I heard that at least six of the children were suffering from constipation, and instantly cured.
Is there anything guns can’t do?
Improve cognitive function. Amply demonstrated herein.
Careful, second hand smoke kills more in the US than drunk driving and guns combined. (Warning CDC study)
Kable may add tobacco to his list of things to ban along with guns - or propose some government agency to control all three…
Why do people feel that registration will lead to confiscation? It’s a method of accountability, in case a weapon is lost or used in a crime. People have to be just as responsible and accountable for getting perscription medication, from antibiotics to pain killers. It won’t keep drug addicts from getting their hands on illegal pills or other substances, but it’s a small step to help ensure that pharmacies and doctors aren’t out there legally supplying drug addicts with oxy. Yet you don’t had people freaking out that the government is going to confiscate medication, medication that could be dangerous in the wrong hands, because the government has a way to track all legally sold perscription medications.
As for my use of the phrase, “the need to have guns in the first place”, I wasn’t talking about explaining to the government that we need guns for sport, collection, or protection. I was talking more about the fact that people in society need guns as a general idea because we are in some modern concept of mutually assured destruction. Taking away guns from average citizens isn’t going to solve the issue of violent crime any more than taking away tanks or RPG’s is going to eliminate war. People will still find a way to wage war, and criminals will still find a way to jack my tv or mug me in the street. So if we want to realistically address the issue of gun control or a repeal of the 2nd Amendment to somehow make a debt in gun deaths or violent crime, we can’t do that until we’ve first addressed the root of crime itself. I live in Texas, a state where we love our guns, and until I have some sort of reasonable expectation that somebody breaking into my house won’t have a gun, I do think we need to be on a level playing field. I think it’s sad I feel this way, however. I used to live in Spain, and I miss living in a society where the worst crime I had to reasonably worry about was a purse snatcher or a gypsy breaking into my car in the middle of the night.
Well, tough shit, you live in Texas and have the additional worry that an Aggie will molest your cattle.
It isn’t that registration will lead to confiscation, but that it can; or to put it another way, confiscation wouldn’t have a chance of working unless the government knew where most or all of the guns were, which can’t happen as long as there isn’t universal registration. Most of the pro-gun people I know think registration in and of itself would be fine as a method of accountability. But people who DO want to confiscate and ban guns have been openly crowing about their intentions for years, and gun bans have in fact followed mandatory registration in some states and in places like Britain. Before going along with universal registration, gun owners would want the same level of assurance that their guns would never ever be banned as we currently have that the Joint Chiefs of Staff won’t overthrow the President and establish a junta.
Like, say, a constitutional amendment backed by multiple landmark SCOTUS rulings?
Oh, you mean my current residence? Be more clear. I’ve lived here for about 10 years.
No, your a moron. Is high school the best you got, or less. And yes, I think I understand risk pretty well, I played poker for a number of years, consistently won too, which isn’t easy. You know risk, reward, probabilities. etc. I got that all down pretty well. If there are any facts you think I have missed, I’d be happy to hear them.
Based on what I’ve read on the dope, that’s not enough.
Then why are AWBs and magazine limits still being proposed?
"Greg Rodriguez, big-game hunting expert and host of TV’s “A Rifleman’s Journal,” has been shot to death.
Rodriguez was killed near the resort town of West Glacier, Mont., while visiting a local woman, according to an Associated Press report. Police believe the shooter was the woman’s husband, who later returned to his home and killed himself. Rodriguez, 43, was married with two children."
For some good news: Would-Be Robber Shot and Killed By Victim in Miami – NBC 6 South Florida
Yes, I do, but only because of all the caterwauling about the “ban on research into gun violence” when it was just a ban on research by the CDC (and NIH). The NRA was reacting to a perceived bias at the CDC, but what we get are cries that the NRA hates science. Well, the stuff I’ve seen has been published by the research branch of the DoJ, I think their statistical methods are probably just as good as anyone’s, in fact their report is very critical of their own findings and not very supportive of the NRA position, and yet, they weren’t shut down. Why is that?
I agree that if we are talking about mental health issues, then outfits like the CDC and NIMH are particularly well equipped to study the gun phobia among gun control advocates and the paranoia among gun nuts. But if you want to study the relationship between gun violence and gun ownership, I don’t see what special skill the CDC has that the DoJ does not.
I think I understand a little bit how funding affects research, I was exposed to it during the stem cell research debate back in the day. The ban on CDC research into gun violence was political payback for an agency that appeared to enter the political field of battle.
Or he might be tempted to read the data in the light most favorable to his cause. Try to push the debate in one direction or another.
And in this case he did get busted and the CDC has been paying the price for the last decade and a half. I don’t think they’ll make that mistake again.
If that were true then why have we been getting a fairly steady trickle of research from the DoJ and the CRS after the shut down the CDC? And I’m not at all sure that all these studies supported the NRA position on things.
The study was poorly conducted but the DoJ is not prohibited from doing something like it again without the problems. The obvious way (to me) would be to ask first about defensive gun use in your lifetime, then defensive gun use in the last year (people are much more likely to be honest about defensive gun use in the last year if they have already had an opportunity to register their defensive gun uses over their whole lifetime). You can certainly fix the definition problem by using broader definitions in the beginning of the survey and using more exacting definitions later in the survey.
Because it has happened in the past. Not only in places like Pol Pot’s Cambodia but also in places like California.
Or you can pass laws that are designed to disarm criminals rather than law abiding citizens.
They did this in California.
You are asking for a cultural shift in our democracy that will never happen. People WILL try, but they will never succeed, not at the federal level, not in your grandchildren’s lifetime.
If this isn’t enough for you (and I can see why you would be uneasy), what we can do is have the registration self destruct if they pass a law that would use the registration list as the basis of confiscation.
I agree that gun confiscations generally are unconstitutional but several states have done it and gotten away with it. Noone is afraid they will confiscate ALL the guns, they are afraid, that once the licensing and registration works to disarm the criminal population, they will start disarming the civilian population, little by little until the right to bear arms in the US resembles the right to bear arms in Mexico (where they have banned “military style weapons” which means any revolver larger than a 38 special or pistol larger than a 380, any rifle larger than a 22lr or (if a member of a hunting or shooting club) any shotgun large than 12 ga shotgun.
Mexico also has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms but the meaning has been stripped from the right so that you can only keep certain arms and you can only bear them in your home or at a shooting club. And they have horrible gun violence.
Excuse me, but says who? Who says the CDC work was biased and flawed? The NRA?
Besides their discomfort with the results, what is their proof? Does the scientific community and statistical academics wholly agree with that NRA position, roundly condemning the poor work of the CDC? I had not heard this, perhaps you’ll clarify
You state this so matter of factly, as if its something that everybody knows and nobody questions, I’m duty bound to question. Says who?
I know California just approved a measure to confiscate legally obtained weapons from people who have since been disqualified from owning such weapons, such as people who landed a criminal record or were declared mentally ill. Imo these ARE measures to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people. But if a state passes laws arbitrarily confiscating weapons from law abiding and mentally sound citizens, the Supreme Court thus far has upheld a persons’s right to bear arms, most recently in the 2010 case of McDonald v Chicago.
As for the correlation between gun violence, restrictive bans on weapons, and the failure of such bans to lower the rate of gun related violence, I often hear people discuss Chicago. They point out that Chicago has had some of the most severe restrictions on gun ownership in the country, yet the rate of violence in that city is one of the highest in the nation. But Chicago is the perfect example of what I’ve been trying to say all along, that the root of violence can’t or shouldn’t be measured in terms of who has guns or the measures the local government has taken to restrict gun ownership.
2/3 of the violent crime and gun related deaths in Chicago occur in the poor neighborhoods that have the higest level of people living in poverty, unemployment, and lack of education and resources. It’s one of the most segregated cities in the nation. There is a deep social, cultural, and economic divide in that city. So trying to ban people overall from owning assault weapons or other measures to restrict gun ownership doesn’t address the disease. It’s only trying to address a symptom of a much more serious and pervasive disease, so to speak.
THIS!