun owners from making spur-of-the-moment purchases that could fuel violent outbursts. Delaying the acquisition of a gun might also close the window of opportunity for a perpetrator to use the weapon, if the only intention for making the purchase was to do harm within a certain period of time. [...] While the call for waiting periods is bound to receive some pushback, the researchers are encouraged by the broad support waiting periods receive. The American Medical Association supports waiting periods for gun purchases, and polls show that a majority of Americans—and even a majority of gun owners—back them as well, the paper says.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2021-03-21): Gun control advocates say mandating a window of even a couple of days between the purchase of a gun and taking possession can give more time for background checks and create a "cooling off" period for people considering harming themselves or someone else. Studies suggest that waiting periods may help bring down firearm suicide rates by up to 11% and gun homicides by about 17%, according to the Giffords Center. [...] California has one of the country’s longest waiting periods — 10 days. That did not stop more than 1.1 million people from buying guns last year, which was just shy of the record number sold in 2016. Gun sales nationwide, meanwhile, surged to record levels last year amid pandemic-related uncertainty. [...] Gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Assn., oppose waiting periods. The group points to 2018 federal firearm-tracing data that shows the average time between first retail sale of a gun and involvement in a crime was nearly nine years. They also argue that waiting periods create a delay for people buying legally, while leaving illegal weapons transfers unaffected.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2022-06-05): According to a 2017 Harvard Business School review, waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%. But Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, called waiting periods "an ineffective policy to try to affect gun crime." [...] Daniel Webster, co-director of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health, said waiting periods are important, and it’s obvious to him why more states don’t require them: Many firearm laws, he said, are "written by people who sell guns." [...] Hawaii has the longest waiting period in the U.S., at 14 days. Alan Beck, an attorney representing residents who are challenging various aspects of the state’s gun laws, said the two-week period seems arbitrary. If it’s meant as a cooling off period for someone who is angry, he said it won’t have an effect on potential gun buyers if they already own a firearm.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2022-06-05): "I don’t know that that saves anything," Wanggaard said of the waiting period. "If somebody’s decided that they’re going to take their life, they’re going to take their life." [...] When asked whether Wisconsin should reinstate the 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases, Wanggaard said no because he doesn’t know "that that saves anything," and "if somebody’s decided that they’re going to take their life, they’re going to take their life." [...] PolitiFact Wisconsin, "No statistical evidence that a waiting period for handgun purchases reduces violence, lawmaker says," April 27, 2015
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2021-02-10): That is why I’m writing this particular post. It’s for all you parents who are grieving the loss of a child to suicide or those who are attempting to support grieving family and friends. If I don’t have the chance to speak to you personally, here’s what I want you to know. [...] Allow yourself the time to rest, you’ll need it just from being. [...] Join the conversation and support. If you have experienced the loss of a child to suicide and wish to add to this list of experiences or perspectives, please add your thoughts in the comments below. It’s important that those of us who can speak out, do speak out.
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2024-01-01): © Dr. David Pilgrim, Professor of Sociology
Claim: Waiting periods for gun purchases may not make a difference, because "If somebody's decided that they're gonna take their life, they're gonna take their life." (Van Wanggaard, 2022-06-05)
Evidence (2024-09-16): I know you’re just burning for me to back this up with a few good reasons, so here we go.