Gun Control

Zascar · 03-10-2015 1:37am #1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wHrpspY9xI

Shocking words from a visibly angry Obama - on the recent mass shooting in Oregan. He's brought this up several times but they cant seem to do anything about it. The 45th of its kind in a school this YEAR, and the 944th mass shooting in 3 years. Just think of the Trillions that are spent on saving lives from Terrorism - and next to nothing can be done about Gun Control. It's absolutely sickening that such a huge part of the population deny that Gun Control will even help to is not the answer. Even reading online today on various facebook and reddit threads - the gun nuts are out in force to proclaim that there is nothing you can do as "Guns don't kill people, people do" or the truly idiotic "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"...

If you'd like to hear a lighter side of it, this Australian comedian Jim Jefferies nails the argument perfectly imo.

I'm not anti gun - lots of people I know have guns and I've done clay pigeon and target shooting loads of times. However I think there should be stringent processes if you do want to get a gun to - and they really need to close that gun show loophole.

Overheal · 03-10-2015 2:06am

Thank you for starting this.

I genuinely think some people won't be happy unless there are so many guns everywhere that 'no shooter could ever get away with it' and the entire country is one big mexican standoff. Personally, I don't think Mutally Assured Destruction should loom over our heads day in day out.

Recently my father was jailed for attempted murder, after he and my brother got into a drunken verbal disagreement, and my father not being a man very good with his words, clearly felt the gun should shoulder his first amendment rights.

I don't see the harm in exploring all avenues of the mass killing crisis in our country. I don't think anyone is going to ban guns (see my facebook comments). But we have a serious problem.

Those stats the POTUS mentions:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/index.html

Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2004 to 2013, 316,545 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.

According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2004 to 2013 was 277.

In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S.* and found that between 2004 and 2013, there were 36 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism. This brings the total to 313.

For the period of 2001 to 2013, which includes the 9/11 terror attacks, the total of American deaths by terrorism is 3,380.

That's more dead than the Syrian Crisis, and in the entire Mexican Drug War.

walshyn93 · 03-10-2015 2:11am

If Obama is so hopeless about gun control being enacted why doesn't he focus on something worthwhile like increasing mental health awareness and treatment? I've been to America. I saw no civilians with guns, but saw about 5 crazy people a day. He could sort that out, but it's not an election decider so he won't bother his feckin arse.

walshyn93 · 03-10-2015 2:15am

Overheal wrote: »

That's more dead than the Syrian Crisis, and in the entire Mexican Drug War.

If those statistics include suicide then it's pointless to try and apply them to crime reduction policy. Suicide is not a crime so throwing it in is lazy at best and manipulation at worst.

More people will commit suicide with guns in America because they happen to own them so throwing in suicide will contribute a significant amount to those figures.

Let's never mention that over all gun crime (and all crime) has been steadily decreasing since 1993.

Overheal · 03-10-2015 2:22am

walshyn93 wrote: »

If Obama is so hopeless about gun control being enacted why doesn't he focus on something worthwhile like increasing mental health awareness and treatment? I've been to America. I saw no civilians with guns, but saw about 5 crazy people a day. He could sort that out, but it's not an election decider so he won't bother his feckin arse.

Obama is not concerned with "electability" so I don't follow.

I think we'd agree there are other issues at play other than 'guns exist.' But as he says, unless the Congress is forthcoming about actually wanting to explore the issue (a task force or subcomittee) there is not much else for the POTUS to do, the executive branch wouldn't be able to single-handed do much about mental health concerns - much less without relevant data that the congress will need to gather.

walshyn93 wrote: »

If those statistics include suicide then it's pointless to try and apply them to crime reduction policy. Suicide is not a crime so throwing it in is lazy at best and manipulation at worst.

More people will commit suicide with guns in America because they happen to own them so throwing in suicide will contribute a significant amount to those figures.

Let's never mention that over all gun crime (and all crime) has been steadily decreasing since 1993.

So, unless you want to research whether those include suicide related deaths, your entire post is a textbook example of a strawman argument.

walshyn93 · 03-10-2015 2:24am

Overheal wrote: »

So, unless you want to research whether those include suicide related deaths, your entire post is a textbook example of a strawman argument.

They DO contain suicides. It said so in your own post... :rolleyes:

walshyn93 · 03-10-2015 2:27am

Overheal wrote: »

Obama is not concerned with "electability" so I don't follow.

Yeah, you're right. After Obama, no more elections.

Even if he wasn't serving his party's interests he - like virtually everyone - has an ego. He will be remembered by history, and right now he's trying to ensure he's seen in a positive light - true to form - without actually doing anything.

Overheal · 03-10-2015 2:38am

walshyn93 wrote: »

They DO contain suicides. It said so in your own post... :rolleyes:

Didn't cop that, focused on the emboldened digits in the original article, soz

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. After Obama, no more elections.

Even if he wasn't serving his party's interests he - like virtually everyone - has an ego. He will be remembered by history, and right now he's trying to ensure he's seen in a positive light - true to form - without actually doing anything.

I doubt this is why he did it, just to look good or support Hillary? Him and Hillary were never really BFFs even in the best of times.

walshyn93 · 03-10-2015 2:48am

Overheal wrote: »

Didn't cop that, focused on the emboldened digits in the original article, soz
I doubt this is why he did it, just to look good or support Hillary? Him and Hillary were never really BFFs even in the best of times.

That was the whole point of hitting you with those big numbers. Most people don't stop to think where they come from or how they relate to the point.

Well considering it's not going to change anything he can only have done it for those two reasons imo. He certainly wants the dems to beat the reps so regardless of his personal relationships he has every interest in painting the democrats as the saviours and the republicans as the villains. Not only does it help further that political narrative, it also turns him into a giant political figure. In 50 years most people won't remember the fact that he achieved very little in office, they'll remember his speeches, including this one.

What dislike about him isn't his policy positions, it's the fact that his interjections into current events outside of his control (Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, etc.) just fuels hysteria which drives a wedge between those who take a rational approach to public policy and those who buy into it wholesale, making both parties find it harder to communicate and find common ground. He has been a very divisive figure. Someone as intelligent and supposedly good natured as him could have done a huge amount to bring people together. He's the exact opposite of Mandela.

Overheal · 03-10-2015 2:57am

only because people allow him to be. his critics are foaming at the mouth over these latest statements and why? Pretend some androgynous, amorphous blob was president and said the same things.

Manic Moran · 03-10-2015 4:18am

It's not really up to him though, is it? He can only sign legislation which Congress passes and, even though he is not up for re election, the congresscritters certainly are. 1994 was instrumental.

walshyn93 · 03-10-2015 12:49pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not really up to him though, is it? He can only sign legislation which Congress passes and, even though he is not up for re election, the congresscritters certainly are. 1994 was instrumental.

If he wanted to pass any legislation he wouldnt have had Nancy Pelosi chsmpion the bill. She knows nothing about the subject and was totally incompetent. Gun owners wouldn't trust anything with her name on it so it was a non-runner.

The reason Obama won't bring in gun control in his term is because gun control is just one more reason to vote democrat next time round. "Preach reform but never reform too quickly"

BoJack Horseman · 04-10-2015 12:29am

Overheal wrote: »

So, unless you want to research whether those include suicide related deaths.

the CDC (for 2013) puts homicide by firearm at 11,000 people.
Suicide by firearm was 21,000.

Zascar · 04-10-2015 12:50pm

This is a great 3 part piece by John Oliver a few years ago on the daily show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L

walshyn93 · 04-10-2015 2:39pm

Zascar wrote: »

This is a great 3 part piece by John Oliver a few years ago on the daily show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L

Cheap laugh merchant.

Gets on unintelligent activists to lampoon them. He wouldnt have on anyone on who could put him in his place.

josephryan1989 · 04-10-2015 3:10pm

There are literally hundreds of millions of handguns and automatic rifles and hundreds of billions of rounds of ammunition already in circulation.
Any gun laws already in existence are not worth the paper they are written on never mind tighter laws because if people with the guns and ammo will simply refuse to obey the law and the only way to get the guns and ammo off them would be with massive police and military force going house to house.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

The Waco Siege is the classic example.
At one compound a raid by heavily armed federal agents turned into a full scale battle. Guaranteed that would be replicated the length and breadth of the US if the government were dumb enough to implement gun laws.
The US government cannot stop drugs from getting into high security prisons.
Millions of immigrants live illegally in the US because the government is powerless to stop it.
Prostitution, gambling and drugs are massive industries despite being entirely illegal because the government are powerless to stop it.
In the same way criminals and private individuals alike will have little or no trouble getting their hands on weapons, ban or no ban.
There is no way in hell gun laws are going to work in the US.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either willfully ignorant or insane or both.

gar32 · 04-10-2015 3:20pm

Just not selling guns any more would start the reduction needed. A gun hand in for destruction in each town. and on and on way to reduce number of guns until less people are being killed or killing themselves with guns.

Yes people would find other way to kill be I forget the comedian but he put it like this.

" If I gave you a mobile phone. Would you be more likely to make a phone call?"

walshyn93 · 04-10-2015 3:48pm

gar32 wrote: »

Just not selling guns any more would start the reduction needed. A gun hand in for destruction in each town. and on and on way to reduce number of guns until less people are being killed or killing themselves with guns.

Yes people would find other way to kill be I forget the comedian but he put it like this.

" If I gave you a mobile phone. Would you be more likely to make a phone call?"

That would just make the price of guns go up and the amount of gun trafficking and associated criminal activity would sky rocket.

If a phone call could kill people then no. Silly silly comparison.

Just out of interest, what's your opinion on drug prohibition?

josephryan1989 · 04-10-2015 3:54pm

gar32 wrote: »

Just not selling guns any more would start the reduction needed.

Gun sales would continue and the law would be unenforceable.

A gun hand in for destruction in each town

The majority of citizens would not hand in their guns if criminals kept theirs.

and on and on way to reduce number of guns until less people are being killed or killing themselves with guns.

Wishful thinking.

Yes people would find other way to kill be I forget the comedian but he put it like this.

" If I gave you a mobile phone. Would you be more likely to make a phone call?"

Banning booze and drugs were disastrous policies. Banning guns will be the same.

Brian? · 04-10-2015 6:10pm

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Gun sales would continue and the law would be unenforceable.

The majority of citizens would not hand in their guns if criminals kept theirs.

Wishful thinking.

Banning booze and drugs were disastrous policies. Banning guns will be the same.

No one is talking about banning guns. We're talking about common sense gun laws. President Obama doesn't want to ban guns. There's no country in the world where guns are banned to the best of my knowledge.

josephryan1989 · 04-10-2015 6:43pm

Brian? wrote: »

No one is talking about banning guns. We're talking about common sense gun laws. President Obama doesn't want to ban guns. There's no country in the world where guns are banned to the best of my knowledge.

Banning weapons with automatic fire capability or banning weapons with large magazines or banning weapons that fire military caliber full metal jacket ammo is not going to stop mass shootings.
A weapon like the Ruger 10/22 which fires semi-auto and uses .22 long rifle ammo can kill as easily as an AR-15.
Even common sense gun laws are not going to work when there is such a saturation of guns ALREADY.
If you look at the pattern of mass shootings in the US the overwhelming majority of them happen in no-gun zones - like schools and movie theaters etc.
Killers who want to kill people don't like their victims shooting back so they attack places full of people where there are NO guns.
Nutjobs are going to find ways to get guns, law or no law.
The only people laws will prevent from getting their hands on guns are law abiding citizens.
People who are determined to kill will not be stopped by background checks and other procedures because they will circumvent them.
I have news for you - criminals don't obey the law.
Strange but true right?

Manic Moran · 04-10-2015 8:10pm

Brian? wrote: »

No one is talking about banning guns. We're talking about common sense gun laws. President Obama doesn't want to ban guns. There's no country in the world where guns are banned to the best of my knowledge.

Our definition of 'common sense' differs. What's common sense to you in Ireland need not be so to someone in the US, Canada, Czech Republic, Tanzania, Germany, or Taiwan.

Gatling · 04-10-2015 8:35pm

What they need is psych exams for gun owners no point investing in mental health if the NRA are going to defend everyone deemed unfit to hold a firearm/s and insist it's not only criminals who do bad things with guns ,
It's mostly law abiding citizens who go on mass shooting rampages

josephryan1989 · 04-10-2015 8:41pm

Gatling wrote: »

What they need is psych exams for gun owners no point investing in mental health if the NRA are going to defend everyone deemed unfit to hold a firearm/s and insist it's not only criminals who do bad things with guns ,
It's mostly law abiding citizens who go on mass shooting rampages

Psych exams are only going to screen dangerous individuals who agree to take them. They are not going to stop a crazy person from getting an illegal gun.

Manic Moran · 04-10-2015 8:53pm

Gatling wrote: »

What they need is psych exams for gun owners no point investing in mental health if the NRA are going to defend everyone deemed unfit to hold a firearm/s and insist it's not only criminals who do bad things with guns ,

Forgive me, but does not the NRA support the prohibition on the mentally ill from obtaining firearms?

As for psych exams, is there any other nation which requires them as part of a firearms purchasing process? What happens to the liability of a psychologist who, in his best judgement, deems a person fit, only to discover he goes off on a spree shooting a year later anyway?

MadYaker · 04-10-2015 8:59pm

There's no easy solution, America is awash with guns, it's easy to make guns available to anyone, but once it's been done it can't be undone and that is the situation in America now. It's a problem that feeds its self. If you live in America you might feel the need to keep a gun in your house, why? because the chances are if you get burgled the burglar is going to have a gun so you want one to protect yourself and your family. The end result being on average one gun for every man, woman and child in the country. You can implement restrictions but because there is already such an availability of weapons, both illegal and legal, if some lunatic wants a gun he can steal one from a friend or family member, or just buy one legally or illegally.

I see no solution to be honest bar repeal of the 2nd amendment which is impossible. I think Americans are just going to have to put up with these mass killings because it's just part of living in a country with such a huge amount of guns in circulation.

strelok · 04-10-2015 9:00pm

MadYaker wrote: »

I think Americans are just going to have to put up with these mass killings because it's just part of living in a country with such a huge amount of guns in circulation.

except for all the other countries with huge amount of guns in circulation that don't have regular mass killings

MadYaker · 04-10-2015 9:03pm

Does the USA not have the highest level of private of gun ownership in the world?

strelok · 04-10-2015 9:03pm

MadYaker wrote: »

Does the USA not have the highest level of private of gun ownership in the world?

maybe, but unless you can prove that X+1 amount of guns in circulation leads to mass shootings it's not really all that relevant

MadYaker · 04-10-2015 9:07pm

strelok wrote: »

maybe, but unless you can prove that X+1 amount of guns in circulation leads to mass shootings it's not really all that relevant

So you don't believe that the fact that the USA has the highest level of private gun ownership in the world has any relevence in a discussion about the prevelance of mass shootings in that country?

strelok · 04-10-2015 9:10pm

MadYaker wrote: »

So you don't believe that the fact that the USA has the highest level of private gun ownership in the world has any relevence in a discussion about the prevelance of mass shootings in that country?

it would certainly be quite difficult to go on a mass shooting if there were no guns whatsoever in the country, but I certainly don't believe that "having lots of guns" leads directly to "regular mass shootings" as your post suggested

american culture and 24 hour news making heroes out of these men is what drives these killings. if you magic'd all guns out of the us borders tomorrow the next mass killing would involve home made bombs, or mass stabbings or driving a lorry into a preschool. The guns are not the problem here, they are a political distraction by cynical assholes seeking to use tragedy to further their own careers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5U_XD4kDJ4

MadYaker · 04-10-2015 9:26pm

Having lots of guns makes it a lot easier though. I'm not saying guns are the main issue but it's definitely an equal part of the problem. But you do make a good point about the media treatment of these events, it does inspire others no doubt.

Government can't really regulate the media, but they can regulate gun ownership and they can provide services for people with mental health issues to get the help they need, but any attempt to investigate these issues at a federal level with the aim of bringing in legislation is blocked by congress.

Gatling · 04-10-2015 9:33pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Forgive me, but does not the NRA support the prohibition on the mentally ill from obtaining firearms?

As for psych exams, is there any other nation which requires them as part of a firearms purchasing process? What happens to the liability of a psychologist who, in his best judgement, deems a person fit, only to discover he goes off on a spree shooting a year later anyway?

Did the NRA block an study conducted by the cdc relating to gun violence around sandy hook either before or after .
It's aways let's all means prevent criminals getting guns but god forbid you try stop a citizen with no criminal record getting access to firearms the majority of mass shootings have been carried out by people by clean records but just happen to turn up at schools or colleges with rifles and handguns .
Why look at other nations what they do most nations who faced the aftermath of a columbine or even worse Sandy hook would taken decisive action to make sure it didn't happen again ,
What did see after sandy hook gun shop's and gun makers all over America all over social media screaming quick the ban is coming buy buy buy before there all banned in a sick and perverse attempt at making a quick buck and obtaining herodom at the expense of every child ,baby ,mother ,father ,brother ,son killed by some looney tune who had access to cashes of guns and ammunition,

Why shouldn't it be mandatory for mental health checks because nobody else does no other country has regular massacres in schools and colleges,
Instead they crucify any one who publicly states not everyone should have access to guns and ammo .

More guns isn't the solution you cant even go a coffee shop without having some dick with an Ar platform rifle on there back ,a 9mm or 45 and a hunting knife on them .
I've seen it on several occasions in texas and other states and when they see parents with a scared child they sit there with a grin on their faces like there getting a kick out of it ,

There's ways and means to enjoy guns hunting or compition from wild west action to one of my personal favourites 3 gun ,

I'm a firearm fan (only I can't do the type of shooting here so I'm not going the route of getting a licence ) .

When do you draw the line

walshyn93 · 05-10-2015 2:17am

Gatling wrote: »

Did the NRA block an study conducted by the cdc relating to gun violence around sandy hook either before or after .
It's aways let's all means prevent criminals getting guns but god forbid you try stop a citizen with no criminal record getting access to firearms the majority of mass shootings have been carried out by people by clean records but just happen to turn up at schools or colleges with rifles and handguns .
Why look at other nations what they do most nations who faced the aftermath of a columbine or even worse Sandy hook would taken decisive action to make sure it didn't happen again ,
What did see after sandy hook gun shop's and gun makers all over America all over social media screaming quick the ban is coming buy buy buy before there all banned in a sick and perverse attempt at making a quick buck and obtaining herodom at the expense of every child ,baby ,mother ,father ,brother ,son killed by some looney tune who had access to cashes of guns and ammunition,

Why shouldn't it be mandatory for mental health checks because nobody else does no other country has regular massacres in schools and colleges,
Instead they crucify any one who publicly states not everyone should have access to guns and ammo .

More guns isn't the solution you cant even go a coffee shop without having some dick with an Ar platform rifle on there back ,a 9mm or 45 and a hunting knife on them .
I've seen it on several occasions in texas and other states and when they see parents with a scared child they sit there with a grin on their faces like there getting a kick out of it ,

There's ways and means to enjoy guns hunting or compition from wild west action to one of my personal favourites 3 gun ,

I'm a firearm fan (only I can't do the type of shooting here so I'm not going the route of getting a licence ) .

When do you draw the line

The NRA blocked a study by the CDC? I'd like to see a source because that sounds like the bollocks you find in youtube comment sections.

Gatling · 05-10-2015 8:14am

If only it wasn't Fact

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/245983-gop-panel-votes-to-keep-funding-ban-for-gun-violence-research

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwedel/2015/10/01/congress-still-bans-cdc-scientists-from-studying-gun-violence/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/

walshyn93 · 05-10-2015 11:06am

Gatling wrote: »

If only it wasn't Fact

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/245983-gop-panel-votes-to-keep-funding-ban-for-gun-violence-research

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwedel/2015/10/01/congress-still-bans-cdc-scientists-from-studying-gun-violence/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/

I only read the first but you said NRA, not GOP. The NRA may have used their lobbying power but every bill has its lobbyist backers and opposes.

Manic Moran · 05-10-2015 12:00pm

Gatling wrote: »

If only it wasn't Fact

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/245983-gop-panel-votes-to-keep-funding-ban-for-gun-violence-research

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwedel/2015/10/01/congress-still-bans-cdc-scientists-from-studying-gun-violence/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/

Here's the NRA's position on the matter

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130124/mental-health-and-firearms

Overheal · 05-10-2015 12:29pm

which does nothing to address the majority of mass killings in this country. Tell me, how many mass killers have actually been committed and determined to be mentally unstable?? Neither the Charleston or the Oregon shooter would fall into this filter. What is the problem with finding out more information?

Amerika · 05-10-2015 3:09pm

Once again another tragic shooting and once again goes out the call for more gun control. Since the Newtown shooting, and EVERY mass shooting since, there have been cries to expand background checks and for the banning of the (incorrectly labeled) “assault weapons.” YET, in each case, those greater gun control proposals would have been a non-sequitur in the mass shootings.

In 2011 the number of gun deaths was 32,351. But of that number the CDC reports that 21,175 of them were suicides. Sure sounds like mental illness plays the biggest role. Also, 2,500 were from accidents and unintentional injuries, (and if you didn't know, the NRA provides safety classes and training). So that leaves us with 8,583 intentional killings using guns. It is estimated (based on information provided by convicts) that around 77% of that number represent guns gotten on the black market and from other various illegal methods. So background checks would do nothing to that number. That now leaves us with about 1,974 deaths to speak about. But the majority of those were domestic violence incidents, violence between family members, crimes of passion, and murders committed by the insane. So now we're only left with with around 850 intentional deaths caused by legally purchases guns. So... let's compare that to the nearly 1,700 deaths from those who were stabbed, nearly 500 murdered with blunt objects, and more than 700 beaten to death by somebody with their bare hands. Perhaps we should really be looking at banning knives, blunt objects and fisticuffs.

Overheal · 05-10-2015 3:41pm

In 2011 the number of gun deaths was 32,351. But of that number the CDC reports that 21,175 of them were suicides. Sure sounds like mental illness plays the biggest role.

But we don't know for sure, since Congress blocks the CDC from investigating links between gun ownership and gun violence - including suicides.

Brian? · 05-10-2015 3:48pm

Amerika wrote: »

Once again another tragic shooting and once again goes out the call for more gun control. Since the Newtown shooting, and EVERY mass shooting since, there have been cries to expand background checks and for the banning of the (incorrectly labeled) “assault weapons.” YET, in each case, those greater gun control proposals would have been a non-sequitur in the mass shootings.

In 2011 the number of gun deaths was 32,351. But of that number the CDC reports that 21,175 of them were suicides. Sure sounds like mental illness plays the biggest role. Also, 2,500 were from accidents and unintentional injuries, (and if you didn't know, the NRA provides safety classes and training). So that leaves us with 8,583 intentional killings using guns. It is estimated (based on information provided by convicts) that around 77% of that number represent guns gotten on the black market and from other various illegal methods. So background checks would do nothing to that number. That now leaves us with about 1,974 deaths to speak about. But the majority of those were domestic violence incidents, violence between family members, crimes of passion, and murders committed by the insane. So now we're only left with with around 850 intentional deaths caused by legally purchases guns. So... let's compare that to the nearly 1,700 deaths from those who were stabbed, nearly 500 murdered with blunt objects, and more than 700 beaten to death by somebody with their bare hands. Perhaps we should really be looking at banning knives, blunt objects and fisticuffs.

Here's a few questions: where do the guns on the black market come from? Where do the guns in cities like Chicago and New York come from?

Amerika · 05-10-2015 3:57pm

Brian? wrote: »

Here's a few questions: where do the guns on the black market come from? Where do the guns in cities like Chicago and New York come from?

It is estimated the numbers of legal firearms in the hands of United States civilians at about 310 million. Nearly a 1 for 1 number of guns to population. I’m guessing the majority come from illegally taking from that number, and more gun control would do little to change it. About the only thing that would cause the number to come down would be for the US government for forcibly take away citizens already rightfully owned guns.

Amerika · 05-10-2015 3:59pm

Overheal wrote: »

But we don't know for sure, since Congress blocks the CDC from investigating links between gun ownership and gun violence - including suicides.

The CDC did in 2011, and part of the reason I chose that year.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Overheal · 05-10-2015 4:01pm

No, those numbers do not study gun ownership correlation, such studies have been blocked as far back as 1996.

Amerika · 05-10-2015 4:04pm

Overheal wrote: »

No, those numbers do not study gun ownership correlation, such studies have been blocked as far back as 1996.

Are you saying the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention is lying?

Firearm suicides
Number of deaths: 21,175
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.7

Overheal · 05-10-2015 4:14pm

I'm saying the numbers do not investigate how gun ownership relates to gun violence. The CDC is explicitly banned by congress from investigating that relationship,

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence

video games are also not a disease but the CDC is not politically blocked from linking the two in that case

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/277597-obama-calls-for-cdc-to-study-whether-video-games-are-linked-to-violence-

Brian? · 05-10-2015 4:16pm

Amerika wrote: »

It is estimated the numbers of legal firearms in the hands of United States civilians at about 310 million. Nearly a 1 for 1 number of guns to population. I’m guessing the majority come from illegally taking from that number, and more gun control would do little to change it. About the only thing that would cause the number to come down would be for the US government for forcibly take away citizens already rightfully owned guns.

Any chance you have an answer for what I asked?

Amerika · 05-10-2015 4:29pm

Brian? wrote: »

Any chance you have an answer for what I asked?

I believe I did!

josephryan1989 · 05-10-2015 4:32pm

Amerika wrote: »

It is estimated the numbers of legal firearms in the hands of United States civilians at about 310 million. Nearly a 1 for 1 number of guns to population. I’m guessing the majority come from illegally taking from that number, and more gun control would do little to change it. About the only thing that would cause the number to come down would be for the US government for forcibly take away citizens already rightfully owned guns.

That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Brian? · 05-10-2015 4:43pm

Amerika wrote: »

I believe I did!

You most certainly did not.

Amerika · 05-10-2015 5:01pm

Brian? wrote: »

You most certainly did not.

Then we need to agree to disagree, and nothing more.

Gun Control

Comments