Why does Congress prevent the CDC from studying gun-related violence?

[Coyote]

I don't think banning guns has much, if any, effect on suicide rates: World suicide rates by country

Look at the countries listed with the highest rates: Japan, South Korea, Finland, Belgium....

The fact remains, gun violence is a relative nonissue in this country.
The "white" progressives look the other way with black on black crime, their outrage is always selective.

Our commander in chief and his loopy wife need to look to their own back yard(Chicago) for the highest crime rate in the country.

Hashtag we have an dumb a$$ president

Gun violence isn't a "relative nonissue" - what gives you that idea?

Really? 9000 murders a year out of 320 million people is not a big problem.

This is from 2010 but I doubt there've been huge changes in 5 years: Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

In 2010:

31,076 Americans died in gun-related homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.
73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

For comparison:
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

In 2010, there were also 13,365 drunk driving fatalities and 32 fatal dog attacks.

Yet deaths by guns is "insignificant" and dog bites and drunk driving are studied without political interference.

 

[Rustic]

Guns are used for several purposes. Guns are used for protection against assaults, protection of property, law enforcement, in wars, for hunting, competition, and many have gun collections that are worth a lot of money. Also, guns are harmless until someone uses them for the wrong reasons. Therefore, it's NOT guns that cause concern, it's PEOPLE that use guns for the wrong reasons. In addition, knives, baseball bats, and other items also cause deaths. Cars and trucks cause deaths. Airplanes and trains cause deaths. We have drugs that cause deaths. Alcohol causes deaths.

GUNS are NOT the issue with violence, suicide, or with anything else. The issue is PEOPLE.

"PLEASE< PLEASE, PLEASE don't take my guns!!!!"

You are right. PEOPLE WITH GUNS are the problem. And you gun nuts do nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of people like Lanza and Mercer and Holmes.

Fact 1: Just get rid of the people who have an over-developed sense of entitlement to use violence against their fellows: problem solved.

Fact 2: Just get rid of guns: problem remains.

The "gun problem" is a problem only for who have an over-developed sense of entitlement to use violence against their fellows; guns are a problem that only the criminally violent have to overcome... for OBVIOUS reasons.

Here's the thing. Cars are LICENSED. If you own a car, you have to be tested, insured, licensed, your car has to be inspected to make sure it's safe to be on the road and we have a whole police force that enforces the safe useage of cars.

I'd have no problem with guns if we regulated them like cars.

But then some guy with a tiny pecker will come back and whine, "But the Founding Fathers said we have a riiiiiiiiiiiiight to guns!"

and we have 33,000 deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year.

The whole "Gun Violence" argument = tautology. The entire "gun violence" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--a problem that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can both include violence that was not caused by guns; and exclude violence caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

"Gun Violence"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

It's privilege to buy a car and drive, not a right.

Live with it

 

[LOki]

I don't think banning guns has much, if any, effect on suicide rates: World suicide rates by country

Look at the countries listed with the highest rates: Japan, South Korea, Finland, Belgium....

The fact remains, gun violence is a relative nonissue in this country.
The "white" progressives look the other way with black on black crime, their outrage is always selective.

Our commander in chief and his loopy wife need to look to their own back yard(Chicago) for the highest crime rate in the country.

Hashtag we have an dumb a$$ president

Gun violence isn't a "relative nonissue" - what gives you that idea?

Really? 9000 murders a year out of 320 million people is not a big problem.

This is from 2010 but I doubt there've been huge changes in 5 years: Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

<<<<<APPEAL TO EMOTION SNIPPED>>>>>​

The whole "Gun Violence" argument = tautology. The entire "gun violence" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--a problem that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can both include violence that was not caused by guns; and exclude violence caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

"Gun Violence"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

 

[LOki]

I don't think banning guns has much, if any, effect on suicide rates: World suicide rates by country

Look at the countries listed with the highest rates: Japan, South Korea, Finland, Belgium....

The fact remains, gun violence is a relative nonissue in this country.
The "white" progressives look the other way with black on black crime, their outrage is always selective.

Our commander in chief and his loopy wife need to look to their own back yard(Chicago) for the highest crime rate in the country.

Hashtag we have an dumb a$$ president

Gun violence isn't a "relative nonissue" - what gives you that idea?

Really? 9000 murders a year out of 320 million people is not a big problem.

This is from 2010 but I doubt there've been huge changes in 5 years: Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

In 2010:

31,076 Americans died in gun-related homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.
73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

For comparison:
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

In 2010, there were also 13,365 drunk driving fatalities and 32 fatal dog attacks.

Yet deaths by guns is "insignificant" and dog bites and drunk driving are studied without political interference.

Someone would have something to say about the SEC studying dog bites, or the DOT studying acne, or the Forestry Service studying health care.

There's no "political interference" in the study of "gun deaths."

 

[Coyote]

I don't think banning guns has much, if any, effect on suicide rates: World suicide rates by country

Look at the countries listed with the highest rates: Japan, South Korea, Finland, Belgium....

The fact remains, gun violence is a relative nonissue in this country.
The "white" progressives look the other way with black on black crime, their outrage is always selective.

Our commander in chief and his loopy wife need to look to their own back yard(Chicago) for the highest crime rate in the country.

Hashtag we have an dumb a$$ president

Gun violence isn't a "relative nonissue" - what gives you that idea?

Really? 9000 murders a year out of 320 million people is not a big problem.

This is from 2010 but I doubt there've been huge changes in 5 years: Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

In 2010:

31,076 Americans died in gun-related homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.
73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

For comparison:
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

In 2010, there were also 13,365 drunk driving fatalities and 32 fatal dog attacks.

Yet deaths by guns is "insignificant" and dog bites and drunk driving are studied without political interference.

Someone would have something to say about the SEC studying dog bites, or the DOT studying acne, or the Forestry Service studying health care.

There's no "political interference" in the study of "gun deaths."

The CDC has a unit studying injuries and injury prevention - that's part of their mission. The DOT also compiles statistics on drunk driving. All of that falls under their mandate to some degree or another. DOT studying acne not even close.

But only - ONLY in research on gun related violence is there political interference. There is no political interference on the DoT looking at drunk driving.

 

[LOki]

The fact remains, gun violence is a relative nonissue in this country.
The "white" progressives look the other way with black on black crime, their outrage is always selective.

Our commander in chief and his loopy wife need to look to their own back yard(Chicago) for the highest crime rate in the country.

Hashtag we have an dumb a$$ president

Gun violence isn't a "relative nonissue" - what gives you that idea?

Really? 9000 murders a year out of 320 million people is not a big problem.

This is from 2010 but I doubt there've been huge changes in 5 years: Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

In 2010:

31,076 Americans died in gun-related homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.
73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

For comparison:
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

In 2010, there were also 13,365 drunk driving fatalities and 32 fatal dog attacks.

Yet deaths by guns is "insignificant" and dog bites and drunk driving are studied without political interference.

Someone would have something to say about the SEC studying dog bites, or the DOT studying acne, or the Forestry Service studying health care.

There's no "political interference" in the study of "gun deaths."

The CDC has a unit studying injuries and injury prevention - that's part of their mission. The DOT also compiles statistics on drunk driving. All of that falls under their mandate to some degree or another. DOT studying acne not even close.

But only - ONLY in research on gun related violence is there political interference. There is no political interference on the DoT looking at drunk driving.

But the DOT does not compile statistics on drinking; other organization do.

There's no "political interference" in the study of "gun deaths."

 

[Coyote]

I don't think banning guns has much, if any, effect on suicide rates: World suicide rates by country

Look at the countries listed with the highest rates: Japan, South Korea, Finland, Belgium....

The fact remains, gun violence is a relative nonissue in this country.
The "white" progressives look the other way with black on black crime, their outrage is always selective.

Our commander in chief and his loopy wife need to look to their own back yard(Chicago) for the highest crime rate in the country.

Hashtag we have an dumb a$$ president

Gun violence isn't a "relative nonissue" - what gives you that idea?

Really? 9000 murders a year out of 320 million people is not a big problem.

This is from 2010 but I doubt there've been huge changes in 5 years: Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

<<<<<APPEAL TO EMOTION SNIPPED>>>>>​

The whole "Gun Violence" argument = tautology. The entire "gun violence" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--a problem that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

Your entire argument is a strawman. I'm not arguing for "removing guns" - I'm arguing for more information so rational decisions can be made rather than prohibiting research.

For example - gun violence is a real issue, given the numbers referenced. It breaks down into different categories. One is unintentional shootings and a particular category involving children. What can research show you? Maybe that legislation requiring devices such as trigger locks might help reduce this. For comparison, look at drownings. How can you help reduce drowings? One community was situated in a region with a lot of lakes and drowning rates were a concern. In particular they had a large Somali immigrant population who's female population never learned to swim because of their cultural background. They worked with the local Y to create a program for these girls to teach them how to swim. Problem solved (or at least improved) - but if they had been prevented from researching the problem, nothing would have changed.

What gun control laws do you claim I advocate?

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can both include violence that was not caused by guns; and exclude violence caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

We have categories for knife attacks, drunk driving, rape, assault without a deadly weapon, assault in general, etc. What is so sacred about violence with guns that makes it exempt from examination? Looking at mortality alone - I suspect violence with guns has a far higher death rate than other forms but you want all references to it squashed.

"Gun Violence"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

Or...perhaps this is just your method of making sure the issues never see the light of day.

 

[Coyote]

Gun violence isn't a "relative nonissue" - what gives you that idea?

Really? 9000 murders a year out of 320 million people is not a big problem.

This is from 2010 but I doubt there've been huge changes in 5 years: Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

In 2010:

31,076 Americans died in gun-related homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.
73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

For comparison:
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

In 2010, there were also 13,365 drunk driving fatalities and 32 fatal dog attacks.

Yet deaths by guns is "insignificant" and dog bites and drunk driving are studied without political interference.

Someone would have something to say about the SEC studying dog bites, or the DOT studying acne, or the Forestry Service studying health care.

There's no "political interference" in the study of "gun deaths."

The CDC has a unit studying injuries and injury prevention - that's part of their mission. The DOT also compiles statistics on drunk driving. All of that falls under their mandate to some degree or another. DOT studying acne not even close.

But only - ONLY in research on gun related violence is there political interference. There is no political interference on the DoT looking at drunk driving.

But the DOT does not compile statistics on drinking; other organization do.

There's no "political interference" in the study of "gun deaths."

The CDC does not compile statistics on hunting, recreational gun use, etc. So are you going to call on Congress to limit or ban the DoT from compiling information on drunk driving?

 

[2aguy]

The problem is PEOPLE, and NOT guns. The gun industry is an important and vital industry.

What was that about you not being a gun nut again?

No, guy, the gun industry is not vital.

The gun industry costs America 33,000 lives, 78,000 injuries and 229 BILLION in expenses every year.

Every other industrialized country has figured this out and only limited gun ownership to those with valid needs.

The gun industry didn't cost any lives…..democrat policies have though

bill clinton says that guns stop violent crime 1.5 million times a year.

Criminals use guns to murder people in 2014….8,124 times.

Which number is bigger.

Suicide with guns is not an issue because another 19,000 Americans commit suicide without guns….so the people who used guns…will simply use what the other 19,000 used.

And Japan, South Korea, and China have 0 access to guns….and 2 times the suicide rate we have...

People are being so knee-jerk reactive to any discussion involving guns and research and violence.

The issue of suicide is one example. It's not an issue of numbers per se and the claim isn't that gun ownership directly correlates with suicide rates. But research has shown 51% of suicide deaths are by firearm. Frequently, it's impulsive and if the person can hang in there for a few more days, the urge may pass or they may get help. One reason behind legislation for mandatory waiting times was to address this. A person who feels suicidal, decides to go out and get a gun, but if he has to wait 48 hrs, he may no longer feel he needs to kill himself or take it out on others.

Sorry…cultures with 0 gun ownership have more suicides than we do….and 19,000 people commit suicide in the U.S. and don't use a gun to do it. The most popular method of suicide around the world is hanging……..

Not across the board they don't. Some have hire rates, some lower - the only thing it shows is that there is not a strong correlation between gun ownership and suicides and most likely there are stronger factors involved such as culture and availability of help. However research does break down suicide by method and in the US 51% are by gun. When you look at that, it would be rational to do some research and see if there is any way to reduce it, such as waiting periods. Same with certain types of gun violence that involve impulse and anger. Why keep denying it? People seem to see this as an all or nothing - you either confiscate guns or have no restrictions, when it's not.

21,000 by gun, 19,000 by other means….so..do you want a waiting period on razors, rope, and pills….and how do you create a waiting period for trains and tall buildings?

For anti gun extremists it is an all or nothing…they want guns banned…and they can't get that now so they will settle for nickel and diming with gun laws that slowly restrict normal people from getting guns…while doing nothing to stop suicides, mass shootings or other gun crime.

 

[2aguy]

The fact remains, gun violence is a relative nonissue in this country.
The "white" progressives look the other way with black on black crime, their outrage is always selective.

Our commander in chief and his loopy wife need to look to their own back yard(Chicago) for the highest crime rate in the country.

Hashtag we have an dumb a$$ president

Gun violence isn't a "relative nonissue" - what gives you that idea?

Really? 9000 murders a year out of 320 million people is not a big problem.

This is from 2010 but I doubt there've been huge changes in 5 years: Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

<<<<<APPEAL TO EMOTION SNIPPED>>>>>​

The whole "Gun Violence" argument = tautology. The entire "gun violence" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--a problem that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

Your entire argument is a strawman. I'm not arguing for "removing guns" - I'm arguing for more information so rational decisions can be made rather than prohibiting research.

For example - gun violence is a real issue, given the numbers referenced. It breaks down into different categories. One is unintentional shootings and a particular category involving children. What can research show you? Maybe that legislation requiring devices such as trigger locks might help reduce this. For comparison, look at drownings. How can you help reduce drowings? One community was situated in a region with a lot of lakes and drowning rates were a concern. In particular they had a large Somali immigrant population who's female population never learned to swim because of their cultural background. They worked with the local Y to create a program for these girls to teach them how to swim. Problem solved (or at least improved) - but if they had been prevented from researching the problem, nothing would have changed.

What gun control laws do you claim I advocate?

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can both include violence that was not caused by guns; and exclude violence caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

We have categories for knife attacks, drunk driving, rape, assault without a deadly weapon, assault in general, etc. What is so sacred about violence with guns that makes it exempt from examination? Looking at mortality alone - I suspect violence with guns has a far higher death rate than other forms but you want all references to it squashed.

"Gun Violence"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

Or...perhaps this is just your method of making sure the issues never see the light of day.

There were 69 accidental gun deaths for children in 2013…..out of a country of over 320 million people.


Gun safety classes in grade schools would save lives…..anti gunners oppose them. Trigger lock studies have shown they do not reduce any of the rates for any of the issues..studies have already been done on that…look them up.

What would you say about people in the Somali community who refused to allow swimming lessons? Then you have to say the same thing about anti gun extremists who fight gun safety education in grade schools….right?

 

[LOki]

The fact remains, gun violence is a relative nonissue in this country.
The "white" progressives look the other way with black on black crime, their outrage is always selective.

Our commander in chief and his loopy wife need to look to their own back yard(Chicago) for the highest crime rate in the country.

Hashtag we have an dumb a$$ president

Gun violence isn't a "relative nonissue" - what gives you that idea?

Really? 9000 murders a year out of 320 million people is not a big problem.

This is from 2010 but I doubt there've been huge changes in 5 years: Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

<<<<<APPEAL TO EMOTION SNIPPED>>>>>​

The whole "Gun Violence" argument = tautology. The entire "gun violence" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--a problem that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

Your entire argument is a strawman.

No it's not.

<<<ENTIRE POINT PREMISED UPON THE BULLSHIT TAUTOLOGY IDENTIFIED, SNIPPED IN THE INTEREST OF BREVITY AND SANITY>>>​

Nobody's prohibiting reasearch. That's just not happening.

Look Pumpkin: I understand if you don't like guns. I understand if you don't know about guns. Really, I do. Your point is invalid, for obvious reasons.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can both include violence that was not caused by guns; and exclude violence caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

We have categories for knife attacks, drunk driving, rape, assault without a deadly weapon, assault in general, etc. What is so sacred about violence with guns that makes it exempt from examination?

Nothing. It is NOT special. It doesn't deserve special exemption, and doesn't deserve special attention.

There's nothing sacred (or profane) about it. That's my point.

BUT...when you make "gun violence" special for the express purpose of supporting your conclusion...when you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can both include violence that was not caused by guns; and exclude violence caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

Do you get it now? NO ONE HAS EVER disputed the assertion that guns are involved in "gun violence."

NO ONE!

Do we need ONE MORE study to tell us that? REALLY?!?!?!

Can we now stop making it so special?

Because there are BOATLOADS of studies, with BOATLOADS of objective data, that CLEARLY demonstrate that there is ZERO causal relation between guns and violence.

Guns are clearly and irrefutably NOT the cause of any kind of violence. They DON'T cause it.

Can we now focus instead upon the ACTUAL causes of violence? Is THAT too much to ask?

Looking at mortality alone - I suspect violence with guns has a far higher death rate than other forms but you want all references to it squashed.

No one wants it squashed. That's pure bullshit right there. 100%

The subject of the relative (and absolute) effectiveness of firearms has been fully explored already by people and organizations FAR MORE qualified to do so than the CDC--and they're still doing it..... without ANY "political resistance."

And still NO ONE disputes the effectiveness of firearms.

Do we still need ONE MORE study to tell us that? REALLY?!?!?!

Can we now focus instead upon the ACTUAL causes of violence? Is THAT too much to ask?

"Gun Violence"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

Or...perhaps this is just your method of making sure the issues never see the light of day.

Nonsense.

"Gun Violence" is the smoke screen that prevents us from examining the ACTUAL causes of violence... it is YOUR "method of making sure the issues never see the light of day."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't think banning guns has much, if any, effect on suicide rates: World suicide rates by country

Look at the countries listed with the highest rates: Japan, South Korea, Finland, Belgium....

The fact remains, gun violence is a relative nonissue in this country.
The "white" progressives look the other way with black on black crime, their outrage is always selective.

Our commander in chief and his loopy wife need to look to their own back yard(Chicago) for the highest crime rate in the country.

Hashtag we have an dumb a$$ president

Gun violence isn't a "relative nonissue" - what gives you that idea?

Really? 9000 murders a year out of 320 million people is not a big problem.

This is from 2010 but I doubt there've been huge changes in 5 years: Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

In 2010:

31,076 Americans died in gun-related homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.
73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

For comparison:
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

In 2010, there were also 13,365 drunk driving fatalities and 32 fatal dog attacks.

Yet deaths by guns is "insignificant" and dog bites and drunk driving are studied without political interference.

Counting suicides again I see.

 

[JoeB131]

Fact 1: Just get rid of the people who have an over-developed sense of entitlement to use violence against their fellows: problem solved.

Fact 2: Just get rid of guns: problem remains.

The "gun problem" is a problem only for who have an over-developed sense of entitlement to use violence against their fellows; guns are a problem that only the criminally violent have to overcome... for OBVIOUS reasons.

Since you guys can't seem to find a way to keep guns away from these people with "overdeveloped senses of entitlement" (probably because the gun industry markets to them to keep the rest of you pissing your pants and wanting guns, too), then the only solution is to just take guns from everyone.

You can NOT regulate guns, it's impossible to enforce anti-gun laws. You can NOT legislate guns away. You can NOT go door to door and collect all of the guns. ONE MORE TIME FOR YOUR BENEFIT: Anyone that wants a gun, can get their hands on a gun. The bad guys are not going to turn their guns in to law enforcement. You can NOT stop guns from crossing our borders. You can not stop guns from being sold on the black market.

except England, Australia, Germany, Japan, Italy, France and Canada have done EXACTLY that. They've regulated guns and they have a fraction of our crime rates.

Next dumb Gun Nut Argument?

So, the bottom line is, if we're to be concerned about deaths due to the use of guns, then we should spend our time, energy, and resources on the root cause, which is PEOPLE. Even if you get rid of guns, the bad guys will figure out other ways to do their dirty work. Evil always find ways to do evil.

Yes they do a lot less evil in Germany, where despite having a decent amount of gun ownership- about one gun for every five citizens - they only had 258 gun homicides last year compared to our 11,000. Now why is that?

Well, to start with, Gun Ownership in Germany is not considered a "Right". You have to get a license. You have to get a thorough background check. You have to demonstrate a good reason why you need a gun.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry…he commissioned a study to refute Dr. Gary Kleck's study on defensive gun use…he had the Department of Justice hire two rabid anti gunners to create a study to directly show that Kleck was wrong…..they executed the study….and found that guns were used by Americans 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives…...

He did nothing of the source.

Kleck has been debunked by so many sources that no one outside the Gun Nut Fever Swamps cites him. His methodology was so flawed it was laughable.

 

[JoeB131]

Dipstick……..lanza, mercer and holmes either passed all the current gun laws to get their guns or lanza who killed to get his guns…but still could have passed all the gun laws on his own….

Then the gun laws are tight enough.

Kind of like when a burglar breaks into your house, (when you aren't home, of course, failing to meet your wank fantasies of shooting a darkie) you don't say, "Well, I had a door!"

Nope. You get a BETTER door. You maybe buy an alarm system. YOu check the windows. You maybe organize a neighborhood watch.

You don't shrug your shoulders and say, "Shit happens".

Point was, these are people who never, ever should have had guns and no one else in their homes should have had one, either.

In the case of Mercer and Lanza, they had mothers who were stockpiling weapons like the Zombie Apocalypse was going to break out.

Simple solution to that. You can only own one gun. If you want to have a second gun, that's a much higher level of scrutiny.

 

[LOki]

Fact 1: Just get rid of the people who have an over-developed sense of entitlement to use violence against their fellows: problem solved.

Fact 2: Just get rid of guns: problem remains.

The "gun problem" is a problem only for who have an over-developed sense of entitlement to use violence against their fellows; guns are a problem that only the criminally violent have to overcome... for OBVIOUS reasons.

Since you guys can't seem to find a way to keep guns away from these people with "overdeveloped senses of entitlement"...

"You guys..."? You mean, folks like me? You mean, thoughtful rational folks who are interested in, and in favor of, effective means of keeping implements of murder out of the hands of criminally violent sociopaths and psychopaths? Your problem is with us?

So, I take it then that you'd rather look to the irrational hand-wringers whose notions are informed by their self-manufactured superstitious hysteria?

Interesting. Tell me more about that.

(probably because the gun industry markets to them to keep the rest of you pissing your pants and wanting guns, too),...

Ah, That's projection right there, Pumpkin. I understand where you're coming from now.

...then the only solution is to just take guns from everyone.

But you're not proposing that solution, are you, Princess? You're proposing concentrating gun ownership in the hands of the politically privileged elite. Right?

You literally have NO INTEREST in keeping guns out of the hands of of criminally violent sociopaths and psychopaths. You're interested in keeping guns from everyone else.

You are transparent. Your reasoning is obvious.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What are they afraid of? Is the CDC barred from scientifically examining any other causes of death? Why this?

Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violenc

In the immediate aftermath of the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee quietly rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the underlying causes of gun violence.

Dr. Fred Rivara, a professor of Pediatrics and Epidemiology at the University of Washington at Seattle Children's Hospital, has been involved with injury research for 30 years. He was part of a team that researched gun violence back in the 1990s and personally saw the chilling effects of the NRA’s lobbying arm. Rivara says that the NRA accused the CDC of trying to use science to promote gun control.

“As a result of that, many, many people stopped doing gun research, [and] the number of publications on firearm violence decreased dramatically," he told The Takeaway in April. "It was really chilling in terms of our ability to conduct research on this very important problem.”

In 2013, some 34,000 Americans died from gunshot wounds. So Takeaway Washington Correspondent Todd Zwillich decided to ask House Speaker John Boehner why his party is trying to block research on gun violence.

“The CDC is there to look at diseases that need to be dealt with to protect public health,” Boehner said at a press conference last week. “I’m sorry, but a gun is not a disease. Guns don’t kill people — people do. And when people use weapons in a horrible way, we should condemn the actions of the individual and not blame the action on some weapon.”

But does the CDC research blame the public health issue of gun violence on the weapons themselves?

“The original concern from the National Rifle Association back in 1996, which Dr. Rivara mentioned, made that very implication,” says Zwillich. “The NRA complained to Congress that the CDC was using the results of its research to essentially advocate for gun control. They called it propaganda. And back at that time, Congress slashed the CDC’s funding by the exact amount that was used for gun-related public health research.”

Rivara and his team discovered that having a gun in the home is associated with a threefold increase in the risk of a homicide — they released this information in a series of peer-reviewed articles that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. The CDC both funded Rivara’s original research and stood by the findings.

But after Congress seemingly retaliated against the CDC for publishing Rivara’s findings, Zwillich says researchers with the agency have shied away from conducting gun research.

Gun violence isn't a disease.

 

[LOki]

Sorry…he commissioned a study to refute Dr. Gary Kleck's study on defensive gun use…he had the Department of Justice hire two rabid anti gunners to create a study to directly show that Kleck was wrong…..they executed the study….and found that guns were used by Americans 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives…...

He did nothing of the source.

Kleck has been debunked by so many sources that no one outside the Gun Nut Fever Swamps cites him. His methodology was so flawed it was laughable.

Let's say we accept your ridiculous assertion that "...Kleck has been debunked...", what you fail to grasp in your total ignorance of all things related to this subject is that the study that 2aguy is citing was also conducted with David Hemenway; who apparently had no problem with the design or execution of the study... until it's obvious conclusions failed to support his prejudice against gun ownership.

Sorry about your luck.

 

[LOki]

Dipstick……..lanza, mercer and holmes either passed all the current gun laws to get their guns or lanza who killed to get his guns…but still could have passed all the gun laws on his own….

Then the gun laws are tight enough.

Kind of like when a burglar breaks into your house, (when you aren't home, of course, failing to meet your wank fantasies of shooting a darkie) you don't say, "Well, I had a door!"

Nope. You get a BETTER door. You maybe buy an alarm system. YOu check the windows. You maybe organize a neighborhood watch.

You don't shrug your shoulders and say, "Shit happens".

Point was, these are people who never, ever should have had guns...

This is a point that's NOT in contention.

...and no one else in their homes should have had one, either.

Perhaps those people should not be out in public at all.

While I understand why it is acceptable that the mentally/and emotionally dangerous should not have access to guns, I fail to understand why we should tolerate them having access to EVERYTHING ELSE they could use to effect their murderous plans.

Why is that OK? Explain that to me.

In the case of Mercer and Lanza, they had mothers who were stockpiling weapons like the Zombie Apocalypse was going to break out.

Not relevant.

Simple solution to that. You can only own one gun. If you want to have a second gun, that's a much higher level of scrutiny.

That's a solution to no problem that exists.

 

[Rustic]

Fact 1: Just get rid of the people who have an over-developed sense of entitlement to use violence against their fellows: problem solved.

Fact 2: Just get rid of guns: problem remains.

The "gun problem" is a problem only for who have an over-developed sense of entitlement to use violence against their fellows; guns are a problem that only the criminally violent have to overcome... for OBVIOUS reasons.

Since you guys can't seem to find a way to keep guns away from these people with "overdeveloped senses of entitlement" (probably because the gun industry markets to them to keep the rest of you pissing your pants and wanting guns, too), then the only solution is to just take guns from everyone.

You can NOT regulate guns, it's impossible to enforce anti-gun laws. You can NOT legislate guns away. You can NOT go door to door and collect all of the guns. ONE MORE TIME FOR YOUR BENEFIT: Anyone that wants a gun, can get their hands on a gun. The bad guys are not going to turn their guns in to law enforcement. You can NOT stop guns from crossing our borders. You can not stop guns from being sold on the black market.

except England, Australia, Germany, Japan, Italy, France and Canada have done EXACTLY that. They've regulated guns and they have a fraction of our crime rates.

Next dumb Gun Nut Argument?

So, the bottom line is, if we're to be concerned about deaths due to the use of guns, then we should spend our time, energy, and resources on the root cause, which is PEOPLE. Even if you get rid of guns, the bad guys will figure out other ways to do their dirty work. Evil always find ways to do evil.

Yes they do a lot less evil in Germany, where despite having a decent amount of gun ownership- about one gun for every five citizens - they only had 258 gun homicides last year compared to our 11,000. Now why is that?

Well, to start with, Gun Ownership in Germany is not considered a "Right". You have to get a license. You have to get a thorough background check. You have to demonstrate a good reason why you need a gun.

Fraction of the population too...
Taking the guns away is an dilusional thought to start with.
Wanting a gun is reason good enough.

Guns are here to stay.... Bed wetter