What does this mean to you in terms of crafting public policy? It sounds wonderful and all, but we as a society make choices every day with regard to public policy that we know will result in people dying that wouldn’t otherwise die. So saying every life is precious is vacuous unless that is put in terms of what tradeoffs are being proposed in exchange for that single life.
You mean educating in gun safety right? Because in my experience gun rights proponents tend to be more knowledable about guns and gun safety then gun control activists.
It’s true fewer and fewer retailers carry guns anymore. Years ago KMart, Walmart, Sears and others carried them. Now its only the specialty retailers like Cabelas and Dick’s.
But I’m not sure its the gun industries fault but more of a society so scared of guns they do not want to see guns in the same store selling toys and underwear. And in related, fewer stores carry toy guns either. Disney about 20 years ago even stopped selling replica flintlocks in Frontierland.
Does the CDC typically do criminology work with epidemiology? I honestly don’t know the answer to that. Do they track other types of murders and other crimes, or are gun deaths a special case?
If it’s the latter, then it would seem politically motivated. Generally, when doctors attempt to treat gun fatalities as a medical issue, it’s politically motivated. There was a minor movement of pediatricians not long ago that refused to treat kids if their parents were gun owners, and the AMA often takes positions which are obviously political and quite frankly none of their business, like supporting assault weapons bans.
In any case, the FBI is tasked with doing criminology work and generating statistics about crime, and we get figures from them about it. The ban you linked to only seemed to affect the CDC, and I haven’t seen evidence that the NRA or any other lobbying organization is attempting to suppress data collection by criminologists after the FBI.
The CDC collects data on many many different kinds of deaths and injuries.
I think you’re mischaracterizing the issue. You make it sound as if it were a collective decision arrived at by consensus. The reality is that on all of the issues you listed, there are proponents who want to push those issues in terms of greater restrictions, a large indifferent middle, and a group that’s fiercely dedicated to fighting the infringement of those rights.
The prime example would be the ACLU. The ACLU is more extremist in its defense of free speech rights and fourth amendment rights than the NRA is in regard to gun rights. And good on them for it. But there are always loud minorities fiercely fighting against what they view as infringements on their rights. They just haven’t been as successful in mounting a defense against infringements of the rights they attempt to protect. Their relative ineffectiveness, I think, is glossed over by you when you attempt to portray it as some great societal consensus, rather than the balance of power between the factions on either side of it.
So I’m coming to the opposite conclusion: I wish the ACLU was as loud and powerful and successful as the NRA was, rather than painting ineffectiveness and concession on the issue of fundamental rights as compromise or collective decision.
But the point is - if gun control advocates win some victories, where does it stop? Do they put a few laws on the books and say “well, okay, good, we’ve reached a happy middle ground on this issue, let’s keep this as is and pack it up and go home”? No, they’ll move on to the next set of restrictions they feel that they can get passed. The basic question is: what’s the ultimate goal of the gun control agenda, and where is it leading? To which California is a practical real world example, especially since demographic changes in most places generally favor gun control and more places will become like California in that regard.
They sure had a pile of them for sale outside Pirates when I was there last year. They were cheap plastic instead of the lovely wood and metal ones of my youth but they were there.
You actually do realize you’re denouncing something that didn’t actually exist, right?
It’s “unfortunate” that the absolutists succeeded in killing it? And do tell us more about the appeal to emotion fallacy, please, with reference to your hatred of Feinstein. :rolleyes:
You promise not to try to kill those efforts and blame Feinstein for it? :dubious: That, even though you supported stopping Manchin-Toomey, which would have done some of what you say you want done?
Do you understand why you have a credibility issue here?
(post shortened)
Something like the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, perhaps? It’s a simple program that teaches children not to handle firearms without adult supervision.
If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don’t Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.
The gun-grabbers often object to such a simple statement being promoted to children because it comes from the NRA. It seems the gun-grabbers don’t really care about child safety as much as they are interested in banning firearms.
You’ll have to wait a little longer to mischaracterize the timing of events and have people take you seriously. Manchin-Toomey wasn’t about assault weapons yes, but just a few months prior that was what was being pushed. If you are claiming that one effort didn’t color the impression of the other then you are being disingenuous.
The reason the proposal by Feinstein was defeated was in part because of vocal opposition. Assault weapon bans were attempted to be included in the run up to Manchin-Toomey, and were only removed from the bill after it was clear that it had no chance of passage. That is why there was a separate vote on that issue alone.
It’s farcical to claim that Machin-Toomey’s defeat wasn’t influenced by the push to ban assault weapons immediately prior.
(Bolding mine)
Done.
Pointing out the basic facts, including the emotionalism of the factually ignorant, is disingenuous? 
No shit. The opposition was based on what facts, exactly? Not what was actually in the bill, things that even the gun-rights absolutists claim (when pressed) to actually support - no, anger over the fact that Feinstein is even alive trumped all of that, didn’t it?
Tell us more. :rolleyes:
Cite?
Cite?
(checking forum) That’s entirely a product of your own imagination.
The CDC’s mission is to study and help reduce threats to public health, which includes injury as well as illness. For instance, their main page (at least when I checked today) has a feature on helping construction workers prevent falls from heights, and, in general, their feature page has a section on “Injury, Violence, and Safety.” They gather data and statistics on the incidence of disease and injuries, and collecting data on injuries which occurred through violence is definitely a part of that.
So, to answer your question from their National Violent Death Reporting System form (same as the last link of the previous paragraph), they track crime as is relevant from a public health perspective-- i.e., they track injuries and deaths from intentional poisonings and blunt force trauma as well as gunshot wounds, but they don’t track, say, embezzlement or vandalism.
So, yeah, studying and helping reduce/prevent injuries and deaths from firearms definitely falls under the purview of the CDC and doesn’t reflect any particular bias against firearms.
But it’s not just a matter of data collection; it’s a matter of drawing useful conclusions from that data, and that requires research. Researchers need funding in order to carry out their research. The main funding agencies for research on preventing injuries from gun violence would be the CDC and the NIH (National Institute of Health), and the ban on the use of research funds was extended to everything in the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the NIH. With no research money, most researchers who had been doing work left the field, and nobody is training new students.
So, the NRA cutting of research funding resulted in an almost complete brain drain, no up-to-date research being conducted, and, hence, there is almost no science that gun control proponents could even draw on.
I’m not sure that is even remotely true:
$2 million in awards for the sole purpose of researching gun issues. Awarded by the NIJ
Here is another $1.5MM awarded to Duke University from the NIJ for gun issues research. I’ll be the first to admit that research at this level is not my specialty at all, but it seems that the research is underway and is being funded by the government for at least close to $4 million dollars in the last two fiscal years.
Can you explain if/why this level of research is inferior to that which the CDC would sponsor?
I think a lot of the indifferent middle actually favors some additional gun laws, as the background check polls show. I realize that doesn’t count for much in terms of accomplishing things: people who view things the way NRA leadership does have a big head start in terms of money and attention-grabbing skills. But I think it’s relevant in placing the current state of these laws in context.
I’m going to need some great cites to convince me on that point. The ACLU are great and unbiased defenders of free speech, but I don’t think they’re opposed to all restrictions on speech. As far as I can tell they don’t oppose the restrictions currently in place. I could be wrong and I’m not sure how comparable these things really are, but I don’t see it.
I was describing that balance of power as a social consensus. I don’t think that’s inaccurate, but maybe it’s confusing. What I’m describing is the current state of affairs.
The same place it ends on laws regarding speech, religion, search and seizure: you’ll notice there are compromises in some areas on those rights but none of them have been abolished. You’re correct that even if some new gun laws are passed, there will be people who want more. The problem is that’s true of every single issue you can name in politics. Any time you pass a law, there will be people who want it to go further. That’d be a great excuse for never passing another law, and in fact that might be where we’re headed. That doesn’t mean people who want further restrictions will actually succeed, and since there are plenty of people who don’t want further restrictions, the idea is totally absurd from where I sit.
I think you’re foolish to assume there’s one agenda that inevitably leads to one place, and that’s being kind.
How about this?
[ul]
[li]I know for a fact that one of the goals of gun control advocates in CA is to**ban **all semi automatic rifleswith detachable magazines. This was proposed by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg as SB 374.[/li][li]One of the goals of the state legislature of New Jersey is to**ban **magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.[/li][li]One of the City of Sunnyvale’s goals is similar,the **ban **they passed is now in front of the 9th circuit.[/li][li]California also wants to**ban **the sale of ammo online or by mail. That was overturned at the state level, but still persists locally in many major cities in the state, including LA.[/li][li]California’s goal to **ban **a weapon that has never been used in any crimeand is primarily for hobbyists has also been successful.[/li][li]California has also successfully **banned **firearms based on their color. Pena v. Cid is awaiting disposition.[/li][li]The City of Chicago’s goal was to require live fire training to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun, then **ban **all firing ranges in the city.[/li][/ul]
There isn’t just one monolithic agenda of course - but there are consistent themes here. Banning things without demonstration of efficacy.
Are you going to acknowledge at some point that California and Chicago are significantly more liberal than the rest of the country? Do you think gun control advocates are going to work some kind of magic that just makes 50% of the public radically change their minds on this issue and the only way to defeat their voodoo is to refuse to compromise at all?
I referenced the fact that Feinstein was the one who found Harvey Milk after he had been murdered and I believe that experience colored her view of firearms. We don’t let families of murder victims serve on the juries of the alleged killer. It’s the same concept. I never said I hated her, you just keep saying that. If using the term “gun grabber” poisons the well then so does putting words in someone else’s mouth.
It’s debatable whether Manchin-Toomey would have had any meaningful impact on gun violence in this country. It expanded background checks at gun shows and Internet sales. Those weren’t the solutions I offered up.
This doesn’t help.
I understand that we shouldn’t leave these kinds of decisions only to families of firearms victims. But discounting their opinions entirely is kind of disgusting.