Are we just gonna rehash the same old gun debates?
I gather he’s saying that overall, the presence of guns creates more problems than it solves.
More simply, for every gun owner who can say he or she has used it in self-defense, there’s a greater number of gun owners who have never done so but:
-they or a family member were injured or killed when they played with or mishandled the gun
-they or a family member succumbed to suicidal depression and found the gun made possible a quick handy “no backsies” method
-they or a family member or a bunch of kids at a school were killed or injured when the gun was put to use in a situation other than self-defense
Now, we don’t generally do a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to rights, it’s not necessary for someone to have to justify keeping and bearing a firearm, no matter how many casualties result from what might be arguably an abuse or misuse of that right.
Well, until there’s a major societal shift, I suppose.
It’s ironic that the left only attempt to be strict constructionalists when it comes to the 2nd amendment.
This is not true, see the CDC “studies” were fatally flawed and biased.
“The problem with these conclusions is that they came before the data, which was manipulated to support their agenda.” This is the opposite of how science works.
And they didnt even try to find out how many people used a gun in self/home defense *without *actually killing the assailant.
When working as a State Security Guard, I never fired a shot in anger, but I had to pull and cover with my weapon about a dozen times, and in at least half of those, doing so prevented further violence and crimes. But apparently those dont count- because well, hey it’s too hard to count them when you have already decided what the conclusion was. Every LEO I know has had about the same experiences.
Well, if the studies were flawed, then do them over, correctly, and without any legislative restraints on the conclusions.
As for your personal experiences and those of your associates, they don’t “count” as evidence in isolation because they’re anecdotal. Let this information get folded into a larger study of the issue if one is truly interested in finding out if private gun ownership (whether or not to include the experiences of LEOs at all is to be determined) is a net benefit or net harm to American society.
Of course, even if it’s a net harm, that doesn’t automatically justify abridgment of the 2nd Amendment or nullification of Heller etc. There’d have to be a longer process where the net harm (or at least the perception that there is net harm) leads to electing officials who are willing to pass restrictions and appoint judges who will uphold those restrictions, i.e. the voice of the people manifesting in law. I realize this is obvious, but I just wanted to be clear.
The only legislative restraint is ""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.”
Well, to give the CDC their due, people *have *tried and it’s damn hard. To not give the CDC their due- they didnt even try.
However, number of guns and number of CCW do not seem to lead to higher crime. In fact more CCW* seems* to lead to lower violent crime.
Except it was not even then about citizens and arms. It merely stated the Federal government should not infringe on STATES who had the right to keep militias. We could not ban guns outright. The states could not then keep militias and the guns had to be at home.
But it deals with limiting the feds and leaving states this power.
And that’s both a stupid and cowardly bit of legislation, like declaring it illegal to prepare for global warming.
Nonsense. It doesnt make it illegal to study gun violence, just to take a side in the debate- which the CDC should not have been doing. They should have been neutral, like science is supposed to be.
“The problem with these conclusions is that they came before the data, which was manipulated to support their agenda.” ** This is not science, this is propaganda. **
So the CDC can study the problem but not make recommendations based on its analysis?
Or perhaps more accurately, they can, if they come to a conclusion the legislators approve of. It’s bullshit.
Well, not if it’s true.
It’s the job of elected officials to make those decisions based upon unbiased data.
No, it’s not, even if it’s true. Bad science hurt all of science.
And it wasnt true.
Where are you getting this from? What do you base it on?
Wasn’t it? I admit the possibility, and I certainly hope people performing statistical analysis do so without bias, but they’re only human. Of course, so are elected officials, and I have no doubt their decisions will be guided by their own biases regardless of the data presented to them.
Anyway, if the anti-vax movement had more power and a few sympathetic legislators who wanted to make it illegal for the CDC to recommend vaccination, I’d be similarly dismissive, though of course the administration of vaccines should be subject to constant analysis and revision.
The text. It starts off with the militia. I am just reading the text like a lawyer. The term people has various meanings.
Which words in there mean ‘this applies only to the Fed and not the states’ to you? Even if you read it without any context or without understanding what the authors were talking about, just read the words that are there (and leaving aside the permutations it went through) I’m not seeing anything about any of that. Nor do I see it being used that way in precedence, nor the historical take on it.
The entire constitution refers to the federal government." Shall not be infringed" refers to federal rule, the three branches of government.
To have these militias, the people have to keep arms at home. The rest (militia use!) is to be decided by states or even local rule.
The federal government also could not ban all arms. No arms no militia, so arms we get.
Does that mean “of all the people who were assaulted, the ones carrying guns were shot 4.5 times more often”? If so, does that statistic include all the people engaged in hazardous lifestyles (e.g. gang members and drug dealers) who are more likely both to be armed and to be shot? If so, file under “lies, damn lies, and statistics”. Carrying a gun in and of itself doesn’t turn you into a bullet magnet.
Good thing then that none of the data I cited to support that guns are more dangerous than a help was from the CDC.
No, they are not effective.
This is not hard to understand.
Let’s say the military is testing a new defensive missile system to protect its troops. When it works it is the absolute best at stopping incoming missiles. No other method is better. Problem is it blows up on the launcher so often that it kills more of our soldiers than the enemy missiles would have had there been no defensive missile system.
Would the brass describe that system as an “effective” defensive system? Of course not.
So, if having a gun increases your chances of being injured/dying rather than improving your chances of survival then it is by definition not an effective means of self defense.
Can it be the best thing sometimes? Sure. But other times it isn’t and the downside trumps the upside. That is in actual defend yourself situations too and not counting suicides and accidents and the rest.
Now, if you want to say that guns are the most effective thing at killing people available to the public then sure. I agree with that.