It is entirely relevant to include suicide, as guns make it far more likely for the person to succeed on the first attempt - unsuccessful suicides very rarely try again.
From the above-cited article:
Also see charts #10 and #11 in the above linked article.
What part of, ‘you’re wrong’ was unclear? Your claim was that the CDC is prevented from conducting any and all gun research. That’s wrong. They are prohibited from gun control advocacy. What’s telling is that you equate the two, calling the promotion of gun control “proper research”.
So, I challenge you, cite the legislation or rule that supports your claim that the CDC is prevented from conducting any and all gun research. You can’t, because you’re wrong. To defeat this claim I would need to find a single CDC funded item after the Dickey Amendment, correct? Here is one:
You’re wrong.
They do.
Yes, there was a biased and flawed study that showed that having a gun in the house could increase danger. Based upon many flawed assumptions, and selective choices of data.
This is not true. What was prohibited was again deliberately doing a biased “study” with the outcome already decided.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340
“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.”
This is such a simple, and eloquent, post that I think it bears repeating.
Someone who wants to ban firearms wishes to use a current event to promote the same ol’ ideas as if many voters haven’t previously/repeatedly decided that the 2nd Amendment is about self-defense and a host of other stuff. It’s pretty much a case of doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.
Well, the first link shows an opinion piece written by Chris Cox:
…I don’t think he can be called unbiased, do you?
The second article is written by Larry Bell, another opinion piece, and according to his bio:
…somehow I doubt his expertise in matters statistical.
[quote=“DragonAsh, post:84, topic:797873”]
But anyway, if you want incidents of intentional homicides? With levels of gun ownership? Sure, we have that:
Intentional homicides per 100,000 / estimated guns per capita
US: 4.88 / 90
UK: 0.92 / 6.6
Japan: 0.31 / 0.6
/
[QUOTE]
I looked at your figures and saw “Japan .31/.6”, and thought to myself there is no way Japan has .6 guns per person. And sure enough, checking the wiki source you seem to have cited it’s not “per capita” it’s “guns per 100 people”. Nitpick, but there you go. The comparative ratios are still useful nontheless.
In an era where “real” news networks are spreading FakeNews, I get my real news from a comedy show. According to FauxNews and the FauxWhite House, “now is not the time to be talking about guns.”
It seems nuts to me to think that everything would have been the same if the shooter hadn’t had bump stocks. After the first few moments of chaos, everyone was running for cover. In those chaotic few moments, automatic or near-automatic levels of rate of fire were logically more deadly than semi-auto rates of fire, and after those first moments, most who were able and mobile were finding or had found cover.
How could rate of fire not matter when it comes to how many people are killed in a mass shooting, especially when the target is a crowd?
Excellent post, wolfpup. I chalk this up to another example of American exceptionalism. We fetishize guns, which earns us periodic mass shootings. Similar to how we spend more on health care, yet get worse results. Just more and more signs of cracks in the empire…
Umm … did you misspell Wilson?
Here’s a thought: maybe by reducing the availability of guns in the population and perhaps by making guns less easy to obtain, maybe, just maybe we would see American society become a little – or even a lot – less violent. To some degree, guns are an extension and representation of our culture’s endorsement of violent means to resolve conflict. We also see this tendency reflected in our casual willingness to use our military to resolve conflicts abroad and our embrace of capital punishment to exact vengeance upon domestic criminals. Perhaps by taking away our guns, it might require the average person to rely a little more on gray matter to resolve disputes or inner turmoil instead of just reaching for a pistol that end scores of lives and leave thousands of survivors grieving for decades with just a few squeezes of a trigger.
An earlier poster noted that semi-auto fire might be a little slower but its more deadly because it can be aimed. Automatic fire is spray and pray.
I made a mistake there in my old age. 
If you want to attack our culture of violence , wouldn’t it make more sense to go right to its source? We love violent movies, music and video games. On some FPS, we are free to blow things away to our hearts content with no repercussions. Even people who have never fired a real gun are trained in the act of murder.
If like to see a study finding correlation between mass killing and the rise of violent culture.
Another excellent post. But who says Americans WANT less violence? We LIKE being the bullies of the world. And we elected a president who advocated violence at his rallies…
CHICAGO!
(drops mic)
Please cite where I claimed there was.
Trick question, as I didn’t.
My response is only to all of those wondering how he managed to “smuggle” all these guns into his room. He didn’t have to. He could have carried them openly up to his room, with no one saying a word to him about it.
I actually don’t think he carried them. My thought on how he got them up to his room: Bellhop. (How shitty would it be to have been that guy)
If a bag had come open, and a bunch of guns and ammo came rolling out, hotel response would have been, “Let me help you with that.”
XT did make that claim, but was refuted, based on the fact that you don’t need to aim for this sort of situation. You may be barely able to hit the broad side of a barn, but when that barn is made of people, you can’t actually miss.
He was firing into a crowd of people half the size of a football field. That was his target. Any hit in that target is deadly. More bullets going into the crowd over a short period of time is going to do more damage than fewer bullets going into the crowd. More bullets is more dead and wounded.
Spray and pray works just fine into crowds.
He also had rifles in his room that would have been semi-automatic, that I assume were intended for sniping targets once the crowd had cleared out to no longer present an easy target. These would have been deadly to anyone who he was aiming at, once he switched to that method of firing, after the easy crowds had dispersed.
I totally agree with you that the current system for Federal background checks is flawed and inadequate. But a system DOES exist and (presumably) CAN be improved.
Sadly, I believe that the shooter in LV would likely have been approved for all his firearm purchases, regardless of how thorough the vetting was. Also, we know that many firearms used in criminal activities were stolen or purchased directly from another individual (including at gun shows), thus completely avoiding the background checks required when purchasing from an FFL.
I continue to believe that the strict regulation of ammunition sales, along with restrictions on the manufacture or possession of propellants, may be the only hope we have.