The US, gun violence, and gun control

[Bonam]

Stricter regulations on guns has to be part of the solution. It was to be the first step in a wider program to address the broader issues that foster the gun violence. Why on earth are people in the US allowed to have in their possession 30 round magazines for AR-15s? Why not restrict them to 5-7 rounds? The NRA doesn't even want to humour that. It's pathetic.

Why stricter regulations on guns rather than stricter regulations on violently unstable mentally ill people?

[GostHacked]

Any data to back this up? I don't believe poverty or home foreclosure has been a commonality among the many mass murders.

No I don't have data, but what do you think happens when a person loses everything they worked so hard to get? People just don't take it, they fight back. But, I agree with you here, but I don't think we can rule out or ignore some of those factors, as they may not contribute to mass murders, but they do contribute to other crimes that are a result of people losing everything. Which has nothing really to do with the status of guns.

Rather, it has been mental illness, quite unrelated to the economic background of the shooter.

That is the common point among many of those who have committed these mass murders. But now what do we do about it?

[cybercoma]

Why stricter regulations on guns rather than stricter regulations on violently unstable mentally ill people?

Why not both? Why not stricter regulations on guns, coupled with better mental health funding and care? What pressing need is there for 30 round clips when they make people much better equipped to murder several people in crowded places? This isn't the late 1700s, early 1800s where America needed to defend itself from Britain taking back her colonies with a massive nation directly to the north at her disposal. Every man, woman, and child doesn't need to be armed to defend the United States. There ain't shit they can do against modern weaponry in other nations anyway and that includes their own military if some wise asses decided they were going to move against the government.

As I said, there's a serious issue and simply banning guns isn't the solution. It needs to be part of a much larger broader-sweeping project that includes plans to address poverty/inequality and mental health, amongst many other things as well.

[cybercoma]

No I don't have data, but what do you think happens when a person loses everything they worked so hard to get? People just don't take it, they fight back. But, I agree with you here, but I don't think we can rule out or ignore some of those factors, as they may not contribute to mass murders, but they do contribute to other crimes that are a result of people losing everything. Which has nothing really to do with the status of guns.

That is the common point among many of those who have committed these mass murders. But now what do we do about it?

What backs up your claim is Merton's Theory of Deviance.

[punked]

Stricter regulations on guns has to be part of the solution. It was to be the first step in a wider program to address the broader issues that foster the gun violence. Why on earth are people in the US allowed to have in their possession 30 round magazines for AR-15s? Why not restrict them to 5-7 rounds? The NRA doesn't even want to humour that. It's pathetic.

The first step is just letting the American government fund the organizations to look at the problem. I am willing to bet they will come up with some simple answers that do not even lead to stricter gun laws. The NRA is against this though, so from 1997 onward all funding to gun studies has been cut and government organizations aren't allowed to study the problem.

[cybercoma]

Jesus. I didn't even know that. They can't even study the issue without resistance? That's idiotic.

[punked]

Jesus. I didn't even know that. They can't even study the issue without resistance? That's idiotic.

Great article about the history of how that came to be out of the American Medical Association a few days ago.

The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470

It isn't just the CDC which can't study guns but also the NIH. This right here is the problem. America wont even let people look at the problem let alone come up with something that might solve it. This right here is what the NRA does and what some on this forum support. If there is no problem why are you so scared of people looking at it?

[Guest American Woman]

...from 1997 onward all funding to gun studies has been cut and government organizations aren't allowed to study the problem.

Source, please.

[punked]

Source, please.

It is above from the AMA. You can't get a better source then that. Please read the article it is eye opening as to the problem. The problem isn't gun laws the problem starts with the fact that the gun lobby is so strong it has silenced everyone who even thinks about talking about guns. That will only ever lead to bad things.

In 2011, Florida's legislature passed and Governor Scott signed HB 155, which subjects the state's health care practitioners to possible sanctions, including loss of license, if they discuss or record information about firearm safety that a medical board later determines was not “relevant” or was “unnecessarily harassing.” A US district judge has since issued a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of this law, but the matter is still in litigation. Similar bills have been proposed in 7 other states.

The argument I making isn't even there should be stricter gun laws. That would be a huge step. I am arguing for the baby step of actually being to talk about and suggest there is a problem which should be looked at.

Edited December 24, 2012 by punked

[Guest American Woman]

It is above from the AMA. You can't get a better source then that. Please read the article it is eye opening as to the problem. The problem isn't gun laws the problem starts with the fact that the gun lobby is so strong it has silenced everyone who even thinks about talking about guns. That will only ever lead to bad things.

Where does it say from "1997 onward all funding to gun studies has been cut and government organizations aren't allowed to study the problem?" I'm not seeing it.

[punked]

Where does it say from "1997 onward all funding to gun studies has been cut and government organizations aren't allowed to study the problem?" I'm not seeing it.

Then you didn't read the article.

When other agencies funded high-quality research, similar action was taken. In 2009, Branas et al5 published the results of a case-control study that examined whether carrying a gun increases or decreases the risk of firearm assault. In contrast to earlier research, this particular study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Two years later, Congress extended the restrictive language it had previously applied to the CDC to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health.

This is the language which was added to all CDC appropriations from 1997 onward. Similar language is added to any depart which dares cross the NRA.

“none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

That is a problem.

Edited December 24, 2012 by punked

[Guest American Woman]

Then you didn't read the article.

That isn't saying what you claimed. Could you specifically quote the part that says from "1997 onward all funding to gun studies has been cut and government organizations aren't allowed to study the problem?"

[punked]

That isn't saying what you claimed. Could you specifically quote the part that says from "1997 onward all funding to gun studies has been cut and government organizations aren't allowed to study the problem?"

I quoted it you refuse to accept it. I don't know what to do with you. Those words you quote aren't in the article word for word however that is what the article says. Go read it.

1997 apportions bill for the CDC and onward.

“none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Similar action has been done with all government organizations which dare cross the NRA. That is a ban on the funding of studies that might dare look at guns and how gun violence can be prevented. That is what the article says. Go read it.

From the article:

It will not be possible to find out unless Congress rescinds its moratorium on firearm injury prevention research. Since Congress took this action in 1997, at least 427 000 people have died of gunshot wounds in the United States, including more than 165 000 who were victims of homicide.1 To put these numbers in context, during the same time period, 4586 Americans lost their lives in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I guess you could argue that the word moratorium isn't the same as a ban. But you would be wrong to do so.

Edited December 24, 2012 by punked

[Guest American Woman]

I quoted it you refuse to accept it. I don't know what to do with you. Those words you quote aren't in the article word for word however that is what the article says. Go read it.

I did read it, and that's not what the article says.

1997 apportions bill for the CDC and onward.

“none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

I doesn't say that "all funding to gun studies has been cut and government organizations aren't allowed to study the problem" - it says they cannot use the funds "to advocate or promote gun control." It doesn't say their funds have been cut and/or "they aren't allowed to study the problem."

Similar action has been done with all government organizations which dare cross the NRA. That is a ban on the funding of studies that might dare look at guns and how gun violence can be prevented. That is what the article says. Go read it.

There is no ban on the funding of such studies. There is a ban on using the funds to "advocate or promote gun control," as it should be. Would you think it was ok if such funds were used to advocate gun ownership? Such organizations are not supposed to use public funds to promote one side of an issue, as it should be.

There are still "funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention," - that's an actual quote from your quote.

Edited December 24, 2012 by American Woman

[punked]

There is no ban on the funding of such studies. There is a ban on using the funds to "advocate or promote gun control," as it should be. Would you think it was ok if such funds were used to advocate gun ownership? Such organizations are not supposed to use public funds to promote one side of an issue, as it should be.

This is science not propaganda. If a scientific argument could be made or there were stats to support more "gun ownership" made everyone safer I would love to see it. These are doctors not politicians. I am all for whatever works and if it can be shown to work why would I not support it? It is better then the head of the NRA going around telling stories about how his friends feel about the situation. I have never and will never be scared of what science has to say about fixing a problem.

As for your how the article doesn't say there is a ban. I don't see how you read this.....

It will not be possible to find out unless Congress rescinds its moratorium on firearm injury prevention research. Since Congress took this action in 1997, at least 427 000 people have died of gunshot wounds in the United States, including more than 165 000 who were victims of homicide.1 To put these numbers in context, during the same time period, 4586 Americans lost their lives in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

and say the article says there is no ban. Unless.....do you know what the word moratorium means?

[cybercoma]

punked, please stop responding to her. It's really annoying when you say, "look at that white dog" and point to it, only to meet the response "what white dog? where? I don't see a white dog." In other words, you are wasting your time trying to get through to someone that absolutely refuses to discuss things reasonably.

[bush_cheney2004]

...and you are wasting your time trying to shut up other members.

[cybercoma]

...and you are wasting your time trying to shut up other members.

Want some cheese to go with that wine?

[punked]

punked, please stop responding to her. It's really annoying when you say, "look at that white dog" and point to it, only to meet the response "what white dog? where? I don't see a white dog." In other words, you are wasting your time trying to get through to someone that absolutely refuses to discuss things reasonably.

it just isn't right. I always give citations and links. I try really hard to back up my statements with facts, and I truly think that is how you make the world a better place. Then there are people who "just know" the way it should be and facts just get in their way. Why does the world have to be like that. I don't believe there are people out there (Shady etc.) who refuse to listen to reason and evidence. No matter how many times you show them.

[msj]

I see today that a gunman has killed 3 people and himself in PA.

Fortunately for AW this does not meet the definition of a "mass shooting" so we will have to wait until next week-ish for another one to show up.

Looks like the wait continues.

This shooting also does not qualify: 2 Firefighters Fatally Shot Near Rochester in Suspected Ambush

Oh, enough people were shot.

It's just not enough died....

[bush_cheney2004]

Want some cheese to go with that wine?

Sure...make mine : "Stop posting whenever I don't like how the discussion is going" (stomps feet)

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, enough people were shot.

It's just not enough died....

Yeah, that is just so hilarious. And with that, I'm done with you.

[msj]

Want some cheese to go with that wine?

Do you not find it funny that as you plead with punked to stop responding to AW that you then respond to the other one?

I find it funny.

[msj]

Yeah, that is just so hilarious. And with that, I'm done with you.

It's hilarious from the POV that so many people (Americans in particular) willingly twist themselves into pretzels to justify their "freedom" while ignoring the cost of that freedom.

In your case, you will go to great lengths to whittle 2 weeks into 3 weeks when it is, in fact, closer to 2.5 weeks just to make yourself feel better about 'merica not being as violent as it really is.

America is exceptional when it comes to gun violence.

It really is.

And wouldn't it be nice if American's would try to find solutions to further reduce the violence in their society so that they are more like other western countries?

Nah.

You'd rather argue the statistics and anything else to muddy the waters and maintain the exceptionally violent status quo.

I used to think that was sad but now I realize it is funny.

You have a funny society and you and BC_2004 demonstrate the hilarity so well.

Edited December 24, 2012 by msj

[cybercoma]

Do you not find it funny that as you plead with punked to stop responding to AW that you then respond to the other one?

I find it funny.

Good point. What was I thinking?