If I remember correctly, legislation.Why can't the CDC just say , fuck the NRA, we are conducting this study regardless of what they think? What else is going on that is impairing the CDC from conducting this study?
If I remember correctly, legislation.Why can't the CDC just say , fuck the NRA, we are conducting this study regardless of what they think? What else is going on that is impairing the CDC from conducting this study?
So your position is also to make million of people criminals? Because I'm not going to give up my pistol. You'll have an interesting civil war on your hands, though. Also, Chicago is a terrible example given its history as one of the most strict cities in America regarding gun control, and yet here we are.
No not render them criminals, of course not. Rather a procedure to outlaw many types of guns, collect them, and registration and strict approval moving forwards.
Chicago itself may have strict gun laws but a person can pop over a few hours in either direction and acquire guns, and it's trivial to resell them (hence why it's so easy to acquire them).
And civil war? That seems sensational. We're not the Wild West.
Yes, freedom of speech has toppled in Australia.
I think that's how the poem goes.
First they came for the guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a gun.
Then civil war happened.
Constitutional law protection. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression.
How exactly do you expect people to hand in them firearms they were gifted from their family because the law says so? That is the most un-American thing I've heard in a long time. You expect people to just follow this law? Despite the massive evidence that such prohibitions do not work as seen with alcohol and the drug war? "No not render them criminals." Are you naive? That's exactly how it works. If you outlaw guns anyone with a gun is made a criminal. I'd rather be a criminal and own my gun for my own safety than give mine up for doing jack shit.
Won't cause a civil war? Sensational? Are you really American? You expect Americans to just turn in their guns and that's that. A country that not only fought the British and won, but also fought over slavery and won? Dude, you're going to go to war if you do that, and for your sake I hope you know how to shoot in your dream scenario.
Because the last time anyone tried that, they lost their funding.Why can't the CDC just say , fuck the NRA, we are conducting this study regardless of what they think? What else is going on that is impairing the CDC from conducting this study?
So long as no research can be done, no new reasonable legislation will be agreed to.The National Institute of Justice, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, funded 32 gun-related studies from 1993 to 1999, but none from 2009 to 2012, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The institute then resumed funding in 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting the year before. Researchers in search of private funding say they know to avoid the word "gun" or "firearm" in the titles of violence-prevention studies to avoid blowback.
And what massive evidence do you cite? Because last I checked massive gun deaths and mass shootings aren't a problem in other first world nations with responsible gun control laws.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.
We can cool it with the generalizations that don't add to the discussion, either.
Racist
Even though Australia's gun ownership is increasing. The average Aussie gun owner is so much smarter than an average American gun owner.
I'm sorry but I am not seeing your point or reference. It's just taking me to the top of this page.
Country: American
Political affiliation: Libertarian-socialist
Stance: Pro-gun w/ caveats
Reasoning: I am pro-gun for many reasons.
1. First reason it historical: I'm very skeptical of any American who demands certain rights be taken away and unfortunately for many anti-gunners, guns are a right in America and a right means something that cannot be taken away. I'm skeptical when fellow American's suggest limiting freedoms because any time that happens it's often done with ulterior motives usually in the form of removing rights from minorities. As seen in California already, many anti-gun laws are made to limit the poor from having access to firearms they need for self defense. In many ways, anti-gun laws are usually anti-minority or anti-poor laws that force citizens to have political connections in order to defend themselves. This good ol' fashioned racism and classism is outright applauded as "common sense gun control" as the LAPD - that is known world-wide for its corruption - is allowed to limit LA citizens' American right to arm themselves.
Which is funny given that the same people who are often in favor of gun control are also anti-police. I know many, many here who are anti-police or at least admit that we have a problem with police violence and negligence police work and yet at the same time argue that they (as well as the military) are the only people who should be granted gun rights in America. I truly think such people are naive and have not thought about gun control arguments properly and also lack the foresight to acknowledge that sometimes it's necessary to use force on the police. If one can contend that America's police are corrupt, then they cannot argue under any reasonable circumstances for the banning of guns without major sweeping police reform happening at the same time. Currently, many anti-gunners perfect image of a respectable gun owner is a rich, white man. This includes the police. This bothers me. What bothers me even more is how so many people who admit there's a police problem dare ask to us fully place trust into the American law system absence of history, whether past or present.
2. Continuing, it's really hard for me to take seriously the anti-gun arguments that come outside of America. A lot of times it's from Commonwealth countries. Stuff like that. Unfortunately, these people always argue outside the context of American history, especially Commonwealth countries. America is a county that won its freedom from the most powerful nation on Earth at the time (with the assistance of the French of course), and it's often ignored in these arguments how that conceit will shape a nation. Due to our state being established by rebels, we have an inherent distrust of government and many government institutions. Even more liberal minded folks don't trust the aforementioned police, military, congress, what have you. This is entrenched. This is relevant because a country that doesn't trust government - at least, not fully - won't ever make firearms illegal. Which brings up my next point: many anti-gun politicians routinely talk about how dangerous guns and how we have a gun problem. You see some who are outright on a crusade to make guns as illegal as possible, yet these same people employ bodyguards who armed. That's a red flag. As mentioned, Americans distrust government. All of us. So why exactly are the most prominent anti-gun politicians fine with armed bodyguards? Are they going to tell their bodyguards not to have a firearm? You may scoff at this question, but it raises a very important point: who exactly is guaranteed gun rights in America if they become as regulated as some people want them to be? In America, we have rights for all citizens. Or at least, that's the intention in our great project. But if a politician demands that Joe Schmoe shouldn't be allowed access to firearm license to carry despite being a law abiding citizen but their bodyguards are aren't they in a way, nobility? By establishing that only police and military can carry, politicians will have armed guards, deeming themselves more important than the rest of us. They already do it regarding the financial industry and economy, do you doubt they wouldn't use a little leeway to protect themselves? If so, why are they deemed more important? Does this not go against the very principles of how this nation was birthed? See, that's why it's hard to take non-American's seriously in this debate because this is one very important cultural point they lack, and makes the American's who decry Trump's government as being fascist while in the same breath bitching about how we need to get rid of guns childish. If Trump is as fascist and evil as liberals say his administration is, they would not be in favor of trusting the state to take away guns. Which is it, liberals?
3. Gun ownership is soaring; gun crime is falling heavily. Even in Department of Justice data compiled by the Obama administration. Despite the awful shootings going on, gun crime is actually falling heavily. These shootings are most definitely a problem and an evil and should be stopped. But often times, the arguments in favor for gun regulation are done in a way that doesn't even stop gun crime and are emotional to a fault, which makes it even harder to pass sensible gun laws. Basing gun control off of mass shootings is delusional and inane as they are a small sliver of actual gun crime in the USA and hurt to harm the very cause they hope to achieve.
4. As a black trans woman I feel it is my duty to protect myself. People argue I could use pepper spray or a knife. I train the martial art Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, even. And yet none of these make me feel as safe as a gun. In this debate, it's often forgotten how much firearms gave minorities in America a real means of protection and a wall of defense. This is without the need to say that most victims of gun violence are black and male, and we have very real ways of countering that without getting rid of guns completely as studies and research have shown.
5. That said, something needs to be done. What could help is following urban crime data that is used to make young vulnerable men in gang zones disarm. Making sure elderly (especially white) men are given better care to prevent suicide.
A couple of links for those who want to read more sources to help understand context and history:
Five Thirty Eight - Mass Shootings Are A Bad Way To Understand Gun Violence
Five Thirty Eight - Cities have made great strides in reducing murders of young men. The next step will be much harder
Amazon - This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible
Colorlines - Gun Control Advocates Cannot Win Without Fighting Their Own Racism
Reason.com - Automatic Weapons Are Already Heavily Regulated and Gun Control Laws Don't Work
Washington Post - I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise
It's one of the reasons I think we should be focused on restarting research, as well as increasing reliability of reporting, and improving the mechanisms behind existing laws. Right now the background checks are nearly useless, because reporting on mental illness and domestic abuse is spotty, partly due to technical issues, but also because such reporting isn't always mandatory. We could do a lot with the existing laws via better enforcement and more oversight, but that's not particularly sexy, and it runs into some of the same obstinacy you see when people suggest more radical measures.The whole CDC thing is enough to convince me that nobody arguing for gun ownership on the national level is doing so in good faith. It proves that we're at the level where a reasonable dialogue is impossible.
I disagree. I think we can get a fair compromise where both sides will get a few things they want. Unfortunately you have a gun lobby that has a very large stranglehold on our government.The whole CDC thing is enough to convince me that nobody arguing for gun ownership on the national level is doing so in good faith. It proves that we're at the level where a reasonable dialogue is impossible.
Oh yeah, that's what blocking it. The gun lobby is the whole problem. But when one side managed to ban anyone from even looking into the problem? Like that sounds like a bad joke. Can't move forward until that stuff goes away.I disagree. I think we can get a fair compromise where both sides will get a few things they want. Unfortunately you have a gun lobby that has a very large stranglehold on our government.
The whole CDC thing is enough to convince me that nobody arguing for gun ownership on the national level is doing so in good faith. It proves that we're at the level where a reasonable dialogue is impossible.
is there a realistic argument for gun ownership past hobby/tradition?
Hunting, self-defense, varmint removal. Can't think of anything that warrants semi-automatic rifles, though.is there a realistic argument for gun ownership past hobby/tradition?
The whole CDC thing is enough to convince me that nobody arguing for gun ownership on the national level is doing so in good faith. It proves that we're at the level where a reasonable dialogue is impossible.
i considered these, but i consider hunting a hobby, and there are better means of self defense, and PROBABLY(?) other ways to get rid of crittersHunting, self-defense, varmint removal. Can't think of anything that warrants semi-automatic rifles, though.
This Washington Post article written by a FiveThirtyEight writer and statistician puts forth interesting points about being when thinking about solutions to gun violence:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.7e1fe8cb1cbf
The article gets a little off topic and talks about suicides and gang violence (which incidentally makes up the majority of gun violence), but the more interesting point is how a more acute approach, namely laws which protect specific and common victims of gun violence, project as being more effective than broad restrictions. Ultimately, the article argues the solution to curbing mass shootings starts with protecting potential victims and identifying and reforming potential shooters.
The research is very clear: more guns mean more gun deaths
Going back to the Washington Post op-ed, Libresco argues that her research proved her initial bias — that gun control works — wrong.
But there have been much more thorough statistical analyses than what Libresco published at FiveThirtyEight or wrote about in the Washington Post. They all point to one fact: Gun control does work to save lives.
Last year, researchers from around the country reviewed more than 130 studies from 10 countries on gun control for Epidemiologic Reviews. This is, for now, the most current, extensive review of the research on the effects of gun control. The findings were clear: "The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths."
And like others have said, CDC research would go a long way to finding out how exactly we could make America safer from gun violence.
this highlights something worth noting: republicans only "oppose" gun control when it's convenient for them to do so (e.g. when minorities aren't wielding them). the mulford act is a good example of this
That reminds me: There was a black woman who threatened her husband with a handgun. Despite only shooting warning shots she was sentenced to something like 20 years in jail. This despite the fact that the state had "Stand Your Ground" laws.
It's pretty self-evident in my opinion there could be no way gun rights could be used in a manner that protects civil rights. Black people will just be branded thugs, muslims will be branded terrorists, and will be either punished or disarmed unfairly. White people however, especial when it comes to the police, will be allowed to kill minorities with a high degree of impunity.
this highlights something worth noting: republicans only endorse gun ownership when it's convenient for them to do so (e.g. when minorities aren't the ones in possession of them). the mulford act is a good example of this mentality in action
Responsible? Mass shootings are out of control in this country, doing nothing is what's irresponsible.
That reminds me: There was a black woman who threatened her husband with a handgun. Despite only shooting warning shots she was sentenced to something like 20 years in jail. This despite the fact that the state had "Stand Your Ground" laws.
It's pretty self-evident in my opinion there could be no way gun rights could be used in a manner that protects civil rights. Black people will just be branded thugs, muslims will be branded terrorists, and will be either punished or disarmed unfairly. White people however, especial when it comes to the police, will be allowed to kill minorities with a high degree of impunity.
Hell, I'm a Canadian gun owner, and I find America's fetish for guns to be really creepy. Like that it's a basic human right to have access to arms, valuing this over things like access to health care or education is super messed up.
Yeah I didn't bother covering prohibited because you had to be alive in the 70s to get that licenseDon't forget about prohibited and I totally agree about the weird rules the RCMP comes up with.
Yeah I didn't bother covering prohibited because you had to be alive in the 70s to get that license
Oh, I could be wrong. I haven't really researched it.Damn have I been totally wrong about how this class works. I won't be able to inherit some of my fathers prohibited guns in this case? I was told that there was a transfer process with direct blood relations.
Responsible? Mass shootings are out of control in this country, doing nothing is what's irresponsible.
Responsible? Mass shootings are out of control in this country, doing nothing is what's irresponsible.
And Democrats will to take guns away from the people they also say are the most vulnerable. Both parties are full of shit on this issue.
Guns are meant to be used for defense when you consider your life in immediate danger. If you're firing warning shots, then you're obviously not in a life or death situation. Same goes for purposely wounding. While I feel for her situation, I've read many progun sites suggest against this as a general rule for this very reason. I don't see the race angle in this particular story as any shooter I know would advise against firing warning shots whether white or black. It's well known that it's a big mistake. This isn't even considering the safety element of where those shots end up. I'm black myself, but I just don't see it the way you do.
I'm seeing a lot of rote talking points from the opposite ends of the POV here, and I think this discussion could do with more thoughtful discussion and less sensationalism. Less arguing the extremes, more on measured responses.
No, I'm with you. Like I said, for the most part I think the thread is going decently enough.With respect, Hecht, I think we are slowly getting there - only the one doomsday poster, and some pretty broad consensus over the impracticability of outright ban. I'm aiming to summarise at the end of each day (UK time), and hope it'll steer in sane directions. Probably take a week or so to settle into focus (if we last that long). Generally I'm quite heartened by most of the longer posts.
No one in the government is seriously considering a ban on guns.Taking guns away from people in the US is how you end up with an armed insurrection of the God & Guns populace of middle America. There are extremist militias all over the country foaming at the mouth for a chance to play soldier and kick off a violent uprising and the federal government is well aware.
That's just patently absurd. One party actually cares for minority rights and the other doesn't.
To be honest, I think you are suffering from the delusion that self-defense is a common thing. It isn't. There are less than 2000 cases of armed self-defense per year versus 13,000 homicides and 33k total gun deaths. Even then many of those cases the defender was not in truly deadly danger (common example: stopping a burglary where the burglar probably shot second).
Genuinely curious what you mean here. Reading the article I can see the argument for a woman wanting to own a gun, but I'm missing the point where you mean that the Democratic party is actively trying to stop minorities (and I assume you are including women in this discussion) from owning them? I mean, for instance it was Reagan that signed the Mulford Act.One party cares so much they went into a winnable election while riding on minority votes without putting in work, while operating on a platform of our freedoms, loses it, and makes it harder because of their myopic arrogance. They don't care about minority rights as much as they care about minority votes. Just like how they actively profess wanting to protect minorities but are the first to strip us our means of self defense.
https://www.gq.com/story/why-women-own-guns