CDZ Fear and guns....a discussion.

[oldsoul]

I guess I am coming to this debate a little late. However, consider this:
If carrying a gun at all times makes me a fearful person, then I guess wearing my seat belt every time I ride in a car makes me just as fearfull. I mean really, we wear seatbelts all the time because we don't know when something will happen, and we know we will not have time to put it on once an accident is imminent. Likewise, one may carry a gun every time they leave their home because one never knows when or where a criminal may attack us, and we also know that the criminal will not allow us the time to run home to get our gun so we can defend ourselves. Someone, anyone, please explain to me and the rest of the rational world what the difference is.


Note: I do not expect a rational response to this, suprise me, and shock the world with one.....

No takers? Umm...interesting, yet not unexpected...sigh.

 

[OZman]

You do??? So are you from our Great Country, The United States where we have constitutionally guaranteed rights?

I live in the Great Country of Australia

Well, nobody cares about Australia, I understand, but I'm sure you could find somebody to talk to you.

The US are very happy to have our support when things go Tits Up

Your military??? Hilarious!

The truth is that Australia is always the first or among the first to take up arms with the U.S. They are one of our most loyal allies and I can personally attest to the bang-up job they did in Vietnam. Nothing slack about he Diggers.

For a laugh Hossfly.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Nope, I'm talking about people who pretend that there are important issues involved in gun ownership. That a giant conspiracy exists to take away their guns. If not for the knee-jerk reaction of these people we could address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats, automotive death, smoking, workplace safety.

Then address it already, and quit trying to discredit people. Instead present YOUR arguement that is counter to theirs. It really is that simple, it's how a debate works. I see this far too often, from both sides of issues. One person/side states their arguement and the other person/side tries to discredit them without stating their own arguement. I admit, I have been guilty of this as well. I am, after all, only human.
I say again:
If you, truely want to "...address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." then address it already. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

I have made my position clear. Allow the CDC to do its job. There are other roadblocks which I cited in my first post and others I haven't mentioned. I am not the CDC. I am not capable of telling anyone what the CDC will recommend. It is the height of cowardice to block them from doing their research because your are afraid of their findings. It is the height of hypocrisy to quote their research when it suits your purposes and claim they are illegitimate when they say something you don't like. Clear enough?

The topic of this thread is fear and guns. Preventing the CDC from doing their research is a product of paranoia. People who show no intellectual integrity disqualify themselves. If you reject the CDC as a source of credible information then you should not cite them as support for your position.

 

[Elvis Obama]

You should realize that you cannot reason with some people and that they will just start insulting and making false accusations against you. They are terrible and rotten people.

I have a feeling I am on his ignore list.......perhaps I am wrong. Thanks for all the posts ChrisL.....I enjoy them....

That is not true..... I don't put any one on ignore. Ignore are just for pussy and weak. If people can't handle the brutality of Internet then try should not be here. I just don't have time to deal with you now because you posted and using the same cut and paste all the time.

I didn't mean you...I meant the guy with the obama as elvis avatar....

No, I haven't put you on "ignore". I simply ignore you. As I have said to you before, anyone who believes that the CDC has an anti-gun agenda is not rational. Anyone who quotes the CDC report to support their position, then claims the CDC is not to be trusted is duplicitous or insane.

The real reason I ignore you is that you are boring. You see everything in black and white. Someone is either 100% for everything you believe or they are 100% wrong about everything. You are incapable of dealing with people as individuals.

The CDC performed the study they were asked to do. They investigated ALL the data exhaustively and came up with the results of the study. It is just too bad that you don't like those results.

NOBODY said they were 100% wrong about everything. That only exists is YOUR own mind. Acknowledging the fact that the study they performed WAS based on a political agenda does not mean that we are saying they are 100% wrong all of the time. Duh.

I do like the results, which you would know if your reading comprehension skills weren't so poor. I trust the CDC. I trust science. You don't, unless it happens to agree with your pre-conceived notions.

 

[oldsoul]

Preventing the CDC from doing their research is a product of paranoia.

So, are you saying that it is a product of paranoia to question the intentions, and authenticity of findings from a Government Program? Just a question for clarity.

If you reject the CDC as a source of credible information then you should not cite them as support for your position.

Never did.

You still have not addressed the issue, you are still stuck in the "I must discredit my detractors" mentality. I know, it's tough to get out of that place once you are there but, to have a rational debate, you must.

 

[Elvis Obama]

You should realize that you cannot reason with some people and that they will just start insulting and making false accusations against you. They are terrible and rotten people.

I have a feeling I am on his ignore list.......perhaps I am wrong. Thanks for all the posts ChrisL.....I enjoy them....

That is not true..... I don't put any one on ignore. Ignore are just for pussy and weak. If people can't handle the brutality of Internet then try should not be here. I just don't have time to deal with you now because you posted and using the same cut and paste all the time.

I didn't mean you...I meant the guy with the obama as elvis avatar....

No, I haven't put you on "ignore". I simply ignore you. As I have said to you before, anyone who believes that the CDC has an anti-gun agenda is not rational. Anyone who quotes the CDC report to support their position, then claims the CDC is not to be trusted is duplicitous or insane.

The real reason I ignore you is that you are boring. You see everything in black and white. Someone is either 100% for everything you believe or they are 100% wrong about everything. You are incapable of dealing with people as individuals.

Blah, Blah, Blah……I post the truth, facts and reality…and back it up with links to the actual research….you can't deal with that so you won't deal with it……..

Yes, your cherry picked "facts". I believe in science, not some random paranoiacs on the internet. Do you agree with the CDC's findings on home safety and guns? Guns and Ammo ran a big piece on it. They loved it. The CDC wants to do further research. Oh no! we can't have that! What if they find out something I don't like?

That is cowardice at its worst.

 

[oldsoul]

I have made my position clear. Allow the CDC to do its job.

This does nothing to address the issue, it merely studies it. I assume you understant the difference.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Preventing the CDC from doing their research is a product of paranoia.

So, are you saying that it is a product of paranoia to question the intentions, and authenticity of findings from a Government Program? Just a question for clarity.

If you reject the CDC as a source of credible information then you should not cite them as support for your position.

Never did.

You still have not addressed the issue, you are still stuck in the "I must discredit my detractors" mentality. I know, it's tough to get out of that place once you are there but, to have a rational debate, you must.

No it's not a unreasonable to question the intentions or credibility of anyone, government or private sector.

If you believe I have not addressed the issue, then you must state exactly what you believe the issue to be. The subject of the thread is guns and fear. People block the CDC from doing their job out of fear. What is it you don't understand?

 

[Elvis Obama]

I have made my position clear. Allow the CDC to do its job.

This does nothing to address the issue, it merely studies it. I assume you understant the difference.

What do you mean it does nothing to address the issue? Gun nuts are paranoid. That is the contention we are being asked to debate. That is the issue. I contend that gun owners are not paranoid, but gun rights extremists are. I contend that one of the principle examples of this paranoia is the suppression of CDC research. And what happened when Obama told the CDC to do it under executive order. Facts. Some were fodder for the pro-gun people, some for the anti-gun crowd. Seems unbiased to me.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The problem is not guns, it is morally bankrupt paranoiacs who display a complete indifference to human life.

In this, you must mean criminals and the mentally ill.

What are you willing to do to reduce gun deaths?

Enforce the laws we already have to the fullest extent possible and length the sentences for those who commit crimes with guns.

Nope, I'm talking about people who pretend that there are important issues involved in gun ownership. That a giant conspiracy exists to take away their guns. If not for the knee-jerk reaction of these people we could address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats, automotive death, smoking, workplace safety.

I'm engaging in this thread because ChrisL cited the CDC study that contradicted some of the widely held beliefs about gun safety. I'm happy that it did. I believe in science. I'm not afraid of it. The NRA is. Why? Are you?

CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama - Guns & Ammo

When the CDC says something gun rights extremists like, then they're OK. if they say anything negative about guns it's because they're biased. I find that duplicitous garbage despicable and cowardly.

Putting people in prison is waaaay too expensive. Killing them is not an option. The existing laws have nothing to do with the problem, which is largely suicide. Suicide is a growing problem, and the CDC should be allowed to study it further, as they have requested.

They actually do have anti gun researchers…their anti gun crap started in the 90s and they didn't hide it…..

One of the main guys, Dr. Kleck, started off as an anti-gunner until he did his research and realized the truth.

Good, then let him put his results alongside all the other results and allow the scientific peer review process to proceed. Once again, I trust science, you do not.

 

[oldsoul]

Preventing the CDC from doing their research is a product of paranoia.

So, are you saying that it is a product of paranoia to question the intentions, and authenticity of findings from a Government Program? Just a question for clarity.

If you reject the CDC as a source of credible information then you should not cite them as support for your position.

Never did.

You still have not addressed the issue, you are still stuck in the "I must discredit my detractors" mentality. I know, it's tough to get out of that place once you are there but, to have a rational debate, you must.

No it's not a unreasonable to question the intentions or credibility of anyone, government or private sector.

If you believe I have not addressed the issue, then you must state exactly what you believe the issue to be. The subject of the thread is guns and fear. People block the CDC from doing their job out of fear. What is it you don't understand?

" If not for the knee-jerk reaction of these people we could address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." Your words. What is it you do not understand, you stated what the issue is and now you are going to play dumb, as if I brought this up? That is disingenuous at best.

Now, state your case that pertains to the issue YOU defined.

 

[2aguy]

Nope, I'm talking about people who pretend that there are important issues involved in gun ownership. That a giant conspiracy exists to take away their guns. If not for the knee-jerk reaction of these people we could address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats, automotive death, smoking, workplace safety.

Then address it already, and quit trying to discredit people. Instead present YOUR arguement that is counter to theirs. It really is that simple, it's how a debate works. I see this far too often, from both sides of issues. One person/side states their arguement and the other person/side tries to discredit them without stating their own arguement. I admit, I have been guilty of this as well. I am, after all, only human.
I say again:
If you, truely want to "...address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." then address it already. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

I have made my position clear. Allow the CDC to do its job. There are other roadblocks which I cited in my first post and others I haven't mentioned. I am not the CDC. I am not capable of telling anyone what the CDC will recommend. It is the height of cowardice to block them from doing their research because your are afraid of their findings. It is the height of hypocrisy to quote their research when it suits your purposes and claim they are illegitimate when they say something you don't like. Clear enough?

The topic of this thread is fear and guns. Preventing the CDC from doing their research is a product of paranoia. People who show no intellectual integrity disqualify themselves. If you reject the CDC as a source of credible information then you should not cite them as support for your position.

Nope.....when the agency starts advocating one side of an issue and ignores research that refutes their research, then they don't get their money.....in the 1990s they were using their research to push gun control in spite of the evidence that showed they were wrong.....

 

[2aguy]

The CDC has been a biased advocate for gun control...using our tax dollars to do it...it is not paranoid, it is the truth....

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget

Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.


CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor.

In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”


And the truth.........

CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns

In the late ’80s and early ’90s, the CDC was openly biased in opposing gun rights. CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”

‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’

​

O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”


He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”

CDC leaders were not shy about their intentions of banning guns from the public. Sure enough, they acted on their desires.


In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC to the tune of $1.7 million, entitled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The leader author was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an epidemiologist, physician, and outspoken advocate of gun control.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.


Unreliable Gun Research

However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.


Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.


Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.

---------------

And this is a good point...

Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.

 

[2aguy]

And yes....the CDC was working to get anti gun legislation passed....

The final nail in the coffin came in 1995 when the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter told its readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.” Appearing on the same page as the article pointing the finger at gun owners for the Oklahoma City bombing were the words, “This newsletter was supported in part by Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
Tax Dollars Shouldn’t Aim to Influence Politics

After these blatant attempts at gun control, the NRA blew the whistle on the CDC and prompted Congress to take action. They did, stripping CDC’s funding for research into firearm crime.

 

[Muhammed]

The problem is not guns, it is morally bankrupt paranoiacs who display a complete indifference to human life.

In this, you must mean criminals and the mentally ill.

What are you willing to do to reduce gun deaths?

Enforce the laws we already have to the fullest extent possible and length the sentences for those who commit crimes with guns.

Nope, I'm talking about people who pretend that there are important issues involved in gun ownership. That a giant conspiracy exists to take away their guns. If not for the knee-jerk reaction of these people we could address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats, automotive death, smoking, workplace safety.

I'm engaging in this thread because ChrisL cited the CDC study that contradicted some of the widely held beliefs about gun safety. I'm happy that it did. I believe in science. I'm not afraid of it. The NRA is. Why? Are you?

CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama - Guns & Ammo

When the CDC says something gun rights extremists like, then they're OK. if they say anything negative about guns it's because they're biased. I find that duplicitous garbage despicable and cowardly.

Putting people in prison is waaaay too expensive. Killing them is not an option. The existing laws have nothing to do with the problem, which is largely suicide. Suicide is a growing problem, and the CDC should be allowed to study it further, as they have requested.

They actually do have anti gun researchers…their anti gun crap started in the 90s and they didn't hide it…..

One of the main guys, Dr. Kleck, started off as an anti-gunner until he did his research and realized the truth.

Good, then let him put his results alongside all the other results and allow the scientific peer review process to proceed. Once again, I trust science, you do not.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam

 

[ChrisL]

The CDC has been a biased advocate for gun control...using our tax dollars to do it...it is not paranoid, it is the truth....

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget

Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.


CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor.

In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”


And the truth.........

CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns

In the late ’80s and early ’90s, the CDC was openly biased in opposing gun rights. CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”

‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’

​

O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”


He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”

CDC leaders were not shy about their intentions of banning guns from the public. Sure enough, they acted on their desires.


In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC to the tune of $1.7 million, entitled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The leader author was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an epidemiologist, physician, and outspoken advocate of gun control.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.


Unreliable Gun Research

However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.


Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.


Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.

---------------

And this is a good point...

Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.

Now THAT is very interesting. Thank you.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Preventing the CDC from doing their research is a product of paranoia.

So, are you saying that it is a product of paranoia to question the intentions, and authenticity of findings from a Government Program? Just a question for clarity.

If you reject the CDC as a source of credible information then you should not cite them as support for your position.

Never did.

You still have not addressed the issue, you are still stuck in the "I must discredit my detractors" mentality. I know, it's tough to get out of that place once you are there but, to have a rational debate, you must.

No it's not a unreasonable to question the intentions or credibility of anyone, government or private sector.

If you believe I have not addressed the issue, then you must state exactly what you believe the issue to be. The subject of the thread is guns and fear. People block the CDC from doing their job out of fear. What is it you don't understand?

" If not for the knee-jerk reaction of these people we could address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." Your words. What is it you do not understand, you stated what the issue is and now you are going to play dumb, as if I brought this up? That is disingenuous at best.

Now, state your case that pertains to the issue YOU defined.

OK. Forgive me, I found your initial post to be incomprehensible. You referred to "it" without defining what "it" was. Then you said:

"If you, truely want to "...address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." then address it already. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time."

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. My initial statement was:

"exactly the same way we deal with other health threats, automotive death, smoking, workplace safety."

What do you expect me to do? I was referring to "we", meaning American society. We address the problem of gun violence deaths differently than we do any other major cause of death. There have been many controversies in automotive safety, but nothing like the barrage of absolute obstructionism that greets any and all attempts to deal with the problem of gun deaths.

At the beginning of this thread I posted a partial list of absurdities, which elicited no reaction except something about liberals suppressing Christian faith healing, which was a surefire way to cure mental illness.

CDZ - Fear and guns....a discussion.

 

[Elvis Obama]

In this, you must mean criminals and the mentally ill.

Enforce the laws we already have to the fullest extent possible and length the sentences for those who commit crimes with guns.

Nope, I'm talking about people who pretend that there are important issues involved in gun ownership. That a giant conspiracy exists to take away their guns. If not for the knee-jerk reaction of these people we could address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats, automotive death, smoking, workplace safety.

I'm engaging in this thread because ChrisL cited the CDC study that contradicted some of the widely held beliefs about gun safety. I'm happy that it did. I believe in science. I'm not afraid of it. The NRA is. Why? Are you?

CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama - Guns & Ammo

When the CDC says something gun rights extremists like, then they're OK. if they say anything negative about guns it's because they're biased. I find that duplicitous garbage despicable and cowardly.

Putting people in prison is waaaay too expensive. Killing them is not an option. The existing laws have nothing to do with the problem, which is largely suicide. Suicide is a growing problem, and the CDC should be allowed to study it further, as they have requested.

They actually do have anti gun researchers…their anti gun crap started in the 90s and they didn't hide it…..

One of the main guys, Dr. Kleck, started off as an anti-gunner until he did his research and realized the truth.

Good, then let him put his results alongside all the other results and allow the scientific peer review process to proceed. Once again, I trust science, you do not.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam

An appeal to an authority outside of their realm of expertise? I don't see the relevance. The truth is, no one is an expert on any of these subjects, though so many like to pretend they are. No, we're just pathetic beings who shoot ourselves and each other, and other pathetic beings who either try to stop them from doing so, or who do everything humanly possible to make sure it keeps happening.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Nope, I'm talking about people who pretend that there are important issues involved in gun ownership.

Hmm. That must be because there are.

But I do have to ask... in terms of people with a complete indifference to human life, why aren't you talking about criminals and the mentally ill?

After all, criminals and the mentally ill are directly responsible for the huge majority of gun-related deaths.

That a giant conspiracy exists to take away their guns

There are a any number people in positions of power that give reason for concern.
Not all that long ago, both Hillary and Obama spoke about how the Aussie approach to their gun problem - mandatory gun buy-backs - was worth looking at.
Therefore, gun owners have, at the very least, legitimate reason to be concerned.

If not for the knee-jerk reaction of these people we could address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats, automotive death, smoking, workplace safety.

Interesting.
Keeping in mind the constitutional restrictions on the state, how do you suppose this would manifest itself?

I'm engaging in this thread because ChrisL cited the CDC study that contradicted some of the widely held beliefs about gun safety.

Such as?

Putting people in prison is waaaay too expensive. Killing them is not an option.

Certainly, you believe that people that commit murder, attempted murder, rape, assault, armed robbery, etc should be put in prison.
Why not keep them there longer if they use a gun?

The existing laws have nothing to do with the problem, which is largely suicide.

Under the Constitution, it is legally impossible to prevent someone who is legally able to buy a gun from doing so.
That being the case,m how do you prevent people from killing themselves with their guns?

1- Criminals and the mentally ill. OK. There are people who are criminals and there are people who are mentally ill. The choice about who we call criminals is a pretty slippery one. I believe what you are really referring to are the retched refuse of our inner cities. Pretty much 1/3 of the problem of gun deaths. The mentally ill are irrelevant.

Here I would pause to note that if you wish to discuss the subject of gun violence, let's first define the problem. Approx 30,000 unlucky souls eat too much lead every year. I dunno how many eat almost enough to barely enough. There are simply too many guns going off for the wrong reasons.

What are the consequences of this? Bad PR. A loss of soft power. Also a lot of families torn apart. Now, back to our program.

Animals. The animals of the inner cities. They're rare, but not rare enough. All cultures produce them, but the African American community produces them in larger numbers. Sufficient to drag down communities. Rather a large problem, but there lies 1/3 of your gun deaths.

2- Australia!! Opportunities available for all walks of life in Australia. Surprisingly, there is strong disagreement about the results of their rather extreme experiment. Cross-country comparisons are always fraught, and Obama really, really hates the pro-gun lobby. A little kick to their cage. Extremism is always met with counter extremism. Do you really see a serious threat to gun rights? In the wake of Heller? Will nothing make you sure you are constitutionally protected?

3- I dunno. PSAs? The last couple of times I designed nationwide schemes to bring down death rates, no wait, I never have. I suspect neither have you. The point is I want to try and apparently you don't. We could encourage gun manufacturers to promote the safety of their products as a selling point. Develop technologies that make the gun safer. Something that couldn't be turned against the owner, let's say.

4- Of course they belong in prison, and I was under the impression that the use of a gun while committing a felony was a separate charge.

5- Regarding the use of guns for home defense. This was a preliminary study. A mere ten million. The CDC doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds them. They were glad to comply with the president's request, but they won't take it any further for fear of offending the people they depend on for funding, who will be here long after Obama is only a library. Witness the power of the NRA.

6- Yes, the missing 2/3 of the puzzle. Suicide.

7- Do I have to stop them all, all by myself? Suicide prevention experts would be my choice for the job. I've never saved anyone from suicide. Driven them to it maybe, but not prevented it. It seems like quite a challenging job. Low rate of success, I would guess.

 

[shadow355]

1) I have my concealed carry permit and have, since I got out off of Active Duty Military in 1991.

I carry a gun when I go camping. No if, ands or butts, I go in the woods....I carry a gun. More for stray dogs - rabid animals and coyotes.

For years, when I went camping, I carried a 5 shot "J" frame handgun in 38 caliber - so I was not some doomsday person with thousands of rounds of ammo. A 5 shot handgun and 5 rounds backup.

2) Concealed carry - firearms ; is about "being prepared". The shooting in the mall, super Wal-Mart parking lot does not occur, until you do not have a firearm. The workplace shooting, the violent shootout at the city park does not happen......until one does not have a handgun.

Carrying a handgun, and having the fortitude to use it is two different things. Some people will, and have.... "froze" when bullets start flying. Their mind, like in moderate hypothermia......freezes, and they cannot think straight in a life threatening situation, or traumatic event. The brain......appears to be in "neurogenic shock". or their body trembles like they are having a seizure.

But it boils down to one thing - be a victim ; possibly killed, paralyzed, or severely injured......or shoot the "bad guys".

When I was on a Volunteer Fire Department, I got my EMT-Basic, because I was showing up to some automobile collisions before the ambulance got to the scene, and I did not know what to do other than bleeding control, "C Spine", and talk to the patient.

After I got my EMT- Basic, I was working with some great Paramedics, and I told myself.....I want to do that. I want to work a good trauma, I want to investigate medical problems, I want to do a trauma assessment, I want to start IVs, and the list goes on. So I worked full time and went to Paramedic Class; which was in no way was an easy tasks. It was extremely difficult working full time on an ambulance and going to Paramedic Class. But I did it, graduating with a 3.5 GPA and I was in the top of my class on graduation day.

Being able to stop a shooting, a kidnapping, a rape, a violent assault, a drug induced person committing violence with a weapon, prevent or stop the workplace shooting.......is better than having your hands tied, or be totally helpless. To say to yourself at the funeral(s) "If only I had carried my handgun". I have in other situations.....been helpless, having had to wait for better trained resources. I have had on many occasion.....my hands ties and not able to do anything to a "damaged" person. So I know what it fells like to "Not be able to do anything". I overcame some of those problems.....I got my EMT - Basic and my Paramedic certification - busting my butt tremendously to do so.

Feeling helpless is not a feeling to endure - and it plays on the mind and psyche sometimes. Knowing that "I could have done something." Feeling helpless sometimes.......leaves a long lasing feeling of regret.


I know.......from experience.


Shadow 355