Progressive Propaganda: The 2nd Amendment Edition

[Skull Pilot]

more of the false equivalency.

One cares about gun rights that must automatically mean that he does not care for or has less care for the lives of children.

Idiot care more about keeping guns hidden or confiscated than having them readyTo defend children.

The problem of having easy access to firearms in the home is that it's also easy access to children as well. One of the big pushes right now is to try and educate gun owners to secure their weapons in the home. If the gun is there to grab in a seconds notice in case of an invader then it's also there in a seconds notice the a child to play with it. We have WAY too many accidental child gun deaths in American today. Even one is too many but there are hundreds each year. You can yell Cite, Cite but we both know that statement is true. It's like a dance, a very deadly dance, where you have to draw the line between a child's life and feeling completely secure in your home due to having a firearm.

Safety is always, and always should be, the number one priority of all gun owners. With rights comes responsibilities.

Do you have the accidental child gun death statistics?

I tried to look at a statistic for accidental gun deaths of children, but all I could get the global statistic (which included all the gang banger murders of children).

The reason for a lack of gun statistics is because the Dept. of Health is not allowed to collect these stats.

Do you know why?

You mean except for these...right?

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental deaths.....guns and otherwise....
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental death total for 2016....

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just what point are you trying to make here? I don't think you intended to prove my point, but you just did.

That high lawful ownership rates guarantee high unlawful ownership and high homicide rates?

But it doesn't

Rural areas with high gun ownership have lower murder rates than inner cities with low gun ownership

I have already covered why that is. But you gun nutters don't understand it. You just try and use it to explain everything. Unless you can understand the phenomena then you are just taking up the bandwidth.

No it's you morons who keep chanting
MORE GUNS =MORE MURDER
MORE GUN LAWS = LESS MURDER

And I have told you many times that 70% of all murders occur in very small very concentrated areas of 2% of all counties in the US

BUt you ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative

Let's take a look at this using the numbers.

19.3% of all the US population live in Rural Areas. That means 80.7 people live in urban or suburban areas.

Now we look at your crime rate of Rural versus Urban and Suburban. I won't use your numbers as I already know you just make shit up. So I'll use the real numbers. If I used your numbers, it would show that it would be extremely unhealthy to be living in a rural area since you would have a higher rate of being murdered than in a urban or suburban area. And even I won't buy that. So I'll jus t look it up. In 2014, per 1000, the figures for the US was 4.5 for Murder and Non Negligent Homicide. And for the Rural areas it was 3.0. The Metro Areas were 4.7. There are no new stats for the last two years but the reports coming out of law enforcement tells a story. The various agencies shows that the Metro Areas have either stayed the same or gone down while the Rural has gone up.

The reason for this increase is exactly the reason for the crime in the Metro Areas. JOBS or the lack of JOBS. It's finally hit the rural areas. In fact, with the loss of many of the Ag jobs, it's hit the Rural Areas much harder than the Metro areas recently. I don't think you know just how important that Farm really is. It affects the Processing Plants, the John Deere Shop, the Donut Shop, the Hardware Store, the Movie House, and every level of business and employment of that small town. The Farm doesn't have to shut down. It just has to get lower profits. And don't forget those mines that are either shutting down or cutting their production. Same thing goes. Rural America is getting slammed. And when that happens, tempers flair and crime increases.

Your figures are a bit high but not by very damned much. Rural America has almost caught up with Metro America in Violent Crime. It just took it longer to get the same conditions.

What part of 70% of all murders occur in very concentrated areas of just 2% of all counties did I make up.?

And you still do not understand that the RATE takes into account the differing population numbers

The MURDER RATE expressed in murders per 100000 is lower in rural areas that have a higher percentage of gun ownership than the murder rate of urban areas with a low percentage of gun ownership.

It doesn't matter how many people live in one area compared to another because the ratio takes that into account.

I really don't know why you people have such a hard time understanding what is an 8th grade mathematical concept.

So more guns do not equal more murder and more gun laws do not equal less murder

 

[Skull Pilot]

Fact:

The risk of attacking someone who is armed is exponentially greater than the risk of attacking someone who is not armed.

I would like to see someone rebut that. And, in the unlikely event that someone can rebut the above fact, please tell our military to surrender all their guns and weapons.

That’s why we have a huge population of shitty people who are armed. Need to be armed to commit crime.

Just what point are you trying to make here? I don't think you intended to prove my point, but you just did.

That high lawful ownership rates guarantee high unlawful ownership and high homicide rates?

But it doesn't

Rural areas with high gun ownership have lower murder rates than inner cities with low gun ownership

Rural areas also don't have gangs and also hardly have people. Hard to get road rage when you never see anyone on the road.

So is it gangs that cause high murder rates?

and what percentage of murders are road rage incidents?

 

[danielpalos]

Organize more militia; we should have no security problems in our free States.

done. I just organized a militia.

Where's my machine gun.

Only State legislators or Congress can Organize the militias of the several, United States.

 

[BS Filter]

Why The National Guard Is Not A Militia

 

[danielpalos]

States have their own "military reserve force".

All States should have a State Militia.

 

[2aguy]

more of the false equivalency.

One cares about gun rights that must automatically mean that he does not care for or has less care for the lives of children.

Idiot care more about keeping guns hidden or confiscated than having them readyTo defend children.

The problem of having easy access to firearms in the home is that it's also easy access to children as well. One of the big pushes right now is to try and educate gun owners to secure their weapons in the home. If the gun is there to grab in a seconds notice in case of an invader then it's also there in a seconds notice the a child to play with it. We have WAY too many accidental child gun deaths in American today. Even one is too many but there are hundreds each year. You can yell Cite, Cite but we both know that statement is true. It's like a dance, a very deadly dance, where you have to draw the line between a child's life and feeling completely secure in your home due to having a firearm.

How many do we have exactly?
Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)

Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking: 5,000

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/guns-send-over-8000-kids-to-er-every-year/

Gun injuries, including many from assaults, sent 75,000 children and teens to emergency rooms over nine years at a cost of almost $3 billion, a first-of-its-kind study found.

Researchers called it the first nationally representative study on ER visits for gun injuries among US kids. They found that more than one-third of the wounded children were hospitalized and 6 percent died. Injuries declined during most of the 2006-14 study, but there was an upswing in the final year.

Yeah......wrong. Their "Children" were gang members engaged in crime you moron...17 and 18, when are they considered children? ...not normal children raised in normal homes...but why would you and the anti gun researchers tell the truth about that?

The researchers focused on victims under age 18; the average age was about 15.
-------

Almost half the gun injuries were from assaults, nearly 40 percent were unintentional and 2 percent were suicides.

And the Article lied about research.....so right there your link is crap....

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.

You back to this same tired old crap again? An ultra right and I both agreed that there was no information available to determine the number of small children accidently shot in the home. The data just isn't there. Therefore, they have to use the data from the ages up to 17 and that what was presented. Almost ALL 17 and younger children are NOT in a gang of any kind. Your assumption is MOST are.

And the CDC was stopped from putting out any more "Gun Studies" because they were pushing the NRA agenda rather blatantly. I guess the paper routes didn't pan out so they had to get their part time money from somewhere else. One of your own pointed this out. Okay, not about the paper route but...... And it wasn't Obama, it was Congress that stopped them cold. It was either stop doing it or the Justice Department was going to prosecute. It was illegal as hell. Maybe you as a Party of Trump overlook the graft and bribery but not every Republican does. Or at least didn't back then. The job of tracking it has been relinquished to the ATF and FBI where it should have been in the first place.

Moron...the CDC breaks it down by age.....

First, the CDC was never stopped from studying gun violence, and 2nd they are anti gun, not pro NRA you moron.

Here....accidental child death by age....

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74



<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

And the other causes of accidental death, by age...

Suffocation: 1,215

<1.....1,023
1-4..... 118
5-9..... 35
10-14.... 39
Drowning: 713

<1.....38
1-4....425
5-9.....147
10-14..103

Poisoning: 84

<1.....9
1-4....34
5-9....13
10-14....28

Traffic: 1,261

<1........88
1-4.......334
5-9........384
10-14.....455

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

 

[2aguy]

more of the false equivalency.

One cares about gun rights that must automatically mean that he does not care for or has less care for the lives of children.

Idiot care more about keeping guns hidden or confiscated than having them readyTo defend children.

The problem of having easy access to firearms in the home is that it's also easy access to children as well. One of the big pushes right now is to try and educate gun owners to secure their weapons in the home. If the gun is there to grab in a seconds notice in case of an invader then it's also there in a seconds notice the a child to play with it. We have WAY too many accidental child gun deaths in American today. Even one is too many but there are hundreds each year. You can yell Cite, Cite but we both know that statement is true. It's like a dance, a very deadly dance, where you have to draw the line between a child's life and feeling completely secure in your home due to having a firearm.

How many do we have exactly?
Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)

Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking: 5,000

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/guns-send-over-8000-kids-to-er-every-year/

Gun injuries, including many from assaults, sent 75,000 children and teens to emergency rooms over nine years at a cost of almost $3 billion, a first-of-its-kind study found.

Researchers called it the first nationally representative study on ER visits for gun injuries among US kids. They found that more than one-third of the wounded children were hospitalized and 6 percent died. Injuries declined during most of the 2006-14 study, but there was an upswing in the final year.

Yeah......wrong. Their "Children" were gang members engaged in crime you moron...17 and 18, when are they considered children? ...not normal children raised in normal homes...but why would you and the anti gun researchers tell the truth about that?

The researchers focused on victims under age 18; the average age was about 15.
-------

Almost half the gun injuries were from assaults, nearly 40 percent were unintentional and 2 percent were suicides.

And the Article lied about research.....so right there your link is crap....

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.

You back to this same tired old crap again? An ultra right and I both agreed that there was no information available to determine the number of small children accidently shot in the home. The data just isn't there. Therefore, they have to use the data from the ages up to 17 and that what was presented. Almost ALL 17 and younger children are NOT in a gang of any kind. Your assumption is MOST are.

And the CDC was stopped from putting out any more "Gun Studies" because they were pushing the NRA agenda rather blatantly. I guess the paper routes didn't pan out so they had to get their part time money from somewhere else. One of your own pointed this out. Okay, not about the paper route but...... And it wasn't Obama, it was Congress that stopped them cold. It was either stop doing it or the Justice Department was going to prosecute. It was illegal as hell. Maybe you as a Party of Trump overlook the graft and bribery but not every Republican does. Or at least didn't back then. The job of tracking it has been relinquished to the ATF and FBI where it should have been in the first place.

The CDC was not stopped....

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.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Thank God for our right to keep and bear arms...

Man on crime spree dressed as woman attempts to rob store — but clerk takes him down with handgun

Yes, another gun violent crime in a deep red state. Don't you see a problem here?

It’s not a “crime” to defend yourself in this country, snowflake. A crime was averted thanks to the 2nd Amendment right you so desperately want revoked.

You missed the point here, cupcake. And you must be deeply religious calling me a snowflake because we all know a snowflake is a gift from God.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The problem of having easy access to firearms in the home is that it's also easy access to children as well. One of the big pushes right now is to try and educate gun owners to secure their weapons in the home. If the gun is there to grab in a seconds notice in case of an invader then it's also there in a seconds notice the a child to play with it. We have WAY too many accidental child gun deaths in American today. Even one is too many but there are hundreds each year. You can yell Cite, Cite but we both know that statement is true. It's like a dance, a very deadly dance, where you have to draw the line between a child's life and feeling completely secure in your home due to having a firearm.

Safety is always, and always should be, the number one priority of all gun owners. With rights comes responsibilities.

Do you have the accidental child gun death statistics?

I tried to look at a statistic for accidental gun deaths of children, but all I could get the global statistic (which included all the gang banger murders of children).

The reason for a lack of gun statistics is because the Dept. of Health is not allowed to collect these stats.

Do you know why?

You mean except for these...right?

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental deaths.....guns and otherwise....
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental death total for 2016....

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That high lawful ownership rates guarantee high unlawful ownership and high homicide rates?

But it doesn't

Rural areas with high gun ownership have lower murder rates than inner cities with low gun ownership

I have already covered why that is. But you gun nutters don't understand it. You just try and use it to explain everything. Unless you can understand the phenomena then you are just taking up the bandwidth.

No it's you morons who keep chanting
MORE GUNS =MORE MURDER
MORE GUN LAWS = LESS MURDER

And I have told you many times that 70% of all murders occur in very small very concentrated areas of 2% of all counties in the US

BUt you ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative

Let's take a look at this using the numbers.

19.3% of all the US population live in Rural Areas. That means 80.7 people live in urban or suburban areas.

Now we look at your crime rate of Rural versus Urban and Suburban. I won't use your numbers as I already know you just make shit up. So I'll use the real numbers. If I used your numbers, it would show that it would be extremely unhealthy to be living in a rural area since you would have a higher rate of being murdered than in a urban or suburban area. And even I won't buy that. So I'll jus t look it up. In 2014, per 1000, the figures for the US was 4.5 for Murder and Non Negligent Homicide. And for the Rural areas it was 3.0. The Metro Areas were 4.7. There are no new stats for the last two years but the reports coming out of law enforcement tells a story. The various agencies shows that the Metro Areas have either stayed the same or gone down while the Rural has gone up.

The reason for this increase is exactly the reason for the crime in the Metro Areas. JOBS or the lack of JOBS. It's finally hit the rural areas. In fact, with the loss of many of the Ag jobs, it's hit the Rural Areas much harder than the Metro areas recently. I don't think you know just how important that Farm really is. It affects the Processing Plants, the John Deere Shop, the Donut Shop, the Hardware Store, the Movie House, and every level of business and employment of that small town. The Farm doesn't have to shut down. It just has to get lower profits. And don't forget those mines that are either shutting down or cutting their production. Same thing goes. Rural America is getting slammed. And when that happens, tempers flair and crime increases.

Your figures are a bit high but not by very damned much. Rural America has almost caught up with Metro America in Violent Crime. It just took it longer to get the same conditions.

What part of 70% of all murders occur in very concentrated areas of just 2% of all counties did I make up.?

And you still do not understand that the RATE takes into account the differing population numbers

The MURDER RATE expressed in murders per 100000 is lower in rural areas that have a higher percentage of gun ownership than the murder rate of urban areas with a low percentage of gun ownership.

It doesn't matter how many people live in one area compared to another because the ratio takes that into account.

I really don't know why you people have such a hard time understanding what is an 8th grade mathematical concept.

So more guns do not equal more murder and more gun laws do not equal less murder

Oh, I understand it. I understand that there has been a large increase in Rural Gun Crimes in the last year. And I also understand that it has had nothing to do with the number of firearms. I have tried to get it through that sick skull of yours the reason why but you seem to be in this fantasy world that the NRA has painted for you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Why The National Guard Is Not A Militia

This is very true. But in order to be an Organized Militia it has to be Organized by the State. And that was the intention of the 2nd amendment. I keep hearing about how important the "Unorganized" militia is. Another name for the "Unorganized" militia would be a gang.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

States have their own "military reserve force".

All States should have a State Militia.

Very few states do have. Let's take Texas for example. Almost all Police, Firemen and such are part of the State Militia. Unless each person still has a Federal Obligation, they cannot be drafted or called up for federal duty unless the Governor approves it. During the last few emergencies, these people have come together and saved a lot of lives through their heroic actions.

 

[2aguy]

Safety is always, and always should be, the number one priority of all gun owners. With rights comes responsibilities.

Do you have the accidental child gun death statistics?

I tried to look at a statistic for accidental gun deaths of children, but all I could get the global statistic (which included all the gang banger murders of children).

The reason for a lack of gun statistics is because the Dept. of Health is not allowed to collect these stats.

Do you know why?

You mean except for these...right?

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental deaths.....guns and otherwise....
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental death total for 2016....

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

Wrong...the state does not determine the Right...... tell that to the democrats when they tried jim crow and Poll taxes in their states... McDonald v the City of Chicago spelled that out directly for you...

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The problem of having easy access to firearms in the home is that it's also easy access to children as well. One of the big pushes right now is to try and educate gun owners to secure their weapons in the home. If the gun is there to grab in a seconds notice in case of an invader then it's also there in a seconds notice the a child to play with it. We have WAY too many accidental child gun deaths in American today. Even one is too many but there are hundreds each year. You can yell Cite, Cite but we both know that statement is true. It's like a dance, a very deadly dance, where you have to draw the line between a child's life and feeling completely secure in your home due to having a firearm.

How many do we have exactly?
Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)

Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking: 5,000

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/guns-send-over-8000-kids-to-er-every-year/

Gun injuries, including many from assaults, sent 75,000 children and teens to emergency rooms over nine years at a cost of almost $3 billion, a first-of-its-kind study found.

Researchers called it the first nationally representative study on ER visits for gun injuries among US kids. They found that more than one-third of the wounded children were hospitalized and 6 percent died. Injuries declined during most of the 2006-14 study, but there was an upswing in the final year.

Yeah......wrong. Their "Children" were gang members engaged in crime you moron...17 and 18, when are they considered children? ...not normal children raised in normal homes...but why would you and the anti gun researchers tell the truth about that?

The researchers focused on victims under age 18; the average age was about 15.
-------

Almost half the gun injuries were from assaults, nearly 40 percent were unintentional and 2 percent were suicides.

And the Article lied about research.....so right there your link is crap....

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.

You back to this same tired old crap again? An ultra right and I both agreed that there was no information available to determine the number of small children accidently shot in the home. The data just isn't there. Therefore, they have to use the data from the ages up to 17 and that what was presented. Almost ALL 17 and younger children are NOT in a gang of any kind. Your assumption is MOST are.

And the CDC was stopped from putting out any more "Gun Studies" because they were pushing the NRA agenda rather blatantly. I guess the paper routes didn't pan out so they had to get their part time money from somewhere else. One of your own pointed this out. Okay, not about the paper route but...... And it wasn't Obama, it was Congress that stopped them cold. It was either stop doing it or the Justice Department was going to prosecute. It was illegal as hell. Maybe you as a Party of Trump overlook the graft and bribery but not every Republican does. Or at least didn't back then. The job of tracking it has been relinquished to the ATF and FBI where it should have been in the first place.

Moron...the CDC breaks it down by age.....

First, the CDC was never stopped from studying gun violence, and 2nd they are anti gun, not pro NRA you moron.

Here....accidental child death by age....

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74



<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

And the other causes of accidental death, by age...

Suffocation: 1,215

<1.....1,023
1-4..... 118
5-9..... 35
10-14.... 39
Drowning: 713

<1.....38
1-4....425
5-9.....147
10-14..103

Poisoning: 84

<1.....9
1-4....34
5-9....13
10-14....28

Traffic: 1,261

<1........88
1-4.......334
5-9........384
10-14.....455

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Sifting through all your myriad of information that you have flooded us with, I came out with this for firearms for children.

of the ages 1 through 14, Unintentional Firearm Deaths are in the top 10 of the reason for Deaths. Forget all the crap about Gang related, drive bys and that stuff, unintentional means children playing with Daddy's gun unsupervised and it goes Bang just like in the Movies. Except it isn't the movies. Then after age 14, it falls off the top 10 list. This is from your own data for the year 2014.

 

[2aguy]

How many do we have exactly?
Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)

Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking: 5,000

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/guns-send-over-8000-kids-to-er-every-year/

Gun injuries, including many from assaults, sent 75,000 children and teens to emergency rooms over nine years at a cost of almost $3 billion, a first-of-its-kind study found.

Researchers called it the first nationally representative study on ER visits for gun injuries among US kids. They found that more than one-third of the wounded children were hospitalized and 6 percent died. Injuries declined during most of the 2006-14 study, but there was an upswing in the final year.

Yeah......wrong. Their "Children" were gang members engaged in crime you moron...17 and 18, when are they considered children? ...not normal children raised in normal homes...but why would you and the anti gun researchers tell the truth about that?

The researchers focused on victims under age 18; the average age was about 15.
-------

Almost half the gun injuries were from assaults, nearly 40 percent were unintentional and 2 percent were suicides.

And the Article lied about research.....so right there your link is crap....

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.

You back to this same tired old crap again? An ultra right and I both agreed that there was no information available to determine the number of small children accidently shot in the home. The data just isn't there. Therefore, they have to use the data from the ages up to 17 and that what was presented. Almost ALL 17 and younger children are NOT in a gang of any kind. Your assumption is MOST are.

And the CDC was stopped from putting out any more "Gun Studies" because they were pushing the NRA agenda rather blatantly. I guess the paper routes didn't pan out so they had to get their part time money from somewhere else. One of your own pointed this out. Okay, not about the paper route but...... And it wasn't Obama, it was Congress that stopped them cold. It was either stop doing it or the Justice Department was going to prosecute. It was illegal as hell. Maybe you as a Party of Trump overlook the graft and bribery but not every Republican does. Or at least didn't back then. The job of tracking it has been relinquished to the ATF and FBI where it should have been in the first place.

Moron...the CDC breaks it down by age.....

First, the CDC was never stopped from studying gun violence, and 2nd they are anti gun, not pro NRA you moron.

Here....accidental child death by age....

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74



<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

And the other causes of accidental death, by age...

Suffocation: 1,215

<1.....1,023
1-4..... 118
5-9..... 35
10-14.... 39
Drowning: 713

<1.....38
1-4....425
5-9.....147
10-14..103

Poisoning: 84

<1.....9
1-4....34
5-9....13
10-14....28

Traffic: 1,261

<1........88
1-4.......334
5-9........384
10-14.....455

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Sifting through all your myriad of information that you have flooded us with, I came out with this for firearms for children.

of the ages 1 through 14, Unintentional Firearm Deaths are in the top 10 of the reason for Deaths. Forget all the crap about Gang related, drive bys and that stuff, unintentional means children playing with Daddy's gun unsupervised and it goes Bang just like in the Movies. Except it isn't the movies. Then after age 14, it falls off the top 10 list. This is from your own data for the year 2014.

Wrong....and, of course, you gave no link..... I gave you the link to the CDC.....you know, the ones who actually count the bodies from accidental death... broken down by age group..........

74 kids..... out of 70 million kids in the country..... cars kill more kids and you morons don't want to ban them.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The reason for a lack of gun statistics is because the Dept. of Health is not allowed to collect these stats.

Do you know why?

You mean except for these...right?

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental deaths.....guns and otherwise....
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental death total for 2016....

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

Wrong...the state does not determine the Right...... tell that to the democrats when they tried jim crow and Poll taxes in their states... McDonald v the City of Chicago spelled that out directly for you...

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

And it referred back to Heller V which states that only certain firearms are protected under the 2nd amendment and those are only protected in the home. It also upheld DCs licensing of the PERSON to possess the handgun. McDonald wasn't anything world changing. It simply states that we have the right to bear arms, nothing more and no State can take that away from us. But through due process, they can regulate it without being in error with the 2nd amendment when you throw in Heller V. McDonald was hardly a Landmark decision. I would consider Heller V the landmark decision that all modern courts have based their decisions on.

Please stop misinterpreting the Court Decisions and Please stop just plain making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/guns-send-over-8000-kids-to-er-every-year/

Gun injuries, including many from assaults, sent 75,000 children and teens to emergency rooms over nine years at a cost of almost $3 billion, a first-of-its-kind study found.

Researchers called it the first nationally representative study on ER visits for gun injuries among US kids. They found that more than one-third of the wounded children were hospitalized and 6 percent died. Injuries declined during most of the 2006-14 study, but there was an upswing in the final year.

Yeah......wrong. Their "Children" were gang members engaged in crime you moron...17 and 18, when are they considered children? ...not normal children raised in normal homes...but why would you and the anti gun researchers tell the truth about that?

The researchers focused on victims under age 18; the average age was about 15.
-------

Almost half the gun injuries were from assaults, nearly 40 percent were unintentional and 2 percent were suicides.

And the Article lied about research.....so right there your link is crap....

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.

You back to this same tired old crap again? An ultra right and I both agreed that there was no information available to determine the number of small children accidently shot in the home. The data just isn't there. Therefore, they have to use the data from the ages up to 17 and that what was presented. Almost ALL 17 and younger children are NOT in a gang of any kind. Your assumption is MOST are.

And the CDC was stopped from putting out any more "Gun Studies" because they were pushing the NRA agenda rather blatantly. I guess the paper routes didn't pan out so they had to get their part time money from somewhere else. One of your own pointed this out. Okay, not about the paper route but...... And it wasn't Obama, it was Congress that stopped them cold. It was either stop doing it or the Justice Department was going to prosecute. It was illegal as hell. Maybe you as a Party of Trump overlook the graft and bribery but not every Republican does. Or at least didn't back then. The job of tracking it has been relinquished to the ATF and FBI where it should have been in the first place.

Moron...the CDC breaks it down by age.....

First, the CDC was never stopped from studying gun violence, and 2nd they are anti gun, not pro NRA you moron.

Here....accidental child death by age....

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74



<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

And the other causes of accidental death, by age...

Suffocation: 1,215

<1.....1,023
1-4..... 118
5-9..... 35
10-14.... 39
Drowning: 713

<1.....38
1-4....425
5-9.....147
10-14..103

Poisoning: 84

<1.....9
1-4....34
5-9....13
10-14....28

Traffic: 1,261

<1........88
1-4.......334
5-9........384
10-14.....455

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Sifting through all your myriad of information that you have flooded us with, I came out with this for firearms for children.

of the ages 1 through 14, Unintentional Firearm Deaths are in the top 10 of the reason for Deaths. Forget all the crap about Gang related, drive bys and that stuff, unintentional means children playing with Daddy's gun unsupervised and it goes Bang just like in the Movies. Except it isn't the movies. Then after age 14, it falls off the top 10 list. This is from your own data for the year 2014.

Wrong....and, of course, you gave no link..... I gave you the link to the CDC.....you know, the ones who actually count the bodies from accidental death... broken down by age group..........

74 kids..... out of 70 million kids in the country..... cars kill more kids and you morons don't want to ban them.

Actually, you gave the link and I just told you what it said. Does that mean YOU are wrong? Well your interpretation certainly is. Your motives certainly are.

And Newsflash: 74 unneeded loss of children is a big deal. Your owning 10,000 guns is a drop in the importance of even one of those lives.

 

[2aguy]

You mean except for these...right?

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental deaths.....guns and otherwise....
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental death total for 2016....

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

Wrong...the state does not determine the Right...... tell that to the democrats when they tried jim crow and Poll taxes in their states... McDonald v the City of Chicago spelled that out directly for you...

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

And it referred back to Heller V which states that only certain firearms are protected under the 2nd amendment and those are only protected in the home. It also upheld DCs licensing of the PERSON to possess the handgun. McDonald wasn't anything world changing. It simply states that we have the right to bear arms, nothing more and no State can take that away from us. But through due process, they can regulate it without being in error with the 2nd amendment when you throw in Heller V. McDonald was hardly a Landmark decision. I would consider Heller V the landmark decision that all modern courts have based their decisions on.

Please stop misinterpreting the Court Decisions and Please stop just plain making shit up.

Yes...certain firearms... you know....all bearable arms...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

And then Scalia goes on to actually name the AR-15 rifle as a specifically protected rifle under the 2nd Amendment...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah......wrong. Their "Children" were gang members engaged in crime you moron...17 and 18, when are they considered children? ...not normal children raised in normal homes...but why would you and the anti gun researchers tell the truth about that?

The researchers focused on victims under age 18; the average age was about 15.
-------

Almost half the gun injuries were from assaults, nearly 40 percent were unintentional and 2 percent were suicides.

And the Article lied about research.....so right there your link is crap....

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.

You back to this same tired old crap again? An ultra right and I both agreed that there was no information available to determine the number of small children accidently shot in the home. The data just isn't there. Therefore, they have to use the data from the ages up to 17 and that what was presented. Almost ALL 17 and younger children are NOT in a gang of any kind. Your assumption is MOST are.

And the CDC was stopped from putting out any more "Gun Studies" because they were pushing the NRA agenda rather blatantly. I guess the paper routes didn't pan out so they had to get their part time money from somewhere else. One of your own pointed this out. Okay, not about the paper route but...... And it wasn't Obama, it was Congress that stopped them cold. It was either stop doing it or the Justice Department was going to prosecute. It was illegal as hell. Maybe you as a Party of Trump overlook the graft and bribery but not every Republican does. Or at least didn't back then. The job of tracking it has been relinquished to the ATF and FBI where it should have been in the first place.

Moron...the CDC breaks it down by age.....

First, the CDC was never stopped from studying gun violence, and 2nd they are anti gun, not pro NRA you moron.

Here....accidental child death by age....

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74



<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

And the other causes of accidental death, by age...

Suffocation: 1,215

<1.....1,023
1-4..... 118
5-9..... 35
10-14.... 39
Drowning: 713

<1.....38
1-4....425
5-9.....147
10-14..103

Poisoning: 84

<1.....9
1-4....34
5-9....13
10-14....28

Traffic: 1,261

<1........88
1-4.......334
5-9........384
10-14.....455

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Sifting through all your myriad of information that you have flooded us with, I came out with this for firearms for children.

of the ages 1 through 14, Unintentional Firearm Deaths are in the top 10 of the reason for Deaths. Forget all the crap about Gang related, drive bys and that stuff, unintentional means children playing with Daddy's gun unsupervised and it goes Bang just like in the Movies. Except it isn't the movies. Then after age 14, it falls off the top 10 list. This is from your own data for the year 2014.

Wrong....and, of course, you gave no link..... I gave you the link to the CDC.....you know, the ones who actually count the bodies from accidental death... broken down by age group..........

74 kids..... out of 70 million kids in the country..... cars kill more kids and you morons don't want to ban them.

Actually, you gave the link and I just told you what it said. Does that mean YOU are wrong? Well your interpretation certainly is. Your motives certainly are.

And Newsflash: 74 unneeded loss of children is a big deal. Your owning 10,000 guns is a drop in the importance of even one of those lives.

Americans use their legal guns 1,100,000 times a year to save lives....... 300 people a year die falling off ladders.....

You have no point.