New thread on gun control argument.

[OldWiseGuy]

Would you gun control advocates submit to studying the actual case histories of gun homicides rather than relying solely on statistics in order to reach a conclusion on gun control.

Further would you insist that your congresspersons take the time to review those same case histories instead of relying on their staff to come up with conclusions for them based on the usual statistics alone?

I submit that this is the only way to, as fully as possible, understand the gun issue.

 

[tulc]

You mean studies like this?
http://www.propublica.org/article/republicans-say-no-to-cdc-gun-violence-research

For nearly 20 years, Congress has pushed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to steer clear of firearms violence research. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that traditionally sets CDC funding, Kingston has been in a position to change that. Soon after Sandy Hook, Kingston said he had spoken to the head of the agency. "I think we can find some common ground," Kingston said.

More than a year later, as Kingston competes in a crowded Republican primary race for a U.S. Senate seat, the congressman is no longer talking about common ground.

In a statement to ProPublica, Kingston said he would oppose a proposal from President Obama for $10 million in CDC gun research funding. "The President's request to fund propaganda for his gun-grabbing initiatives through the CDC will not be included in the FY2015 appropriations bill," Kingston said.

Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), the vice chairman of the subcommittee, also "supports the long-standing prohibition of gun control advocacy or promotion funding," his spokeswoman said.

CDC's current funding for gun violence prevention research remains at $0.

tulc(is just curious)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You mean studies like this?
http://www.propublica.org/article/republicans-say-no-to-cdc-gun-violence-research

tulc(is just curious)

Two themes stuck out in the article (which is not a 'study').

"If all we wanted to do was protect the rights of legitimate gun owners, we wouldn't pass any legislation, and if we just wanted to reduce firearm injuries and death, we might say, 'Take all guns out of civilian hands,'" Rosenberg said. "The trick is, we want to do both at the same time, and that requires research." (Although this might be a misstatement.)

"What works to reduce gun violence is to make sure that criminals are prosecuted and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don't have access to firearms," Arulanandam said. "Not to carry out more studies."

This makes sense to me.

 

[PapaZoom]

No because that would solve nothing. Ban alcohol. More people are killed via drunk driving than they are by guns. Hmmmm, maybe a car ban would work?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No because that would solve nothing. Ban alcohol. More people are killed via drunk driving than they are by guns. Hmmmm, maybe a car ban would work?

True. Murder by gunfire is way down the list of causes of premature death of law abiding citizens.

 

[Arcangl86]

No because that would solve nothing. Ban alcohol. More people are killed via drunk driving than they are by guns. Hmmmm, maybe a car ban would work?

Except that's not the case. According to the CDC, roughly the same amount of people die in auto mobile related deaths and gun related deaths, but only about a third of the car deaths are due to DUIs. And it's not really a good comparison either, because when somebody is killed by a car, it's because somebody did something wrong. When somebody gets killed by a gun, it's doing what it is designed to do.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except that's not the case. According to the CDC, roughly the same amount of people die in auto mobile related deaths and gun related deaths, but only about a third of the car deaths are due to DUIs. And it's not really a good comparison either, because when somebody is killed by a car, it's because somebody did something wrong. When somebody gets killed by a gun, it's doing what it is designed to do.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

You gotta leave out the gun suicides and accidental shootings (guns are not designed to accidently shoot someone).

 

[Darkhorse]

Except that's not the case. According to the CDC, roughly the same amount of people die in auto mobile related deaths and gun related deaths, but only about a third of the car deaths are due to DUIs. And it's not really a good comparison either, because when somebody is killed by a car, it's because somebody did something wrong. When somebody gets killed by a gun, it's doing what it is designed to do.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

The "guns are designed to kill" argument is not a legitimate argument against them.

Sometimes killing is the only solution to a legitimate danger.

 

[Arcangl86]

The "guns are designed to kill" argument is not a legitimate argument against them.

Sometimes killing is the only solution to a legitimate danger.

I didn't say that it was a legitimate argument against them. However, it is pertinent when comparing it to other technology that happens to have great utility in other purposes but happen to be dangerous, like an automobile, to something that is designed only for one purpose, which is to kill things.

 

[Darkhorse]

I didn't say that it was a legitimate argument against them. However, it is pertinent when comparing it to other technology that happens to have great utility in other purposes but happen to be dangerous, like an automobile, to something that is designed only for one purpose, which is to kill things.

I think you're not looking at the entire picture. I can (and do) carry a gun when I'm in public, and it's a very safe situation because it remains in the holster. I'm not taking it out and pointing it at people. But if I drive my car 500 miles, I'm "pointing" the car almost directly at oncoming drivers for 8 - 12 hours on a two-way road. A 5-second lapse of attention could result in a fatal head-on collision, while my "dangerous" gun remains safely in its holster.

 

[PapaZoom]

Except that's not the case. According to the CDC, roughly the same amount of people die in auto mobile related deaths and gun related deaths, but only about a third of the car deaths are due to DUIs. And it's not really a good comparison either, because when somebody is killed by a car, it's because somebody did something wrong. When somebody gets killed by a gun, it's doing what it is designed to do.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

Dead is dead. When someone is killed in an auto accident, someone did something wrong for most situations. Regardless, no one ever suggests banning cars or ladders or hammers or whatever. It's the gun's fault in gun crime. The day the liberals fix Chicago gun crime is the day I'll take gun control ideas seriously. The liberals just use gun crime as a political weapon. They don't care about gun deaths. They care about limiting a Constitutional right. And they want votes. They appeal to emotions, not sense.

 

[Arcangl86]

Dead is dead. When someone is killed in an auto accident, someone did something wrong for most situations. Regardless, no one ever suggests banning cars or ladders or hammers or whatever. It's the gun's fault in gun crime. The day the liberals fix Chicago gun crime is the day I'll take gun control ideas seriously. The liberals just use gun crime as a political weapon. They don't care about gun deaths. They care about limiting a Constitutional right. And they want votes. They appeal to emotions, not sense.

And that is the ridiculous comparison always made. Yes those things are dangerous. But they are designed with a purpose that isn't killing things. Guns are designed to kill things from a distance. Killing somebody with one isn't misusing it, but rather using it for the very purpose it is designed for. And really, what indication do you have that liberals don't care about gun deaths?

 

[Reformed Lutheran]

True. Murder by gunfire is way down the list of causes of premature death of law abiding citizens.

It's actually so low on the list in a majority of US states that it barely even registers.. Being murdered by gun is very very very rare way to die in a majority of US states.

More people die of lightning strikes each year around the globe, then there are Americans murdered by a gun.. Maybe the left should ban lightning strikes

 

[PapaZoom]

And that is the ridiculous comparison always made. Yes those things are dangerous. But they are designed with a purpose that isn't killing things. Guns are designed to kill things from a distance. Killing somebody with one isn't misusing it, but rather using it for the very purpose it is designed for. And really, what indication do you have that liberals don't care about gun deaths?

Well just take a look at either Chicago or Detroit. Are gun laws working there? Why is it when there are a multitude of deaths in Chicago it doesn't make the news but when 9 people are killed in a school and everybody goes nuts? This year alone there has been 2,349 shooting victims in Chicago. http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings

Why isn't this the issue instead of these occasional school shootings? Why does it take a school shooting to get people all riled up? In the first half of 2015, 216 people died as a result of gun violence in Chicago. In one day, 8 people were killed in Chicago. But it didn't happen in a school so the media and left wing politicians leave it alone. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-deadly-shootings-20150903-story.html

I'm tired of the politicizing by the left of gun deaths. A new school shooting? You can count on the liberals to exploit the tragedy. A bunch of murders in one day on Chicago's East Side? Business as usual. And silence from the left.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The "guns are designed to kill" argument is not a legitimate argument against them.

It's like saying we should ban steering wheels because they turn tires.

 

[MerlinJ]

I'm tired of the politicizing by the left of gun deaths. A new school shooting? You can count on the liberals to exploit the tragedy. A bunch of murders in one day on Chicago's East Side? Business as usual. And silence from the left.

I don't think it's a political thing. A handful of shootings (not always murders) every day in the 3rd largest city in the U.S. is not comparable to a killing spree, and with 11,000 gun-related homicides every year in the U.S., they're going to report the stories which sell. Look at the top stories for any major news organization. It's unfortunate, especially because the sensationalism probably entices other nutjobs, but that's how they operate.

 

[PapaZoom]

I don't think it's a political thing. A handful of shootings (not always murders) every day in the 3rd largest city in the U.S. is not comparable to a killing spree, and with 11,000 gun-related homicides every year in the U.S., they're going to report the stories which sell. Look at the top stories for any major news organization. It's unfortunate, especially because the sensationalism probably entices other nutjobs, but that's how they operate.

It shouldn't be a political thing but it all too often is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's actually so low on the list in a majority of US states that it barely even registers.. Being murdered by gun is very very very rare way to die in a majority of US states.

More people die of lightning strikes each year around the globe, then there are Americans murdered by a gun.. Maybe the left should ban lightning strikes

And even though American homes literally bristle with firepower almost no one carries a gun around with them in this most violent of nations. Could it be that the overwhelming majority of American feel perfectly safe just about anywhere they go? In fact if someone is openly carrying people freak out and call the police. Strange that.

 

[MerlinJ]

And even though American homes literally bristle with firepower almost no one carries a gun around with them in this most violent of nations. Could it be that the overwhelming majority of American feel perfectly safe just about anywhere they go? In fact if someone is openly carrying people freak out and call the police. Strange that.

Irrational fear of a horrible, violent death, however unlikely, is pretty common. People are just scared of getting caught up in that sort of chaos, whether it's crazed gunmen, or terrorists.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Irrational fear of a horrible, violent death, however unlikely, is pretty common. People are just scared of getting caught up in that sort of chaos, whether it's crazed gunmen, or terrorists.

I don't think people think about that at all. A shooting on the next block might as well be a thousand miles away.