Gun Control

[Moiraine]

 

You're almost up there with the guy who thinks abortion causes gun violence.

 

...and you (and a couple of others here) are a predisposed victim hoping that if we disarm everybody else you can hide in a sea of other victims in waiting and that would be fair. As it is now, you are voluntarily abrogating your right and duty to self defense for you and for those around you, and that no doubt impacts your self esteem and gives you a little twinge of guilt that you don't have the courage or won't make the effort to protect yourself and others.

 

There, enough for one night. We all have something to think about and I am sure my opinions and ideas will be valued at the same level as I hold those of the dissenting side of the debate.

 

 

The hilarious thing about this reply is you're projecting a bunch of opinions onto me that I don't have. I value some people's opinions on both sides of the argument, but I don't value yours because you make crap up and then state it as fact, over and over.

 

That being said, assuming I decided to not own a gun, what you said is not logical. Let's say you're standing in a crowd of 100 people and you know 1 person has to get killed by an attacker with a gun. In that case what you've said is fine. You're hoping you're lucky or that someone has a gun they can use to kill the attacker. That's not reality though. Reality is that we're not under constant attack by guns. Most people don't need them. Not because they're letting someone else save them but because they'll never been in a situation where anyone near them needs to have a gun.

 

Also, contrary to what you've posted, most people who want regulation just simply want it to be harder to get them. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to own guns themselves. I don't even necessarily believe in what those politicians are fighting for. I think some of it's been said here already (but you clearly haven't read any of the thread considering what you think my stance to be) but there are problems with not allowing people on the terror watch list to buy guns. Off the top of my head - it lets them know they're on the terror watch list. Kind of hard to get intelligence on someone once they've figured that out.

[JJ Husker]

It. Is. Alive. The thread that ate Cleveland.

[zoogs]

 

I thought you were seriously making the suggestion that the CDC's lack of research on gun violence might be because Democrats don't want them to.

Democrats call the shots in Chicago, NYC, and California, where they spend money like drunken sailors. You don't see them spending money on such studies when there is nobody to stop them, do you?

 

There's a simple history with the CDC. It isn't hard to learn about the current state of affairs in gun control research, either. I posted a little about it earlier in the thread, but you can also simply Google it.

[Moiraine]

 

I thought you were seriously making the suggestion that the CDC's lack of research on gun violence might be because Democrats don't want them to.

 

Democrats call the shots in Chicago, NYC, and California, where they spend money like drunken sailors. You don't see them spending money on such studies when there is nobody to stop them, do you?

 

Of course not! I'd have to google it to see it!

 

 

With funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and the New York City Council, the Research & Evaluation Center at John Jay College is conducting a program of studies known as NYC Cure. One study involves a partnership with the Center for Court Innovation (CCI) to evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of the Cure Violence model of violence reduction. The Cure Violence model is inspired by the public health approach to violence reduction.

 

https://johnjayrec.nyc/2014/06/15/cv2014_maps/

 

 

The Assembly and Senate approved the research funding Thursday as part of several pieces of budget-related legislation.

 

Gun-violence researchers have long complained that funding is hard to find since Congress in 1996 prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from paying for gun research.

 

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/06/16/california-lawmakers-approve-gun-violence-research-center/

 

 

Our sponsors

California Department of Justice

California Department of Public Health

 

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/giving/index.html

 

 

The work of the Crime Lab and the Urban Education Lab is made possible by the generous support of federal and private funders.

These include: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Illinois Department of Human Services, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Chicago Public Schools,

 

https://crimelab.uchicago.edu/page/our-funders

[huskerfan2000]

Bowfin, this forum/thread is full of democrat/liberal and they are doing exactly what the dems in congress are doing. Trying to shout down anyone that doesn't agree with them.

[huskerfan2000]

The one thing they can't shout down.. The "no-fly" bill would NOT have stopped a number of the mass shootings that have happened.. Their action is to just do something, regardless of whether it works.

[huskerfan2000]

How do they study it with no money to do so?

 

Find another source, but that doesn't matter. THe point is they are not banned/forbidden from doing anything, like it was stated they were!

[huskerfan2000]

 

get your facts straight.. CDC was not banned from doing anything.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347

If I recall the "facts" correctly, in 1996 the CDC was stripped the exact amount of funding spent on gun control the previous year, by Congress, because the NRA wasn't happy with their research.

 

That fear of funding sanctions continues today, despite a 2012 Obama executive order that they do gun control research, as Congress continues to block funding allocated for gun violence research. That article raises the possibility of agencies becoming emboldened by the executive order, but they still need the cash. And the fundamental issue remains:

 

“It’s odd,” Swanson said, “but if you’re trying to do policy-informed research, you run into the fact that there are elected officials who don’t want to know the answer.”

It seems you take as much care with getting facts straight as you do with capitalization: either you aren't that interested, or you're actively opposed to the practice.

 

 

 

Facts are.. They are not forbidden or banned from doing anything. If you need money find another source! Everything you posted is all smokescreen BS, as they are not forbidden or banned from doing anything!

 

and to the bold.. are you really trying to play that card? if you have nothing else find something to go after. hahaha

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

You're almost up there with the guy who thinks abortion causes gun violence.

 

...and you (and a couple of others here) are a predisposed victim hoping that if we disarm everybody else you can hide in a sea of other victims in waiting and that would be fair. As it is now, you are voluntarily abrogating your right and duty to self defense for you and for those around you, and that no doubt impacts your self esteem and gives you a little twinge of guilt that you don't have the courage or won't make the effort to protect yourself and others.

 

There, enough for one night. We all have something to think about and I am sure my opinions and ideas will be valued at the same level as I hold those of the dissenting side of the debate.

 

 

The hilarious thing about this reply is you're projecting a bunch of opinions onto me that I don't have. I value some people's opinions on both sides of the argument, but I don't value yours because you make crap up and then state it as fact, over and over.

 

That being said, assuming I decided to not own a gun, what you said is not logical. Let's say you're standing in a crowd of 100 people and you know 1 person has to get killed by an attacker with a gun. In that case what you've said is fine. You're hoping you're lucky or that someone has a gun they can use to kill the attacker. That's not reality though. Reality is that we're not under constant attack by guns. Most people don't need them. Not because they're letting someone else save them but because they'll never been in a situation where anyone near them needs to have a gun.

 

Also, contrary to what you've posted, most people who want regulation just simply want it to be harder to get them. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to own guns themselves. I don't even necessarily believe in what those politicians are fighting for. I think some of it's been said here already (but you clearly haven't read any of the thread considering what you think my stance to be) but there are problems with not allowing people on the terror watch list to buy guns. Off the top of my head - it lets them know they're on the terror watch list. Kind of hard to get intelligence on someone once they've figured that out.

 

To the first bold - This whole thread is about opinions, even what I have stated and more importantly everything you just said. There are no facts that more gun control would do anything at all, but that doesn't stop the forum dems/libs from thinking it must be done, infringement be damned!

 

To the second bold - I would love to see your numbers on "most people", or are you talking about just in this thread.

[ZRod]

 

 

get your facts straight.. CDC was not banned from doing anything.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347

 

If I recall the "facts" correctly, in 1996 the CDC was stripped the exact amount of funding spent on gun control the previous year, by Congress, because the NRA wasn't happy with their research.

That fear of funding sanctions continues today, despite a 2012 Obama executive order that they do gun control research, as Congress continues to block funding allocated for gun violence research. That article raises the possibility of agencies becoming emboldened by the executive order, but they still need the cash. And the fundamental issue remains:

 

“It’s odd,” Swanson said, “but if you’re trying to do policy-informed research, you run into the fact that there are elected officials who don’t want to know the answer.”

 

It seems you take as much care with getting facts straight as you do with capitalization: either you aren't that interested, or you're actively opposed to the practice.

 

Facts are.. They are not forbidden or banned from doing anything. If you need money find another source! Everything you posted is all smokescreen BS, as they are not forbidden or banned from doing anything!

 

and to the bold.. are you really trying to play that card? if you have nothing else find something to go after. hahaha

Who is the CDC funded by?

[knapplc]

lol nope

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

 

 

 

 

We tried fellas but there is no getting through to people who won't begin to look at things in a rational manner with an open mind. Life is too short, no sense wasting it attempting the apparently impossible.

 

 

JJ, as much as it pains those of us who are pro gun (but willing) to remove or prevent the privilege to own or buy guns from those who shouldn't have them, this really needs to be addressed by all people nationally. The NRA has their mindset and their are those who will fall in that camp, but there are also responsible gun owners who see we need to reel in the carte blanche mentality that we are dealing with now. It needs to be a give an take and if no one is willing to give a little, then we will remain where we are and subject to anything that comes our way. IMO, the Orlando deal was not a deal that happened because of the gun, but the acquisition of said gun should have been prevented. Failure to communicate and follow up logically by those involved, caused that nightmare.

 

I totally agree with this. I am about as pro gun as can be but even I realize that there are flaws in the current system. I would like to see efforts focused on keeping guns out of the wrong hands, primarily because a gun without anyone using it is just a hunk of metal. Although, there are some gun capabilities that just plain aren't needed by most persons and I believe those types of weapons need to be heavily regulated and have limited access. I don't think anything is going to prevent all needless deaths but surely we can improve that number with some sensible solutions that help keep them out of the wrong hands. No rational person would ever argue that terrorists or criminals or mentally unstable people should have guns. Unfortunately there are irrational people willing to do whatever it takes to prevent adopting any measure that would help accomplish that. It's completely disingenuous to simply say "criminals will always find a way to get guns" and "guns don't kill people, people do" and use that as a basis for doing jack sh#t about the problem.

 

 

+1 So, that makes (2) of us pro gun guys here at HB, who are willing to a point, to find some solutions to keep the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. I will say one thing though based on your comment. Criminals will get their guns no matter what changes are made to prevent the legal acquisition of guns through the system. I have seen it, dealt with it and recognize that there is little anyone can do (by virtue of laws), to prevent it. I say that however, without linking it and throwing up my hands and saying just because that is so, we should not make obtaining a gun so easy that anyone from anywhere can do it.

 

Although I can't provide statistics, I also am not 100% sure that those stating if we had more people legally carrying (cleared to buy and carry), that some of these incidents could have been stopped or the consequences reduced.

 

Oh I agree 100%. Criminals and terrorists will still find a way to get weapons and, if we do ban certain guns or magazines, they will also still find their way into circulation. But we can make it more difficult and more sensible and hopefully prevent at least some needless deaths. It certainly doesn't need to be as easy and freewheeling as it currently is.

 

 

lol, I know it won't stop anything but try it anyway. Stupid and senseless regulations that do nothing but hurt law abiding citizens!

 

 

What's your view on the regulations passed after 9/11 to increase airport and flight security? Stupid and senseless regulation that did nothing but hurt law abiding citizens or necessary regulation designed to increase the security of law-abiding citizens at airports?

[funhusker]

 

 

 

You're almost up there with the guy who thinks abortion causes gun violence.

 

...and you (and a couple of others here) are a predisposed victim hoping that if we disarm everybody else you can hide in a sea of other victims in waiting and that would be fair. As it is now, you are voluntarily abrogating your right and duty to self defense for you and for those around you, and that no doubt impacts your self esteem and gives you a little twinge of guilt that you don't have the courage or won't make the effort to protect yourself and others.

 

There, enough for one night. We all have something to think about and I am sure my opinions and ideas will be valued at the same level as I hold those of the dissenting side of the debate.

 

 

The hilarious thing about this reply is you're projecting a bunch of opinions onto me that I don't have. I value some people's opinions on both sides of the argument, but I don't value yours because you make crap up and then state it as fact, over and over.

 

That being said, assuming I decided to not own a gun, what you said is not logical. Let's say you're standing in a crowd of 100 people and you know 1 person has to get killed by an attacker with a gun. In that case what you've said is fine. You're hoping you're lucky or that someone has a gun they can use to kill the attacker. That's not reality though. Reality is that we're not under constant attack by guns. Most people don't need them. Not because they're letting someone else save them but because they'll never been in a situation where anyone near them needs to have a gun.

 

Also, contrary to what you've posted, most people who want regulation just simply want it to be harder to get them. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to own guns themselves. I don't even necessarily believe in what those politicians are fighting for. I think some of it's been said here already (but you clearly haven't read any of the thread considering what you think my stance to be) but there are problems with not allowing people on the terror watch list to buy guns. Off the top of my head - it lets them know they're on the terror watch list. Kind of hard to get intelligence on someone once they've figured that out.

 

To the first bold - This whole thread is about opinions, even what I have stated and more importantly everything you just said. There are no facts that more gun control would do anything at all, but that doesn't stop the forum dems/libs from thinking it must be done, infringement be damned!

 

To the second bold - I would love to see your numbers on "most people", or are you talking about just in this thread.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks

 

The following article lists several polls and other points.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/05/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-say-claim-90-support-gun-background/

[Bowfin]

Just to be clear, Moiraine, you want the CDC to spend money to do studies that you now say has already been done by others. Is that correct?

 

As for the "No fly, no buy" idea, we could hire the disgraced former head of the IRS, Lois Lerner, to administrate it She would bebringing the same lack of ethics and political debauchery to her new job as she did to the IRS checking nonprofit status of conservative groups, right?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

What you posted provides no causality whatsoever.

 

But it made my point that more guns don't equal more crime, and more gun laws will not equal less crime. Let's not focus on the minutiae in order to avoid confronting the obvious here, okay?

 

 

A population of educated gun owners, licensed to conceal carry meaning they're probably your average human being, are at the world's largest gun show and there's no deaths. And that somehow makes the point that more guns don't equal more violence? Are you f'ing serious?

 

Here's the one thing I'll give the pro-gun side: yes, any legislation that might be passed will make getting a gun a little more difficult. There's no way around that. I'm sure a majority of gun owners are educated gun owners. But it's not the educated gun owners that are going to clubs, schools, etc and killing people. If we can make acquiring guns a little more difficult for that fringe percent of people thinking of carrying out a mass shooting, isn't that worth it? Are the lives of those lost and the families of those lost not worth taking action to stop these senseless tragedies?