More guns...less gun homicides. Go figure.

[Thondalar]

I figured politics was as good a place to put this as anywhere.

I'm a regular subscriber to a "magazine" called Gun Tests...I put this in quotes because it isn't some glossy, over-produced rag full of advertisements but a paragon of what a consumer-advocate publication should be. They test guns, ammunition, and accessories in a scientific manner, and simply print their results with zero bias. The only bit of politics and/or "op-ed" sort of writing found in this publication is at the very beginning, in the "Downrange" section, where the Editor-in-Chief has a page to kinda "do his own thing", as it were.

In my latest issue, Todd Woodard (Editor-in-chief) pointed out that "a recent Gallup poll...showed 58% in the U.S. have a favorable opinion of the NRA". This, by itself, didn't really impress me...to be honest, I would hope that figure would be a bit higher, and I was a little disappointed to read that. But later, he continued:

"According to the Gallup article on the poll, 'This includes the highest recording of [Very Favorable] opinions (26%) since Gallup began asking this question in 1989."

He continues..."Also, according to a recent Pew Research Center Study, the annual rate of firearm-related homicides in America declined by nearly 50 percent between 1993 and 2013. According to a Pew Research Center analysis of death certificate data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7 per 100,000 Americans in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2013. During this same time, gun sales of all types have skyrocketed, as have the number of concealed carry permit holders, which now number more than 12.8 million permit holders in 2015, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center."

He finishes with..."Clearly, the Pew data show that during a doubling (or more) in the ownership of privately held guns, firearms-related homicides plunged. More guns don't equal more crime, it seems."

Threat of mutual destruction works on both the macro- and micro- levels.

[Tgo01]

You're a white racist, inbred, redneck, hillbilly!!!!!!!

[Thondalar]

You're a white racist, inbred, redneck, hillbilly!!!!!!!

I find all of those terms highly offensive. While the Government can't overtly repress such speech, private citizens can. I'm hacking your shit right now to keep you from spewing such hate speech in the future.

[Tgo01]

I find all of those terms highly offensive. While the Government can't overtly repress such speech, private citizens can. I'm hacking your shit right now to keep you from spewing such hate speech in the future.

:(

[Thondalar]

:(

Yeah...stay online...I've almost got you...

Nice firewall...I'm almost through...

[Thondalar]

I joke I joke, I kid I kid...don't get the gestapo after me.

[Tgo01]

Oh...just ignore that knock on the door from NSA then...

[Thondalar]

Haha...normally, I would respond to reputation comments in the "respond to reputation comments" thread, but...this one just cracked me up.

Apparently, my OP, which had practically zero opinion statements, and only repeated the results of actual studies and statistics recorded over the last 20 years, somehow constituted "trolling".

Can't post an intelligent response disputing the OP's claims? Just neg rep them and call it trolling. Problem solved. Lol.

[Methais]

I joke I joke, I kid I kid...don't get the gestapo after me.

Don't worry, HarmNone has been gone for years.

[kutter]

I for one am not even a little surprised by these results.

[Tgo01]

Haha...normally, I would respond to reputation comments in the "respond to reputation comments" thread, but...this one just cracked me up.

Apparently, my OP, which had practically zero opinion statements, and only repeated the results of actual studies and statistics recorded over the last 20 years, somehow constituted "trolling".

Can't post an intelligent response disputing the OP's claims? Just neg rep them and call it trolling. Problem solved. Lol.

I got a neg rep that said you were racist. Yeah, apparently you pissed Luntz off.

[Thondalar]

I got a neg rep that said you were racist. Yeah, apparently you pissed Luntz off.

I usually piss Luntz off. He is the first to spew incredibly racist rhetoric, but as long as it is directed at a nameless white person it's ok.

I'm quite possibly the least racist person on these boards...my solution is for everyone to fuck everybody else until we're all the same color. I've stated that on numerous occasions. Honestly, that's the only way this bullshit is going to stop...you have race baiters on both sides who have a vested financial interest in keeping racial tensions alive and well. I vote for FULL integration...after all, wasn't that the primary goal of the civil rights movement some 60 years ago?

[kutter]

I usually piss Luntz off. He is the first to spew incredibly racist rhetoric, but as long as it is directed at a nameless white person it's ok.

I'm quite possibly the least racist person on these boards...my solution is for everyone to fuck everybody else until we're all the same color. I've stated that on numerous occasions. Honestly, that's the only way this bullshit is going to stop...you have race baiters on both sides who have a vested financial interest in keeping racial tensions alive and well. I vote for FULL integration...after all, wasn't that the primary goal of the civil rights movement some 60 years ago?

It is a nice dream, but someone will always see something different and try to exploit it for their own ends. Your statement did remind me of a funny skit on SNL, back when it was still funny.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QEIaATPis

[Tgo01]

I'm quite possibly the least racist person on these boards...

Hey I have a black friend and an Asian friend! Clearly I'm the least racist.

[Thondalar]

I for one am not even a little surprised by these results.

Nor am I. Honestly, it's just as much a cultural thing as collard greens and scrapple.

I received my first firearm, as a gift to me, and it was completely mine, when I was 7 years old. It was a bolt-action Remington rifle chambered in .22 LR, sized down for a child. A .22 rimfire is not generally considered a powerful round...as ballistic coefficient and stopping power goes, it is not too far removed from your average Red Ryder BB gun...but it can still kill a person. It was definitely a potentially dangerous thing. When not in immediate use, it sat leaning up against the wall in my bedroom, loaded, ready to go at all times. My father had several other guns loaded and ready to go around the house, and he made sure I knew where every one of them was. The most immediately obvious was the Mossberg 500 leaning up against the wall behind the front door. He also had a 1911A1 down in between the cushions of the couch, another in the pull-out drawer under the microwave stand, a S&W .357 in the left-most top kitchen cabinet, and a little .380 in the box he kept on the dining room table. He kept another 1911 in his bed, and another shotgun in his closet...but I was strictly forbidden from going into his bedroom...a rule I didn't break until after his death. MOST of his guns he kept under lock and key in his "gun room".

This scenario would sound absolutely appalling to modern anti-gun people. I honestly believe it is just a matter of perspective. I think of guns as no different from potentially deadly cleaning products everyone keeps in their house. You teach your kids to deal with those responsibly, why not teach them to deal with guns responsibly? It is no different from drugs, or driving, or, hell, crossing the street...if we shield our kids from the reality of the world, they're more likely to fall victim to it. Be proactive. Educate, not with fear, but with knowledge. Teaching firearm responsibility is no different from teaching good driving habits...the only difference is, being able to properly use a firearm might one day save their life, or save them from a violent crime, or save all of us from an oppressive regime or conquest by a foreign nation. Staying in the lanes won't.

[Thondalar]

It is a nice dream, but someone will always see something different and try to exploit it for their own ends. Your statement did remind me of a funny skit on SNL, back when it was still funny.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QEIaATPis

Yeah, that's back when people used to laugh about things instead of getting offended by them.

[Thondalar]

Hey I have a black friend and an Asian friend! Clearly I'm the least racist.

I have a black friend named Al. His favorite thing to do is go up to unsuspecting white people and ask them how many black friends they have. So far, it has worked 100% of the time.

Ok fine, I'll explain it...regardless of their answer, he gets them with "oh, so you count your black friends, huh? You keep track of how many BLACK friends you have, huh?"

[kutter]

Apparently my re posting a you tube video from an SNL skit makes me a racist. Well to whomever the pansy was that sent the neg rep, at least have the balls to state who you are.

[caelric]

I for one am not even a little surprised by these results.

But, but, guns are evil, man, guns kill people! If there were no guns the world would be such a better place, everything would be nice and happy and full of flowers! GUN R EEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIILLLLL!!!!!111!!!!!ONEONEONE!!!!!

[Warriorbird]

Obviously trolling but in the sense that you're looking for a discussion.

I can see both sides of this. The simple rebuttal is maybe, just maybe, some other factors were involved apart from gun ownership.

And you can tell all the endearing firearms and childhood stories you want. In my immediate family they were always primarily tools used for hunting with a touch of home defense on the side. My UP Michigan cousins, in turn, who always fetishized guns to the point of ridiculousness (4 barrel sub machine gun at family events) are the part of the family that had two successful completed suicides.

Your natural response is going to be "something else must've been involved!" Just like something else was probably involved with posting just one conclusion on that Pew study.

[Candor]

I am not surprised by these results either.

As for the NRA, if the organization softened it's position on background checks, I think it's approval rating would rise quite a bit.

[Thondalar]

Obviously trolling but in the sense that you're looking for a discussion.

I can see both sides of this. The simple rebuttal is maybe, just maybe, some other factors were involved apart from gun ownership.

And you can tell all the endearing firearms and childhood stories you want. In my immediate family they were always primarily tools used for hunting with a touch of home defense on the side. My UP Michigan cousins, in turn, who always fetishized guns to the point of ridiculousness (4 barrel sub machine gun at family events) are the part of the family that had two successful completed suicides.

Your natural response is going to be "something else must've been involved!" Just like something else was probably involved with posting just one conclusion on that Pew study.

I specified "homicides" for a reason, just as that study did. I made no comment to causation, just simply stated the data. That's the neat part...the anti-gun crowd now has to scramble for "other factors" that could explain this data that doesn't fit in with their objective. I don't need to twist anything...the facts fit what I already know.

edit: I wasn't telling "endearing firearms and childhood stories", I was just saying how I grew up. Some dads teach their son how to fix a car or throw a ball...mine taught me how to shoot a gun. Do I now have loaded guns laying all over my house? No...but I'm also not a shell-shocked 2-tour Vietnam Airborne Ranger, I was just raised by one. I DO teach my kids gun safety, and they DO know where the loaded guns are in my house...well, the teenager does. My three-year-old is a little young for all that just yet.

[Thondalar]

I am not surprised by these results either.

As for the NRA, if the organization softened it's position on background checks, I think it's approval rating would rise quite a bit.

When is the last time you bought a gun? I'm in Florida, in the top 5 states for Guns & Ammo magazine's list of "best States to own a gun"...based on the restrictiveness of gun laws. My parents are recently retired, and bought a good bit of land in south-ish Florida...planning on having a goat farm. My mom wanted to buy a decent varmint rifle for around her property, so I went down to the gun store with her to check out some rifles. My mother doesn't retire until February of next year...she is still currently an active-duty officer with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. She had all of her law enforcement ID, as well as her concealed carry permit. We still had to wait almost an hour for her background check to clear before they would sell her a bolt-action rifle.

Like many things of this nature, people have no fucking clue what laws already exist, but yet they want more.

[Candor]

When is the last time you bought a gun? I'm in Florida, in the top 5 states for Guns & Ammo magazine's list of "best States to own a gun"...based on the restrictiveness of gun laws. My parents are recently retired, and bought a good bit of land in south-ish Florida...planning on having a goat farm. My mom wanted to buy a decent varmint rifle for around her property, so I went down to the gun store with her to check out some rifles. My mother doesn't retire until February of next year...she is still currently an active-duty officer with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. She had all of her law enforcement ID, as well as her concealed carry permit. We still had to wait almost an hour for her background check to clear before they would sell her a bolt-action rifle.

Like many things of this nature, people have no fucking clue what laws already exist, but yet they want more.

You will excuse me for not crying over someone having to wait an hour for a background check to own a firearm.

I'm not saying the system doesn't need improvement. With your Mother's credentials, it shouldn't take that long. But that doesn't change my position on the matter.

[Tgo01]

NRA doesn't approve of background checks?

[Thondalar]

You will excuse me for not crying over someone having to wait an hour for a background check to own a firearm.

I'm not saying the system doesn't need improvement. With your Mother's credentials, it shouldn't take that long. But that doesn't change my position on the matter.

You didn't really proffer any position on the matter.


edit: Annoyed I let myself get side-tracked there. My point was not that it took an hour for a standing State-level law enforcement officer to purchase a single-shot, bolt-action rifle that would be completely legal even in California or New York...my point was that background checks already exist, and are extensive enough that even a person with her credentials is subject to them. The NRA fights against FURTHER violations of the 2nd amendment. Imagine if you had to get a Federal background check before you posted a news story, or before you voted? What sort of public outcry would there be?

[Thondalar]

NRA doesn't approve of background checks?

It agrees with the laws already in place, which are quite extensive. It does not agree with knee-jerk reactionary "extra" laws that serve no purpose other than making it harder for legal, law-abiding citizens to own guns.

I, for one, am an NRA life member, and I occasionally donate extra for their legal defense fund.

[Tgo01]

I, for one, am an NRA life member, and I occasionally donate extra for their legal defense fund.

Well yeah. You're a white male, haven't you heard the latest liberal bullshit? White males are the largest terrorist group in the US. Of course you support the NRA you cracker!

[Thondalar]

Well yeah. You're a white male, haven't you heard the latest liberal bullshit? White males are the largest terrorist group in the US. Of course you support the NRA you cracker!

I'm 1/64th Blackfoot Indian, I'll have you know. That covers Black AND Indian...says so right there in the name.

[elcidcannon]

Obviously trolling but in the sense that you're looking for a discussion.

Isn't that what anyone who starts a thread (especially in the politics section) is doing?

:birdshit:

[Silvean]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the gun laws should be changed. Forming an opinion requires more knowledge than I have. My political instinct is that we're not doing a good enough job enforcing the laws we already have.

Over ten years ago I took a sociology/criminology course for an elective requirement that was focused on gun violence. In that class it was argued that a drop in gun homicides is connected to a drop in overall crime. The reason for the drop in crime is usually connected to demographics, i.e. we have less teenagers. We also read a book (linked below) containing the argument that guns are the reason for the unusually high amount of lethal violence in America: "London and New York City have nearly the same number of robberies and burglaries each year, but robbers and burglars kill 54 victims in New York for every victim death in London." The idea, as I recall, is that an American robbery is much more likely to have a sweaty-palmed teenager fumbling with a 9mm on the other side of the gas station cash register.

Were I to make a study of this issue, I guess I would want to know how illegal guns get on the market and what could be done to stop this in a targeted way.

http://www.amazon.com/Crime-Is-Not-Problem-Violence/dp/0195131053

[Warriorbird]

Isn't that what anyone who starts a thread (especially in the politics section) is doing?

:birdshit:

To me there's a difference between posted facts and the statement that YOUR OPINION OF THESE POSTED FACTS IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE TRUE ONE versus posted facts or posted opinion. Your mileage may vary. Your definition suggests ClydeR isn't trolling.

This is intriguing and deserves further study.

[Shaps]

Speaking of races and all that..

So, if a white (in color) African (from Africa) moved to the United States... and they applied on college applications for financial support by marking appropriately African-American on their forms... would they get the money?

Additionally, couldn't Hispanics actually mark the Native American block and receive money also? Considering they were actually native to the country in a number of areas that are now considered part of the US?

[Shaps]

Coincidentally, shouldn't men of all races now be able to apply for minority benefits... since women now outnumber them in the US? Makes sense right? Because men are the minority.

[Silvean]

Federal financial aid is based on the parents' income according to their tax return from the prior year. Merit scholarships are awarded by universities and outside institutions according to their own criteria. If you apply to Harvard, for instance, there are scholarships available to people with particular last names. In some cases, that means anyone with the last name can apply. In other cases, you actually have to be descended from the family that created the scholarship fund.

[Jarvan]

Speaking of races and all that..

So, if a white (in color) African (from Africa) moved to the United States... and they applied on college applications for financial support by marking appropriately African-American on their forms... would they get the money?

Additionally, couldn't Hispanics actually mark the Native American block and receive money also? Considering they were actually native to the country in a number of areas that are now considered part of the US?

Actually, according to some people on the left, if you "identify" as black, you are black. It's a state of mind or culture, not a color. (remember the WHITE girl that says she is black and people defended her)

I agree with an earlier post... hopefully in a few hundred years we will have fucked each other enough that we are all the same "race" and this will all be meaningless.

[crb]

Obviously trolling but in the sense that you're looking for a discussion.

I can see both sides of this. The simple rebuttal is maybe, just maybe, some other factors were involved apart from gun ownership.

And you can tell all the endearing firearms and childhood stories you want. In my immediate family they were always primarily tools used for hunting with a touch of home defense on the side. My UP Michigan cousins, in turn, who always fetishized guns to the point of ridiculousness (4 barrel sub machine gun at family events) are the part of the family that had two successful completed suicides.

Your natural response is going to be "something else must've been involved!" Just like something else was probably involved with posting just one conclusion on that Pew study.

Correlation != causation. Obviously. It could be an other factor... but...

inverse correlation sure as shit doesn't == causation. Which is more the point. More gun ownership might not cause less crime, but it obviously doesn't cause more crime.

The greater point to take is not that guns ownership reduces crime, which as you correctly point out would be very difficult to prove, but rather gun ownership unequivocally does not increase crime. If it did there would at least be a correlation, but instead we have an inverse.

[crb]

I'm 1/64th Blackfoot Indian, I'll have you know. That covers Black AND Indian...says so right there in the name.

I'm 1/64th Chippewa. Native Bro Fistbump.

Haven't seen a dime of that casino money.

[crb]

Actually, according to some people on the left, if you "identify" as black, you are black. It's a state of mind or culture, not a color. (remember the WHITE girl that says she is black and people defended her)

I agree with an earlier post... hopefully in a few hundred years we will have fucked each other enough that we are all the same "race" and this will all be meaningless.

Or Elizabeth "Squanto" Warren? Me and Thond might legit be 1/64th Indian (I'm 1/64th, so I can I use the word). But I don't think we'd claim it to get ahead like that lying bitch. If you're blonde you're obviously not Indian enough to call yourself that.

[Warriorbird]

Correlation != causation. Obviously. It could be an other factor... but...

inverse correlation sure as shit doesn't == causation. Which is more the point. More gun ownership might not cause less crime, but it obviously doesn't cause more crime.

The greater point to take is not that guns ownership reduces crime, which as you correctly point out would be very difficult to prove, but rather gun ownership unequivocally does not increase crime. If it did there would at least be a correlation, but instead we have an inverse.

RE: homicide I tend to MOSTLY agree. I don't think anybody but a few mass shooters acquire guns that they shouldn't be able to legally. I do think access to guns raises the chances of successful suicide.

I don't think legal access to guns increases most standard homicides however.

The more fervent than me gun control advocate would compare our murder rates to other G20 countries though.

[caelric]

Correlation != causation. Obviously. It could be an other factor... but...

inverse correlation sure as shit doesn't == causation. Which is more the point. More gun ownership might not cause less crime, but it obviously doesn't cause more crime.

The greater point to take is not that guns ownership reduces crime, which as you correctly point out would be very difficult to prove, but rather gun ownership unequivocally does not increase crime. If it did there would at least be a correlation, but instead we have an inverse.

Don't worry, someone on the take away all the guns side will come back with something along the lines of 'well, if there were less guns, the violence would have gone down even more'

[drauz]

I figured politics was as good a place to put this as anywhere.

I'm a regular subscriber to a "magazine" called Gun Tests...I put this in quotes because it isn't some glossy, over-produced rag full of advertisements but a paragon of what a consumer-advocate publication should be. They test guns, ammunition, and accessories in a scientific manner, and simply print their results with zero bias. The only bit of politics and/or "op-ed" sort of writing found in this publication is at the very beginning, in the "Downrange" section, where the Editor-in-Chief has a page to kinda "do his own thing", as it were.

In my latest issue, Todd Woodard (Editor-in-chief) pointed out that "a recent Gallup poll...showed 58% in the U.S. have a favorable opinion of the NRA". This, by itself, didn't really impress me...to be honest, I would hope that figure would be a bit higher, and I was a little disappointed to read that. But later, he continued:

"According to the Gallup article on the poll, 'This includes the highest recording of [Very Favorable] opinions (26%) since Gallup began asking this question in 1989."

He continues..."Also, according to a recent Pew Research Center Study, the annual rate of firearm-related homicides in America declined by nearly 50 percent between 1993 and 2013. According to a Pew Research Center analysis of death certificate data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7 per 100,000 Americans in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2013. During this same time, gun sales of all types have skyrocketed, as have the number of concealed carry permit holders, which now number more than 12.8 million permit holders in 2015, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center."

He finishes with..."Clearly, the Pew data show that during a doubling (or more) in the ownership of privately held guns, firearms-related homicides plunged. More guns don't equal more crime, it seems."

Threat of mutual destruction works on both the macro- and micro- levels.

Since I can't see exactly what study he is referencing. Are these new gun owners, or is it people buying their sixth?

I don't think the numbers have anything to do with gun ownership rates. For all I know it could be caused by the Brady Law though.

As to the NRA it doesn't just do gun ownership rights. It also blocks research into firearms violence and prevention. Thats one of the reasons I'm not a fan of them, even though I own two guns myself. They do have a nice firing range though here in NOVA.

[Tgo01]

It also blocks research into firearms violence and prevention.

It's more of a self induced ban because apparently researchers are pussies unless they want to go into study the effects of global warming, where they know they'll be hailed as heroes in the scientific community and will be awarded lots of grant money to find out if cow farts are literally killing us.

[drauz]

It's more of a self induced ban because apparently researchers are pussies unless they want to go into study the effects of global warming, where they know they'll be hailed as heroes in the scientific community and will be awarded lots of grant money to find out if cow farts are literally killing us.

Where did you read this? I was only able to find the opposite.


A Second Amendment rights advocate, in 1996 Dickey responded to a perceived bias on the part of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), whose research on firearm injuries and fatalities in the US was seen by Conservatives to be motivated more by pro gun-control politics rather than pure science.[3] Dickey successfully passed an amendment to eliminate $2.6 million from the CDC budget, reflecting the amount the CDC had previously spent on gun research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Dickey

I guess that is self imposed, since they didn't ban the research only taking away the money they had spent on it the year before for the next years budget.

[Tgo01]

Where did you read this? I was only able to find the opposite.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Dickey

I guess that is self imposed, since they didn't ban the research only taking away the money they had spent on it the year before for the next years budget.

Yeah that was in 1996 and the funding was later restored and Congress just stipulated that the CDC couldn't use their gun research to further the agenda of gun control, they didn't say the CDC couldn't study gun violence at all. In fact as long as the research didn't deal specifically with gun violence (like say if they were studying suicide and guns just happened to be part of suicides) then that was okay as well. Also Congress only had the power to prevent the CDC from directly studying gun violence, literally everyone else in the US (and world!) could still study it but apparently researchers were scared their careers would be short lived if they tried to do so.

Also Obama lifted even the weak ass CDC ban a few years ago via executive order and yet the CDC still hasn't devoted a whole lot of time or money to researching gun violence because they are still afraid from what happened almost 20 years ago.

As I said it's more of a self induced ban. Researchers want to go where the popularity and money is, and the added benefit of everyone already agreeing with you. 97% of experts agree that humans are warming up the planet as we speak, baby!

[drauz]

Yeah that was in 1996 and the funding was later restored and Congress just stipulated that the CDC couldn't use their gun research to further the agenda of gun control, they didn't say the CDC couldn't study gun violence at all. Also Congress only had the power to prevent the CDC from directly studying gun violence, literally everyone else in the US (and world!) could still study it but apparently researches were scared their careers would be short lived if they tried to do so.

Also Obama lifted even the weak ass CDC ban a few years ago via executive order and yet the CDC still hasn't devoted a whole lot of time or money to researching gun violence because they are still afraid from what happened almost 20 years ago.

Right they want to keep their job. They don't want their funding cut.

[Tgo01]

Right they want to keep their job. They don't want their funding cut.

Yes, so researchers are a bunch of pussies who go where the easy money is. We have now come full circle and are both agreeing with my original statement.

You are welcome, and God bless.

[drauz]

Yes, so researchers go where the money is. It's almost like they have the audacity to want to earn a living or something. Fucking liberals.

You are welcome, and God bless.

Fixed.

The difference being that I don't blame the researchers. I blame the NRA and policy makers for making it so hard for them to do ANYTHING involving guns.

[GS4Pirate]

Fixed.

The difference being that I don't blame the researchers. I blame the NRA and policy makers for making it so hard for them to do ANYTHING involving guns.

Changes to the second amendment are supposed to be near impossible to make, it's the what the framers intended. Blaming the NRA is basically blaming the American citizens that fund the NRA. In essence, the grabbers are far outnumbered and their only hope to make any changes are to betray the majority of Americans...what I like to call traitors.

[drauz]

Changes to the second amendment are supposed to be near impossible to make, it's the what the framers intended. Blaming the NRA is basically blaming the American citizens that fund the NRA. In essence, the grabbers are far outnumbered and their only hope to make any changes are to betray the majority of Americans...what I like to call traitors.

Right, except that isn't what we are talking about is it. We are talking about research into gun violence. Not changing the second amendment.

[GS4Pirate]

Right, except that isn't what we are talking about is it. We are talking about research into gun violence. Not changing the second amendment.

Did you not just blame the NRA?

[drauz]

Did you not just blame the NRA?

In the context of stifling research into gun violence, yes.

[Warriorbird]

I blame the NRA and gun manufacturers for high ammo prices. They naturally blame everything on Obama... who passed zero significant gun control legislation.

[Candor]

Changes to the second amendment are supposed to be near impossible to make

It is, by design, difficult to amend the constitution period. Of course it's not impossible - the history of prohibition being the obvious example how an amendment can be added...and then even completely repealed.

However the second amendment isn't going to change anytime soon, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to change their drugs.

[crb]

RE: homicide I tend to MOSTLY agree. I don't think anybody but a few mass shooters acquire guns that they shouldn't be able to legally. I do think access to guns raises the chances of successful suicide.

I don't think legal access to guns increases most standard homicides however.

The more fervent than me gun control advocate would compare our murder rates to other G20 countries though.

The single greatest factor for a successful suicide is having access to a gun. That's true, it is also why men are more successful at suicide than women (suck it ladies) because men are more likely to use a gun.

[Tisket]

The single greatest factor for a successful suicide is having access to a gun. That's true, it is also why men are more successful at suicide than women (suck it ladies) because men are more likely to use a gun.

That's one inequality I don't mind.

Also, granted it's early but, did I just read drauz claim researchers actually want to find an answer? To which I reply: hahahahahaha

Case in point, cancer research: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/the-cancer-industry-is-too-prosperous-to-allow-a-cure/

[drauz]

That's one inequality I don't mind.

Also, granted it's early but, did I just read drauz claim researchers actually want to find an answer? To which I reply: hahahahahaha

Case in point, cancer research: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/the-cancer-industry-is-too-prosperous-to-allow-a-cure/

Cause those those two are the same....right...

[Tisket]

Cause those those two are the same....right...

Financial incentive remains the same.

[Fallen]

We work pretty hard at putting ourselves out of a job with disease research. We're actually racing several other groups to do it. Science in general is a pretty competitive field. The whole "publish or perish" mentality. Especially on the private side, if it was perceived that you were sandbagging your own research in order to prolong your studies you'd be out of a job sooner rather than later. Public or private sector, there is only so much research money to go around, and it will be awarded to those doing the best work in their field.

[Jarvan]

Financial incentive remains the same.

I do think there is a slight difference. I would say almost all research for "cures" or research into "problems to solve" are like this. There are the exceptions. Like if a Young Dr's father died of cancer... or mother had/has breast cancer. They are likely doing it to find a cure. In general tho, I think most of these "researchers" just want to "research" for the rest of their lives. Just like big Pharma doesn't want to cure diseases, because there is no profit in it.

Not to mention the fact that there really is no "cure" for gun violence.

[Silvean]

Georgetown put out a new book on gun violence and mental illness last week:

https://www.georgetown.edu/gun-violence-book-gold

[Tgo01]

Fixed.

The difference being that I don't blame the researchers. I blame the NRA and policy makers for making it so hard for them to do ANYTHING involving guns.

Making it "too hard"? And yet you apparently agreed the last thing that happened was cut funding almost 20 years ago.

This has to be another case of pundits spreading so much misinformation that it has basically become fact among a segment of our society. I see plenty of people touting this "the NRA and congress won't let anyone research gun violence!" Yet it always comes back to this funding cut 20 years ago.

[Fallen]

This isn't a long-ago settled issue. The blocking of research on a federal level still happens quite often.

"In June (of 2015), the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an amendment (http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7) that would have repealed a ban on scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/) (CDC) conducting research to study the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence."

The issue doesn't appear to be a lack of funding. It is an outright ban on the CDC conducting this type of research.

My personal point of view is that research into the issue of gun related deaths and violence should be conducted. If not by the CDC, then by whatever organization is appropriate.

Motor vehicle traffic deaths



Number of deaths: 33,804
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths



Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6


"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has as its mission the understanding and prevention of death and injury on our roads and highways. It reports fiscal year 2012 funding of $62.4 million overall for research and analysis: $35.5 million for vehicle safety and $26.9 million for highway safety."

There is nothing approaching the equivalent of researching the understanding and prevention of death and injury related to firearms.

I don't believe we need extensive gun control legislation, but I do believe the causes and means of preventing these deaths should be researched.

[Thondalar]

This isn't a long-ago settled issue. The blocking of research on a federal level still happens quite often.

"In June (of 2015), the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an amendment (http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7) that would have repealed a ban on scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/) (CDC) conducting research to study the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence."

The issue doesn't appear to be a lack of funding. It is an outright ban on the CDC conducting this type of research.

The CDC has no business conducting such research, and therefore shouldn't receive funding for it. Plenty of other people/organizations have done studies, but they rarely get any attention. Harvard did one in 2007 that found:


The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."

In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.

[Tgo01]

This isn't a long-ago settled issue. The blocking of research on a federal level still happens quite often.

"In June (of 2015), the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an amendment (http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7) that would have repealed a ban on scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/) (CDC) conducting research to study the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence."

Yes but from your very own link:


"Congressional prohibition, which was extended in this very vote that we’re talking about with that appropriations bill, prevents the CDC from advocating for any form of gun control."

That's all the ban says, the CDC cannot advocate for any form of gun control. Money has not been specifically set aside for gun violence research but the CDC (or by extension anyone else in the world) is not forbidden from researching gun violence.

[Fallen]

The CDC researches plenty of other issues that have nothing to do with disease. As I said, I don't particularly care who does the testing, as long as they are well funded and non-partisan. I find it odd that those who most ardently support the 2nd amendment seem to be those most against research into gun violence. If you say that the data is on your side, what harm is there in conducting more thorough research? It would only strengthen the defense of your position that guns keep people safe, rather than lead to more harm.

As I pointed out in my first post, gun deaths kill nearly as many (or more in some areas) as motor vehicle deaths. Why not seek to better understand why this is happening? Doing research doesn't equate blaming guns.

[Fallen]

That's all the ban says, the CDC cannot advocate for any form of gun control. Money has not been specifically set aside for gun violence research but the CDC (or by extension anyone else in the world) is not forbidden from researching gun violence.

There seems to be some contention with what the wording of the ban states, which is understandable.


“It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide,” CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard wrote, “but our resources are very limited.”

Congress has continued to block dedicated funding. Obama requested $10 million for the CDC’s gun violence research in his last two budgets. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced bills supporting the funding. Both times the Republican-controlled House of Representatives said no. Maloney recently said she planned to reintroduce her bill this year, but she wasn’t hopeful.


So, the CDC is no closer to initiating gun-violence studies.


"Most research funding comes from two major sources, corporations (through research and development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_and_development) departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialized government agencies; often known as research councils).

People don't typically conduct unfunded research to a scale which would prove useful. If you're not receiving government funding for issues like this, you're not likely to be doing much research.
As government funding is out, I don't see corporations picking up the slack.

[Tgo01]

But apparently the CDC set aside money in the 90's for gun violence research, I don't think Congress specifically gave them money to research that. The CDC is basically just using the 1996 ban as a cop out to not do further research on the subject.

[Fallen]

But apparently the CDC set aside money in the 90's for gun violence research, I don't think Congress specifically gave them money to research that. The CDC is basically just using the 1996 ban as a cop out to not do further research on the subject.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Why would the CDC "cop out" of doing research on a leading cause of preventable death?

From what I understand of the CDC's research, they can see how guns factor into issues such as youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide, but they cannot conduct studies specifically attempting to understand gun control in relation to these issues. There also is limiting funding because of the ban in place, leading to a lack of relevant data.

It leads to a circular argument of, "You can't act on the issue of gun control without evidence, and you can't gather evidence on the issue of gun control because you there is no evidence supporting gun control".

[Tgo01]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Why would the CDC "cop out" of doing research on a leading cause of preventable death?

You tell me. We all seem to be on the same page that Congress does not forbid the CDC from researching gun violence at all yet the CDC cites a lack of funding for why they do not research gun violence, even though the CDC's annual budget is 7 billion dollars.


From what I understand of the CDC's research, they can see how guns factor into issues such as youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide, but they cannot conduct studies specifically attempting to understand gun control in relation to these issues. There also is limiting funding because of the ban in place, leading to a lack of relevant data.

Here is the exact wording of the so called CDC ban: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

That's it. They can study gun violence to their heart's content but they can't advocate for gun control.

Obama even issued an executive order saying the CDC was free to research gun violence all they wanted and the CDC still didn't devote too much time or resources to it.

[Latrinsorm]

He continues..."Also, according to a recent Pew Research Center Study, the annual rate of firearm-related homicides in America declined by nearly 50 percent between 1993 and 2013. According to a Pew Research Center analysis of death certificate data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7 per 100,000 Americans in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2013. During this same time, gun sales of all types have skyrocketed, as have the number of concealed carry permit holders, which now number more than 12.8 million permit holders in 2015, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center." He finishes with..."Clearly, the Pew data show that during a doubling (or more) in the ownership of privately held guns, firearms-related homicides plunged. More guns don't equal more crime, it seems."We agree that gun homicide peaked in 1993. Do we also agree that 1993 was the year the Brady Act was passed, and that the Federal Assault Weapons Bans followed one year later? Do we finally agree that gun suicide rates have dropped only 8% over the same period, thus...
This scenario would sound absolutely appalling to modern anti-gun people. I honestly believe it is just a matter of perspective. I think of guns as no different from potentially deadly cleaning products everyone keeps in their house. You teach your kids to deal with those responsibly, why not teach them to deal with guns responsibly? It is no different from drugs, or driving, or, hell, crossing the street...if we shield our kids from the reality of the world, they're more likely to fall victim to it. Be proactive. Educate, not with fear, but with knowledge. Teaching firearm responsibility is no different from teaching good driving habits...the only difference is, being able to properly use a firearm might one day save their life, or save them from a violent crime, or save all of us from an oppressive regime or conquest by a foreign nation. Staying in the lanes won't....being able to properly use a firearm might one day take their life too. Please also note that suicide is a more likely cause of death for Americans than homicide, much more likely than an oppressive regime, and much much much more likely than conquest by a foreign nation.
inverse correlation sure as shit doesn't == causation. Which is more the point. More gun ownership might not cause less crime, but it obviously doesn't cause more crime.Once upon a time I employed the brakes on my car on a snowy hill. My car sped up. Do you conclude from this that brakes obviously don't cause a car to slow down?
I do think there is a slight difference. I would say almost all research for "cures" or research into "problems to solve" are like this. There are the exceptions. Like if a Young Dr's father died of cancer... or mother had/has breast cancer. They are likely doing it to find a cure. In general tho, I think most of these "researchers" just want to "research" for the rest of their lives. Just like big Pharma doesn't want to cure diseases, because there is no profit in it.There's a reason they call it "snake oil salesman" and not "snake oil donor": there is an entire industry of sham cures. True cures would be more lucrative by orders of magnitude. I hope you never have to see how desperate sick people become when there's no hope left, but I also hope that you think about it and don't repeat such ignorant remarks as these.

[caelric]

Don't worry, someone on the take away all the guns side will come back with something along the lines of 'well, if there were less guns, the violence would have gone down even more'



We agree that gun homicide peaked in 1993. Do we also agree that 1993 was the year the Brady Act was passed, and that the Federal Assault Weapons Bans followed one year later? Do we finally agree that gun suicide rates have dropped only 8% over the same period, thus......being able to properly use a firearm might one day take their life too. Please also note that suicide is a more likely cause of death for Americans than homicide, much more likely than an oppressive regime, and much much much more likely than conquest by a foreign nation.Once upon a time I employed the brakes on my car on a snowy hill. My car sped up. Do you conclude from this that brakes obviously don't cause a car to slow down?There's a reason they call it "snake oil salesman" and not "snake oil donor": there is an entire industry of sham cures. True cures would be more lucrative by orders of magnitude. I hope you never have to see how desperate sick people become when there's no hope left, but I also hope that you think about it and don't repeat such ignorant remarks as these.

You are dependable, Latrinsorm. Thanks for coming through.

I'm sure the US and the world would be a much better place if we could just take away all the guns from all the law abiding folks.

[caelric]

Once upon a time I employed the brakes on my car on a snowy hill. My car sped up. Do you conclude from this that brakes obviously don't cause a car to slow down?

No, in that case, I conclude that the coefficient of static friction is greater than the coefficient of sliding friction (counter-intuitively for a lot of folks, static friction is the factor applied when the wheels are still rolling, as each place the wheel touches the ground is static, whereas moving friction is what is applied when the wheels/brakes are locked and the point where the wheel touches the ground is sliding...) But, that is a complete non-sequitur to the debate, just as your comment is also a complete non-sequitur.

[Gnomad]

https://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/mass-shootings-fatalities-and-total-victims-1982-2012.png

(the spike in the middle is Columbine.)

[drauz]

That's it. They can study gun violence to their heart's content but they can't advocate for gun control.

Except if the findings turn out to be not pro-gun then the NRA steps in and lobbies to have the funding removed, just like last time.

[Thondalar]

We agree that gun homicide peaked in 1993. Do we also agree that 1993 was the year the Brady Act was passed, and that the Federal Assault Weapons Bans followed one year later?

Yes.


Do we finally agree that gun suicide rates have dropped only 8% over the same period, thus......being able to properly use a firearm might one day take their life too.

I'm sorry, I thought the public outcry and hysteria was about mass shootings and armed criminals. If you would like to talk about suicides, we should probably start a different thread.


Please also note that suicide is a more likely cause of death for Americans than homicide...

By nearly three to one. Again, not related to this particular topic.


...much more likely than an oppressive regime, and much much much more likely than conquest by a foreign nation.

Because so much of our population is armed.

[time4fun]

I figured politics was as good a place to put this as anywhere.

I'm a regular subscriber to a "magazine" called Gun Tests...I put this in quotes because it isn't some glossy, over-produced rag full of advertisements but a paragon of what a consumer-advocate publication should be. They test guns, ammunition, and accessories in a scientific manner, and simply print their results with zero bias. The only bit of politics and/or "op-ed" sort of writing found in this publication is at the very beginning, in the "Downrange" section, where the Editor-in-Chief has a page to kinda "do his own thing", as it were.

In my latest issue, Todd Woodard (Editor-in-chief) pointed out that "a recent Gallup poll...showed 58% in the U.S. have a favorable opinion of the NRA". This, by itself, didn't really impress me...to be honest, I would hope that figure would be a bit higher, and I was a little disappointed to read that. But later, he continued:

"According to the Gallup article on the poll, 'This includes the highest recording of [Very Favorable] opinions (26%) since Gallup began asking this question in 1989."

He continues..."Also, according to a recent Pew Research Center Study, the annual rate of firearm-related homicides in America declined by nearly 50 percent between 1993 and 2013. According to a Pew Research Center analysis of death certificate data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7 per 100,000 Americans in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2013. During this same time, gun sales of all types have skyrocketed, as have the number of concealed carry permit holders, which now number more than 12.8 million permit holders in 2015, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center."

He finishes with..."Clearly, the Pew data show that during a doubling (or more) in the ownership of privately held guns, firearms-related homicides plunged. More guns don't equal more crime, it seems."

Threat of mutual destruction works on both the macro- and micro- levels.

It takes a special kind of person to look at over 30,000 gun-related deaths in one year and conclude that gun control isn't necessary. Despite the fact that in 2013, the WHO's data indicated that the US both had more guns and more gun-related deaths than any other country in the world.

A normal person would look at something killing off 30,000 people in our country a year- more than any other country, and might say "Hey, how do we prevent this?" Not, "See? It's not that bad".

You've got this whole thing so damn backwards it hurts.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm sorry, I thought the public outcry and hysteria was about mass shootings and armed criminals. If you would like to talk about suicides, we should probably start a different thread.The study in your initial post makes no reference to mass shootings or armed criminals, but does make many references to gun suicide rates. It was from that study that I pulled the 8% number, in fact. Would you care to reconsider this line?
Because so much of our population is armed.Not a lot of snowy hills in Florida, I take it. :D
I'm sure the US and the world would be a much better place if we could just take away all the guns from all the law abiding folks.As it happens, I have a solution that would take guns away only from people who have broken or will imminently break laws. It would also greatly improve the unemployment rate! Someone's got to watch the cameras, after all.
You are dependable, Latrinsorm. Thanks for coming through. ... No, in that case, I conclude that the coefficient of static friction is greater than the coefficient of sliding friction (counter-intuitively for a lot of folks, static friction is the factor applied when the wheels are still rolling, as each place the wheel touches the ground is static, whereas moving friction is what is applied when the wheels/brakes are locked and the point where the wheel touches the ground is sliding...) But, that is a complete non-sequitur to the debate, just as your comment is also a complete non-sequitur.I feel you are not grasping crb's argument. I will restate it for you.
"[G]un ownership unequivocally does not increase crime. If it did there would at least be a correlation, but instead we have an inverse."

And to frame my counter example in similar language:
The application of brakes unequivocally does not decrease speed. If it did there would at least be a correlation, but instead we have an inverse.

You have evidenced some knowledge of scientific minutiae, perhaps you would like to expound on the concepts of false positive and false negative for the class? :)

[drauz]

Financial incentive remains the same.

What's the financial incentive to prevent gun violence research?

[Tgo01]

Except if the findings turn out to be not pro-gun then the NRA steps in and lobbies to have the funding removed, just like last time.

Just like that one and only time, nearly 20 years ago.

As I said from the very beginning, all this proves is how researchers are apparently pussies. Everything that has been said about the NRA has gone back to this one and only isolated incident almost 20 years ago, despite the fact that the rule never said to begin with that the CDC couldn't research gun violence and despite the fact that Obama used an executive order to allow the CDC to go hog wild on gun violence. But fuck! That one time 20 years ago! NRA is literally the devil and Hitler combined! Devler!

[Tgo01]

It takes a special kind of person to look at over 30,000 gun-related deaths in one year and conclude that gun control isn't necessary.

We already have plenty of gun control laws. Who ever said gun control isn't necessary?


Despite the fact that in 2013, the WHO's data indicated that the US both had more guns and more gun-related deaths than any other country in the world.

Bullshit. Brazil has plenty more gun related deaths than the US. And that's just off the top of my head, I'm willing to bet Mexico gives us a run for our money.


A normal person would look at something killing off 30,000 people in our country a year- more than any other country, and might say "Hey, how do we prevent this?" Not, "See? It's not that bad".

There are more laws on the books restricting people getting access to guns than there are restricting people getting access to a driver's license. Seriously, what are the restrictions for getting a driver's license? You must be at least 15-16 depending on state, you must pass an eye exam (which really only prevents literally blind people from passing), let's see you get so many infractions/points before you lose your (temporarily!) lose your license. Fuck, even a DUI charge isn't enough to revoke your driver's license.

Let's count up all of the laws restricting people from getting access to a gun. Off the top of my head; background check, age limit, the Brady bill restrictions, some states have mandatory training courses, ex-cons can't own a gun, if your name happens to be Joel Stevens you can't own a gun. Lots of laws.

[Jarvan]

This isn't a long-ago settled issue. The blocking of research on a federal level still happens quite often.

"In June (of 2015), the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an amendment (http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7) that would have repealed a ban on scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/) (CDC) conducting research to study the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence."

The issue doesn't appear to be a lack of funding. It is an outright ban on the CDC conducting this type of research.

My personal point of view is that research into the issue of gun related deaths and violence should be conducted. If not by the CDC, then by whatever organization is appropriate.

Motor vehicle traffic deaths



Number of deaths: 33,804
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths



Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6


"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has as its mission the understanding and prevention of death and injury on our roads and highways. It reports fiscal year 2012 funding of $62.4 million overall for research and analysis: $35.5 million for vehicle safety and $26.9 million for highway safety."

There is nothing approaching the equivalent of researching the understanding and prevention of death and injury related to firearms.

I don't believe we need extensive gun control legislation, but I do believe the causes and means of preventing these deaths should be researched.

Now take out the Suicides for both, because those really don't matter. THEN compare them.

I don't give two shits for anyone that wants to kill themselves. They don't matter. They are taking the easy way out, and we are better off without them. Period.

Better yet, put up suicide booths like in Futurama, and it solves 60% of gun deaths. LOOK.. I just reduced gun deaths by 60%!!! I am awesome.

[drauz]

Just like that one and only time, nearly 20 years ago.

Except that ryder is still in place today and continues to get extended. Yet you make it seem like that isn't the case.

[drauz]

There are more laws on the books restricting people getting access to guns than there are restricting people getting access to a driver's license. Seriously, what are the restrictions for getting a driver's license? You must be at least 15-16 depending on state, you must pass an eye exam (which really only prevents literally blind people from passing), let's see you get so many infractions/points before you lose your (temporarily!) lose your license. Fuck, even a DUI charge isn't enough to revoke your driver's license.

What does that have to do with "How do we prevent this"?


Let's count up all of the laws restricting people from getting access to a gun. Off the top of my head; background check, age limit, the Brady bill restrictions, some states have mandatory training courses, ex-cons can't own a gun, if your name happens to be Joel Stevens you can't own a gun. Lots of laws.

Brady Bill is background checks.

So in reality you have age limit, background check (which doesn't stop you a law abiding citizen from getting a gun), and felons. The training courses I've never heard of and isn't a Federal mandate.

Cars you have the vision test, driving test, infractions, and age limit.

[Tgo01]

Except that ryder is still in place today and continues to get extended. Yet you make it seem like that isn't the case.

Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the language of the bill never said the CDC could not study gun violence at all. It didn't even come close to saying that.

You're also ignoring a couple of years ago when Obama issued an executive order stating the CDC could study all gun violence they wanted to and yet the CDC still didn't put too much effort into it.

Why are we ignoring these very real facts? Because it doesn't fit with the agenda the political pundits have decided is the "real" truth.

[Candor]

Cars you have the vision test, driving test, infractions, and age limit.

I may be wrong but I don't think there is a maximum age limit per se for a drivers license in any state. However in some states you can be required to have a drivers test once you reach a certain age, or have certain infractions.

[drauz]

I may be wrong but I don't think there is a maximum age limit per se for a drivers license in any state. However in some states you can be required to have a drivers test once you reach a certain age, or have certain infractions.

I meant you have to be a certain age to get one.

[Tgo01]

What does that have to do with "How do we prevent this"?

That wasn't the statement put forth. The statement was, and I quote:

"It takes a special kind of person to look at over 30,000 gun-related deaths in one year and conclude that gun control isn't necessary."

Saying we don't have gun control is about the best example of being disingenuous.


Brady Bill is background checks.

No it's not. I mean, yeah it is, but it's much more.

The Brady Bill prevents the following people from legally purchasing/possessing a gun:

People convicted of most felonies
Fugitives
Drug users
People who have been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
People in this country illegally
People who have been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces
People who have renounced their US citizenship
People who have restraining orders against them
People who have been convicted of domestic violence, even if just misdemeanors

Shit, how many of the above people lose their right to fucking drive? Let's see...uh...none? I guess fugitives, maybe, technically.


So in reality you have age limit, background check (which doesn't stop you a law abiding citizen from getting a gun), and felons. The training courses I've never heard of and isn't a Federal mandate.

You're seriously going to sit there and say that is all of the gun control laws we have in this country huh? Those were just examples I listed off the top of my head.

[drauz]

Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the language of the bill never said the CDC could not study gun violence at all. It didn't even come close to saying that.

You're also ignoring a couple of years ago when Obama issued an executive order stating the CDC could study all gun violence they wanted to and yet the CDC still didn't put too much effort into it.

Why are we ignoring these very real facts? Because it doesn't fit with the agenda the political pundits have decided is the "real" truth.

I haven't ignored that fact, I've responded to it multiple times. They don't want their funding taken away so they don't allocate resources to the research. There are other important things that they can study without having to jump thru hoops to do.

It is exactly that a executive order. Something that could be thrown out after the coming election. They are looking for more permanent funding options.

[time4fun]

We already have plenty of gun control laws. Who ever said gun control isn't necessary?



Bullshit. Brazil has plenty more gun related deaths than the US. And that's just off the top of my head, I'm willing to bet Mexico gives us a run for our money.



There are more laws on the books restricting people getting access to guns than there are restricting people getting access to a driver's license. Seriously, what are the restrictions for getting a driver's license? You must be at least 15-16 depending on state, you must pass an eye exam (which really only prevents literally blind people from passing), let's see you get so many infractions/points before you lose your (temporarily!) lose your license. Fuck, even a DUI charge isn't enough to revoke your driver's license.

Let's count up all of the laws restricting people from getting access to a gun. Off the top of my head; background check, age limit, the Brady bill restrictions, some states have mandatory training courses, ex-cons can't own a gun, if your name happens to be Joel Stevens you can't own a gun. Lots of laws.

1) Brazil has more gun-related homicides (Though the FBI has also pointed out that its ability to accurately collect data in gun violence is majorly hindered, and that their numbers- as well as those of local law enforcement- are likely quite a bit lower than reality, and in terms of gun-related homicides, we're like 4th in the world and not in good company there), but not gun-related deaths. Instead of "betting" what is real- go look it up.

2) Unlike gun ownership, driving plays a vital role in the ability of our society to function. It provides very well benefits aside from its ability to wound and kill. Any comparison between the two is just silly. Outlaw driving, and a society would fall to pieces. I have yet to see a society fall to pieces after outlawing guns.

Regardless, we do require registration for a driver's license, mandate regular testing, and we prohibit people with a variety of physical and mental disabilities from driving. More restrictions than we place on gun ownership. You actually have to work a hell of a lot harder to drive than you do to own a gun in most states. If you think we place more restrictions on gun ownership, you are delusional.

[drauz]

That wasn't the statement put forth. The statement was, and I quote:

"It takes a special kind of person to look at over 30,000 gun-related deaths in one year and conclude that gun control isn't necessary."

Yeah thats not what you quoted for this particular response. Didn't realize you were quoting something else than what you actually quoted. My bad.

[caelric]

. I have yet to see a society fall to pieces after outlawing guns.

Germany. mid/late 1930's.

Bam.


Edit: yes, I know it was significantly more complex and nuanced than just take away all the guns and you now have Nazi Germany.

[caelric]

And on a serious note (because invoking Godwin's Law is never actually serious), for all the gun haters, a question for you: if there was irrefutable proof that more widespread legal gun ownership led to a decrease in violent crime and/or violent firearm-linked deaths, would you still be anti-gun rights?

[Tisket]

We work pretty hard at putting ourselves out of a job with disease research. We're actually racing several other groups to do it. Science in general is a pretty competitive field. The whole "publish or perish" mentality. Especially on the private side, if it was perceived that you were sandbagging your own research in order to prolong your studies you'd be out of a job sooner rather than later. Public or private sector, there is only so much research money to go around, and it will be awarded to those doing the best work in their field.

You are naive if you believe that scientific research bias isn't influenced, intentionally or unintentionally, by funding sources.

[time4fun]

And on a serious note (because invoking Godwin's Law is never actually serious), for all the gun haters, a question for you: if there was irrefutable proof that more widespread legal gun ownership led to a decrease in violent crime and/or violent firearm-linked deaths, would you still be anti-gun rights?

No. But that proof does not exist. This argument that more guns means fewer gun-related deaths in a country that has more guns than anyone else and- shockingly- more gun-related deaths than anyone else is just insanity. It's willful denial. And unless you're willing to talk to every single family member and friend of those 30000+ people who die every year from guns to explain to them why your hobby was worth their loss, you don't have a right to make that argument.

[Fallen]

I don't believe law abiding citizens should lose their rights due to other people's inability to follow the law or conduct themselves safely and responsibly. That's a dangerous precedent to set.

As long as it is reasonably possible to do something safely, we shouldn't be denied the ability to do so because others cannot.

[Tisket]

What's the financial incentive to prevent gun violence research?

Financial considerations shouldn't exist in research but it does and advocacy research with a preordained goal should be prevented. I'm not even really sure why that's being debated.

[Fallen]

Financial considerations shouldn't exist in research but it does and advocacy research with a preordained goal should be prevented. I'm not even really sure why that's being debated.

Because saying you cannot study the possible benefits of gun control while studying gun violence is nonsensical.

[caelric]

No. But that proof does not exist. This argument that more guns means fewer gun-related deaths in a country that has more guns than anyone else and- shockingly- more gun-related deaths than anyone else is just insanity. It's willful denial. And unless you're willing to talk to every single family member and friend of those 30000+ people who die every year from guns to explain to them why your hobby was worth their loss, you don't have a right to make that argument.


Sorry, it's not a hobby. I don't hunt, I only rarely go to the range (and then, not because it's fun, but to maintain proficiency) and I don't own a gun collection just because. But I do have a few guns in the house, for protection. Whether that protection is from your average everyday armed house robbery, house invasion, the collapse of civilization, or the zombie apocalypse really doesn't matter.

Until you can find a way to take away every illegally owned gun in the country, and prevent any more from coming in, the first few reasons for protection will continue to exist. And even then, the last couple of reasons for protection will always exist.

I believe that 30k figure is price we, as a society, are willing to pay as the cost of gun ownership. Given that even after atrocities such as Sandy Hook, Columbine, the Co. Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, and others are ruthlessly exploited by the media in conjunction with the anti-gun rights lobbies, the US public generally still favors responsible gun ownership, I think you are on a losing side.

Regardless, none of us are going to change each others minds, whether you admit or not. So, you can take your anti-gun propaganda and shove it up your ass.

[Tgo01]

Instead of "betting" what is real- go look it up.

This coming from the person who claims we have the most gun-related deaths in the world, ignoring the fact that Brazil has more gun-related murders than the US does gun-related deaths in total.

Also I did look it up and Mexico has about 3,000 more gun-related murders every year than the US. I couldn't find stats on Mexico's gun suicide numbers so if you have the numbers let me know. Oh wait, you do have the numbers because you researched this extensively and found that the US had the most gun-related deaths, right?


2) Unlike gun ownership, driving plays a vital role in the ability of our society to function.

Unlike driving, gun ownership is a right guaranteed to us by our very own constitution. Also this is a bogus argument anyways. I bet there are a lot of people out there who would gladly give up their right to drive in order to keep their right to own a firearm, but as per usual liberals think they know what's best for everyone.


Outlaw driving, and a society would fall to pieces.

Who said anything about outlawing driving?

Here is your exact argument, word for word:


It takes a special kind of person to look at over 30,000 gun-related deaths in one year and conclude that gun control isn't necessary.


A normal person would look at something killing off 30,000 people in our country a year- more than any other country, and might say "Hey, how do we prevent this?"

Over 30,000 people die in car accidents every year, according to your argument we should be saying "Hey, how do we prevent this?" and we should be enacting more driving control, and yet obtaining a driver's license is open to more people in this country than legally possessing a firearm is. And now you're brushing your very own argument aside based on totally made up criteria that is important to you that guns just serve no real purpose in society whereas someone driving a car apparently does.


mandate regular testing

Regular testing? I haven't had to do a single test in regards to my driver's license since I originally got my license.


and we prohibit people with a variety of physical and mental disabilities from driving.

Oh? I'm aware of people who are unable to pass an eye exam with glasses being unable to drive but I'm unaware of any law specifically stating one is banned from driving because of a specific physical or mental disability. Sure if they can't pass the written or driving test then they are technically banned but I've never heard of a law saying "You can't use your right leg? Well you can't drive, bitch!"


More restrictions than we place on gun ownership.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. No.


You actually have to work a hell of a lot harder to drive than you do to own a gun in most states.

A) I wouldn't say it's a "hell of a lot harder." Shit. It's like a 30 question written test and a 30 minute driving exam and unless you have your license revoked or some shit that's usually all one has to do pretty much the rest of their life to keep their license.

B) It could also be because owning a gun is a right, driving is not.

[drauz]

No. But that proof does not exist. This argument that more guns means fewer gun-related deaths in a country that has more guns than anyone else and- shockingly- more gun-related deaths than anyone else is just insanity. It's willful denial. And unless you're willing to talk to every single family member and friend of those 30000+ people who die every year from guns to explain to them why your hobby was worth their loss, you don't have a right to make that argument.

Where do you get this 30k number for the US, all the numbers I saw were like a third of that.

[Fallen]

Where do you get this 30k number for the US, all the numbers I saw were like a third of that.

The CDC.

[Gnomad]

Now take out the Suicides for both, because those really don't matter. THEN compare them.

I don't give two shits for anyone that wants to kill themselves. They don't matter. They are taking the easy way out, and we are better off without them. Period.

Better yet, put up suicide booths like in Futurama, and it solves 60% of gun deaths. LOOK.. I just reduced gun deaths by 60%!!! I am awesome.I considered saying something snarky, but honestly, I'm glad you haven't had the life experiences that would make you reconsider these statements. Mazel tov.


Shit, how many of the above people lose their right to fucking drive? Let's see...uh...none?That's a bit of a false equivalency: cars aren't designed with the sole purpose of ending someone or something's life quickly and efficiently. (Motorcycles, on the other hand...)

[Tgo01]

That's a bit of a false equivalency: cars aren't designed with the sole purpose of ending someone or something's life quickly and efficiently.

Kind of ironic to put it that way. There are about equal number cars/guns in the US, so the object that is designed to specifically kill someone/something kills about an equal number of people every year as the object that isn't specifically designed to kill someone/something.

I guess looking at it that way we should be more concerned with who we let drive a car rather than who we let operate a motor vehicle.

[time4fun]

Illogical Rambling

Interestingly enough you simultaneously argue that we regulate driving less than we do gun ownership but then also acknowledge the legal protections that prohibit that exact situation. You're making a noticeably inconsistent argument.

Also, if you can't understand the different between gun-related homicides and gun-related deaths, there's nothing I can do for you.

[Gnomad]

I guess looking at it that way we should be more concerned with who we let drive a car rather than who we let operate a motor vehicle.
i disagree, we should be more concerned with who we let operate a motor vehicle than who we let drive a car


I don't believe law abiding citizens should lose their rights due to other people's inability to follow the law or conduct themselves safely and responsibly. That's a dangerous precedent to set.

As long as it is reasonably possible to do something safely, we shouldn't be denied the ability to do so because others cannot.It's hardly unprecedented. Laws, and even constitutional amendments have limited law-abiding citizens' rights with varying success. (The 13th was a better call than the 18th.)

[Tisket]

Man, super interesting read: https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

Especially for those who like to fling around gun statistics.

[Jarvan]

No. But that proof does not exist. This argument that more guns means fewer gun-related deaths in a country that has more guns than anyone else and- shockingly- more gun-related deaths than anyone else is just insanity. It's willful denial. And unless you're willing to talk to every single family member and friend of those 30000+ people who die every year from guns to explain to them why your hobby was worth their loss, you don't have a right to make that argument.

Insanely idiotic statement. Also.. once again, remove the 60% suicides. Those people DO NOT COUNT. The only real number is the Homicides, hell, accidents shouldn't even matter. More people die from non gun accidents then gun accidents. Telling me I can't go to a range with my gun, or own a gun for self defense or hunting because some moron blew his brains out because he found his wife fucking his sister... or some idiot didn't keep his gun locked up right and their kid killed someone by mistake... I don't think so.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I love firearms. I have many, and I'm a lifetime NRA member.

I have two things to say about this or any other "gun law" thread.

1) No one (of any note) is trying to take away guns. This includes the piece of shit in the White House.
2) Since item #1 is the truth, the discussion is about profiling people to determine who can/cannot have a legal firearm. And we all know the government doesn't profile, so instead of profiling, the intent currently is to make owning and firing a legal firearm so expensive as to discourage anyone from purchasing a legal firearm. Which means poor people who want a firearm, will get one (illegally) and rich people who want one, will buy one and life will go on. Either way, nothing really changes.

[Fallen]

It's hardly unprecedented. Laws, and even constitutional amendments have limited law-abiding citizens' rights with varying success. (The 13th was a better call than the 18th.)

You just equated the right to gun ownership to the right to own slaves.

[drauz]

The CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Only if you add in suicides, which I don't think should be counted for this particular discussion.

[Warriorbird]

Man, super interesting read: https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

Especially for those who like to fling around gun statistics.

The last paragraph is by far the weakest. The rest is excellent though.

[Tisket]

The last paragraph is by far the weakest. The rest is excellent though.

Yeah, it tailed off at the very end but still, well written overall.

[Fallen]

I am not sure I agree with the premise of separating suicide by firearm from the issue of gun control, gun safety, and gun ownership. Is it because the numbers don't look good, so we want to throw them out? It's a fact that access to a gun increases the odds of successfully committing suicide. That's like saying mental health shouldn't be researched when looking into gun violence.

[Kembal]

Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the language of the bill never said the CDC could not study gun violence at all. It didn't even come close to saying that.

You're also ignoring a couple of years ago when Obama issued an executive order stating the CDC could study all gun violence they wanted to and yet the CDC still didn't put too much effort into it.

Why are we ignoring these very real facts? Because it doesn't fit with the agenda the political pundits have decided is the "real" truth.

What is the language of the bill? I've presumed the ban is actually a ban on any federal appropriations to the CDC to study gun violence, which the CDC can't get around, as far as I know. But you make it sound like it's something else, so I'm guessing you have the exact text? (I've never looked it up)

[Tgo01]

Illogical Rambling

Cute. I guess when you got nothing you have to resort to petty ad hominems like this.


Interestingly enough you simultaneously argue that we regulate driving less than we do gun ownership but then also acknowledge the legal protections that prohibit that exact situation.

Huh? I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. You mean because of the whole constitution thing? If that's the case I really don't see what point you're making here.


Also, if you can't understand the different between gun-related homicides and gun-related deaths, there's nothing I can do for you.

Where did you get the idea that I don't understand the difference?

[Jarvan]

I considered saying something snarky, but honestly, I'm glad you haven't had the life experiences that would make you reconsider these statements. Mazel tov.

That's a bit of a false equivalency: cars aren't designed with the sole purpose of ending someone or something's life quickly and efficiently. (Motorcycles, on the other hand...)

Had a family member try to commit suicide, and two others that succeeded. So yeah, I have. One of the two that did was a druggie that was forced by family to clean up. They decided death was the better option. The other lost their job and fiance in the same week, and decided it was easier to die. One used a gun, the other an OD on heroin. The one that survived, tried to hang themselves. Which, in all honesty, is more of just a cry for help then really trying to die.

Only one of them was a close relative tho, someone I interacted with more then holidays and such. Yeah I miss them, but frankly.. good riddance. If you HONESTLY feel you are better off dead then alive... by all means, do it.

If 18,000 people a year were killing themselves with knives, cars, or something else that could be regulated, do you honestly think people would be in an uproar over banning those evil items? Fuck no. No one calls for regulating knives.

[Tgo01]

i disagree, we should be more concerned with who we let operate a motor vehicle than who we let drive a car

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/h66u3hmyikusmsoxcs8m.jpg

[Fallen]

What is the language of the bill? I've presumed the ban is actually a ban on any federal appropriations to the CDC to study gun violence, which the CDC can't get around, as far as I know. But you make it sound like it's something else, so I'm guessing you have the exact text? (I've never looked it up)

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/?no-ist

This article goes a ways towards addressing TGO1's points as to why the CDC doesn't do gun control research. They do kinda come off as pussies in the article, TBH.

[Candor]

Financial considerations shouldn't exist in research but it does and advocacy research with a preordained goal should be prevented.

Yeah but good luck with that goal. Often people don't really want a truthful answer but just support for their opinions. Hopefully at least with government funded research the problem can be restrained.

[Fallen]

If 18,000 people a year were killing themselves with knives, cars, or something else that could be regulated, do you honestly think people would be in an uproar over banning those evil items? Fuck no. No one calls for regulating knives.

Making gas less toxic due to the fact it was being used so frequently for suicide led to a decrease of suicides using this method. Changes are made to prevent suicide beyond guns quite often. Think security gating on bridges, etc.

[Tgo01]

What is the language of the bill? I've presumed the ban is actually a ban on any federal appropriations to the CDC to study gun violence, which the CDC can't get around, as far as I know. But you make it sound like it's something else, so I'm guessing you have the exact text? (I've never looked it up)

The original text is as follows:

"None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

I don't know if they have updated or changed the language since then but to my knowledge this is still what people refer to when they say the CDC is forbidden by congress to study gun violence.

[Tgo01]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/?no-ist

This article goes a ways towards addressing TGO1's points as to why the CDC doesn't do gun control research. They do kinda come off as pussies in the article, TBH.

Fallen gets it! Fist bump, bro!

[Jarvan]

I am not sure I agree with the premise of separating suicide by firearm from the issue of gun control, gun safety, and gun ownership. Is it because the numbers don't look good, so we want to throw them out? It's a fact that access to a gun increases the odds of successfully committing suicide. That's like saying mental health shouldn't be researched when looking into gun violence.

John Doe is a law abiding citizen, works 50 hours a week, has a wife and 3 kids. Volunteers at the local soup kitchen, and a member of the PTA. He happens to own a gun.

John comes home one day early from work due to the building having a power issue. He finds his wife fucking his next door neighbor. She tells him she can't take it anymore and is leaving him and taking the kids and moving to a different state.

1) John grabs his gun and kills his wife and the neighbor. He is a piece of shit and criminal.

2) John gets his gun and in a fit of depression kills himself. Hot a criminal.


So... why should we add in suicides? It's not a crime to kill oneself. Technically, John did nothing wrong. Why do you want to lump him in with sick fucks that kill OTHER people?

[drauz]

I am not sure I agree with the premise of separating suicide by firearm from the issue of gun control, gun safety, and gun ownership. Is it because the numbers don't look good, so we want to throw them out? It's a fact that access to a gun increases the odds of successfully committing suicide. That's like saying mental health shouldn't be researched when looking into gun violence.

In the end it is because with a homicide the victim has no choice in the matter, their life is ended without choice or consent. With a suicide it is completely in their hands how their world will end or not end.

Perhaps I am just missing the obvious, how would gun control prevent suicides?

[Jarvan]

Making gas less toxic due to the fact it was being used so frequently for suicide led to a decrease of suicides using this method. Changes are made to prevent suicide beyond guns quite often. Think security gating on bridges, etc.

Did it lead to a decrease in suicides? If someone that REALLY wants to kill themselves can't get the gas... what do they do? Just say, oh fuck it, I guess I will live after all.

Also... who the fuck cares. If you want to off yourself because your football team lost, or your girlfriend was screwing your dad, or the kids at school looked at you funny... go ahead. Just one less idiot in the world.

[Fallen]

So... why should we add in suicides? It's not a crime to kill oneself. Technically, John did nothing wrong. Why do you want to lump him in with sick fucks that kill OTHER people?

I am of the opinion that suicides are a mental health issue we should research for solutions to help alleviate. I also believe that there is a benefit in reducing ease of access to commonly used means of suicide in order to lower overall suicide rates. However, doing so in an effective way that does not impact the rights of mentally healthy, law abiding citizens is important. Important enough for the CDC to do research.

As to why you would specifically count suicide into a large conversation of gun violence? To do good research, you must look at issues on both a micro and a macro scale. To blind yourself to one aspect of the problem is to hamper the efforts at designing solutions to the overall problem. Yes, there are many instances where suicide and homicide via guns have little to do with each other. However if we are going to be conducting research into gun control as a solution to either of these problems, they must be studied at the same time to produce viable solutions to the problem as a whole.

[Fallen]

Did it lead to a decrease in suicides?

In both instances, yes. Suicide substitutions did not raise to a level high enough by a wide margin to make up for the drop in deaths. The important aspects of these changes seem to be that they are made to leading causes of suicide, or else they have no meaningful effect.

[Tgo01]

Perhaps I am just missing the obvious, how would gun control prevent suicides?

Because guns are the easiest way to kill oneself. Think about it. If you didn't have access to a gun how would you kill yourself?

OD? Possible, but that doesn't always work.

Slit your wrists? Come on, most people don't even know how to do that right!

Start the car up in your closed garage and wait for death? Possible, but that's so slow going, you would probably change your mind before you finally passed out and died.

A handgun two feet from you is so easy to just grab, put to your head, and pull the trigger. Takes just 5 seconds during a period of intense depression to end your life.

The tough gun regulations in Australia did result in a noticeable drop in overall suicides in the country researchers found out (they must have been non-US researchers though.)

The conclusions were mixed among experts about whether or not homicide rates dropped in the country though.

[Candor]

Technically, John did nothing wrong.

You mean beyond the loss of his income to his family, depriving his children of their father for the rest of their lives, and the impact of the shock of his suicide to his family and friends?

Illegal...perhaps not. Immoral...absolutely.

[Jarvan]

In the end it is because with a homicide the victim has no choice in the matter, their life is ended without choice or consent. With a suicide it is completely in their hands how their world will end or not end.

Perhaps I am just missing the obvious, how would gun control prevent suicides?

They want to make it harder for people to kill themselves. It's true, that in many cases, gun suicides are more of a spontaneous thing. it's not planned. It's also done because it's pretty much painless I guess. Whereas cutting, strangling, etc etc is much harder to do, and jumping takes a lot of nerves.

It still comes down to the.... who the fuck gives anyone the right to say someone can't commit suicide? It's been decriminalized. I mean, seriously people. Are these NOT the same people arguing FOR decriminalizing drugs because it's a person's right to do to their body what they want? It's ok to smoke weed.. but oh god no, you can't own a gun and kill yourself, that's wrong.

[Jarvan]

You mean beyond the loss of his income to his family, depriving his children of their father for the rest of their lives, and the impact of the shock of his suicide to his family and friends?

Illegal...perhaps not. Immoral...absolutely.

Still nothing wrong. It's immoral to kill someone else. Not immoral to kill yourself. You are putting YOUR moral standards on someone else. ~I~ think it's immoral to do drugs. Doesn't make it true.

[Fallen]

Because guns are the easiest way to kill oneself. Think about it. If you didn't have access to a gun how would you kill yourself?

OD? Possible, but that doesn't always work.

Slit your wrists? Come on, most people don't even know how to do that right!

Start the car up in your closed garage and wait for death? Possible, but that's so slow going, you would probably change your mind before you finally passed out and died.

A handgun two feet from you is so easy to just grab, put to your head, and pull the trigger. Takes just 5 seconds during a period of intense depression to end your life.

The tough gun regulations in Australia did result in a noticeable drop in overall suicides in the country researchers found out (they must have been non-US researchers though.)

The conclusions were mixed among experts about whether or not homicide rates dropped in the country though.

Switzerland reducing the amount of guns in households by reducing the size of their "citizen army" also lowered suicide rates as well.

The problem becomes, how do you turn that into gun legislation? Just because Bob is suicidal doesn't mean I should have to give up my gun (I don't own a gun).

I think you'd have to do research on what types of incidents could be marked to an increased chance of suicide, and then make those incidents tracked during a gun purchase. Doing so in a way that can be verifiably proven to be effective requires research, though. Mental health considerations are already taken into account to some extent, but I would argue not enough. It is commonly said by staunch gun rights advocates that we have a mental health problem, not a gun problem. I agree. We need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental health issues. This applies to gun violence of all types, both to one's self and others.

[drauz]

Because guns are the easiest way to kill oneself. Think about it. If you didn't have access to a gun how would you kill yourself?

But what kind of regulation would prevent that scenario? Or the one described by Jarvan w/ the husband and the cheating wife. The only one I can see is taking away gun ownership all together. We all know that isn't going to happen anytime even remotely soon. If I am not mistaken that is what Australia did.

[Fallen]

They want to make it harder for people to kill themselves. It's true, that in many cases, gun suicides are more of a spontaneous thing. it's not planned. It's also done because it's pretty much painless I guess. Whereas cutting, strangling, etc etc is much harder to do, and jumping takes a lot of nerves.

It still comes down to the.... who the fuck gives anyone the right to say someone can't commit suicide? It's been decriminalized. I mean, seriously people. Are these NOT the same people arguing FOR decriminalizing drugs because it's a person's right to do to their body what they want? It's ok to smoke weed.. but oh god no, you can't own a gun and kill yourself, that's wrong.

I agree with you that suicide should be legal. As should assisted suicide. But I contend that it should only be legal/allowed when one has been proven to be of sound mind. If you are mentally unwell, you may feel the urge to harm/kill yourself and others. Surely you don't want people who would otherwise not kill themselves to be allowed to do so when they are not in their right mind, yes?

[Fallen]

But what kind of regulation would prevent that scenario? Or the one described by Jarvan w/ the husband and the cheating wife. The only one I can see is taking away gun ownership all together. We all know that isn't going to happen anytime even remotely soon. If I am not mistaken that is what Australia did.

In that scenario? Nothing. Short of there being a history of domestic violence charges or something along those lines, if someone who is otherwise mentally healthy and law abiding has a bad day and decides to off themselves, gun control isn't the answer. However, this is not the case in a significant percentage of suicides.

[drauz]

law abiding has a bad day and decides to off themselves, gun control isn't the answer. However, this is not the case in a significant percentage of suicides.

Where did you get that information from?

[Fallen]

Where did you get that information from?

Common sense, but if you need links: "People die by suicide for a number of reasons. However, the majority of the people who take their lives (estimated at 90%) were suffering with an underlying mental illness and substance abuse problem at the time of their death."

http://www.save.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=705c8cb8-9321-f1bd-867e811b1b404c94

----
" A major cause of suicide is mental illness, very commonly depression."

http://caps.ucsc.edu/resources/depression.html#Chapter5

[drauz]

It's real easy to talk about how we shouldn't give a damn when it hasn't affected you. I think you're rationalizing hard here.

I had a co-worker buy a gun, waited a couple days, went to Fairfax Hospital and shot himself in the chest in their parking lot. He still wanted to be able to have an open casket I guess. He left a note saying that he wanted to donate his organs (why he did it at the hospital).

Never had a family member do it. So I guess that might be different, but I don't think I would feel different about it. I would be sad if it was a family member I care about sure, but I wouldn't want to make a decision about someone elses life.

[Candor]

It's immoral to kill someone else. Not immoral to kill yourself. You are putting YOUR moral standards on someone else.

Let's just say that we agree that we disagree.

As for placing moral standards on someone else, you do realize that laws basically do just that? We live in a world where moral standards are forced on people. I'm not saying that suicide should be made illegal (which wouldn't even make sense), but I don't apologize for wanting to place certain moral standards on others.

[Tgo01]

I would be sad if it was a family member I care about sure, but I wouldn't want to make a decision about someone elses life.

The thing is the vast majority of people who commit suicide are suffering from a mental condition, usually depression and usually treatable. Very few cases of suicide involve someone in chronic pain with 1 year left to live.

This is why Dr Kevorkian was such a piece of shit. A lot of his "patients" were suffering from depression and rather than being, y'know, a doctor, and directing them towards professionals who could possibly help them with their depression he just said "Okay so when do you wanna die?!" He was preying on people during their weakest moment in life.

[Wrathbringer]

Let's just say that we agree that we disagree.

As for placing moral standards on someone else, you do realize that laws basically do just that? We live in a world where moral standards are forced on people. I'm not saying that suicide should be made illegal (which wouldn't even make sense), but I don't apologize for wanting to place certain moral standards on others.

...says the guy glorifying suicide with his poorly drawn suicide guy avatar. Even your avatar disagrees with you.

People like you are the problem, not the solution. Fortunately, your generation is dying off.

[Jarvan]

It's real easy to talk about how we shouldn't give a damn when it hasn't affected you. I think you're rationalizing hard here.

Guess you missed where I said two relatives took their lives. So yes, has affected me, and I still don't give a damn.

[Jarvan]

I agree with you that suicide should be legal. As should assisted suicide. But I contend that it should only be legal/allowed when one has been proven to be of sound mind. If you are mentally unwell, you may feel the urge to harm/kill yourself and others. Surely you don't want people who would otherwise not kill themselves to be allowed to do so when they are not in their right mind, yes?

Actually, no. I think people should be allowed to kill themselves at any time. Just weeds out the weak.

Oh... you had a really bad day at work, your tire blew out, and your engine overheated, your wife is leaving you and you cat died? You just can't take it anymore and want to kill yourself? If that is all it takes, go ahead and do it.

Currently, we consider anyone with suicidal tendencies to have a mental illness... how would you consider them to be of sound mind? If they have other mental illnesses that make them want to kill themselves, so what? How is that different then someone struggling with say cancer, or another disease that may/may not be treatable?


Let's just say that we agree that we disagree.

As for placing moral standards on someone else, you do realize that laws basically do just that? We live in a world where moral standards are forced on people. I'm not saying that suicide should be made illegal (which wouldn't even make sense), but I don't apologize for wanting to place certain moral standards on others.

Actually, until somewhat recently, it WAS illegal to kill oneself. It was considered a felony. Good luck prosecuting it. It was of course also illegal to attempt it. They eventually got rid of it. Of course, even now Attempting it usually then resultings in hospitalization for "mental issues".

[Fallen]

Actually, no. I think people should be allowed to kill themselves at any time. Just weeds out the weak.

Do you believe we should do away with all medical treatment in order to weed out the physically weak?



Currently, we consider anyone with suicidal tendencies to have a mental illness... how would you consider them to be of sound mind? If they have other mental illnesses that make them want to kill themselves, so what? How is that different then someone struggling with say cancer, or another disease that may/may not be treatable?

If someone is simply suicidal for a long period of time without any other associated illness, they should be perfectly capable of killing themselves, hence not needing assisted suicide. As you said yourself, it is no longer a crime to kill yourself in the US. If you cannot see the need for physician assisted suicide to have safeguards and qualifying criteria, i'm not sure we can have a rational discussion on the subject.

[Wrathbringer]

Do you believe we should do away with all medical treatment in order to weed out the physically weak?




If someone is simply suicidal for a long period of time without any other associated illness, they should be perfectly capable of killing themselves, hence not needing assisted suicide. As you said yourself, it is no longer a crime to kill yourself in the US. If you cannot see the need for physician assisted suicide to have safeguards and qualifying criteria, i'm not sure we can have a rational discussion on the subject.

He's a huge troll. Just ignore him.

[Fallen]

Gun bargains were apparently a big draw on Black Friday. As news of a deadly standoff in Colorado Springs overshadowed America’s unofficial shopping holiday, the F.B.I. was busy processing about two firearm background checks per second.

The agency ran a record 185,345 background checks on Friday, about 5 percent more than the amount processed through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System on that day in 2014, a figure that is seen as a strong indicator of how many guns were sold, The Associated Press reported.


But since about 40 percent of all gun sales are through unlicensed dealers, that figure probably underestimated how many firearms actually changed hands, said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. The federal system checks the records of people trying to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, but are not required for those purchasing from many small-scale, unlicensed retailers who sell in places like the gun shows that were held in Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Missouri and other states on Friday.

Seems relevant to the general discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/black-friday-gun-sales-soared-fbi-data-shows.html

[Jarvan]

Do you believe we should do away with all medical treatment in order to weed out the physically weak?




If someone is simply suicidal for a long period of time without any other associated illness, they should be perfectly capable of killing themselves, hence not needing assisted suicide. As you said yourself, it is no longer a crime to kill yourself in the US. If you cannot see the need for physician assisted suicide to have safeguards and qualifying criteria, i'm not sure we can have a rational discussion on the subject.

Generally, the only time there is need of assisted suicide, is when the person's health has deteriorated to the point that they can't physically do it on their own. If you are having someone else kill you (basically) then yes, of course there has to be safeguards. As for qualifying criteria... depends what the government wants to do. I would say a 3 person test prior is fine. All video taped. The Dr, a family member if possible, and a psychiatrist. NONE of them have to agree or allow it, they just have to state that the person is choosing it of their own free will and not coerced.

If someone has been suffering from depression for 20 years and finally decides to commit suicide... who are you to stop them? I mean, seriously... since it's not a crime.. who are you to determine who is and is not allowed to do it? Jim can do it because he has never had any issues and is just sad one day... but Steve was treated for depression for 20 years, so he isn't.

I mean.. seriously.. does that make any sense? I mean come on... when it gets right down to it, what sane person kills themselves anyway?


There is a major difference between medical treatment and stopping people from killing themselves.

You CAN'T stop someone from trying, unless you lock their ass up. And considering we don't consider the act a crime anymore, we shouldn't lock people up for wanting to do it.

If you say... The only reason John wants to do it is because of his, lets say manic depression, and we should be treating that instead of letting him kill himself. Well... isn't that John's choice? Are you going to FORCE a choice on him instead? Sorry John, You have a mental condition, you are not allowed to kill yourself.

Hey.. maybe we can do that with other things... A woman wants to have an abortion because she is freaking out over the pregnancy.. or can't cope with the thought of having kids. Sorry, you are suffering from a mental disorder, you are not allowed, you must have the kid. Yeah.. THAT will go over great.

[Thondalar]

It takes a special kind of person to look at over 30,000 gun-related deaths in one year and conclude that gun control isn't necessary. Despite the fact that in 2013, the WHO's data indicated that the US both had more guns and more gun-related deaths than any other country in the world.

A normal person would look at something killing off 30,000 people in our country a year- more than any other country, and might say "Hey, how do we prevent this?" Not, "See? It's not that bad".

You've got this whole thing so damn backwards it hurts.

Is your WHO data based on percentage of population, or raw number? I already know it is the latter, but it sounds good to say it the way you did, doesn't it? Statistics are meaningless without context. Not to mention the fact you're ignoring the meat of this by specifying "gun-related deaths", which 2/3 of are suicides, and you're in a discussion about homicides.

A "normal" person probably would look at a raw number and go "gee golly, that looks pretty bad", and run off to campaign for some dumb-ass legislation that would accomplish nothing. Normal people usually don't bother themselves with trying to actually understand statistics.

[Thondalar]

The study in your initial post makes no reference to mass shootings or armed criminals, but does make many references to gun suicide rates. It was from that study that I pulled the 8% number, in fact. Would you care to reconsider this line?

Since I made this thread, and I specifically stated in the title of the thread I was talking about homicides...nope.


Not a lot of snowy hills in Florida, I take it.

Quite a few hills, not too many snowy ones though. Every now and then.

[Thondalar]

What's the financial incentive to prevent gun violence research?

There isn't one, and nobody is preventing it.

Certain watchdog groups and Congresspersons doing their job are preventing funding for government organizations to do things they aren't designed to do. I'm ok with that, whether it is about guns or any other topic.

I like how everyone just blew right past the Harvard study. That's not exactly a Conservative bastion, but they came to the same conclusion as the study mentioned in the OP. Universities have graduate students working on these things. Read what they publish.

[Thondalar]

1) Brazil has more gun-related homicides (Though the FBI has also pointed out that its ability to accurately collect data in gun violence is majorly hindered, and that their numbers- as well as those of local law enforcement- are likely quite a bit lower than reality, and in terms of gun-related homicides, we're like 4th in the world and not in good company there), but not gun-related deaths. Instead of "betting" what is real- go look it up.

We're talking about homicides here. Thanks for proving you don't have a leg to stand on.


2) Unlike gun ownership, driving plays a vital role in the ability of our society to function. It provides very well benefits aside from its ability to wound and kill. Any comparison between the two is just silly. Outlaw driving, and a society would fall to pieces. I have yet to see a society fall to pieces after outlawing guns.

This is extremely arguable. Public transportation is a better option in most urban areas these days, if you consider personal cost, public safety, and environmental impact. Guns also provide many benefits beyond their ability to wound or kill humans, which I assume is what you were getting at.

Seeing a "society fall to pieces" would, I suppose, be a judgement call. There is a very good reason the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place. Perhaps some remedial World History would help you out a bit.


Regardless, we do require registration for a driver's license, mandate regular testing, and we prohibit people with a variety of physical and mental disabilities from driving. More restrictions than we place on gun ownership. You actually have to work a hell of a lot harder to drive than you do to own a gun in most states. If you think we place more restrictions on gun ownership, you are delusional.

The huge difference here is, in the United States, driving is a privilege and owning a gun is a right. Regardless, we still have TONS of restrictions on that right, as already pointed out by some others in this thread. Imagine if you had to validate any of your other Rights the same way you do gun ownership?

[Thondalar]

I don't believe law abiding citizens should lose their rights due to other people's inability to follow the law or conduct themselves safely and responsibly. That's a dangerous precedent to set.

As long as it is reasonably possible to do something safely, we shouldn't be denied the ability to do so because others cannot.


DING DING DING

[Jarvan]

The huge difference here is, in the United States, driving is a privilege and owning a gun is a right. Regardless, we still have TONS of restrictions on that right, as already pointed out by some others in this thread. Imagine if you had to validate any of your other Rights the same way you do gun ownership?

Don't give them any ideas. Next you know we will have "tests" to determine if we are allowed to have free speech or not.

[Thondalar]

Guess you missed where I said two relatives took their lives. So yes, has affected me, and I still don't give a damn.

I got one better. My best friend and my father were both killed by gun homicide...still doesn't change my stance.

edit: logic is a gift and a curse, I suppose.

edit edit: yes, two separate incidents, about 9 years apart.

[Warriorbird]

I got one better. My best friend and my father were both killed by gun homicide...still doesn't change my stance.

edit: logic is a gift and a curse, I suppose.

edit edit: yes, two separate incidents, about 9 years apart.

For the sake of discussion I'll direct the anonymous neg rep/Wrathbringer question to you then. Are you clinging to the idea of guns as only good to hold off the emotions attached to thinking about their negatives?

[Thondalar]

For the sake of discussion I'll direct the anonymous neg rep/Wrathbringer question to you then. Are you clinging to the idea of guns as only good to hold off the emotions attached to thinking about their negatives?

Damn, WB. I thought you knew me better than that.

I never once said they were only good, that's just silly. I don't think they're any better or worse than any other tool. Logic tells me that my individual experiences are statistically insignificant.


Edit: alright, I take that back...your phrasing caught me off guard, since guns are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. They are just as inert as any other non-living matter, or any item made from non-living matter. I DO believe, and always will believe, that they are a necessary tool, in many ways, and that their inherent "good" far outweighs their potential "bad".

[drauz]

The huge difference here is, in the United States, driving is a privilege and owning a gun is a right. Regardless, we still have TONS of restrictions on that right, as already pointed out by some others in this thread. Imagine if you had to validate any of your other Rights the same way you do gun ownership?

Are you advocating no restrictions for gun ownership?

There are restrictions on other rights as well, its not only gun ownership.

[Fallen]

Is anyone against those on the "No Fly" list being ineligible for gun ownership?

[drauz]

Is anyone against those on the "No Fly" list being ineligible for a gun?

Yes.

[Fallen]

Yes.

Why?

[time4fun]

Is anyone against those on the "No Fly" list being ineligible for gun ownership?

Yes

[Warriorbird]

Damn, WB. I thought you knew me better than that.

I never once said they were only good, that's just silly. I don't think they're any better or worse than any other tool. Logic tells me that my individual experiences are statistically insignificant.


Edit: alright, I take that back...your phrasing caught me off guard, since guns are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. They are just as inert as any other non-living matter, or any item made from non-living matter. I DO believe, and always will believe, that they are a necessary tool, in many ways, and that their inherent "good" far outweighs their potential "bad".

Fair enough and well said. I do think that rational gun owners have to face up to suicide as far more of an issue than homicide, however. In an odd sense it can be seen as a defense AGAINST the homicide based restrictions.

[Fallen]

I suppose I should also ask if people believe there is anything a citizen can do that can deny them their eligibility for gun ownership.

[drauz]

I suppose I should also ask if people believe there is anything a citizen can do that can deny them their eligibility for gun ownership.

Anyone with a violent crime.

[Fallen]

Anyone with a violent crime.

What about those on the Terrorist Watch List?

[Tgo01]

Why?

Because you are taking away a person's right with absolutely no due process.


What about those on the Terrorist Watch List?

Same thing. You're basically giving the president/their administration power to take away one's rights without due process.

[Warriorbird]

Because you are taking away a person's right with absolutely no due process.

Obama AND Republicans love that shit.

[Fallen]

Because you are taking away a person's right with absolutely no due process.



Same thing. You're basically giving the president/their administration power to take away one's rights without due process.

I suppose that's fair. Are you against the No Fly List and Terrorist Watch List in general?

[Tgo01]

Obama AND Republicans love that shit.

Pretty sure Republicans shot down the idea in Congress.

[Tgo01]

I suppose that's fair. Are you against the No Fly List and Terrorist Watch List in general?

No because in the case of the No Fly List, there is absolutely no right to fly on an airplane.

To be honest I'm not exactly sure what being on the terrorist watch list entails but I imagine they are tracked and shit. Nothing necessarily illegal about that to my knowledge. I'm pretty sure a cop can legally follow you around in public all day even without a warrant or any sort of permission from a judge.

[Fallen]

No because in the case of the No Fly List, there is absolutely no right to fly on an airplane.

To be honest I'm not exactly sure what being on the terrorist watch list entails but I imagine they are tracked and shit. Nothing necessarily illegal about that to my knowledge. I'm pretty sure a cop can legally follow you around in public all day even without a warrant or any sort of permission from a judge.

Agreed. There has to be measures in place to track those deemed dangerous. You raise a valid point about the lack of due process with those lists and being denied a gun permit. I do think it should set off same major bells and whistles, though, in terms of increased scrutiny.

[drauz]

What about those on the Terrorist Watch List?

I think Tg01 said it perfectly. You are guilty until proven innocent.

[Warriorbird]

Pretty sure Republicans shot down the idea in Congress.

And Obama whined about it before he was in office and the Republicans supported it under Bush.

They're all corrupt as fuck on the subject.

[Tgo01]

And Obama whined about it before he was in office and the Republicans supported it under Bush.

Hey you shut your mouth! Republicans do no wrong!!!!

[Thondalar]

Are you advocating no restrictions for gun ownership?

There are restrictions on other rights as well, its not only gun ownership.

I actually AM advocating no restrictions for gun ownership, other than you must be a Citizen in good standing according to the natural restrictions already in place according to the body of the Constitution. Of course, this goes back to my belief that the Bill of Rights is superfluous, and that the rights contained therein already exist in the body of the Constitution, and by enumerating them we have set precedent for them to be denied...which is exactly what has happened, not only with the 2nd amendment, but many others...the 4th especially.

[Thondalar]

Is anyone against those on the "No Fly" list being ineligible for gun ownership?

If they are valid US citizens with no prior felony criminal record, I'm totally against it.

[Jarvan]

Is anyone against those on the "No Fly" list being ineligible for gun ownership?

You know you can get on that list for insanely stupid reasons.

[Fallen]

I agree with the arguments being made against the call to stop people on these lists from getting a weapon. I still believe there should be such lists and that it should set off increased scrutiny if these people attempt to buy weapons, though.

[drauz]

I actually AM advocating no restrictions for gun ownership, other than you must be a Citizen in good standing according to the natural restrictions already in place according to the body of the Constitution. Of course, this goes back to my belief that the Bill of Rights is superfluous, and that the rights contained therein already exist in the body of the Constitution, and by enumerating them we have set precedent for them to be denied...which is exactly what has happened, not only with the 2nd amendment, but many others...the 4th especially.

What do you mean by a citizen in good standing? Does serving your time for a jail sentence keep you in good standing?

[Thondalar]

They're all corrupt as fuck on the subject.

This could apply to literally ANY topic in modern US politics. Both "modern" parties are caricatures of their former selves...too many years fighting each other just because...they've lost track of the principles they used to believe in.

[Thondalar]

I agree with the arguments being made against the call to stop people on these lists from getting a weapon. I still believe there should be such lists and that it should set off increased scrutiny if these people attempt to buy weapons, though.

The catch here is, the background check doesn't mark "citizen X is attempting to purchase gun Y at Z place", it just sees if "citizen X" is allowed to purchase a gun. If that binary comes up a 0, no sale. If it comes up a 1, sale. "increased scrutiny" would require some sort of tracking that citizen X is purchasing a gun. I'm 10000000% against that.

[Thondalar]

What do you mean by a citizen in good standing? Does serving your time for a jail sentence keep you in good standing?

In my opinion, yes. The Constitution doesn't say Felons can't buy guns, but I think every State does.

[Tgo01]

In my opinion, yes. The Constitution doesn't say Felons can't buy guns, but I think every State does.

Yeah it's kind of tough with felons. I have the same problem with sex offender registries; we either say "Okay this person has paid their debt to society" or we don't, we don't have this middle ground where we say "Okay sure, you're paid your debt but...not really."

Although I think if you were convicted of murder then it just makes sense that you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm again.

[Fallen]

The catch here is, the background check doesn't mark "citizen X is attempting to purchase gun Y at Z place", it just sees if "citizen X" is allowed to purchase a gun. If that binary comes up a 0, no sale. If it comes up a 1, sale. "increased scrutiny" would require some sort of tracking that citizen X is purchasing a gun. I'm 10000000% against that.

Do you think enough is done to combat terrorism in this country?

[Thondalar]

Yeah it's kind of tough with felons. I have the same problem with sex offender registries; we either say "Okay this person has paid their debt to society" or we don't, we don't have this middle ground where we say "Okay sure, you're paid your debt but...not really."

That's a serious issue with our criminal justice system. The vast majority of sexual disorders are classified as mental diseases, unless they involve rape of an adult, or sex (rape) with a minor. Guess what? It's all just chemicals in the brain. The vast majority of us have our chemicals working correctly...we're attracted to adults of the opposite sex, and we pursue these relationships in a normal manner. Some of us have our chemicals mixed up a bit, and we pursue members of the same sex. (not saying this is wrong...I'm not saying any of this is "right" or "wrong", just stating facts) Some of us have our chemicals REALLY mixed up, and we pursue kids, or animals, or car exhausts (the recorded instances of sexual disorders is long and...varied). If a grown man is attracted to a grown woman, we consider that perfectly normal. If a grown man is attracted to a small child, we consider that abhorrent because he is evil and wants to rape kids. Most likely he doesn't want to, but his brain gives him a boner when he looks at kids. Some men can't "get off" unless the female is struggling...again, a brain disorder. As much as I detest the government keeping track of its citizens...this is one case where I approve, only because of mental deficiency, and only if the State can prove such a deficiency exists...which, in these cases, I accept their adjudication of guilty through the established system of Law as sufficient proof.


Although I think if you were convicted of murder then it just makes sense that you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm again.

That's a conclusion based on emotion, though...that rarely works. Murder comes in many ways, and it isn't always something that would be consequentially harmful to other citizens at a later date. By this, I mean...the VAST majority of murders that occur in the US, the victim and perpetrator know each other. They are most likely either family, co-worker, or co-conspirator in a criminal enterprise. The murder in question springs from a single incident. With sentencing guidelines what they are in the US, if you get convicted of murder 2, or especially murder 1 (which they try to drum up any associative felony they can if you're arrested for murder 2 just to make it murder 1, trust me), you're going away for quite a while, depending on what State you're in. I've worked in a State prison...not a County jail, a State prison, housing inmates doing more than a year and a day up to death sentences. If you go down for 20-30 years, and make it out alive...hell, I'd give you a gun myself.

[Thondalar]

Do you think enough is done to combat terrorism in this country?

This is a difficult question to answer, because it is extremely hard to qualify. Do I think the formation of Homeland Security, turning the TSA into the gestapo, and the destruction of our 4th Amendment Rights is enough to combat terrorism? No...I think that's a victory for terrorism. France and Belgium...nations of a combined 80 million or so people...COMPLETELY SHUT THE FUCK DOWN because 130 people were killed. Schools were out, public transportation was closed, businesses were closed...if that isn't a huge victory for terrorism, I don't know what is.


edit: more specifically, I don't think "Nations" are equipped to handle terrorism...it isn't, regardless of what anyone says, an act of war between nations. People need to be equipped to handle terrorism...this is also a slippery slope. Do we want an over-jacked, panicky populace freaking the fuck out over every unattended backpack? No...but I do believe a fair amount of situational awareness is healthy in every person, regardless of where they live. I had the benefit of my father being a pseudo-prepper...borderline...well, ok...full-blown nutjob, when it came to things like that...well before we had "Islamic" terrorism in the US. Back then, we had "normal citizen white people" trying to blow shit up. (Timothy McVeigh ring any bells?) Islamic extremists weren't really a consideration. I was taught to observe...be aware of everything going on around you...watch people, even people who don't fit any particular profile...watch for behavior patterns. My wife wonders why I always pick a table in the back of the restaurant, and always have to sit facing the door...

We're dealing with terrorism on a macro level, and that's precisely what they want. A very small (relatively) group of people is dictating the policies of huge nations. They are winning, and we don't even realize it.

[Kembal]

The original text is as follows:

"None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

I don't know if they have updated or changed the language since then but to my knowledge this is still what people refer to when they say the CDC is forbidden by congress to study gun violence.

Wow, that's vague. No definition as to what advocating or promoting gun control means, which means it's anything a Congressman who feels like dragging a CDC researcher up for Congressional hearings says it is. I can see why they're intimidated into not doing research, especially because it sounds like a violation of the clause to even pay the salary of someone studying gun violence in detail.

Is NIH prohibited from giving grants to academic researchers to study gun violence as well?

[drauz]

That's a conclusion based on emotion, though...that rarely works. Murder comes in many ways, and it isn't always something that would be consequentially harmful to other citizens at a later date. By this, I mean...the VAST majority of murders that occur in the US, the victim and perpetrator know each other. They are most likely either family, co-worker, or co-conspirator in a criminal enterprise. The murder in question springs from a single incident. With sentencing guidelines what they are in the US, if you get convicted of murder 2, or especially murder 1 (which they try to drum up any associative felony they can if you're arrested for murder 2 just to make it murder 1, trust me), you're going away for quite a while, depending on what State you're in. I've worked in a State prison...not a County jail, a State prison, housing inmates doing more than a year and a day up to death sentences. If you go down for 20-30 years, and make it out alive...hell, I'd give you a gun myself.

Here is another problem though. The prison system is just terrible. It was meant to try to rehabilitate a person to go back into "normal" society. That idea has long since been disregarded. It is more just a cage to put a animal in to keep from doing more harm. That is one of my problems with "private prisons", but thats another topic. If anything prison will make you a worse person. I truly hope that the amount of rape that is portrayed in movies is just to further the plot.

The reason I said that all violent crimes should restrict your ability to own a gun is that you have already demonstrated that you can't control yourself enough to be trusted with a weapon designed for killing.

My point is that I doubt most people come out of prison a better person than when they arrived.

[Tgo01]

Wow, that's vague. No definition as to what advocating or promoting gun control means, which means it's anything a Congressman who feels like dragging a CDC researcher up for Congressional hearings says it is. I can see why they're intimidated into not doing research.

It's not vague.

Here is (made up) research results not advocating gun control:

Findings show 34% of mass shooters have treatable mental disorders.

Here is (made up) research results advocating gun control:

Findings show 34% of mass shooters have treatable mental disorders, therefore if we made it more difficult for people with mental disorders to obtain a gun then we could dramatically reduce the number of mass shootings in this country.

[Thondalar]

Wow, that's vague. No definition as to what advocating or promoting gun control means, which means it's anything a Congressman who feels like dragging a CDC researcher up for Congressional hearings says it is. I can see why they're intimidated into not doing research.

Again, the CDC has no business doing any sort of "research" even remotely related to this, or anything else, for that matter. They collate the data that is sent to them. That's it.


Is NIH prohibited from giving grants to academic researchers to study gun violence as well?

I would certainly hope so.

This isn't to say research shouldn't be done...I'm all for it, personally. I've listed a few studies done by Pew research center and Harvard...you know, the people that should be doing this sort of thing, and don't need government funding one way or the other to do it...and it just gets glossed over.

I guess deflection is the best way to "win" a losing argument.

edit: it has been too long since the Kleck and Gertz study...we need an updated version.

[Thondalar]

Here is another problem though. The prison system is just terrible. It was meant to try to rehabilitate a person to go back into "normal" society. That idea has long since been disregarded. It is more just a cage to put a animal in to keep from doing more harm. That is one of my problems with "private prisons", but thats another topic. If anything prison will make you a worse person. I truly hope that the amount of rape that is portrayed in movies is just to further the plot.

The reason I said that all violent crimes should restrict your ability to own a gun is that you have already demonstrated that you can't control yourself enough to be trusted with a weapon designed for killing.

My point is that I doubt most people come out of prison a better person than when they arrived.

You will find me the greatest ally in the fight against our corrupt "corrections" system, and I agree with your assessment on violent offenders in the same way I agree with sex offenders...I take a guilty verdict from our court system as proof that you have a mental defect that precludes you from certain rights as a Citizen.

However, all felonies are not violent.

[Kembal]

It's not vague.

Here is (made up) research results not advocating gun control:

Findings show 34% of mass shooters have treatable mental disorders.

Here is (made up) research results advocating gun control:

Findings show 34% of mass shooters have treatable mental disorders, therefore if we made it more difficult for people with mental disorders to obtain a gun then we could dramatically reduce the number of mass shootings in this country.

Ok, another made up result:

Findings show that 42% of accidental shootings were done by children in the home.

By your logic (and I think your logic is sound), this should be a result that doesn't violate federal law. However, you and I both know that knowing this now gives credence to an argument that guns should come with something that prevents accidental shootings by children. (in this example, fingerprint recognition comes to mind as a potential solution, which is viciously opposed by the NRA and most major gun manufacturers) I can easily see a Congressperson twisting this into saying this promotes gun control and going after the researcher who published the finding.

[Thondalar]

Ok, another made up result:

Findings show that 42% of accidental shootings were done by children in the home.

By your logic (and I think your logic is sound), this should be a result that doesn't violate federal law. However, you and I both know that knowing this now gives credence to an argument that guns should come with something that prevents accidental shootings by children. (in this example, fingerprint recognition comes to mind as a potential solution, which is viciously opposed by the NRA and most major gun manufacturers) I can easily see a Congressperson twisting this into saying this promotes gun control and going after the researcher who published the finding.

I bought a handgun a few months ago. It came with a free slide lock.

[drauz]

It's not vague.

Here is (made up) research results not advocating gun control:

Findings show 34% of mass shooters have treatable mental disorders.

Here is (made up) research results advocating gun control:

Findings show 34% of mass shooters have treatable mental disorders, therefore if we made it more difficult for people with mental disorders to obtain a gun then we could dramatically reduce the number of mass shootings in this country.

What about research into say "would limiting the ability for people with mental disorders to obtain a gun reduce the number of mass shootings?"

Or are you saying research into something like that just shouldn't be done.

[Tgo01]

Ok, another made up result:

Findings show that 42% of accidental shootings were done by children in the home.

By your logic (and I think your logic is sound), this should be a result that doesn't violate federal law. However, you and I both know that knowing this now gives credence to an argument that guns should come with something that prevents accidental shootings by children.

Pretty sure it's federal law that all gun purchases from a federally licensed dealer must come with gun locks.

As to whether or not that's advocating for gun control...I don't see it that way. I think the Congress "ban" basically just told the CDC to study on and report the facts, they shouldn't get into the business of advocating for policies. I suppose a congressperson could look at raw data and findings and say "Okay, yeah, but you're advocating for gun control." The thing is...the CDC never even tried! That's been my whole point all along, the CDC just shrugged and said well, okay, we tried that one time 20 years ago so we're done.

[Tgo01]

What about research into say "would limiting the ability for people with mental disorders to obtain a gun reduce the number of mass shootings?"

That sounds like gun control, yes. I think the language just says the CDC should remain impartial in regards to gun control advocacy. Whether or not that's right or wrong, or whether or not I'm right or wrong in my assessment, we may never know because the CDC has long given up on this issue, even with the president himself basically saying, gais, seriously, research this shit already. I removed all barriers.


Or are you saying research into something like that just shouldn't be done.

I'm not against any type of research into anything. Well as long as it's all ethical and shit.

The thing is the CDC doesn't have to be the ones who research this. There has never been a law restricting anyone else to research anything at all in regards to gun violence and gun control.

[Thondalar]

What about research into say "would limiting the ability for people with mental disorders to obtain a gun reduce the number of mass shootings?"

Or are you saying research into something like that just shouldn't be done.

You've made some fairly intelligent posts in the past, I have to ask...logically, before such research could be done effectively, wouldn't you have to first define what qualifies as a "mental disorder"?

[Kembal]

I bought a handgun a few months ago. It came with a free slide lock.

I truly know very little about guns. I presume based on your sentence that slide locks aren't inherent to a gun in the first place, but are a potential safety measure that can be put onto one. Could all guns come universally with one? Can it be removed permanently from a gun later on? If it can be removed permanently, what would be the response if Congress were to mandate that it is illegal to remove it?

[drauz]

Again, the CDC has no business doing any sort of "research" even remotely related to this, or anything else, for that matter.

You realize this "ban" isn't just for the CDC but the NIH as well. I would hazard a guess that you carry the same view to them as well.

The NIH though unlike the CDC has taken Obama's executive order and started research again.

[Thondalar]

You realize this "ban" isn't just for the CDC but the NIH as well. I would hazard a guess that you carry the same view to them as well.

The NIH though unlike the CDC has taken Obama's executive order and started research again.

I said a few posts ago neither should be doing this research. I also said not because I don't want this research to be done...again, several other outlets have been doing this research...what the fuck, it's like I'm not even posting here.

[Thondalar]

I truly know very little about guns. I presume based on your sentence that slide locks aren't inherent to a gun in the first place, but are a potential safety measure that can be put onto one. Could all guns come universally with one? Can it be removed permanently from a gun later on? If it can be removed permanently, what would be the response if Congress were to mandate that it is illegal to remove it?

It's a wire with a lock that you slip through the slide or chamber on a gun so it can't fire unless you have the key to remove the lock. Like most locks, it requires the person possessing the gun and the lock to place the lock on the gun in order to be effective.

You "truly know very little about guns", but you readily advocate against them? I...eh. Carry on, I suppose.

[drauz]

I truly know very little about guns. I presume based on your sentence that slide locks aren't inherent to a gun in the first place, but are a potential safety measure that can be put onto one. Could all guns come universally with one? Can it be removed permanently from a gun later on? If it can be removed permanently, what would be the response if Congress were to mandate that it is illegal to remove it?

I assume this is the type of lock he is referring to.

http://www.pmokspd.com/pclock.jpg

[drauz]

You've made some fairly intelligent posts in the past, I have to ask...logically, before such research could be done effectively, wouldn't you have to first define what qualifies as a "mental disorder"?

There are probably a lot of things you would need to define before you start.

[drauz]

You will find me the greatest ally in the fight against our corrupt "corrections" system, and I agree with your assessment on violent offenders in the same way I agree with sex offenders...I take a guilty verdict from our court system as proof that you have a mental defect that precludes you from certain rights as a Citizen.

However, all felonies are not violent.

Then we are in agreement. Here is my problem, not all violent offenses are felonies.

[drauz]

I said a few posts ago neither should be doing this research. I also said not because I don't want this research to be done...again, several other outlets have been doing this research...what the fuck, it's like I'm not even posting here.

Why don't they have any business doing this type of research?

[Thondalar]

I assume this is the type of lock he is referring to.

http://www.pmokspd.com/pclock.jpg

Just such.

I don't use the one that came with my recent purchase, because I keep it in a safe under my bed with a specific finger pattern...not finger print, but...the lock mechanism is 4 sliders that have to be pushed into the proper position to open it.

[Thondalar]

There are probably a lot of things you would need to define before you start.

Agreed.

[drauz]

That sounds like gun control, yes. I think the language just says the CDC should remain impartial in regards to gun control advocacy. Whether or not that's right or wrong, or whether or not I'm right or wrong in my assessment, we may never know because the CDC has long given up on this issue, even with the president himself basically saying, gais, seriously, research this shit already. I removed all barriers.

So what kind of verbal linguistics would it take to research mass shootings and what could prevent them without sounding like gun control.

Seems like the NIH is at least starting to fund the research again.

[Thondalar]

Why don't they have any business doing this type of research?

Because guns aren't a disease? Oh...public safety, right? Health and...whatnot...so...why doesn't the CDC do research into traffic fatalities? Or airplane fatalities? Or lightning fatalities?

[drauz]

Because guns aren't a disease? Oh...public safety, right? Health and...whatnot...so...why doesn't the CDC do research into traffic fatalities? Or airplane fatalities? Or lightning fatalities?

They do...

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/#research

[Thondalar]

So what kind of verbal linguistics would it take to research mass shootings and what could prevent them without sounding like gun control.

Seems like the NIH is at least starting to fund the research again.

How about no government agency does that at all? Look...it's a lose/lose. If the GUBMENT does it, right-wing loonies will dismiss the results automatically if it doesn't fit what they believe. If the results don't fit the libtard agenda, they'll dismiss them because obviously the NRA or extremist right-wing Congressmen had a hand in doctoring the results.

Why not leave it to Pew and Universities to do the research that they're already doing, and have been doing.

[Thondalar]

They do...

No, they don't. They take the data that is sent to them and collate it. Just like they already do for gun fatalities.

[Thondalar]

They do...

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/#research

Well, thank you for uncovering that bit of pork. I'll be sure to alert my congressman.

[drauz]

How about no government agency does that at all? Look...it's a lose/lose. If the GUBMENT does it, right-wing loonies will dismiss the results automatically if it doesn't fit what they believe. If the results don't fit the libtard agenda, they'll dismiss them because obviously the NRA or extremist right-wing Congressmen had a hand in doctoring the results.

Why not leave it to Pew and Universities to do the research that they're already doing, and have been doing.

So you think the loonies on both sides wouldn't disregard it because it comes from a Uni or Pew?

Whats the point of doing the research at all then?

[Thondalar]

So you think the loonies on both sides wouldn't disregard it because it comes from a Uni or Pew?

Whats the point of doing the research at all then?

As evidenced in this very thread, the anti-2nd-amendment loonies still disregard the research. But at least it wasn't funded by my tax dollars.

[Kembal]

It's a wire with a lock that you slip through the slide or chamber on a gun so it can't fire unless you have the key to remove the lock. Like most locks, it requires the person possessing the gun and the lock to place the lock on the gun in order to be effective.

You "truly know very little about guns", but you readily advocate against them? I...eh. Carry on, I suppose.

Have I posted much about guns here? I don't think I have, but I can't recall.

I'm mainly for gun control because of personal experience:

1) A co-worker of mine was shot and killed in a public park during his lunch break near my office about a decade or so ago, all because he saw a woman being threatened with a gun by her boyfriend and he went over to help her.

2) Last year, a guy road raged against me because he believed I had cut him off. He followed me all the way to my office, came into our parking lot, parked behind my car so I couldn't back out if I wanted to, and then got out of his car, came up to my face, and began to threaten me. I pulled out my phone to call the police and he slapped it out of my hand. Luckily, other people (including my father, who was with me) were able to distract him and I was able to walk away into the building before it escalated further. He apparently sputtered in rage for another 10 minutes before leaving. I still firmly believe that if he had a gun that day, he would've shot me and potentially my father as well.

As far as why haven't these experiences gotten me to own a gun instead (I know that question will come up), I've been depressed before. I wouldn't trust myself owning a gun, given that there's no guarantee that I won't get depressed again in the future.

[Jarvan]

Ok, another made up result:

Findings show that 42% of accidental shootings were done by children in the home.

By your logic (and I think your logic is sound), this should be a result that doesn't violate federal law. However, you and I both know that knowing this now gives credence to an argument that guns should come with something that prevents accidental shootings by children. (in this example, fingerprint recognition comes to mind as a potential solution, which is viciously opposed by the NRA and most major gun manufacturers) I can easily see a Congressperson twisting this into saying this promotes gun control and going after the researcher who published the finding.

Are we talking fingerprint gun locks? Or guns with fingerprint scanners IN the gun to determine that the person using it is "authorized"?

The first one... well is basically stupid. I mean, they are better then nothing, but it doesn't stop someone from gaining access to the gun really. Just have to gain access to the person's finger. It would be like getting rid of CC's and just using your fingerprint to pay for things, muggers would just chop off fingers/hands.

The second... well, until tech goes advances a heck of a lot more... not really feasible. RFID chips are stupid. MAYBE ok for cops... but not for self defense for home. I mean... how many of us sleep with say.. a watch on. The gun recently declined by NJ requires that to work.. a watch that must be within 10 inches of the gun. Not really feasible for self defense.

Then.. if you use a gun with a fingerprint scanner built in... you are adding way more complexity to the system. Now the gun has to have a battery to power it, you have to have computer chips in it, you have to have software that can process that fingerprint FAST... since seconds REALLY matter in life and death situations. And.. what if the battery in the gun runs out right when you need it? Not to mention... people can hack and bypass fingerprint scanners already. Sure it's not the movies where they blow a little dust and use a glove, but still. I mean... maybe if this was a good few hundred years in the future, and we had Judge Dread guns that check the users DNA real time... Sure.

ALSO... even if they came out with that type of gun tomorrow.... what would people advocate? You MUST turn in any gun that doesn't have it? Are you going to replace it with a gun that DOES have it for free? Who pays for THAT? And do you REALLY think the criminals are going to turn in theirs?


Have I posted much about guns here? I don't think I have, but I can't recall.

I'm mainly for gun control because of personal experience:


1) A co-worker of mine was shot and killed in a public park during his lunch break near my office about a decade or so ago, all because he saw a woman being threatened with a gun by her boyfriend and he went over to help her.

2) Last year, a guy road raged against me because he believed I had cut him off. He followed me all the way to my office, came into our parking lot, parked behind my car so I couldn't back out if I wanted to, and then got out of his car, came up to my face, and began to threaten me. I pulled out my phone to call the police and he slapped it out of my hand. Luckily, other people (including my father, who was with me) were able to distract him and I was able to walk away into the building before it escalated further. He apparently sputtered in rage for another 10 minutes before leaving. I still firmly believe that if he had a gun that day, he would've shot me and potentially my father as well.

As far as why haven't these experiences gotten me to own a gun instead (I know that question will come up), I've been depressed before. I wouldn't trust myself owning a gun, given that there's no guarantee that I won't get depressed again in the future.

Ok.. the first one I can kinda see... But if he was threatening a woman with a knife... your co-worker could have been just as dead.

The second... I mean.. seriously? No offense.. sorry that happened.. but a What if? Is this a marvel comic book? I mean hell, I could use that as an example/excuse 10 times a day as to why people shouldn't own guns. Hell, I've had multiple death threats against me at my job from angry customers, if I said "what if they had a gun" I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

[Tgo01]

So what kind of verbal linguistics would it take to research mass shootings and what could prevent them without sounding like gun control.

That's just the thing; I think the whole ban from congress tells the CDC to not say how to stop gun violence. They can study gun violence, they can study what causes gun violence, but they can't say how to prevent it.

[Kembal]

Are we talking fingerprint gun locks? Or guns with fingerprint scanners IN the gun to determine that the person using it is "authorized"?

The first one... well is basically stupid. I mean, they are better then nothing, but it doesn't stop someone from gaining access to the gun really. Just have to gain access to the person's finger. It would be like getting rid of CC's and just using your fingerprint to pay for things, muggers would just chop off fingers/hands.

The second... well, until tech goes advances a heck of a lot more... not really feasible. RFID chips are stupid. MAYBE ok for cops... but not for self defense for home. I mean... how many of us sleep with say.. a watch on. The gun recently declined by NJ requires that to work.. a watch that must be within 10 inches of the gun. Not really feasible for self defense.

Then.. if you use a gun with a fingerprint scanner built in... you are adding way more complexity to the system. Now the gun has to have a battery to power it, you have to have computer chips in it, you have to have software that can process that fingerprint FAST... since seconds REALLY matter in life and death situations. And.. what if the battery in the gun runs out right when you need it? Not to mention... people can hack and bypass fingerprint scanners already. Sure it's not the movies where they blow a little dust and use a glove, but still. I mean... maybe if this was a good few hundred years in the future, and we had Judge Dread guns that check the users DNA real time... Sure.

ALSO... even if they came out with that type of gun tomorrow.... what would people advocate? You MUST turn in any gun that doesn't have it? Are you going to replace it with a gun that DOES have it for free? Who pays for THAT? And do you REALLY think the criminals are going to turn in theirs?

Hell if I know. Like I said, I know very little about guns. I just threw out the one thing I knew of. I didn't even know slide locks existed until this thread.



Ok.. the first one I can kinda see... But if he was threatening a woman with a knife... your co-worker could have been just as dead.

I think we can posit that it is a lot harder to generally kill someone with a knife.


The second... I mean.. seriously? No offense.. sorry that happened.. but a What if? Is this a marvel comic book? I mean hell, I could use that as an example/excuse 10 times a day as to why people shouldn't own guns. Hell, I've had multiple death threats against me at my job from angry customers, if I said "what if they had a gun" I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

Did any of those angry customers physically take action against you in addition to the death threat? If so, then you have thicker skin than me. Congrats.

[Kembal]

Pretty sure it's federal law that all gun purchases from a federally licensed dealer must come with gun locks.

As to whether or not that's advocating for gun control...I don't see it that way. I think the Congress "ban" basically just told the CDC to study on and report the facts, they shouldn't get into the business of advocating for policies. I suppose a congressperson could look at raw data and findings and say "Okay, yeah, but you're advocating for gun control." The thing is...the CDC never even tried! That's been my whole point all along, the CDC just shrugged and said well, okay, we tried that one time 20 years ago so we're done.

I learned something else new today about guns.

Hmm. Ok, I agree with your assessment that the CDC could do something here. I think one of the Congressmen I know has some type of oversight over the CDC. I suspect he'll be calling me for a campaign donation sometime soon...might be an interesting conversation to have with him before I agree to fork over anything.

[Thondalar]

Have I posted much about guns here? I don't think I have, but I can't recall.

I'm mainly for gun control because of personal experience:

1) A co-worker of mine was shot and killed in a public park during his lunch break near my office about a decade or so ago, all because he saw a woman being threatened with a gun by her boyfriend and he went over to help her.

2) Last year, a guy road raged against me because he believed I had cut him off. He followed me all the way to my office, came into our parking lot, parked behind my car so I couldn't back out if I wanted to, and then got out of his car, came up to my face, and began to threaten me. I pulled out my phone to call the police and he slapped it out of my hand. Luckily, other people (including my father, who was with me) were able to distract him and I was able to walk away into the building before it escalated further. He apparently sputtered in rage for another 10 minutes before leaving. I still firmly believe that if he had a gun that day, he would've shot me and potentially my father as well.

Well, yeah...my personal response would be man, if I were in either of those positions, I'm glad I have the ability to defend myself...or in the co-worker's case, defend himself. I've found that a lot of people who have zero personal knowledge of guns, and only read/see what the media projects, have a very twisted opinion...I'm sure they would say the same about me, but I can only speak for myself. They like to say that, even if you are armed, you'll freeze, or act irrationally, or do something to harm yourself or others, or escalate the situation to create a shooting, whereas an unarmed person might not...I call bullshit. Responsible gun owners train with their firearms, and prepare themselves for just such situations, because, like it or not, they do happen. We trust our Law Enforcement professionals to be able to use their guns properly...guess what? You can do the EXACT SAME training that they do. They aren't superheros, as much as I admire and respect the job that most of them do properly. They're normal people, they just bothered to take a test and get issued a gun and a badge.

I've carried for 12 years now, since I was 23. I've only had one occasion to pull my firearm in self-defense, and, looking back on it, it probably wasn't completely necessary, but I wasn't really sure at the time...my wife, myself, and my (at the time) 3-yo daughter were leaving a Chinese Buffet one night. While walking to our car, a man approached us. I was carrying my daughter with my right arm, to cross the parking lot, and was still holding her when this man approached us. I wasn't drinking that night, and the restaurant we were at didn't have a dedicated bar, so I was legal in carrying my firearm into the establishment. My carry piece at the time was a Glock 23, and I carried it in and IWB holster on my right side...the same side I was carrying my daughter. This very obviously high/intoxicated man approached us, and asked if I could help him...I said sure, what can I do for you? He proceeded to move up very close to me, and show me his cell phone...it was an old-skool one...this was like 10 years ago...not a flip-phone, but like the old solid-body Nextels...the screen was completely black, and all smashed up. I immediately thought it was some sort of a gimmick, and I slid my daughter down to the ground and told my wife to take her, while at the same time putting my right hand on my glock...I didn't draw it quite yet, but...I told my wife to take Heather to the car, and the guy started flipping out...yelling at me..."what the fuck, I'm not trying to do anything homie, I just need my phone fixed" etc etc...I attempted to talk him down, my side was turned to him, so I know he didn't see my gun, but I certainly moved defensively...he stepped back and threw his phone down on the ground, it smashed all over the place, he stepped back up to me, and I pulled.

Looking back, I don't recall him having any sort of a weapon, knife or gun or otherwise...he was just really, really bent out of shape, and very obviously intoxicated. I was with my wife and my 3-year-old...if I went down, who knows? I couldn't take that chance. After having the barrel pointed at him, he calmed down real quick, put his hands up, stepped back...I told my wife to put Heather in the car, and get in the driver's seat and start it...I held him at gunpoint until I got in the passenger seat, and we left.

Did being armed save my life that day? Who knows. Honestly, it wasn't my life I was worried about.


As far as why haven't these experiences gotten me to own a gun instead (I know that question will come up), I've been depressed before. I wouldn't trust myself owning a gun, given that there's no guarantee that I won't get depressed again in the future.

That's a personal issue with you. I've alluded to my own mental illness, something that will only get worse as I get older, in several threads before...I still trust myself to carry. Hubris? Perhaps.

[drauz]

Well, yeah...my personal response would be man, if I were in either of those positions, I'm glad I have the ability to defend myself...or in the co-worker's case, defend himself. I've found that a lot of people who have zero personal knowledge of guns, and only read/see what the media projects, have a very twisted opinion...I'm sure they would say the same about me, but I can only speak for myself. They like to say that, even if you are armed, you'll freeze, or act irrationally, or do something to harm yourself or others, or escalate the situation to create a shooting, whereas an unarmed person might not...I call bullshit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

[Methais]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Just gonna repost this comment since it echoes what I was going to say anyway:

This test is purposefully done to make gun conceal carry look useless.
1. Student is not familiar with holster
2. Shooter knows student is carrying
3. Student is really unexperienced period
4. Student had no previous experience with firearms beyond the limited training program
5. Student is a fucking moron who goes around telling people he has a gun.

[Kembal]

In relation to the discussion we were having about the CDC:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470

It does seem the CDC fears this more than other agencies because certain Congresspeople attempted to eliminate the entire National Center for Injury Control and Prevention in response to gun violence research, and when that didn't happen, they cut the entire amount of funding that had been dedicated to gun violence research the year before. Other agencies have only been subject to the ban on promoting or advocating for gun control.

Definitely a lot of people think the CDC should try anyway. It would be a lot simpler if Congress passed more clear language.

[Tgo01]

and when that didn't happen, they cut the entire amount of funding that had been dedicated to gun violence research the year before.

Yes and the funding was later restored along with the bit about not using the money to advocate for gun control.

[drauz]

Just gonna repost this comment since it echoes what I was going to say anyway:

This test is purposefully done to make gun conceal carry look useless.
1. Student is not familiar with holster
2. Shooter knows student is carrying
3. Student is really unexperienced period
4. Student had no previous experience with firearms beyond the limited training program
5. Student is a fucking moron who goes around telling people he has a gun.

So you didn't watch the entire video then. They did a few other students, one of which has a lot of gun experience. The amount of training couldn't be considered similar to what is required to get a CC permit in quite a few states. Most of the interesting parts are the interviews with the police officers who explain the true amount of training needed to be an effective CC permit holder.

Yes, there are biased parts, but there are is some good info sprinkled in afterwards.

[Jarvan]

So you didn't watch the entire video then. They did a few other students, one of which has a lot of gun experience. The amount of training couldn't be considered similar to what is required to get a CC permit in quite a few states. Most of the interesting parts are the interviews with the police officers who explain the true amount of training needed to be an effective CC permit holder.

Yes, there are biased parts, but there are is some good info sprinkled in afterwards.

Watched the entire video.

Also.. oddly enough, I live in that area. (Right next door to the town in question)

None of those people really had any experience with a holster. Me and my best friend have had a CC since we were both 21. I would say the first few months, I was self conscious about it like the first guy. Tho it really didn't take long for me to practically forget it was there. I spent hours practicing getting it out, also clothing choices are good as well. It seems like the clothing they were wearing was supplied to them, not their own. They also all had the same gun and holster. You should always have something suited to you, and you are comfortable with.

Yes, there is some good info sprinkled in there. That being said... I would ALWAYS rather have a gun in a situation like that then not have a gun. Not saying I could take out an armed death squad trying to kill everyone in a room, but I know I would do everything I could to ensure that if they did kill me, I took some of them with me.

[drauz]

Watched the entire video.

Also.. oddly enough, I live in that area. (Right next door to the town in question)

None of those people really had any experience with a holster. Me and my best friend have had a CC since we were both 21. I would say the first few months, I was self conscious about it like the first guy. Tho it really didn't take long for me to practically forget it was there. I spent hours practicing getting it out, also clothing choices are good as well. It seems like the clothing they were wearing was supplied to them, not their own. They also all had the same gun and holster. You should always have something suited to you, and you are comfortable with.

Yes, there is some good info sprinkled in there. That being said... I would ALWAYS rather have a gun in a situation like that then not have a gun. Not saying I could take out an armed death squad trying to kill everyone in a room, but I know I would do everything I could to ensure that if they did kill me, I took some of them with me.

The only point of me posted the video at all was in response to:


They like to say that, even if you are armed, you'll freeze, or act irrationally, or do something to harm yourself or others, or escalate the situation to create a shooting, whereas an unarmed person might not...I call bullshit. Responsible gun owners train with their firearms, and prepare themselves for just such situations, because, like it or not, they do happen.


My point being that most concealed carry permit holders don't train properly for these situations. They train at a range and are a good shot, but they don't train for stressful situations. If you leave auto play on (at least my next video) there is a show produced by ammo & gun companies that puts people in these specific situations to see how they do and then give them tips on how they could have done it better.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzagUGGBJa4

[~Rocktar~]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

[Tgo01]

That video is so fucking stupid. So the "shooter" shot the instructor first, makes sense going by the "story" going on, but the very second target in a room full of ~40 people just so happens to be the only person in the room with a concealed carry weapon?

Why even post this stupid shit? You just make everyone else stupider by exposing them to such shit.

Shit shit shit!!!

[Tgo01]

And then in the second video with the woman with the concealed carry it makes it look like "Hey! Shit! Maybe we're wrong! This chick managed to shoot the gunman!" But then they're like "Naww, sorry, I got you in the head."

Well...YEAH! Once again you shot the instructor and then aimed right for the person with the concealed weapon. What is this stupid shit?

[Tgo01]

And then the third guy "Oh he is peppered with shots, one here, two there, two there, three there." Again...YEAH! Now you have two gunmen enter the room and they both apparently know exactly who has the gun.

My God people. I shouldn't need to tell you this video is absolute bullshit. It's bullshit.

I dropped my mic, kicked it, stomped on it, then shot it. That's how much I destroyed that stupid fucking video and that stupid fucking ABC "news" team.

[drauz]

Why even post this stupid shit? You just make everyone else stupider by exposing them to such shit.

I guess I'll let you finish reading the thread to get the answer yourself.

[Tgo01]

I guess I'll let you finish reading the thread to get the answer yourself.

I tend to skip around posts and just look for my name. Give me the cliff notes please.

[drauz]

And then the third guy "Oh he is peppered with shots, one here, two there, two there, three there." Again...YEAH! Now you have two gunmen enter the room and they both apparently know exactly who has the gun.

My God people. I shouldn't need to tell you this video is absolute bullshit. It's bullshit.

I dropped my mic, kicked it, stomped on it, then shot it. That's how much I destroyed that stupid fucking video and that stupid fucking ABC "news" team.


Most of the interesting parts are the interviews with the police officers who explain the true amount of training needed to be an effective CC permit holder.

Yes, there are biased parts, but there are is some good info sprinkled in afterwards.

you no read so good.

[drauz]

I tend to skip around posts and just look for my name. Give me the cliff notes please.

I said it was biased and that the interesting part was what the cops had to say about the training needed to be effective during an active shooter.


The only point of me posted the video at all was in response to: Thondalar's comment

My point being that most concealed carry permit holders don't train properly for these situations. They train at a range and are a good shot, but they don't train for stressful situations. If you leave auto play on (at least my next video) there is a show produced by ammo & gun companies that puts people in these specific situations to see how they do and then give them tips on how they could have done it better.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzagUGGBJa4

[Tgo01]

So it was bullshit propaganda with some good information mixed in.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just link directly to the good information?

I just dropped the mic again. It's amazing how awesome I am sometimes.

[drauz]

So it was bullshit propaganda with some good information mixed in.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just link directly to the good information?


You mean edit a video when I could just say this part is dumb but this part is worth watching?

No thanks.


I just dropped the mic again. It's amazing how awesome I am sometimes.

If it continues to happen for four hours consult a doctor.

[Kembal]

Yes and the funding was later restored along with the bit about not using the money to advocate for gun control.

As per the articles, the restored funding was specifically dedicated to traumatic brain injury research.

It'd be curious to see what Congress has appropriated for the entire National Center for Injury Control and Prevention. If it hasn't gone up more than inflation, then Congress has basically told the CDC don't study it in any form, because no extra money has been given in their budget. It's not like the other research topics that center covers (motor vehicle accidents, etc) aren't worthy of study as well.

Also, on the topic of gun violence studies, heard this on NPR today:

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/03/458361236/researchers-take-on-great-problem-in-data-with-study-of-gunshot-wounds

Pretty interesting.

[Tgo01]

It'd be curious to see what Congress has appropriated for the entire National Center for Injury Control and Prevention. If it hasn't gone up more than inflation, then Congress has basically told the CDC don't study it in any form, because no extra money has been given in their budget.[/url]

Well I couldn't find any information on the CDC's budget for "Injury Prevention and Control" in 1996, but their entire budget in 1996 was about 2.2 billion dollars, adjusting for inflation that would be about 3.3 billion dollars in today's money. CDC's budget for this year is about 7 billion dollars, so counting for inflation their total budget has a little more than doubled since 1996.

We also have this from HHS itself:

http://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2015/budget-in-brief/cdc/index.html

Which shows since 2013 their funding for "Injury Prevention and Control" has increased by about 40%, inflation since 1996 would be about 51% so...it's more than safe to conclude their funding has at the very least kept up with inflation since 1996. It's fairly safe to say it has outpaced inflation.

Once again Tgo drops the mic and is declared winner by the adoring crowd.

TGO! TGO! TGO!

[drauz]

Once again Tgo drops the mic and is declared winner by the adoring crowd.

Another 2 hrs before you need to consult a doctor.

[Tgo01]

Another 2 hrs before you need to consult a doctor.

You guys have to stop making it so easy.

OH DAYUM!

[drauz]

You guys have to stop making it so easy.

OH DAYUM!

Seems you're getting better. At least you didn't drop your mic again.

[ClydeR]

I'm just glad the Republicans rejected attempts yesterday by Democrats to pass outrageous restrictions on gun rights.


The first gun control measure proposed by Democrats was legislation from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would deny people on a federal terrorism watch list the ability to purchase guns. The measure failed, 45-54. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) voted with Republicans to reject the measure, and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) crossed over to vote in favor of the gun restrictions.

More... (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/gun-amendment-democrats-216389)

[Tgo01]

I'm just glad the Republicans rejected attempts yesterday by Democrats to pass outrageous restrictions on gun rights.

Well, yeah, it was a stupid measure.

Come on, Clyder. You're supposed to post things that actually make Republicans look bad, pretend you're all for it thus making Republican voters look bad as well. But this, this is just sloppy and stupid and quite honest I'm a bit ashamed of you right now.

[Jeril]

Sad and amusing how the dialog here never changes. People worrying about guns instead of people.

[tyrant-201]

Sad and amusing how the dialog here never changes. People worrying about guns instead of people.

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE.

PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

[Methais]

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE.

PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

What about stranglers?

[Warriorbird]

Well, yeah, it was a stupid measure.

Come on, Clyder. You're supposed to post things that actually make Republicans look bad, pretend you're all for it thus making Republican voters look bad as well. But this, this is just sloppy and stupid and quite honest I'm a bit ashamed of you right now.

elcidcannon let us know that neither of you are actually trolls. You don't have to fight.