Another Shooting

[RDU Irish]

Also making the rounds but also worth sharing...I'm for greater restrictions and for there being more safe guards in terms of who can get firearms but I do share his concerns about protection:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6dZn0D_9VY8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That guy rocks.

 

[wizards8507]

I think it's also disingenuous to discuss "rights" that were granted to us in a document by dudes that didn't think black people were actual people, until an amendment legally changed that. Perhaps our beliefs on firearms can evolve in the same way?

Rights are not granted to us by the Bill of Rights. Rights are granted to us by God and Nature. The Bill of Rights is just our flawed human attempt to write some of them down.

 

[IrishLion]

Rights are not granted to us by the Bill of Rights. Rights are granted to us by God and Nature. The Bill of Rights is just our flawed human attempt to write some of them down.

I agree with that. My point is that referencing the Bill of Rights as complete and totally infallible in an argument is kind of silly, when you look at the ever-evolving history of our country and its laws.

There are a bunch of ways to refute my beliefs, but simple veneration of the extremely-fallible Bill of Rights is not a good one IMO.

 

[Legacy]

What, if any, limitations would you put on the sale of firearms and ammunition beyond age?

Should anyone over 18 be able to buy any firearm without a background check, for instance, and carry anywhere?

 

[wizards8507]

This MIGHT be parody, but the Twitter account seems legit.

 

[Legacy]

This MIGHT be parody, but the Twitter account seems legit.

Since you checked their Twitter account, why post the results of Operation Sceptre done in the UK by the Regents Park Police to target "knife crime"?

 

[wizards8507]

Since you checked their Twitter account, why post the results of Operation Sceptre done in the UK by the Regents Park Police to target "knife crime"?

Lends credence to the slippery slope argument.

 

[SonofOahu]

London's mayor just announced a new "knife policy" in the city because of all the knife attacks there. Let that marinate for a few minutes...

We have a knife policy, too. You can't carry around a switchblade, butterfly knife, "dirk and dagger." I don't know if that's a federal policy, but that applies in Hawaii.

I don't think you can carry swords, either. Which is ironic, considering the fact that we're, like, 60% Asian.

 

[SonofOahu]

Rights are not granted to us by the Bill of Rights. Rights are granted to us by God and Nature. The Bill of Rights is just our flawed human attempt to write some of them down.

This is stupid. "Rights" are a manmade construct. Nature doesn't care about your rights, it just natures right along.

Also, not everyone believes your "God".

 

[Bluto]

Different countries and different circumstances, but let's not pretend the criminals committing these disgusting acts follow the laws in the process.

I continue to be amazed by some people's outrage with guns but if the weapon is something else...crickets. It's almost like people hate the weapon more than the loss of innocent lives.

Of course they don't. We do however, regulate and police the use of motor vehicles much more heavily than firearms in this country. That in my opinion is crazy. Sticking with motor vehicles as weapons imagine how many people someone would be able to kill if it was legal to pull a top fuel dragster out of ones garage and drive it down the street.

 

[wizards8507]

This is stupid. "Rights" are a manmade construct. Nature doesn't care about your rights, it just natures right along.

Also, not everyone believes your "God".

I'm not going to be held responsible for your lack of even a junior high understanding of basic western philosophy. What do you think "we hold these truths to be self-evident..." means? Self-evident, meaning there's something special about humans that says we can't just rape and murder and enslave one another. It doesn't matter if you believe on God, you reach the same conclusions with reason alone.

 

[Legacy]

We have a knife policy, too. You can't carry around a switchblade, butterfly knife, "dirk and dagger." I don't know if that's a federal policy, but that applies in Hawaii.

I don't think you can carry swords, either. Which is ironic, considering the fact that we're, like, 60% Asian.

I took the comment as satirical because the poster is probably familiar with the Constitution and SCOTUS legal decisions as well as laws in his state. "Slippery slope" is something you hear from a lot of Bubbas and militia types. Really, scissors in the U.K. are the end result of limitations on military-style weapons and high-capacity mags end up with all guns and knives confiscated by a totalitarian government? And representative of "European socialism"? Who seriously brings up knives into a gun discussion? But thanks for the input in your state.

 

[ACamp1900]

Which is ironic, considering the fact that we're, like, 60% Asian.

lol

 

[Legacy]

Among gun owners, NRA members have a unique set of views and experiences (Pew)

Three-in-ten U.S. adults say they currently own a gun, and of that group, 19% say they belong to the National Rifle Association. While the demographic profile of NRA members is similar to that of other gun owners, their political views, the way they use their firearms and their attitudes about gun policy differ significantly from gun owners who are not members of the organization.

Of the 30% of Americans who are gun owners, one fifth are NRA members = 6% of Americans.

 

[SonofOahu]

lol

What?! We love our swords...

***Not sure if the reference to Hawaii's population being, like, 60% Asian was unclear***

 

[Legacy]

Colorado's sixth Congressional District is worth watching. The District's center is Aurora, where the movie theatre murders occured in 2012. Mike Coffman, Rep, who has representated the district and in his fifth term, and has received the maximum amount of donation the NRA gives out. The District voted for Obama and then Clinton (by 5%) over Trump and over the last few decades has changed from overwhelmingly white to 50% people of color, including a large group of Ethiopians. Eighty percent of Reps in Colorado back Trump. Coffman, who states he does not like Trump, has sided with Trump 95% of the time in his votes in Congress. Coffman won the primary (75% of the vote) over a candidate who advocated all of Trump's policies ("Trump has saved America."). Trump is unpopular in much of Colorado with immigration a key issue among those voters of color and the gun rights/control issue especially in Aurora.

So far some Colorado candidates have not accepted RNC donations and hedge on whether they would welcome the President's endorsement. A plurality of Colorado voters are unaffiliated and who can now participate in primary voting. Colorado farmers, who voted overwhelmingly for Trump, would be hit hard by any Chinese tariffs on agricultural commodities. Mike Coffman was married to Cynthia Coffman, Attorney General (R), who is running for Governor. They divorced last year. Cynthia Coffman is pro-gun but defended Colorado's gun laws in court which limit magazines to 15 bullets and requiring background checks for all firearm transfers, although she has taken a stance against those laws. She points out the case was dismissed on procedural grounds, not constitutional grounds. The laws were passed after the Aurora murders in Mike Coffman's district and the Columbine massacre before that. Cynthia C. also represented the state of Colorado before the Supreme Court in the baker vs gay couple lawsuit and has defended LGBT rights.

How one vulnerable Republican is adapting as he tries to survive anti-Trump wave
What The Numbers Tell Us About Guns In Colorado
Boulder City Council passes gun ban on first reading

 

[Irish YJ]

Of course they don't. We do however, regulate and police the use of motor vehicles much more heavily than firearms in this country. That in my opinion is crazy. Sticking with motor vehicles as weapons imagine how many people someone would be able to kill if it was legal to pull a top fuel dragster out of ones garage and drive it down the street.

Not a great comparison IMO. Anyone can buy a vehicle, so ownership to my knowledge is not regulated. Use is regulated as hell though but I think regulations are as tied to Gov revenue as it is for safety reasons. I bet even you could own a top fuel dragster. You might get arrested if you took it off the track and drove it down Main Street, but you could still own it.

What is crazy to me, is those on the enlightened Left citing the lack of "need", or using the loss of life reasoning, don't go after things like alcohol (almost 3x the yearly deaths) or tobacco (almost 15x the yearly overall deaths, and more second hand smoke deaths due to tobacco than guns alone). There are arguments that can be made (protection, hunting, etc.) for guns and the "need". Not so much for alcohol and tobacco (except for the billions of dollars generated by its gov regulations). Not very enlightened if you ask me.

I'm not for banning guns but I am OK with some common sense regulations. Not for banning booze or cigs either. Most of the damage is done to the user. But I'd point out the same holds true for gun deaths (2/3 of gun deaths are suicide). Non-suicide or homicide gun deaths are about 8,000, while second hand smoke deaths are around 44,000.

 

[Legacy]

Not a great comparison IMO. Anyone can buy a vehicle, so ownership to my knowledge is not regulated. Use is regulated as hell though but I think regulations are as tied to Gov revenue as it is for safety reasons. I bet even you could own a top fuel dragster. You might get arrested if you took it off the track and drove it down Main Street, but you could still own it.

What is crazy to me, is those on the enlightened Left citing the lack of "need", or using the loss of life reasoning, don't go after things like alcohol (almost 3x the yearly deaths) or tobacco (almost 15x the yearly overall deaths, and more second hand smoke deaths due to tobacco than guns alone). There are arguments that can be made (protection, hunting, etc.) for guns and the "need". Not so much for alcohol and tobacco (except for the billions of dollars generated by its gov regulations). Not very enlightened if you ask me.

I'm not for banning guns but I am OK with some common sense regulations. Not for banning booze or cigs either. Most of the damage is done to the user. But I'd point out the same holds true for gun deaths (2/3 of gun deaths are suicide). Non-suicide or homicide gun deaths are about 8,000, while second hand smoke deaths are around 44,000.

What are your "common sense regulations"?

Gun violence is more than homicide.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011. In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

(National Institute of Justice - research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice)

In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms". These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides, 21,175 suicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".

Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide. Approximately 1.4 million people have been killed using firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011. This number includes all deaths resulting from a firearm, including suicides, homicides, and accidents.

In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs.

(See cited refs in Gun Violence in the U.S.)

So, there are over 100,000 fatal and non-fatal deaths and injuries from firearms for the last year stats were available. Comparing the annual deaths from firearms (over 33,000 in 2013), in all of the Vietnam war, 58,000 people died. In the Iraq War, 36,000 people have died. In 2016, over 42,000 people died of opioid overdoses. Opioid deaths are a "national crisis".

Most criminals acquire gun outside of sources that have background checks (Federal Firearm Licensed dealers) either gun shows, straw purchases, stolen, on the street, other sources. As far as stolen guns, the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) stolen gun file contains over 2 million reports of stolen guns. In the U.S. there are estimated to be 223 million guns and almost one fourth were acquired in private sales not requiring a background check.
Missing Pieces: Gun theft from legal owners is on the rise, quietly fueling violent crime across America. (The Trace)

The NRA opposed the Brady Bill which required those background checks on FFL dealers' sales. 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were processed and subject to background checks. About 2.1 million applications, or 1.8%, were denied, which, obviously, would not have been should the Brady Bill never been passed. The NRA opposes expanding background checks to all sales.

 

[Irish YJ]

What are your "common sense regulations"?

Gun violence is more than homicide.

(National Institute of Justice - research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice)

(See cited refs in Gun Violence in the U.S.)

So, there are over 100,000 fatal and non-fatal deaths and injuries from firearms for the last year stats were available.

Most criminals acquire gun outside of sources that have background checks (Federal Firearm Licensed dealers) either gun shows, straw purchases, stolen, on the street, other sources. As far as stolen guns, the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
stolen gun file contains over 2 million reports of stolen guns. In the U.S. there are estimated to be 223 million guns.

The NRA opposed the Brady Bill which required those background checks on FFL dealers' sales. 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were processed and subject to background checks. About 2.1 million applications, or 1.8%, were denied, which, obviously, would not have been should the Brady Bill never been passed. The NRA opposes expanding background checks to all sales.

I'm OK with expanding background checks, closing loopholes around gun shows, etc.. I'm OK with raising the age to 21 although I think it's stupid that someone could carry a firearm defending their country, but not own one at home. I'm OK with outlawing things like bumpstocks, etc..

All that said, you can do all that and more and you won't stop firearms getting into criminal hands. Where there's a market/demand, it will happen. IIRC, NY which has stiff laws, most gun violence offenders purchase illegally anyway. The gov is never going to totally ban guns, and even if they did, they are not going to come into everyone's home and remove them. You'd also see a reverse flow from Central America up to the US.

Like I said previously with data/graphs to support...., we have a "people" problem. There are countries among the top 10% of guns ownership in the bottom 10% of gun violence. A "people" problem doesn't go away by regulating "things". You might decrease it a bit, but you also reduce personal freedom and punish a lot of law abiding citizens in the process.

I find it interesting you lacked comment on Tobacco and Alcohol which was a primary point in my post. And sure gun violence is more than homicide. Same with Tobacco and Alcohol. Deaths, injuries, and cost to the tax payer relevant to guns are dwarfed by both Tobacco and Alcohol as well. So why is the enlightened Left not going after those two? Also, I'm sure if you looked at all the deaths in the same time period you used, alcohol and tobacco would have likely created more deaths than several wars (vs just Vietnam).

The NRA to me is nothing more than a counter balance to the extreme left. The extreme Left wants to take a mile. The extreme right doesn't want to give an inch fearing it will become a mile. Just another example of our current party system creating extremes on both sides, and nothing getting done for saner folks in the middle.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm OK with expanding background checks, closing loopholes around gun shows, etc.

Background checks are fine IN THEORY, but the devil is in the details. Background checks are expensive and states use them as a way to de facto disenfranchise the poor. It's going to run me well over $200 to get all of my checks and fees in Connecticut, and that's no better than a poll tax.

Same with mental health checks. Fine IN THEORY until you realize that a mother who once suffered from post-partum depression or a veteran suffering from PTSD will either 1) lose their right to bear arms or 2) opt to not seek the help they need because they don't want to lose their right to bear arms.

 

[Irish YJ]

Background checks are fine IN THEORY, but the devil is in the details. Background checks are expensive and states use them as a way to de facto disenfranchise the poor. It's going to run me well over $200 to get all of my checks and fees in Connecticut, and that's no better than a poll tax.

Same with mental health checks. Fine IN THEORY until you realize that a mother who once suffered from post-partum depression or a veteran suffering from PTSD will either 1) lose their right to bear arms or 2) opt to not seek the help they need because they don't want to lose their right to bear arms.

I said I'm "OK" with it, as a compromise. I'm not a fan of it. The only thing I'm really a fan of is outlawing stuff like bumpstocks. IMO there is a ton of lower hanging fruit to go after if you want to save lives. I also don't blame guns for anything. Like I said, we have a people problem here in the US. I don't see how attacking the law abiding majority of gun owners will impact significantly the small amount of law breaking individuals.

 

[Irish YJ]

A graph on that lower hanging fruit.

Why is there all this outrage about guns? Why isn't the left marching through DC about Tobacco. Why aren't they picketing McDonald's and Liquor stores? Those issues make gun violence look like a drop in the bucket.

It's all about the $$, not saving lives. DC hypocrisy and fake outrage/enlightenment at it's best.

 

[Irishize]

A graph on that lower hanging fruit.

Why is there all this outrage about guns? Why isn't the left marching through DC about Tobacco. Why aren't they picketing McDonald's and Liquor stores? Those issues make gun violence look like a drop in the bucket.

It's all about the $$, not saving lives. DC hypocrisy and fake outrage/enlightenment at it's best.

The Left (nor the Right) will ever “march” against tobacco b/c they are highly addicted to the tax revenue that is collected from them.

 

[Irishize]

"Slippery slope" is something you hear from a lot of Bubbas and militia types

Unless we are talking about any regulation on abortion or the banning of partial-birth abortion. Then we hear from the femi-Nazis & eugenics types that it’s a slippery slope to govt completely banning abortion,

 

[Irish YJ]

The Left (nor the Right) will ever “march” against tobacco b/c they are highly addicted to the tax revenue that is collected from them.

Yup.
And slow death on a ventilator or O2 tank is not near as sexy for the media as a vegas shooting.

 

[Legacy]

A graph on that lower hanging fruit.

Why is there all this outrage about guns? Why isn't the left marching through DC about Tobacco. Why aren't they picketing McDonald's and Liquor stores? Those issues make gun violence look like a drop in the bucket.

It's all about the $$, not saving lives. DC hypocrisy and fake outrage/enlightenment at it's best.

The graph is reflective of gun homicides, while you do use the term "gun violence", which is most accurate when trying to portray the public health problem. 100,000 annual firearm deaths and injuries is not insignificant.

I'd addressed the enforcement difficulties the ATF has had due to gun lobby influence in Congress in a prior post. Did you get an opportunity to read it? I believe the post also included the recommendations that law enforcement professionals from police to prosecutors that have recommend changes that will improve enforcement and lower the violence. These are real, common sense recommendations that do not violate anyone's rights.

All that said, you can do all that and more and you won't stop firearms getting into criminal hands. Where there's a market/demand, it will happen. IIRC, NY which has stiff laws, most gun violence offenders purchase illegally anyway. The gov is never going to totally ban guns, and even if they did, they are not going to come into everyone's home and remove them. You'd also see a reverse flow from Central America up to the US.

Like I said previously with data/graphs to support...., we have a "people" problem. There are countries among the top 10% of guns ownership in the bottom 10% of gun violence. A "people" problem doesn't go away by regulating "things". You might decrease it a bit, but you also reduce personal freedom and punish a lot of law abiding citizens in the process.

I don't see the logic in asserting that because stricter gun laws will not totally deprive criminals of guns that we should not work to reduce the chances of their obtaining them. Because that reduction is the goal. NYC criminals go to Georgia for their guns. California criminals go to Nevada. Mexican gangs buy their guns in Arizona or Texas. All are done without the requirement of background checks. Just walk in and buy AR-15s.

You have to ignore those who are convinced for some reason that all guns will be taken away by governments if such regulations that do not violate rights and lower gun violence are put in place. That's simplistic thought and archaic, but what the NRA and others convey. Part of the "people problem" includes too many gun sellers and manufacturers do not care who they sell guns to and do not want any government to decrease their commerce. You can't regulate those attitudes that place profit over people. But governments have that responsibility to increase citizens' safety by regulating public health problems.

Those states who do not have lax gun laws have demonstrated a decrease in homicides, suicides, deaths in domestic abuse cases, and gun trauma.

I'll post later all of the health professionals recommendations on decreasing gun violence. Common sense solutions - like those from law enforcement personnel and prosecuting attorneys who advocate for more resources and stop hobbling enforcement - but from a health perspective.

 

[Irish YJ]

Legacy my point is that

1) you can prevent a 100+ times more deaths, health issues, and tax expense by outlawing something that has no value or need. Yet the enlightened are a bunch of crickets. There is literally NO discussion.

2) adding more regs and laws will have a tiny effect and are incredibly hard to enforce (unlike the above), and will have almost zero effect on the private/resell market. You stress that offenders from violent areas (which are to a large part liberal strongholds) go to other states, as if guns aren't readily available underground. Last time I was in Brooklyn the group I was with were offered guns 3 times in 4 days. I didn't need to come home to GA to buy one. Do you think all those guns came from GA?

3) The cities that are most violent have the strictest gun laws yet you cite they have reduced violence?


In short, I'd be happy to compromise on gun issues (if nothing more to bring sides together), but I find it incredibly hypocritical, greedy, and plain dumb that some folks wave the anti-gun flag while ignoring things that are 100x more detrimental and are 100x more logical and easy to fix.

 

[Legacy]

Legacy my point is that

1) you can prevent a 100+ times more deaths, health issues, and tax expense by outlawing something that has no value or need. Yet the enlightened are a bunch of crickets. There is literally NO discussion.

2) adding more regs and laws will have a tiny effect and are incredibly hard to enforce (unlike the above), and will have almost zero effect on the private/resell market. You stress that offenders from violent areas (which are to a large part liberal strongholds) go to other states, as if guns aren't readily available underground. Last time I was in Brooklyn the group I was with were offered guns 3 times in 4 days. I didn't need to come home to GA to buy one. Do you think all those guns came from GA?

3) The cities that are most violent have the strictest gun laws yet you cite they have reduced violence?


In short, I'd be happy to compromise on gun issues (if nothing more to bring sides together), but I find it incredibly hypocritical, greedy, and plain dumb that some folks wave the anti-gun flag while ignoring things that are 100x more detrimental and are 100x more logical and easy to fix.

The "Preventable Causes of Deaths" chart is inherently flawed, right? The bar graphs compare the number of deaths from these causes annually. (Yet Gun deaths are only the homicides and does not reflect the 33,000 of all firearm deaths or the additional 70,000 injuries from firearms.)

So, how do you want the government to "prevent" the causes of Obesity or Tobacco deaths? Do you expect governments to regulate food intake and exercise or ban tobacco and smoking?

Are you saying that all firearm homicides are preventable as are all tobacco and obesity deaths? Make my argument for me on how we prevent those 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries from firearms - closing the private gun sales loophole, expand background checks with mandatory reporting of violent crime and felony convictions, red flag and confiscate guns from those threatening to use them against others, trigger locks and gun safes mandatory, an easily searchable gun sales database, ban certain weapons, ammo and accessories, a longer waiting period, etc. We agree criminals might still find ways to get one of the 300 million guns - but why not make it harder instead of being able to buy one without a background check?

The ATF’s Nonsensical Non-Searchable Gun Databases, Explained

We can and have enacted regulations that have significantly decreased deaths in many of those categories. Previous postings showed how mandatory seat belts significantly decreased accident deaths. A class action lawsuit with resultant labeling and significant penalties and has impacted the health hazards of tobacco. What more regulations should government do to decrease (or "prevent") deaths from alcohol?

All of the regulations you and I would enact on gun sales and reporting have been proven to reduce firearm deaths. The gun lobby like the car industry with seatbelts and the tobacco industry with smoking resists those measures that will reduce firearm mortality and morbidity. Those and more are the recommendations by law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, and health professionals.

So, unless you think all those causes of deaths are "preventable causes" and that graph was generated to make those flawed conclusions, let's just focus the discussion on which area is basically unregulated and what has worked in communities to reduce those deaths and what still needs to be enacted.

 

[Legacy]

We won’t know the cause of gun violence until we look for it
By Jay Dickey and Mark Rosenberg July 27, 2012

Jay Dickey, a Republican and life member of the NRA, represented Arkansas in the House from 1993 to 2000. Mark Rosenberg, president and chief executive of the Task Force for Global Health, was director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1994 to 1999.

Jay Dickey was the author of the Dickey Amendment, which removed $2.6 million from the CDC to research the causes of gun violence. He now regrets the bill.

A few years ago, one of us came across a young woman who had just been hit by a car. She was the mother of two young children and one of Atlanta’s star runners. I found her unconscious and bleeding profusely from a severe head injury. She died in my arms while I tried to resuscitate her.

Her death was tragic, but it wasn’t “senseless.” In scientific terms, it was explicable. The runner, who had competed in 15 marathons and broken many records, wore no lights or reflective vest in the early-morning darkness; she crossed the street within crosswalk lines that had faded to near-invisibility; there were no speed bumps on this wide, flat street to slow cars down.

Scientists don’t view traffic injuries as “senseless” or “accidental” but as events susceptible to understanding and prevention. Urban planners, elected officials and highway engineers approach such injuries by asking four questions: What is the problem? What are the causes? Have effective interventions been discovered? Can we install these interventions in our community?

The federal government has invested billions to understand the causes of motor vehicle fatalities and, with that knowledge, has markedly reduced traffic deaths in the United States. Since the mid-1970s, research has inspired such interventions as child restraints, seat belts, frontal air bags, a minimum drinking age and motorcycle helmets. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 366,000 lives were saved through such efforts from 1975 to 2009.

Through the same scientific, evidence-based approach, our country has made progress understanding and preventing violence. Once upon a time, law-abiding citizens believed that violence generated by evil always had existed and always would exist. By the mid-20th century, that sense of fatalism was yielding to discoveries by social scientists, physicians and epidemiologists. Now a body of knowledge exists that makes it clear that an event such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., was not a “senseless” occurrence as random as a hurricane or earthquake but, rather, has underlying causes that can be understood and used to prevent similar mass shootings.

We also recognize different types of violence, including child abuse and neglect, sexual assault, elder abuse, suicide and economically and politically motivated violence. Like motor vehicle injuries, violence exists in a cause-and-effect world; things happen for predictable reasons. By studying the causes of a tragic — but not senseless — event, we can help prevent another.

Recently, some have observed that no policies can reduce firearm fatalities, but that’s not quite true. Research-based observations are available. Childproof locks, safe-storage devices and waiting periods save lives.

But it’s vital to understand why we know more and spend so much more on preventing traffic fatalities than on preventing gun violence, even though firearm deaths (31,347 in 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available) approximate the number of motor vehicle deaths (32,885 in 2010).

From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide. The National Rifle Association moved to suppress the dissemination of these results and to block funding of future government research into the causes of firearm injuries.

One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the amount the agency’s injury center had spent on firearms-related research the previous year. This amendment, together with a stipulation that “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,” sent a chilling message.

Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240 million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries.

As a consequence, U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries? We don’t know whether having more citizens carry guns would decrease or increase firearm deaths; or whether firearm registration and licensing would make inner-city residents safer or expose them to greater harm. We don’t know whether a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines, or limiting access to ammunition, would have saved lives in Aurora or would make it riskier for people to go to a movie. And we don’t know how to effectively restrict access to firearms by those with serious mental illness.

What we do know is that firearm injuries will continue to claim far too many lives at home, at school, at work and at the movies until we start asking and answering the hard questions. “Such violence, such evil is senseless,” President Obama said last week. What is truly senseless is to decry these deaths as senseless when the tools exist to understand causes and to prevent these deadly effects.

We were on opposite sides of the heated battle 16 years ago, but we are in strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners. The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence.

What we do know is that firearm injuries will continue to claim far too many lives at home, at school, at work and at the movies until we start asking and answering the hard questions. “Such violence, such evil is senseless,” President Obama said last week. What is truly senseless is to decry these deaths as senseless when the tools exist to understand causes and to prevent these deadly effects.

We were on opposite sides of the heated battle 16 years ago, but we are in strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners. The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence.

Most politicians fear talking about guns almost as much as they would being confronted by one, but these fears are senseless. We must learn what we can do to save lives. It is like the answer to the question “When is the best time to plant a tree?” The best time to start was 20 years ago; the second-best time is now.

 

[drayer54]

We won’t know the cause of gun violence until we look for it
By Jay Dickey and Mark Rosenberg July 27, 2012


Jay Dickey was the author of the Dickey Amendment, which removed $2.6 million from the CDC to research the causes of gun violence. He now regrets the bill.

I have zero desire to watch anti-gun politicians bill the taxpayers to run more and more and more studies that try and fuel their agenda.

These studies are politically motivated and a huge waste of money. Not all bans are bad.

The outcomes will be disagreed upon, regardless of whose side they support.