Mueller’s Conference today

[Octo2005]

"In 1995, the N.R.A. pushed Congress to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue.

The result is that 22 years and more than 600,000 gunshot victims later, much of the federal government has largely abandoned efforts to learn why people shoot one another, or themselves, and what can be done to prevent gun violence."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/health/gun-violence-research-cdc.html?module=inline

 

[Karl_K]

"In 1995, the N.R.A. pushed Congress to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue.

The result is that 22 years and more than 600,000 gunshot victims later, much of the federal government has largely abandoned efforts to learn why people shoot one another, or themselves, and what can be done to prevent gun violence."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/health/gun-violence-research-cdc.html?module=inline

That was because the CDC was found to have a huge anti-gun bias and was not neutrally researching the issue. The law did not just come up in a vacuum.

 

[JPie]

Drivers license or state id and a background check when buying from a dealer(with no tracking) should be good enough to buy any gun. So yea a license or state ID should be required to vote.
I would even support a background check on private sales if a way could be found to to prevent abuse and it was not tracked.

The point of those voter ID laws is to disenfranchise minorities. If not, then more types of IDs issued by government entities, including low-incoming housing administrations, should be permitted for voting.

Glad to hear you’re not entirely opposed to any type of regulation on gun sales.

 

[partgypsy]

Anyways gun owners don't need to fight with other voters about gun rights. If the government decides to take your guns it will. If the government decides it's against it or it's citizens best interests, can definitely change the laws to make it illegal. They can do it by calling martial law. They can do it by arguing that the original intent of the amendment was to have citizens serve as militia, which they are not (no draft) and the 2nd reason to protect against a tyranny, well since the military has bazookas and tanks, that reason is obsolete as well.

 

[Karl_K]

My family went through a tragic incident involving a gun. My cousin (we'll call him W) knocked up his girlfriend when he was a senior in high school, and her brother threatened to kill him. W took that threat seriously enough that he bought a gun.

Being the stupid kid that he was, W showed off his new gun to our other cousin, C. Then, as C was walking away, W pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger. He didn't realize that there was still a bullet in the chamber and did it as a joke, but that joke cost C his life. Poor kid was only 17.

The problem is that this story isn't unique. Countless deaths could be avoided if we had laws to ensure that guns are sold only to people of sound mind, with proper safety training. We do this successfully with cars and there's no reason why it can't be done with guns, save for the fact that there's a small, vocal minority of gun owners who won't hear of any gun regulations. They're so myopically & selfishly focused on ensuring their own unrestricted access to guns that there's no reasoning with them. The rest of us need to continue speaking up and taking action because lives depend on it.

I am sorry to hear about your cousin.
Every gun comes with a safety booklet, you cant make people read them.
I think that everyone who is buying a gun for the first time should get training.
But I do not support a law requiring it.
Where it was tried the government just didn't license any trainers so it was back door gun control.

 

[redwood66]

Anyways gun owners don't need to fight with other voters about gun rights. If the government decides to take your guns it will. If the government decides it's against it or it's citizens best interests, can definitely change the laws to make it illegal. They can do it by calling martial law. They can do it by arguing that the original intent of the amendment was to have citizens serve as militia, which they are not (no draft) and the 2nd reason to protect against a tyranny, well since the military has bazookas and tanks, that reason is obsolete as well.

If you are ok for them to do these things for something you agree with, be prepared for all the things they would do that you won't like much. IOW be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

 

[Karl_K]

Anyways gun owners don't need to fight with other voters about gun rights. If the government decides to take your guns it will. If the government decides it's against it or it's citizens best interests, can definitely change the laws to make it illegal. They can do it by calling martial law. They can do it by arguing that the original intent of the amendment was to have citizens serve as militia, which they are not (no draft) and the 2nd reason to protect against a tyranny, well since the military has bazookas and tanks, that reason is obsolete as well.

That would totally tear the country apart because a significant number of people will say no way.
There are not enough cops in the US to do it, even if the military would do it they could not.

 

[redwood66]

I am sorry to hear about your cousin.
Every gun comes with a safety booklet, you cant make people read them.
I think that everyone who is buying a gun for the first time should get training.
But I do not support a law requiring it.
Where it was tried the government just didn't license any trainers so it was back door gun control.

I too am sorry for her cousin. Yes, everyone who buys a firearm should seek training in how to operate, clean, and store it safely. Otherwise it is a potential hazard they don't need. However I would not say they do not have a right to own it.

 

[Karl_K]

The point of those voter ID laws is to disenfranchise minorities. If not, then more types of IDs issued by government entities, including low-incoming housing administrations, should be permitted for voting.

Glad to hear you’re not entirely opposed to any type of regulation on gun sales.

If simply needing an id disenfranchises someone then requiring id to exercise 2nd amendment rights is also wrong.
You can not have it both ways.

 

[JPie]

I am sorry to hear about your cousin.
Every gun comes with a safety booklet, you cant make people read them.
I think that everyone who is buying a gun for the first time should get training.
But I do not support a law requiring it.
Where it was tried the government just didn't license any trainers so it was back door gun control.

I’ve taken a gun safety course and there is no way in hell I want anyone handling a firearm who hasn’t. You’re erring on the side of your Second Amendment rights whereas the majority of Americans prefer to err on the side of safety.

 

[JPie]

If simply needing an id disenfranchises someone then requiring id to exercise 2nd amendment rights is also also wrong.
You can not have it both ways.

The two are not equivalent. Strict voter ID requirements serve no purpose besides disenfranchising voters. You’re oversimplifying the issue as mere bureaucratic red tape, and I don’t know if you’re intentionally being obtuse about the racist reasons behind it or if you really think that’s the same as background checks for gun sales, which are about preventing weapons from landing in criminal hands.

 

[JPie]

I too am sorry for her cousin.

Thank you.

 

[partgypsy]

I'm trying to post an interesting transcript from freakonomics, but haven't ng trouble. Anyways, it is an interesting read. Basically, that the amount of guns and legality of guns is a historical accident, akin to the fact cigarettes and alcohol are legal but pot is not. And as there are 300 million guns in the country, can last 50-100 years or more, there is no simple fix or remedy to our solution, since it is a politically charged issue. So, most likely, while there are thoughts and prayers for every mass shooting, the trend will be more and more guns in the us.the only silver lining is, that the overall likelihood of being in a mass shooting being shot by a stranger is low. If you are going to die from a gun, much more likely if it from a suicide or someone you know. Anyways if your household doesn't have a gun and you don't associate w people with guns, your chance of dying from a gun is pretty low. Karl I agree that if the gov decides on the whole gun issue, if it comes to that, there thewill be disproportiate response on both aides, government would win. I'm not even talking about standoffs, but say passing a law that gun ownership is illegal, and akin to owning drugs the government enacte heavy fines or can confiscate you house or property. Or that it's a felony (which affects ability to get a job, etc). it would take is interpreting the 2nd amendment from an origionist perspective, that only those of the militia (military) can have guns.

 

[jaaron]

That was because the CDC was found to have a huge anti-gun bias and was not neutrally researching the issue. The law did not just come up in a vacuum.

Nope.

The CDC wasn't 'found' to have anything. The NRA lobbied like crazy in response to this study:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

Jay Dickey, a republican congressman from Arkansas got a rider that stopped funding going to gun research into a federal spending bill. Dickey, by the way, later wrote an op-ed in which he expressed enormous regret for his role.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin.../gJQAPfenEX_story.html?utm_term=.7d33fd39ba8f

 

[redwood66]

Nope.

The CDC wasn't 'found' to have anything. The NRA lobbied like crazy in response to this study:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

Jay Dickey, a republican congressman from Arkansas got a rider that stopped funding going to gun research into a federal spending bill. Dickey, by the way, later wrote an op-ed in which he expressed enormous regret for his role.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin.../gJQAPfenEX_story.html?utm_term=.7d33fd39ba8f

Any study should include benefit analysis as well as risk as we are talking about a constitutional right. If it included both then I would be amenable.

 

[partgypsy]

I agree. But they have to be quantifiable benefits, something that can be actually measured. Aka not warm fuzzies, or "feeling" of security, or anecdotes.

 

[redwood66]

I agree. But they have to be quantifiable benefits, something that can be actually measured. Not just warm fuzzies or "feeling" of security, or anecdotes.

I agree. The work should be done to show how often usage saves lives or deters crime.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhs...uld-include-how-guns-save-lives/#68e6cf795edc

 

[partgypsy]

I need to go to bed, but here is a peer reviewed article about the subject. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188

 

[Octo2005]

Any study should include benefit analysis as well as risk as we are talking about a constitutional right. If it included both then I would be amenable.

The CDC studies public health and safety issues. They simply study, analyze and present the data. It is not their job to interpret or consider the law and I am not really sure what is meant by benefit analysis as it pertains to guns. If you mean do studies support that guns make us safer, no most show the opposite when examining the statistical data.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/06/guns-dont-make-us-safer-heres-the-proof/

The Dickey Amendment arose in response to efforts made in the early 1990s to begin treating gun violence as a public health issue. In 1992, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) converted its violence prevention division into a center that would lead federal efforts to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from violence. Soon, studies funded by the center began to draw attention to the gun issue. In particular, a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues revealed an increased risk of homicide associated with presence of a firearm in a home.1 The Kellermann study and other similar investigations struck a nerve and began to receive widespread attention in newspapers and other media.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) accused the CDC of being biased against guns and began lobbying for the elimination of the injury prevention center. Although the center survived, the NRA persuaded its allies in Congress to take action. Led by Representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas, they added a provision to a 1996 spending bill declaring that “[n]one of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.

The Dickey Amendment was eventually extended in 2011 to cover the National Institutes of Health as well as the CDC.5 The National Institutes of Health apparently drew the NRA’s ire by funding research, published in AJPH, on the association between gun possession and assaults.6

Criticism of the Dickey Amendment continued to build, with even former representative Dickey having a change of heart and declaring support for research on how to reduce firearm injuries and deaths.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/

 

[monarch64]

don’t support laws banning stuff? Then don’t support ANY law banning anything including what people choose to do with their bodies or the contents therein.

fight me.

 

[redwood66]

The CDC studies public health and safety issues. They simply study, analyze and present the data. It is not their job to interpret or consider the law and I am not really sure what is meant by benefit analysis as it pertains to guns. If you mean do studies support that guns make us safer, no most show the opposite when examining the statistical data.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/06/guns-dont-make-us-safer-heres-the-proof/

The Dickey Amendment arose in response to efforts made in the early 1990s to begin treating gun violence as a public health issue. In 1992, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) converted its violence prevention division into a center that would lead federal efforts to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from violence. Soon, studies funded by the center began to draw attention to the gun issue. In particular, a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues revealed an increased risk of homicide associated with presence of a firearm in a home.1 The Kellermann study and other similar investigations struck a nerve and began to receive widespread attention in newspapers and other media.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) accused the CDC of being biased against guns and began lobbying for the elimination of the injury prevention center. Although the center survived, the NRA persuaded its allies in Congress to take action. Led by Representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas, they added a provision to a 1996 spending bill declaring that “[n]one of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.

The Dickey Amendment was eventually extended in 2011 to cover the National Institutes of Health as well as the CDC.5 The National Institutes of Health apparently drew the NRA’s ire by funding research, published in AJPH, on the association between gun possession and assaults.6

Criticism of the Dickey Amendment continued to build, with even former representative Dickey having a change of heart and declaring support for research on how to reduce firearm injuries and deaths.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/

With all due respect guns are used to save lives and prevent crime. If any study is done it should include the research for that information. If they don't have the data, then get it so it is included.

 

[Calliecake]

A study needs to be done showing how gun violence affects people’s lives going forward. My guess is the findings would be eye opening.

Red, Guns are also used to kill people.

@monarch64 , I am so proud of what Illinois is doing to safeguard abortion rights.

 

[Calliecake]

@JPie, I’m so sorry about your cousin. How heartbreaking for your family.

 

[JPie]

@JPie, I’m so sorry about your cousin. How heartbreaking for your family.

Thank you. It’s been many years since it happened, and the cousin who fired the shot went on to lead a productive life. He’s married with a kid of his own in college.

The cousin who died has an older brother who also has a family now. I like to think that his parents take comfort in their surviving son and grandkids.

 

[partgypsy]

If you are ok for them to do these things for something you agree with, be prepared for all the things they would do that you won't like much. IOW be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Don't worry, I already know how it feels. Just like the majority of Americans are pro gun control, the majority of americans of the country are pro choice. Laws are being passed to restrict women's access to abortion, and often simply any reproductive health care. Talk about gov interference, the government is trying to insert itself between a woman and her doctor and her own personal reproductive decisions and health. I think the woman and her doctor know better than the government. Same thing with reducing environmental protections, or cutting down trees or drilling or otherwise economically exploiting national lands that should be protected for future generations.

 

[Tekate]

Why not? I think assault weapons are used in mass killings more often than handguns. 1/3 of gun deaths are suicides Red, I don't think banning a hand gun wil stop all of them from ending their lives. According to the NYtimes 2/3 of handgun deaths in 2017 were suicides. I'd love to take a handgun away from Americans, but in my read of all I've done is that the constitution allowed a person a gun to be in the militia in case of attack, war, etc, now maybe we ban handguns and just allow a rifle because at the time of the constitution's writing there were only muskets and I guess rifle's are closer to a musket, single shot, bolt action.. This may stop a few suicides because it's harder to shoot yourself with a rifle. Yes 12 is a high number but it may have saved some people in Vegas. I have to weigh rights of potential death targets and a gun owners ablity to hunt or protect themselves.

Why when the most damage is done with handguns? 12 killed with a handgun is a pretty large number.

 

[Tekate]

@Karl_K said:

Drivers license or state id and a background check when buying from a dealer(with no tracking) should be good enough to buy any gun. So yea a license or state ID should be required to vote.
I would even support a background check on private sales if a way could be found to to prevent abuse and it was not tracked.

Tekate says:

What defines a state ID?

 

[Tekate]

It's not that simple as you can see, why do you say this? It's as though you live in a bubble Karl. It's terribly difficult if not impossible for these people, it disenfranchises them. Seriously it's not like a lot of these people can walk 7 blocks to the EL and take a train into the city and get an ID, they don't live in cities, they don't have cars or can afford cars, it's racist, it's discriminatory. You have used a false equivalence argument. You cannot equate getting an ID to vote is the same as requiring an ID to buy a gun. No. Nope. No Way.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/245/False-Equivalence

If simply needing an id disenfranchises someone then requiring id to exercise 2nd amendment rights is also wrong.
You can not have it both ways.

 

[House Cat]

The biggest problem is catch and release by the injustice system.
Recently they caught some gang members who where driving down the road shooting at each other. (long story, but happens a lot here mostly spill over from the Chicago gang wars).
Everyone of those arrested had multiply outstanding felony cases for drugs and a few had multiple cases pending involving violence and firearms yet they were out on the streets shooting at each other.
Not one of them is still in jail.

If we were to clean up all of the “gang members” from the streets, we would still have white men and their guns committing mass shootings on our children.

 

[Tekate]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...e-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/

So if a researcher does research and finds data that shows how dreadful and horrible gun deaths are in America and it's done by the CDC it's biased. And an addedum to the CDC budget back in 97 by a senator from the gun belt, state of Arkansas, has no bias himself, and then he took it back. The researchers didn't has a bias going in but sure did after they crunched the data. Is all data and reports from the CDC biased? The senator was trying and did get protection for the gun owners of Arkansas, Bill Clinton was president. Right vs Left politics as usual here.

That was because the CDC was found to have a huge anti-gun bias and was not neutrally researching the issue. The law did not just come up in a vacuum.