Less than a third of Americans own a gun. But that's still 100 million, and the average would be that each of them owns three or four. Of course, many own more than that and many own only one, like a handgun for personal protection when out in the city or a shotgun in the closet for when varmints hit the yard.
The danger of so many guns is that when one of those 100 million people has a really bad nasty day or goes a little off the wall mentally, all that person has to do is grab the gun and start shooting. That doesn't even take into account pissed off teenagers who feel "dissed" by a FB post or who are challenged to kill a rival gang member to be a big "man." It plays out every day in domestics, in the streets, and we haven't even mentioned criminals who shoot people for hire and use guns to hold up stores etc.
All those guns, for all those reasons, need to be much more strictly limited and handed out much more cautiously.
They aren't handed out and the people using them to commit murder are already banned from buying, owning and carrying them...and when they are caught with the gun they can already be arrested....
What about that is so hard for you to understand?
What about the fact that Americans use their legal guns to stop violent criminals 1.1 million times a year...according to the Centers for Disease Control.......
The Center for Disease Control has been effectively prohibited from conducting any meaningful research on guns in the country for decades. Thanks to folks like you and your handler, the NRA. I don't know what bullshit numbers you are going to quote me now, but I know that for a fact. It doesn't surprise me though that you would tie the truth into a knot and hope to get away with it.
Wrong.....that is the lie anti-gunners tell you...it is not true...
Oh, yeah......you can't explain why your theory over the last 26 years is wrong....so now you toss out the "NRA" card.....and call research from the CDC bullshit because it contradicts what you believe....
No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence
Absolutely nothing in
the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.
Does it? Pointing out that “
research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding
tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order
directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it.
Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous
inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar
is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund
peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because
they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association
declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they
don’t even pretend they not to hold
pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime —
a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.
