# Repealing the 2nd Amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 14, 2016, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326 "2016-06-14T04:05:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/201 "2016-06-22T08:42:25Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Because the anti-federalists would only support a constitution that specifically enumerated the fundamental rights the government couldn’t violate, including the right to bare arms. And this was simply a continuation of the right to bare arms that was part of English Common Law. If it was simply “a continuation of the right to bear arms that was part of English common law”, then it wasn’t a fundamental right at all, since it could be limited or abolished at any time by legislation. > [@Waymore](#): > > The logic of my point is it’s disingenuous to ban guns for the ostensible purpose of public safety while taking no action against things that are far, far more deadly. I understand that’s what you’re saying. I’m pointing it that it’s disingenuous of _you_ not to recognise that cars, food, etc have substantial benefits unrelated to public safety, and which are taken into account in determining how they should be regulated, whereas this is is not true of guns, and this explains the different approach to regulating them. > [@Waymore](#): > > The vast majority of handguns never imperil the safety of others. It’s a non-starter. But you can’t have - or, at any rate, you don’t have - firearms regulation which permits “the vast majority of handguns which never imperil the safety of others” and only affect the ones that do. Any firearms regulatory regime (and this includes a complete ban) is going to have good outcomes in certain situations and poor outcomes in others. You have to take both the good outcomes and the poor outcomes into account in framing public policy. You can’t justify a firearms policy by appealing to the good outcomes, the ones you wanted and hoped for, and discount the bad outcomes on the basis that you didn’t want or intend them. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/202 "2016-06-22T08:50:45Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > You may not recognize the right to keep and bare arms, but it was of such a fundamental concern to the framers that the Federalist had to insert the right into the Bill of Rights to get the Anti-Federalists to go along with the Constitution in the first place. Wasn’t slavery also in that list? Like, we can all understand a right to life, to bodily sovereignty, to privacy, things like that. Those can all be rationally justified as “fundamental rights”. What possible similar justification is there for being able to own a firearm? How can we make that case? If I had to start from the position of “There is no fundamental right to life” and demonstrate that we should consider the right to life fundamental, I could. And so could most of the people on this board. Could you do the same for firearm ownership? Why should I consider your right to own a firearm fundamental? And doesn’t this mean we should be handing out guns to every man, woman, and child in America? > [@](#): > > Besides, your objection to handguns would only being to make sense if the number of unjustified homicides plus accidental gun related deaths were seriously out numbered by the number of lives saved by handguns. [http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf](http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf) Oh look a study showing that the number of unjustified homicides alone seriously outnumber the number of lives saved by handguns. In 2012, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year. Granted, we’d probably be better off if we had better studies, like, say, from the CDC, but the CDC isn’t allowed to study gun violence. _I wonder why_. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/203 "2016-06-22T08:59:32Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > If it was simply “a continuation of the right to bear arms that was part of English common law”, then it wasn’t a fundamental right at all, since it could be limited or abolished at any time by legislation. English common law recognized it as a natural right, which is where the founders of America got the idea. > [@UDS](#): > > I understand that’s what you’re saying. I’m pointing it that it’s disingenuous of _you_ not to recognise that cars, food, etc have substantial benefits unrelated to public safety, and which are taken into account in determining how they should be regulated, whereas this is is not true of guns, and this explains the different approach to regulating them. But it doesn’t. Yes, food and cars have benefits beyond public safety. That doesn’t detract from the fact that 1) the right to bare arms is fundamental and 2) public safety is adequate in itself to justify the ownership of handguns, even if that ownership weren’t a fundamental right. Do you support the banning of unhealthy diets and lack of exercise? > [@UDS](#): > > But you can’t have - or, at any rate, you don’t have - firearms regulation which permits “the vast majority of handguns which never imperil the safety of others” and only affect the ones that do. Right. There’s no way to totally mitigate the danger handguns present without somehow making them all disappear. But to argue that handguns should be legal only if they are never misused is an impossibly high bar that is applied to no other form of property. > [@UDS](#): > > Any firearms regulatory regime (and this includes a complete ban) is going to have good outcomes in certain situations and poor outcomes in others. You have to take both the good outcomes and the poor outcomes into account in framing public policy. You can’t justify a firearms policy by appealing to the good outcomes, the ones you wanted and hoped for, and discount the bad outcomes on the basis that you didn’t want or intend them. I’m not discounting the bad outcomes, I’m saying they don’t meet the threshold necessary for denying a fundamental right. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/204 "2016-06-22T09:03:41Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Wasn’t slavery also in that list? Yep. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Like, we can all understand a right to life, to bodily sovereignty, to privacy, things like that. Those can all be rationally justified as “fundamental rights”. Because all those things derive from a right to property. The most fundamental right to property being the right to self ownership. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > What possible similar justification is there for being able to own a firearm? How can we make that case? The right to self defense and private property. I’ve made that case all throughout this thread. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > If I had to start from the position of “There is no fundamental right to life” and demonstrate that we should consider the right to life fundamental, I could. Then do so. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Could you do the same for firearm ownership? Yes. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Why should I consider your right to own a firearm fundamental? Because of the rights of self defense and private property. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > And doesn’t this mean we should be handing out guns to every man, woman, and child in America? No ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/205 "2016-06-22T09:16:26Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > [http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf](http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf) > > Oh look a study showing that the number of unjustified homicides alone seriously outnumber the number of lives saved by handguns. > > In 2012, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year. > > Granted, we’d probably be better off if we had better studies, like, say, from the CDC, but the CDC isn’t allowed to study gun violence. _I wonder why_. There are rebuttals to this study. [This one](http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/new-violence-policy-center-study-on-guns-recycles-old-claims-using-justifiable-homicide-data/) for example. There are studies that find contrary results. [This one](https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/) for example. Seems to me this issue has been politicized, and that includes both the pro and anti gun think tanks. I’m not willing to give up fundamental rights for a study that may or may not be conducted in good faith with sound methodology. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/206 "2016-06-22T09:37:34Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Because all those things derive from a right to property. The most fundamental right to property being the right to self ownership. This is _painfully_ backwards. No, the right to property is not the fundamental basis for the right so sovereignty or the right to life. That might be the most bizarre thing I’ve heard all day. > [@](#): > > The right to self defense and private property. Guns are necessary for neither of these things. Worried about self-defense? Get a pit bull. Learn Kraw Maga. Carry a taser or pepper spray. You don’t need a gun to protect yourself any more than you need a hand grenade or a flamethrower. Worried about your private property? Become part of a society that respects property rights. Boom, done. No need for guns. If the society is peaceful enough (or even just not particularly well-armed), [you don’t even need the police to carry guns](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18/5-countries-where-police-officers-do-not-carry-firearms-and-it-works-well/). So, in short, your claims fall horribly flat. > [@](#): > > Then do so. I recommend “The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris for this one. It’s a bit of a long argument and I have little interest to rehash it here. > [@](#): > > Seems to me this issue has been politicized, and that includes both the pro and anti gun think tanks. I’m not willing to give up fundamental rights for a study that may or may not be conducted in good faith with sound methodology. Well why don’t we try to get an overview and examine the best possible data? Does it matter at all? I concede that the study I cited is based on bad data. Well, let’s find some _good_ data. Let’s actually try to resolve this question and figure out if there’s anything to your claim that handguns save more lives. Oh, and by the way? Your “study” that finds contrary results does nothing of the sort - it simply points to a weak correlation between an increasing number of guns and a decrease in gun violence and asserts with no further backing that this correlation means causation. It does _absolutely nothing_ to address the question of whether there are more people protected by guns than killed by guns. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/207 "2016-06-22T12:16:57Z")
[A journalist test-fired an AR-15 and reported on some of the fan mail he received](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gun-lovers-opinion-assault-rifles-article-1.2674555): > [@](#): > > “Kuntzman is an outright liar,” wrote one emailer. “Nice try with an extremely stupid article which only appealed to girly boys and women of NYC and like the sheeple they are probably believed the lies.” > > “Hey there Cupcake!” wrote Gary Haney. “I have never subscribed to the idea of ‘gender confusion,’ but after reading your article on the AR-15, I’m a believer because there is no way you and I are the same gender. You should surrender your testicles to the Department of Girlymen. I’m not sure where it’s located, but your girlfriend Barack does!” > > Others sent me videos of 7-, 10- and 12-year old girls firing the same weapon I fired — except these kids were smiling. And I wear it as a point of personal pride that conservative darling Erick Erickson posted a story on The Resurgent with the headline, “My 10 Year Old Daughter Is Tougher Than Gersh Kuntzman, Author of the Stupidest Thing on the Internet Today.” > > “You f–king pussy,” wrote Sam Markota. “If you have a man card turn it in immediately. You might be better served writing about feminine hygiene products!!!” > > And one of my favorites, thanks to its pithy manner of linking my affliction to another right wing obsession: “Maybe you can get some balls through Obamacare!” wrote Adam Prolo. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/208 "2016-06-22T16:29:06Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > [http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf](http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf) > > Oh look a study showing that the number of unjustified homicides alone seriously outnumber the number of lives saved by handguns. > > In 2012, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year. The metric shouldn’t be counting dead bad guys, counting dead good guys, and comparing the two. It should be “lives saved”, not “gross body count”. > [@](#): > > Granted, we’d probably be better off if we had better studies, like, say, from the CDC, but the CDC isn’t allowed to study gun violence. _I wonder why_. Because the CDC funded a piss-poor study with a political agenda behind it, and the CDC’s Congressional overseers determined that that was a waste of funds and banned the practice. > [@](#): > > Worried about self-defense? Get a pit bull. Learn Kraw Maga. Carry a taser or pepper spray. You don’t need a gun to protect yourself any more than you need a hand grenade or a flamethrower. Spoken like a true male. The reality of crime is, men are usually perpetrators, and women are usually victims. Men usually have a significant height, weight, and strength advantage over female victims. A gun is a way to even the playing field. Krav Maga is a ludicrous suggestion. Here’s an experiment: ask every woman you know if she has ever been a victim of a violent crime. Sadly, probably half of them will say yes. Then ask them, if they were in the same situation again, would they rather be a black belt, or have a gun. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/209 "2016-06-22T16:40:53Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > [A journalist test-fired an AR-15 and reported on some of the fan mail he received](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gun-lovers-opinion-assault-rifles-article-1.2674555): I have to say the idea that comparing firing a ar-15 to a bazooka seems like the journalist was so scared of the weapon before he even touched it that he couldn’t be expected to have a reasoned response to it. I’ve never fired a ar-15, which by the way are extremely customizable and there are so many variations such that it’s hard to call it a single weapon, but I have extensive experience with the m-16 on which ar-15 is based and it is one of the most gentle weapons you can fire. In basic training the drill sergeants wanted to ensure that people weren’t scared of the weapon because it would screw up your aim. They would fire the weapon with the but against various parts of their body including their forehead and their crouch to demonstrate that it had no recoil. My five year old daughter could handle it if i would give it to her. I’ve also been near “bazookas”, actually AT4, as it went off and they’re in no way comparable. I can only conclude that he was so scared of what he was doing that it became a scary monster in his hands. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/210 "2016-06-22T16:47:56Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > I can only conclude that he was so scared of what he was doing that it became a scary monster in his hands. Or he’s a liar. There’s always that. I mean really, saying he got PTSD from firing an AR-15 is Onion level writing. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/211 "2016-06-22T17:29:33Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > The trope that **Johnny Ace** recites is just idiotic. The principal logical flaw is not that “bad guys” get their guns _from_ “good guys”. It’s the fact that _potential_ bad guys are largely indistinguishable from good guys before the fact, and inevitably have just the same legal rights to buy and own weapons. The NRA defines a “bad guy” _ex post facto_ as “anybody who has used a gun illegally”. Prior to committing the gun crime, the “bad guy with a gun” obviously WAS “a good guy with a gun”. > > Until Minority Report becomes reality, any who thinks that we can reliably distinguish good guys from potential bad guys is kidding themselves. Do we really think that better psychiatric care will have any significant effect on gun crime? > > The solution, in **every other civilized country in the world** , is too keep guns out of the hands of everyone who does not have a compelling reason to have one. And the vast majority of citizens In those countries do not see this as infringing their freedom any more than a restriction on the production of weapons-grade Plutonium. It’s a minor restriction with the major benefit that everyone is much safer. > > With the hunting tradition in the U.S., and the historic freedom to carry arms, it’s evidently the preference of the majority to maintain the _status quo_. But, really, let’s give all this prayer and hand-wringing at every major gun homicide a rest. The alternative is obvious, and is exemplified in every other civilized nation in the world. If you don’t want the alternative that’s fine - but you should own the consequences. > > As a footnote on Islamist terrorism in particular: > In most of Western Europe, it is extremely difficult for _anyone_ to obtain a gun illegally. The weapons for the Paris attacks were smuggled in with great difficulty across several borders. There are vastly greater numbers of radical Islamists in Europe than there are in the U.S, and it is almost certainly true that the biggest constraint on terrorism in Europe is the fact that potential terrorists cannot get hold of weapons. In the US, on the other hand, the primary constraint is the relatively small numbers of extremists who are motivated to commit such acts. They can _all_ get weapons trivially easily. If Europe had US-style gun laws, I think we would have almost daily atrocities and be in a state of permanent martial law at this point. Not sure how I missed this response before, but I’ll answer it now. Feel free to abstain from twisting my words into a pretzel anymore. My point seemed fairly obvious to me, but I’ll clarify. Let’s assume that your solution is implemented: most law-abiding citizens are prevented from buying guns. This will not stop those who are _not_ law-abiding from getting them on the black market. So basically you’re making those who actually follow law more vulnerable to those who don’t. It has absolutely nothing to do with somehow divining the buyer’s intent. Clear enough? And please refrain from implying that I’m an idiot in future. I am most assuredly not. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/212 "2016-06-22T17:51:49Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Wasn’t slavery also in that list? > Oh look a study showing that the number of unjustified homicides alone seriously outnumber the number of lives saved by handguns. > > In 2012, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year. > > Granted, we’d probably be better off if we had better studies, like, say, from the CDC, but the CDC isn’t allowed to study gun violence. _I wonder why_. No, it wasn’t. No that study doesn’t say that \*the number of unjustified homicides alone seriously outnumber the number of lives saved by handguns. \* It doesnt count the number of times a handgun was used to save a life -_without_ killing the perp. The CDC is indeed allowed to and indeed does study gun violence. You are simply wrong. > **[Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget](https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/)** > > The Centers for Disease Control was using taxpayer money to pay for biased advocacy studies about guns and gun control. _"Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013._" Here is what they can’t do : \*“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.” \* ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/213 "2016-06-22T17:56:14Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > [A journalist test-fired an AR-15 and reported on some of the fan mail he received](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gun-lovers-opinion-assault-rifles-article-1.2674555): Here’s a quote from the article: "\*Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection). The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. \*" 1. Recoil on a .223 is very light. 2. Smokeless powder has no sulfur smell. That’s blackpowder, which no .223 is powered by. 3. Not that loud if your wearing mandatory hearing protection. Thus,\* he’s lying.\* ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/214 "2016-06-22T17:58:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Here is what they can’t do : \*“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.” > \* Would any study that had “Less guns = safer people” as its conclusion be considered advocating or promoting gun control? ---
**Author:** ![A\_Dodgy\_Dude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a87d85/32.png) [@A\_Dodgy\_Dude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_Dodgy_Dude)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/215 "2016-06-22T18:03:42Z")
Such a good idea! “Let’s update The Bill of Rights!” What could possibly go wrong? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/216 "2016-06-22T18:05:27Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Would any study that had “Less guns = safer people” as its conclusion be considered advocating or promoting gun control? Why would you need to make that conclusion, and how could you back it with data? Just study gun violence- how, where, why, who. Let others draw “conclusions” like that from the data. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/217 "2016-06-22T18:11:52Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Why would you need to make that conclusion, and how could you back it with data? > > Just study gun violence- how, where, why, who. Let others draw “conclusions” like that from the data. I thought “studies” drew conclusions? Just listing out facts (H, W, W, W) seems like a waste of money for the CDC. Wouldn’t that just be a report? “Report from the CDC Listing the number of gun suicides broken down by race” something like that? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/218 "2016-06-22T18:20:37Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I concede that the study I cited is based on bad data. If you know it’s based on bad data, presenting it is bad form. It’s falsifiable in about, 30 seconds. For example, Table 1 says Arkansas had zero justifiable homicides in 2011. [Here is a justifiable homicide in 2011 in Arkansas:](http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2011/11/29/shooting-on-olive-street-leaves-one-dead-one-injured/) > [@](#): > > Stout said three armed men forced their way into the residence and that two people were inside the house at the time. > > One resident, who was in an upstairs bedroom, retrieved a gun and exchanged fire with one of the suspects. > > The resident was injured during the exchange, but drove himself to the Valero gas station, at the intersection of North College Avenue and Lafayette Street, and called for help. The man was transported to Washington Regional Medical Center. > > The suspect who was shot was also taken to Washington Regional Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. The definitions used, the flawed methodology, the bad data sources, all of this contributes to why the VPC info is both wrong, and stupid. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/219 "2016-06-22T18:23:21Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I thought “studies” drew conclusions? Just listing out facts (H, W, W, W) seems like a waste of money for the CDC. Wouldn’t that just be a report? > > “Report from the CDC Listing the number of gun suicides broken down by race” > > something like that? of course there’s be a conclusion, but it could be “Guns are heavily used among inner city youths” or whatever. The conclusion does not have to be political. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/220 "2016-06-22T18:51:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > of course there’s be a conclusion, but it could be “Guns are heavily used among inner city youths” or whatever. The conclusion does not have to be political. True, but that would be a somewhat less than useful study. I would think most people, when they advocate for the CDC to study guns, actually want USEFUL studies like “CCW holders are more/less likely to be robbed” or “Guns in the home increase/decrease home invasions” rather than “Guns are purchased by people who purchase guns” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326.md?page=12)