Let's research gun violence.

[Direckshun]

I've said this in a couple other threads, but I don't believe that gun control is going to get any traction in Congress. Some Democrats will push for it, some other Republicans will table it, some pro-gun control folks like myself will cry foul, and yet another Congress will pass without any gun control measures seeing the light of day.

But here's one thing that maybe we can start doing: better educate ourselves on gun violence, so we can stop stabbing in the dark as to what we can better do to mitigate it.

The problem is that for a couple decades now, the government has not been able to produce any information on gun violence because the NRA has been threatening war if Congress failed to choke off all funding for gun-related research.

The CDC and NIH used to conduct research for decades, but around the time of the late 90s, the NRA became so powerful it was able to prevent these agencies from granting funds to researchers on those topics. McClatchy DC:

The CDC and NIH award billions in grants. They fund research into cancer, brain injury, tobacco use, obesity, AIDS, abortion, hearing loss, allergies, infectious diseases, back pain and virtually everything else related to human health. But gun violence is the one area that carries that specific language. The effect has been to limit federal funding into research that could be used to shape policy.

This is irresponsible. We pass hundreds of gun-related laws across the country every few years. Like all laws, we should be able to research the impact of the laws we pass, so we can make decisions based on more than pure ideology.

Anyway, there's a ton of stories on this, but here's a really good one from last year in the Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: January 25, 2011

In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.

“We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,” said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.

Chris Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones.

“Our concern is not with legitimate medical science,” Mr. Cox said. “Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.”

The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of “putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,” said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

“It’s really simple with me,” Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.”

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “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.”

The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.

In the end, researchers said, even though it is murky what exactly is allowed under this provision and what is not, the upshot is clear inside the centers: the agency should tread in this area only at its own peril.

“They had a near-death experience,” said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, whose study on the risks versus the benefits of having guns in the home became a focal point of attack by the N.R.A.

In the years since, the C.D.C. has been exceedingly wary of financing research focused on firearms. In its annual requests for proposals, for example, firearms research has been notably absent. Gail Hayes, spokeswoman for the centers, confirmed that since 1996, while the agency has issued requests for proposals that include the study of violence, which may include gun violence, it had not sent out any specifically on firearms.

“For policy to be effective, it needs to be based on evidence,” said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, who had his C.D.C. financing cut in 1996. “The National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have largely succeeded in choking off the development of evidence upon which that policy could be based.”

Private foundations initially stepped into the breach, but their attention tends to wax and wane, researchers said. They are also much more interested in work that leads to immediate results and less willing to finance basic epidemiological research that scientists say is necessary to establishing a foundation of knowledge about the connection between guns and violence, or the lack thereof.

The National Institute of Justice, part of the Justice Department, also used to finance firearms research, researchers said, but that money has also petered out in recent years. (Institute officials said they hoped to reinvigorate financing in this area.)

Stephen Teret, founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, estimated that the amount of money available for firearms research was a quarter of what it used to be. With so much uncertainty about financing, Mr. Teret said, the circle of academics who study the phenomenon has fallen off significantly.

After the centers’ clash with the N.R.A., Mr. Teret said he was asked by C.D.C. officials to “curtail some things I was saying about guns and gun policy.”

Mr. Teret objected, saying his public comments about gun policy did not come while he was on the “C.D.C. meter.” After he threatened to file a lawsuit against the agency, Mr. Teret said, the officials backed down and gave him “a little bit more leeway.”

C.D.C. financing for research on gun violence has not stopped completely, but it is now mostly limited to work in which firearms are only a component.

The centers also ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the N.R.A. as a courtesy, said Thomas Skinner, a spokesman for the centers.

Invariably, researchers said, whenever their work touches upon firearms, the C.D.C. becomes squeamish. In the end, they said, it is often simply easier to avoid the topic if they want to continue to be in the agency’s good graces.

Dr. Stephen Hargarten, professor and chairman of emergency medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, used to direct a research center, financed by the C.D.C., that focused on gun violence, but he said he had now shifted his attention to other issues.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I see no difference in what you said versus what is virtually always said every time I don't post for a few days -- that I'm running away from some argument, or some poster, or some thread. If there's some difference ("I was crossing my fingers as I typed that out!"), it's invisible to me.

I should mention that I don't give a flip either way, I just think it's a bewildering pattern, when you consider my considerable history on this forum, as well as the fact that I'm already like 200 posts strong in this thread.

If you want to back off the obvious implication you made that I was running away from a discussion, well then that's on you. I don't really care.

I am here to state that I did not intend that implication to come across, at least not in a serious manner. I have never seen anyone accuse you of running away so the implication didn't occur to me. And like you, I really don;t care too much either.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

There's such a vast array of guns out there, that I treat it as functionally infinite. There's no line you can draw in gun bans, no line that I can think of, where there isn't compelling similarities between some legal firearm and some illegal one. Every time I've tried to look one up, it is quickly disproven by firearms experts who intimately know the vast array of firearms. It's the same thing with magazine limits -- should I want to limit legal magazines to 10 rounds, there's obviously little difference in a magazine that holds 10 rounds versus one that holds 12.

But that doesn't mean that kind of ban should not be done. The line I would personally draw would be semiautomatic weapons (though I often go with the skinnier category of assault weapons, since that's far more politically feasible), along with deep magazines, and certain kinds of ammunition. I believe the banning of these firearms, as imperfect the lines I may draw would be, would do more good than harm.

Earlier in the thread, Radar Chief was dispelling some useful information at how freaking difficult it is to acquire fully automatic weapons, should one be so inclined. I think a fair compromise position would be to make all semi-automatic weapons, along with deep mags and armor-piercing bullets for starters, subject to that kind of extreme scrutiny. But I'd prefer them to be altogether banned.

You want to ban all semiautomatic weapons??? That is crazy talk. The high capacity magazine and possibly even looking at certain ammo are somewhat reasonable things to consider. (even if I don't agree entirely, compromises could be made here, personally a 15 round limit wouldn't really bother me but as I have pointed out, it will not make an ounce of difference but to sooth people like yourself) but banning all semi-autos is nuts.

You want every pistol to be a revolver and every rifle to be a pump/slide, bolt or lever action?

Yo do realize that with a revolver you get the exact same effectiveness as a semi-auto with a 6 round magazine? (well technically, it would need to be 5 rounds with one in the chamber I guess)

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You want to ban all semiautomatic weapons??? That is crazy talk. The high capacity magazine and possibly even looking at certain ammo are somewhat reasonable things to consider. (even if I don't agree entirely, compromises could be made here, personally a 15 round limit wouldn't really bother me but as I have pointed out, it will not make an ounce of difference but to sooth people like yourself) but banning all semi-autos is nuts.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Yo do realize that with a revolver you get the exact same effectiveness as a semi-auto with a 6 round magazine? (well technically, it would need to be 5 rounds with one in the chamber I guess)

As I stated in my previous post, I realize that any attempt I make to draw a line in the sand will necessarily entail the fact that some banned guns will be very similar to some legal guns. But that's going to happen no matter what. For instance, you seem okay with limiting magazines to 15 rounds. What's the difference between 15 rounds and 16?

The idea, of course, is that we need to erect barriers.

Of course, the problem with your line of thinking is that the barriers being suggested aren't considerable enough, so we shouldn't erect hardly any barriers at all.

The reason we're seeing so many mass shootings is because there's virtually no barrier whatsoever to flying off the handle and going nuts. Erecting some barriers will deter some folks from doing so. Erecting more barriers will deter more people. The goal is to improve what is clearly a dire situation.

Which is, of course, another problem with your line of thinking: you don't think 10,000-12,000 gun related deaths a year is a dire situation, for reasons that pass understanding.

Pardon the phrasing here, but I don't delude myself into thinking there's a silver bullet to preventing mass shooting and gun related deaths in general. The key is erecting reasonable barriers that won't really affect civilian life in any practical way while remaining constitutional.

There are a lot of ways to do this. Centralizing background checks, mental health reform, closing the gun show loophole, some extra security measures aren't out of the question. But gun restrictions on when and where you carry, and on what you carry, are a necessary part of the package.

[A Salt Weapon]

What about the calico is that banned in your fantasy world?
Posted via Mobile Device

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

For instance, you seem okay with limiting magazines to 15 rounds. What's the difference between 15 rounds and 16?

No difference between 15 and 16.. so, yes I agree if a line is drawn it will be somewhat arbitrary. Again, I am not "ok" with it but it isn't something I would shoot you over.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The reason we're seeing so many mass shootings is because there's virtually no barrier whatsoever to flying off the handle and going nuts. Erecting some barriers will deter some folks from doing so. Erecting more barriers will deter more people. The goal is to improve what is clearly a dire situation.

This is where you are simply guessing and where I assert that your guesswork is completely wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that any of these "barriers" on legal gun ownership will prevent mass shootings. None.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Which is, of course, another problem with your line of thinking: you don't think 10,000-12,000 gun related deaths a year is a dire situation, for reasons that pass understanding.

No, here again you are wrong. I think it is tragic that ANYONE is killed in any manner. BUT I don't agree that it is some sort of massive epidemic that requires histrionic over reactions that will, in the end, do nothing to address the real problem. Unlike with you and voter id, I recognize that ANY problem in the system is worth addressing and am willing to look at reasonable measures to address it. Banning all semi-automatics is not even close to reasonable. Requiring better training and education is a much more productive way to address the issue.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Centralizing background checks, mental health reform, closing the gun show loophole, some extra security measures aren't out of the question. But gun restrictions on when and where you carry, and on what you carry, are a necessary part of the package.

I have no problem with most of these, until you get to the the last sentence which shows that you either a)don't know what you are talking about or b)don't CARE about actual results and just want to push an anti-gun agenda.

Having more trained armed people (the key here is better/more comprehensive training, current CHL/CCW classes are a joke) creates a safer society. Making laws regarding where/when you carry won;t do a damn thing to limit homicides. In fact it does the exact opposite. You really think that a criminal or a madman is going to say "Oh damn, I shouldn't carry these guns to the theatre... it's against the law!"

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

No difference between 15 and 16.. so, yes I agree if a line is drawn it will be somewhat arbitrary.

So the question becomes, is drawing a line worth it.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

This is where you are simply guessing and where I assert that your guesswork is completely wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that any of these "barriers" on legal gun ownership will prevent mass shootings. None.

What kind of evidence do you need to see?

There are three sets of causes that people point to explain events like Newtown. Killer psychology, the environment of violence in our popular culture, and third, the easy access to guns. Each of these can explain individual events, but we're looking to answer the question: why do we have so many of these events?

The facts: the US has 3.2 gun homicides per 100k folks. That's 12 times higher than other developed countries. If psychology is the main course, we should have 12 times as many psychologically disturbed people. We don't. America takes mental disorders pretty seriously, treating them and refusing to stigmatize them -- we actually do better here than other developed countries.

The popular culture excuse is just laughable -- there's almost no significant difference between our pop culture and the rest of the Western world's, thanks to enhanced globalization. It's basically the same culture. Japan is home to a lot of the video games the NRA hilariously blames, yet Japan's gun homicide rate? Zero. (They have one of the most restrictive gun control templates in the western world.)

When looking internationally, it's obvious that the one feature internationally that would explain why America has such dreadful gun homicide rates is so excessive. We have incredibly permissive laws when it comes to the sale and acquisition of guns.

We have 5% of the world's population, yet we have 50% of the world's guns. We also have evidence that tightening gun laws even in countries with traditions of gun ownership can and does reduce gun violence. Following Austrailia's 1996 ban on all auto and semiauto weapons (a real ban, not one with some 600 exceptions like the Clinton ban did), gun related homicides dropped by 59% over the next decade.

To me, all the evidence points in the same direction: barriers to gun access can and do work. They make perpetrating gun violence more difficult, they require potential criminals to go an extra mile (even a few extra feet will deter some folks). I am not of the belief that Americans are just a different breed -- we're the same species as the rest of the planet, and are of the same cultural development as the Western world. What's different are our laws.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I don't agree that it is some sort of massive epidemic that requires histrionic over reactions that will, in the end, do nothing to address the real problem.

Lord only knows what you need to see at this point.

When our rates of gun homicide are 30 x's greater than France's...

What do you need to see? 50 x's?

We're committing 12 x's the gun violence that the rest of the Western world sees. What do you need to see? 20 x's?

We're at the bottom of the barrel globally. What do you need us to be? On par with countries in the throes of active war?

God forbid we ever actually meet the standards of what you'd consider to be an actual epidemic.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Banning all semi-automatics is not even close to reasonable. Requiring better training and education is a much more productive way to address the issue.

So you agree, we should restrict access to guns.

Better training and education would necessarily reduce the pool of people who can own firearms.

It's official: we just disagree on the degree of improved gun control.

[A Salt Weapon]

Here's a compromise, I'll accept the banning of high capacity magazines(over 30 in a rifle, 20 in a pistol) in exchange for standard capacity magazines to be left alone for the next 200yrs.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You really think that a criminal or a madman is going to say "Oh damn, I shouldn't carry these guns to the theatre... it's against the law!"

I don't care what they say. I care what they have access to.

If we ban semiautos (just to keep running with my preference), then they have to wade into the black market to buy them. That will dissuade some. It will land others on the radar of law enforcement.

Others will acquire those guns anyway, and go on shooting sprees, like they were going to anyway.

So... what have we lost here?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The facts: the US has 3.2 gun homicides per 100k folks. That's 12 times higher than other developed countries. If psychology is the main course, we should have 12 times as many psychologically disturbed people. We don't. America takes mental disorders pretty seriously, treating them and refusing to stigmatize them -- we actually do better here than other developed countries.

The popular culture excuse is just laughable -- there's almost no significant difference between our pop culture and the rest of the Western world's, thanks to enhanced globalization. It's basically the same culture. Japan is home to a lot of the video games the NRA hilariously blames, yet Japan's gun homicide rate? Zero. (They have one of the most restrictive gun control templates in the western world.)

When looking internationally, it's obvious that the one feature internationally that would explain why America has such dreadful gun homicide rates is so excessive. We have incredibly permissive laws when it comes to the sale and acquisition of guns.

We have 5% of the world's population, yet we have 50% of the world's guns. We also have evidence that tightening gun laws even in countries with traditions of gun ownership can and does reduce gun violence. Following Austrailia's 1996 ban on all auto and semiauto weapons (a real ban, not one with some 600 exceptions like the Clinton ban did), gun related homicides dropped by 59% over the next decade.

To me, all the evidence points in the same direction: barriers to gun access can and do work. They make perpetrating gun violence more difficult, they require potential criminals to go an extra mile (even a few extra feet will deter some folks). I am not of the belief that Americans are just a different breed -- we're the same species as the rest of the planet, and are of the same cultural development as the Western world. What's different are our laws.

So here is the "logic" behind your guesswork. You'd make one heck of a good climate scientist. Working off from incomplete data but asserting that your conclusion is undeniably correct!

I have bolded the part where you are so wrong it is ridiculous. Let me guess... you have never lived overseas and you sure as hell have never lived in Europe. Am I right? I have and if you think Americans and Europeans are the same "breed" you are nuts. The Europe I know (10+ years ago but I doubt this has changed) is full of complete and udder(<--see what I did there!) cattle. They are the least aggressive most passive pussified people on the damn planet. Of course these are broad generalities with many exceptions but hopefully you can see the point that we ARE very different. FAR more aggressive and conflict oriented here in America. Let me give you an example. I knew a girl who was studying to be a pharmacist so I was helping her learn technical English related to the field (she was already fluent in conversational English). She told me about an instance where two men came into the pharmacy and robbed it. And here is the kicker... with a regular kitchen knife and a meat... wait for it... meat TENDERIZER. Yes, a small metal mallet. I laughed thinking it was a joke, but she was serious. So I asked her, if it was just her and some other girls (in Spain it is perfectly acceptable to ask a sexist question like that). She told me know, there were plenty of men both behind the counter working and male customers shopping. My point being... in America.. those two would have been LAUGHED out of the building.. in Europe they walked out with an armful of drugs.

So, NO we are not 12 times more violent than Europe.. we are 20 times more violent.

I also think you are also wrong about limits on legal gun ownership having a tangible effect on mass shootings but there I am guessing just like you.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

So you agree, we should restrict access to guns.

Better training and education would necessarily reduce the pool of people who can own firearms.

It's official: we just disagree on the degree of improved gun control.

No, not on gun OWNERSHIP. But I do think we can and should get better training/certification standards for CARRY laws.

So in summary of my feelings:
1)ANYONE barring violent felons and mentally disabled can OWN guns after passing background check, etc
2)IF you want to carry in public(this gets tricky because I actually have a fairly developed more complex plan for this, but here is the simple version) than you need to be certified as properly trained to do so and possibly even pass a yearly continuing ed style review.

BUT I think this has to be done at a local level, no chance I would be ok with a federal system for ANY of this. And that IS a point I would shoot someone over.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Let me guess... you have never lived overseas and you sure as hell have never lived in Europe. Am I right? I have and if you think Americans and Europeans are the same "breed" you are nuts. The Europe I know (10+ years ago but I doubt this has changed) is full of complete and udder(<--see what I did there!) cattle. They are the least aggressive most passive pussified people on the damn planet. Of course these are broad generalities with many exceptions but hopefully you can see the point that we ARE very different. FAR more aggressive and conflict oriented here in America. Let me give you an example. I knew a girl who was studying to be a pharmacist so I was helping her learn technical English related to the field (she was already fluent in conversational English). She told me about an instance where two men came into the pharmacy and robbed it. And here is the kicker... with a regular kitchen knife and a meat... wait for it... meat TENDERIZER. Yes, a small metal mallet. I laughed thinking it was a joke, but she was serious. So I asked her, if it was just her and some other girls (in Spain it is perfectly acceptable to ask a sexist question like that). She told me know, there were plenty of men both behind the counter working and male customers shopping. My point being... in America.. those two would have been LAUGHED out of the building.. in Europe they walked out with an armful of drugs.

You say "there is absolutely no evidence" that gun control could prevent mass shooting.

I take it you've abandoned that argument entirely, provided that I just gave you an entire post of evidence and you countered with an anecdote. Powerful stuff there, BEP. Powerful.

I don't know where to take this conversation from here. You're not exactly returning serve.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

No, not on gun OWNERSHIP. But I do think we can and should get better training/certification standards for CARRY laws.

Hate to break it to you, buddy. But if you introduce standards that some people could conceivably fail to meet, that's a ban on gun ownership.

You're in the same boat as me, compadre. We're just arguing degrees.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't care what they say. I care what they have access to.

If we ban semiautos (just to keep running with my preference), then they have to wade into the black market to buy them. That will dissuade some. It will land others on the radar of law enforcement.

Others will acquire those guns anyway, and go on shooting sprees, like they were going to anyway.

So... what have we lost here?

Ok, your argument may hold some water to those not paying attention... You have tried to deal from the bottom of the deck and conflate the ISSUE of "mass shootings" with the NUMBERS of all homicides. You can assert that mass SHOOTINGS might occur less with less access to guns but there is definitely a "replacement rate" when it come to all gun homicides. Your 11k figure also fails to mention how many of those are due to semi-automatics.

So, let's deal with just mass shooting sprees. Out of 300 million Americans... please tell me how many in 2012 were killed in mass shootings? Do you REALLY see that as an "epidemic?"

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You say "there is absolutely no evidence" that gun control could prevent mass shooting.

I take it you've abandoned that argument entirely, provided that I just gave you an entire post of evidence and you countered with an anecdote. Powerful stuff there, BEP. Powerful.

I don't know where to take this conversation from here. You're not exactly returning serve.

You didn't provide evidence you ignorant twit. You provided stats from vastly dissimilar cultures about what works for them. I then provided an example of how dissimilar one of those cultures is.

I returned serve but you were too busy picking your nose and concentrating on wrong headed assumptions that you can't get your provincial mind to see past.

love - 15

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You have tried to deal from the bottom of the deck and conflate the ISSUE of "mass shootings" with the NUMBERS of all homicides. You can assert that mass SHOOTINGS might occur less with less access to guns but there is definitely a "replacement rate" when it come to all gun homicides.

Explain what you mean, here.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Your 11k figure also fails to mention how many of those are due to semi-automatics.

I have attempted to locate that information, but I was unable to find it. I don't believe we have statistics on that.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

So, let's deal with just mass shooting sprees. Out of 300 million Americans... please tell me how many in 2012 were killed in mass shootings? Do you REALLY see that as an "epidemic?"

About 1 to 2%.

Yes, we have a mass shooting epidemic. On Christmas Eve, a guy in New York called 911 to report a fire in his home, then shot several firemen as they stormed into his house.

When the NRA via Wayne LaPierre was speaking a few days ago on "everything but guns is to blame for shootings" speech, a guy was walking the highway in Pennsylvania and shooting at cars as they drove by.

Slate has a running total of all mass shooting victims since Newtown. 160 people have died, as of me posting right now.

Click through. Enjoy. And tell me this isn't an epidemic we have on our hands.