And there we go. Why should our side agree with “reasonable regulations” that you propose when you admit that your ultimate goal is a complete gun ban?
Do you agree with your neighbor in a property dispute over a foot of land when he has all but told you that next month he will sue you for an acre?
With respect, I don’t trust that all you want is ban on “assault weapons” or “high capacity” magazines. I think you want all of my guns and won’t stop with “reasonable regulations.”
This link has appeared in a couple of related threads, but your comment about providing cites is…inspirational.
Silencing the Science on Gun Research
Journal of the American Medical Assoc.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470
Gosh, its almost like one side of this argument would prefer less research, despite their complete certainty about what that research would reveal. Of course, you can’t trust gun-grabbers, better to trust people with rock solid academic credentials and a spotless record for reliability. Like that Lott fellow, a veritable paragon…
Oddly enough the world is not controlled by the US congress, even studies in other parts of the world (where they have done bans) would be something.
But the AMA was being harassing, did they also berate their patients about riding motorcycles or flying in general aviation or about how they drove to the doctors office?
All of those have a higher per exposure hour risk rate.
But I will not defend the actions of the Republican party, the only reason I am here trying to fight ignorance is so that we don’t hand power in Washington to the Republican party by passing useless laws.
The social costs of that will be much higher IMHO.
It would have to be a lot more than maybe a few dozen deaths in a bad year. I suppose that deserves a “dear lord” if you think that it’s sensible to burn massive amounts of political capital and institute sweeping and expensive policy changes to address every single theoretically preventable death. Well, actually, only the ones that make headlines.
So, because addressing the real problem is hard, let’s instead spend our limited resources on a solution that will do basically nothing and be nearly as expensive, and will in fact make addressing the real problem even harder? I think it’s my turn to :dubious:
Also note, if the cause of the homicide rate was the effectiveness of “modern” (if 60 year old technology is modern) firearms why is the homicide rate in the us as the lowest rate it has been in centuries?
http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Violence-Stylized-2.png
Source: http://thepublicintellectual.org/2011/05/02/a-crime-puzzle/
Yet we are willing to spend 10’s of Billions of Dollars to enact laws that have been shown to be ineffectual.
While just accepting that is better than the cost emboldening the mostly conservative pro-gun crowd.
ElvisL1ves’s home, with liberal gun laws, has a similar homicide rate (1.3 per 100,000) as the United Kingdom (1.2 per 100,000.)
But facts are unimportant?
It is unlikely that any discussion will be expending any valuable resources, save for air.
How likely do you think there will be a discussion about mental health stigma and services now that the Feinstein and the President have decided to push forward with “gun control?”
The time and effort of our legislating bodies are resources. So is the political capital that would be burned in enacting an assault weapons ban, which would imperil the incumbency of many liberal politicians and increase the difficulty in regulating handguns.
Uh, what?
The AMA added “how many guns are in the house” and many doctors would refuse service if patients refused to answer.
Many doctors also berated parents for having guns in the house etc…
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/5/201025.shtml
But that is another thread.
Agreed, we should be having a full national discussion about regulating *all *firearms. Assault style weapons is a rat hole.
Note: I’m saying regulation not banning all firearms.
So, can you provide a cite where that reduced homicides in any significant amount?
Or do you just assume that it will?
Why can’t we have a talk about mental health or some other subject which may help?
Why do we have to have a discussion about banning a physical object when the only effect those laws seem to have is to rally the conservative electorate?
Let’s stop right there. A distinction needs to be made in purchasing guns legally in a registered fashion.
One can go to a gun show and buy a firearm or get one via a private sale and there is no trace to the individual that purchases, even though this may be legal in some jurisdictions. These firearms can be involved in illegal activities. It’s a big problem. I count these firearms as part of the problem group, and I don’t think you do. Care to clarify.
There’s ton’s of stuff out there from the ATF and elsewhere on straw purchases. Mayors against illegal guns website has a PDF here: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/inside-straw-purchases.pdf
And utterly irrelevent. If the story had been broken by the Plumbers Union of Akron, Ohio, Local #114, the story is either true or it isn’t. Of what possible significance is the fact that the story appears in the Journal of the AMA?
A fear of the actions of the AMA was the impetus for those Republicans shady political actions.
Your link to the AMA’s story was not:
It was a misguided effort to stop what they viewed as indoctrination and attempts at a private database of “firearms” by the AMA a known and publicly stated anti-gun organization.
It was not as you claimed, or inferred, an attempt to hide the risks of gun ownership.
It was also not the action of the “gun lobby” but of “pro-gun members of Congress”.
Also remember a large part of the reason the Republicans could do that in 1996 is due to the massive losses the D’s had after the passage of the ineffective AWB in 1994.
Give me at least one cite from, say, the 1950s that people were clamoring that handguns and semi-automatic rifles be banned; or admit you pulled that out of your ass.
Prove a negative. Great! Not possible to cite where gun registrations would reduce homicides significantly since that is not the case in the US of A.
However, we could look at ALL other developed nations. Here is a nifty tablethat shows all deaths related to guns by country. Whaddya know, US has a pretty bad record for homicides. The worst by far of any developed country at 4.2 homicides (per 100k I think) versus the worst developed rate #2 in Canada at 1.6 and #3 the UK at 1.2.
Lessee, assuming the Wiki numbers are reasonably close, that shows homicide gun death in the US at 3.7 per 100k out of the total homicide rate at 4.2 per 100k.
You want to try explain away these numbers? (and I don’t remember which poster used the UK as an example but the UK had 0.04 gun homicides out of 1.2 murders per 100k population)
(And sure, lets in parallel also have that mental health and other prevention conversations. It’s not an either or proposition - both are needed. And I for one don’t have an issue of giving the conservative electorate something to rally behind. History has proved them wrong an a number of significant issues like slavery, womens rights, abortion, etc.)
So you are saying that the fact that gun bans haven’t worked anyplace in the world means that they will in the US because we are special? Look up thread and you will see links that prove it didn’t do anything in Australia as an example.
Yet when you look at it per state is is similar to Europe in other ways.
E.G. My state has a rate similar to Finland and New England has a similar rate to the United Kingdom.
http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html
So why is their overall rate the same as New England where guns are common?
But sure if you pull rich homogenized countries the US rate looks bad but europe overall has a rate of 3.5 per 100,000 and that is pretty close to our national rate. Homicide rates are much higher in the South of the US just as it is in Eastern Europe.
Yet many of those “safe” European countries have liberal gun laws as do several of the richer US states.
So yes, without some evidence that the number of firearms owned by law abiding citizens means anything your claims are bunk.
I personally don’t want to waste time on moving forward with women’s rights, gay rights, reproduction rights, universal healthcare etc..
Especially when all the data shows that your solution doesn’t work at all.
So yes…as a liberal I ask you for the data before you toss all of my other causes in front of the bus.
Why are you so willing to throw everything away on a single issue?
