CDZ Gun Control

[2aguy]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We have defined the problem. the Criminal culture in the United STates…..they use guns to murder each other at high rates. The normal gun culture….doesn't.

How do you reduce gun crime among criminals….?

First of all, who's we? Second of all, your definition is inadequate, to say the least. As I said, it's silly, in response to a very serious subject.

No. The definition is very accurate. 80% of all violent crime is committed by black and Hispanic gang members. That is not in doubt. The "gun culture" is not the problem. The problem is the violent culture imported into our country from the third world by those very same gangbangers.

Gun deaths are principally caused by suicide.

Suicide is caused by mental illness...drug use, or alcohol abuse.......deal with the actual problem.

 

[2aguy]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

Wrong.....health care professionals were using their positions at the CDC to advocate for gun control, not researching guns....and gun research continued in other government agencies........

And obama spent 10 million dollars in 2013 for the CDC to study all available gun research...and found that Americans use guns to stop violent crime 500,000- 3 million times a year.......


The CDC is filled with anti gun people...who used their positions to distort the actual research on guns....

 

[2aguy]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

Here you go..some truth...

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

 

[2aguy]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

Odd...for someone who supports gun rights you sure do sound like a gun grabber.......you hit just about every talking point they use.........but you support gun rights...right?

 

[JoeMoma]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We have defined the problem. the Criminal culture in the United STates…..they use guns to murder each other at high rates. The normal gun culture….doesn't.

How do you reduce gun crime among criminals….?

First of all, who's we? Second of all, your definition is inadequate, to say the least. As I said, it's silly, in response to a very serious subject.

No. The definition is very accurate. 80% of all violent crime is committed by black and Hispanic gang members. That is not in doubt. The "gun culture" is not the problem. The problem is the violent culture imported into our country from the third world by those very same gangbangers.

Gun deaths are principally caused by suicide.

So we can reduce gun deaths by handing the disturbed people some suicide drugs to take instead. Not as messy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Gun control does not work. It never has. All it does is restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What a silly claim! No wonder you cite no evidence; there is none. Many nations have rounded up the arms in civilian circulation after the chaos of a war or a revolution. These countries have significantly lower rates of gun violence than the USA.

Law abiding isn't much of a criterion. The guns used in most of America's mass slaughters were purchased legally i.e. by law abiding citizens. Every gun starts out as a legal gun. The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades. The number of guns in circulation continues to rise because guns are more and more the fetish of gun nuts who own dozens of them. Gun ownership has itself become more and more an indicator of mental illness and social dysfunction.

The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades.

Actually, that is both a lie of anti gun extremists and one of their fantasies......polling shows that gun ownership is the same or higher than it was...we now have over 357 million guns in private hands with over 13 million people actually carrying guns...

And you know what.....

Our gun murder rate has gone down.....

Our gun suicide rate has gone down....

Our gun accident rate has gone down......

Explain that please.

No, my ill-mannered friend, it is not a lie. It is not even a mistake. It is a piece of hard data as the following link shows. The real question isn't why you don't know what you are bellowing about, it is why you assume that someone who is simply better informed than you is trying to deliberately deceive you. Such boorishness places you on my ignore list. Bye-bye

"The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it's ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.

According to the latest General Social Survey, 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That's a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.

The General Social Survey is conducted by NORC, an independent research organization based at the University of Chicago, with money from the National Science Foundation. Because of its long-running and comprehensive set of questions about the demographics, behaviors and attitudes of the American public, it is a highly regarded source of data about social trends.
Gun Ownership Declining, General Social Survey Shows

Yeah, I'm going to tell a survey taker I have guns. Why is that exactly? In this world of phishing and ID theft you will find that very few people, especially gun owners, will tell anybody anything even remotely truthful about what guns they own.

What is absolutely unarguable is that Americans are buying guns in record numbers and let me clue you in here....those of us who wanted them....we already have them.

The survey was a propaganda piece. I have never seen a single link to the questions they supposedly asked or the metrics used to calculate the so called results.

In other words it is a lie.

And yet a number of those on your side of the argument have posted the types and number of firearms they own, some even posted photos.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Stop selling guns to that group of people who commit the most gun crimes; young men under 30.

This aint xxxxxxx rocket science.

After age 30, you can buy as many guns as your pocket will allow. Of any type.
Under 30, you can still shoot, hunt, go to gun ranges. etc.

Ther reason the NRA stops the CDC from studying this issue is that the CDC will show what age group and sex commits the most henious gun crimes;
young men under 30.

Again, it won't do a thing to stop gun violence.

Again to the 100th power, laws do not prevent crime.

Do we eliminate laws against theft or speeding since they do not prevent stealing or driving at an unsafe speed in a school zone?

Exactly. Laws don't reduce crime. So why have them? Riddle me that batman.

Laws don't prevent crime, laws reduce crime. Of course that is simplistic but IMO it is fitting for an Internet Message Board. If you really want that "Riddled" take some time to review the Philosophy of Law:

Law, Philosophy of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Special attention for Part 2 on Normative Jurisprudence will serve us well.

No, they don't. Laws merely codify crime. They make it possible to punish the perpetrators AFTER they have committed the crime. Incarceration DOES prevent crime so in a way you can attribute the incarceration to the laws so in that respect you are correct. But the actual law itself truly does nothing to reduce crime.

If you want to talk about the philosophy of law I suggest you read John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice".

Do you steal small items from retail stores? Do you run red lights or stop signs? Do you grow pot in your backyard? Some people do, most of us don't.

Those of us who don't do so for two reasons: Fear of punishment, and a moral judgment that the law is good.

Now, not all laws are good, some disrupt society, but most make our daily life safer and nicer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

Spot on post.

 

[Elvis Obama]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We have defined the problem. the Criminal culture in the United STates…..they use guns to murder each other at high rates. The normal gun culture….doesn't.

How do you reduce gun crime among criminals….?

It starts with reducing criminality, and begins at birth. That discussion is for another forum. Society needs to find root causes and seek solutions, which means social science, education and parenting (it takes a village) ideas are debate and tested.

And this of course meets the roadblock of conservative dogma.

That's part of the problem, and I agree that it, of course, is in turn part of a much larger problem with poverty in the US. Step one, it seems to me, is to lay out the problem in its entirety. Then discuss its scale and historic antecedents, then try to fashion solutions.

Here's my very brief analysis. The problem with gun violence in the US is primarily a problem of suicide. Secondarily it is a problem of violence in the inner cities. Part of the reason we cannot analyse the problem properly is the deep sense of shame connected with both these separate, yet connected problems.

Your first paragraph is spot on; the second touches on the issues I see (mental health unrecognized and thus untreated for one) but shame isn't in my frame of reference.

The issue today IMO are the demagogues and charlatans and their followers fear mongering, and preaching xenophobic reforms. It's as if we have been transported to an earlier age, likely a time too many on the right consider desirable.

Well, I could be wrong, of course. Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in this country, but perhaps it is not discussed much for reasons other than shame. As far as the inner cities go, well that is as complex a problem as there is, and I believe the shame component is pretty powerful, on both sides of the political divide. Shouldn't we be ashamed? There are two possible reactions to shame and guilt, one is acknowledgement and the other is rationalization.

 

[2aguy]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We have defined the problem. the Criminal culture in the United STates…..they use guns to murder each other at high rates. The normal gun culture….doesn't.

How do you reduce gun crime among criminals….?

It starts with reducing criminality, and begins at birth. That discussion is for another forum. Society needs to find root causes and seek solutions, which means social science, education and parenting (it takes a village) ideas are debate and tested.

And this of course meets the roadblock of conservative dogma.

That's part of the problem, and I agree that it, of course, is in turn part of a much larger problem with poverty in the US. Step one, it seems to me, is to lay out the problem in its entirety. Then discuss its scale and historic antecedents, then try to fashion solutions.

Here's my very brief analysis. The problem with gun violence in the US is primarily a problem of suicide. Secondarily it is a problem of violence in the inner cities. Part of the reason we cannot analyse the problem properly is the deep sense of shame connected with both these separate, yet connected problems.

Your first paragraph is spot on; the second touches on the issues I see (mental health unrecognized and thus untreated for one) but shame isn't in my frame of reference.

The issue today IMO are the demagogues and charlatans and their followers fear mongering, and preaching xenophobic reforms. It's as if we have been transported to an earlier age, likely a time too many on the right consider desirable.

Well, I could be wrong, of course. Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in this country, but perhaps it is not discussed much for reasons other than shame. As far as the inner cities go, well that is as complex a problem as there is, and I believe the shame component is pretty powerful, on both sides of the political divide. Shouldn't we be ashamed? There are two possible reactions to shame and guilt, one is acknowledgement and the other is rationalization.

The democrats should feel shame...but they don't have the capacity.....they created the inner city killing fields......the blood is on their hands..

 

[2aguy]

Again, it won't do a thing to stop gun violence.

Again to the 100th power, laws do not prevent crime.

Do we eliminate laws against theft or speeding since they do not prevent stealing or driving at an unsafe speed in a school zone?

Exactly. Laws don't reduce crime. So why have them? Riddle me that batman.

Laws don't prevent crime, laws reduce crime. Of course that is simplistic but IMO it is fitting for an Internet Message Board. If you really want that "Riddled" take some time to review the Philosophy of Law:

Law, Philosophy of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Special attention for Part 2 on Normative Jurisprudence will serve us well.

No, they don't. Laws merely codify crime. They make it possible to punish the perpetrators AFTER they have committed the crime. Incarceration DOES prevent crime so in a way you can attribute the incarceration to the laws so in that respect you are correct. But the actual law itself truly does nothing to reduce crime.

If you want to talk about the philosophy of law I suggest you read John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice".

Do you steal small items from retail stores? Do you run red lights or stop signs? Do you grow pot in your backyard? Some people do, most of us don't.

Those of us who don't do so for two reasons: Fear of punishment, and a moral judgment that the law is good.

Now, not all laws are good, some disrupt society, but most make our daily life safer and nicer.

But they don't stop someone who doesn't care about the law......they simply allow you to punish that person...

And we already have about 20,000 laws that do that for guns.........

 

[Wry Catcher]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We have defined the problem. the Criminal culture in the United STates…..they use guns to murder each other at high rates. The normal gun culture….doesn't.

How do you reduce gun crime among criminals….?

First of all, who's we? Second of all, your definition is inadequate, to say the least. As I said, it's silly, in response to a very serious subject.

No. The definition is very accurate. 80% of all violent crime is committed by black and Hispanic gang members. That is not in doubt. The "gun culture" is not the problem. The problem is the violent culture imported into our country from the third world by those very same gangbangers.

Gun deaths are principally caused by suicide.

Suicide is caused by mental illness...drug use, or alcohol abuse.......deal with the actual problem.

As you know I generally ignore responding to you, since your ignorance is impenetrable by facts.

But I suggest you try to read Camus' essays in The Myth of Sisyphus or Durkheim's seminal work on suicide.

 

[westwall]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.

The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.

 

[westwall]

We have defined the problem. the Criminal culture in the United STates…..they use guns to murder each other at high rates. The normal gun culture….doesn't.

How do you reduce gun crime among criminals….?

First of all, who's we? Second of all, your definition is inadequate, to say the least. As I said, it's silly, in response to a very serious subject.

No. The definition is very accurate. 80% of all violent crime is committed by black and Hispanic gang members. That is not in doubt. The "gun culture" is not the problem. The problem is the violent culture imported into our country from the third world by those very same gangbangers.

Gun deaths are principally caused by suicide.

Suicide is caused by mental illness...drug use, or alcohol abuse.......deal with the actual problem.

As you know I generally ignore responding to you, since your ignorance is impenetrable by facts.

But I suggest you try to read Camus' essays in The Myth of Sisyphus or Durkheim's seminal work on suicide.

That's a funny statement coming from you who ignore factual information at the drop of a hat if it runs counter to your preconceived ideas.

 

[2aguy]

We have defined the problem. the Criminal culture in the United STates…..they use guns to murder each other at high rates. The normal gun culture….doesn't.

How do you reduce gun crime among criminals….?

First of all, who's we? Second of all, your definition is inadequate, to say the least. As I said, it's silly, in response to a very serious subject.

No. The definition is very accurate. 80% of all violent crime is committed by black and Hispanic gang members. That is not in doubt. The "gun culture" is not the problem. The problem is the violent culture imported into our country from the third world by those very same gangbangers.

Gun deaths are principally caused by suicide.

Suicide is caused by mental illness...drug use, or alcohol abuse.......deal with the actual problem.

As you know I generally ignore responding to you, since your ignorance is impenetrable by facts.

But I suggest you try to read Camus' essays in The Myth of Sisyphus or Durkheim's seminal work on suicide.

I'd rather spend more time at the range.........

 

[Wry Catcher]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.

The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.

How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?

 

[2aguy]

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.

The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.

How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

 

[eagle1462010]

CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama - Guns & Ammo

Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate thatdefensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

 

[Wry Catcher]

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.

The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.

How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

Your source is a blog written by this man:

Timothy Wheeler, MD Articles – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership

• A biased opinion. A blog by a doctor opposed to gun control
• A Republican Party which controlled a majority in both chambers of Congress
• A President under fire by The Congress and willing to compromise on everything to try to avoid impeachment

You're lying by omission. These bullet points are the facts.

 

[westwall]

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.

The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.

How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?

The CDC is heavily anti gun so their use of biased metrics is well known. They are far, far from a legit source.