Gun sales today...pretty amazing...

[TonyJoey]

These mass-shootings are only the tip of the iceberg. There are 600+ accidental deaths by guns per year. It'd be easier to look at the facts if the NRA didn't continue to try to thwart firearms reasearch.

[guncrasher]

Let's look at this logically with an analogy, leaving emotion out of the equation.

Let's suppose that there has been a recent spate of multiple fatalities involving children, due to drunk drivers colliding with school buses. Children are being tossed around inside the buses and suffering catastrophic injuries. It appears that most of these involved the drunk driving a Ford Mustang GT. This appears to be a solid pattern. Public outcry demands something be done. The media rages about the high performance Mustangs, arguing that no one needs such a car. Some lawmakers want to limit the horsepower of all cars, stating that there's no acceptable reason to drive something that can exceed the speed limits by a factor of 3. A small majority of the public seems to agree based upon polls. Thus, the government bans all the installation of engines exceeding 300 hp in any Pony car or sports car.

Does this solve the problem?

Are the children any safer?

Does this reduce drunk driving?

Does this prevent a drunk from driving a 5,000 lb pickup truck at more than twice the posted speed limit?

Nothing will change because the root cause(s) have not been addressed. Only some emotional salve has been applied. Innocent law abiding citizens are being penalized for the actions of a tiny few and the root cause is untouched and those who don't think high performance cars should be on the public roads will rejoice at getting what they want.

but remember the tires, roofs, side doors, crumble zones, brakes... and you can name a zillion other safety changes were made because only a few people died.  they didnt got rid of cars but they did change the design to make them safer.  then we have law changes, when before you had a drunk driver kill another well that was too bad, basically as it was called an "accident".  now you get charged with murder as it should be.

remember cars dont kill people, people kill people.   having an analogy comparing cars to guns is dumb.

midway

[Tank-Ace]

There are a lot of things we have,  but don't need, that are far more damaging to society in the long run. Unless you demand fast food be banned, your case for banning assault weapons is severely weakened, given that more die from food-induced heart problems every year than are killed by weapons of all kinds.

Also just what percentage of deaths are caused by assault weapons? What proof do you offer that it is assault weapons that are more deadly, as opposed to the typical owner of an assault weapon being more  likely to have greater proficiency with firearms of all kinds in such a situation  compared to your typical hick with a bolt action.

[Big Rat]

Those guys at Harvard need to get their story straight. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

"Most people use the words "murder" and "homicide" interchangeably, but they are not the same. Although murder and homicide are both used to describe the act of killing another human being, the circumstances surrounding the charges are different.
 The easiest way to describe the differences between murder and homicide is that homicide is the killing of another human being, while murder requires the intent to kill another human being. Homicide can be used to describe any death where another person is at fault, but there are mitigating circumstances that can influence the charge of homicide. When someone is convicted of murder, however, they are not only convicted of a homicide, but also the malicious intent to kill."

Therefore that study would include any accidental deaths caused by another human being.  They just add guns into the mix as another possibly way to die accidently or on purpose, which will increase the rate.  Might as well say accidental deaths are more common with people that own swimming pools, compared to those that do not have a pool, same result would occure. I bet there's way more accidental drownings every year in backyard pools then 600+. Lets ban pools, their death traps .    

 
BigRat  

[TonyJoey]

There are a lot of things we have,  but don't need, that are far more damaging to society in the long run. Unless you demand fast food be banned, your case for banning assault weapons is severely weakened, given that more die from food-induced heart problems every year than are killed by weapons of all kinds.

This asinine logic is just way too prevalent. Because there are other problems, don't deal with this one. Don't address the 30,000+ gunshot deaths that occur each year. Of course obesity should be dealt with, but so should gun violence. 


Big, for one, an accidental pool drowning isn't a homicide. The independent variable is gun ownership, and the dependent, homicide rates. If a country or state with more guns have drastically higher homicide rates than those with less guns, then there has to be a trend. A lower homicide rate is a good thing. 

Here's another study by Johns Hopkins http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf

Whatever side you're on on this issue, we should all agree that guns should be studied and researched thoroughly; let the results speak for themselves. The NRA blocking research is all too similar to the tactics of the tobacco industry.

[Widewing]

Those guys at Harvard need to get their story straight. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Completely different departments within Harvard. The writings generally cited on the Harvard School of Public Health site were not sponsored by nor published by Harvard. They were published in medical publications and were the work of dedicated anti-gun advocates. Much if their stuff was written more than a decade ago, and has been roundly pummeled for cherry picking data and ignoring contradictory data. In short, they ignored scientific method when it didn't support their previously formed conclusions. This is primarily the work of three individuals, all members of anti-gun organizations prior to their writings.

The piece I cited was peer reviewed and was praised for being objective in its approach and methodology.

[Widewing]

Whatever side you're on on this issue, we should all agree that guns should be studied and researched thoroughly; let the results speak for themselves. The NRA blocking research is all too similar to the tactics of the tobacco industry.

Objective research... I agree, can be useful. The problem is that there is little objectivity on either side. One need only look at the Global Warming debate to recognize that no one is less scientific than scientists with an agenda.

Now, explain how the NRA blocks research....

[SmokinLoon]

These mass-shootings are only the tip of the iceberg. There are 600+ accidental deaths by guns per year. It'd be easier to look at the facts if the NRA didn't continue to try to thwart firearms reasearch.

   

[guncrasher]

There are a lot of things we have,  but don't need, that are far more damaging to society in the long run. Unless you demand fast food be banned, your case for banning assault weapons is severely weakened, given that more die from food-induced heart problems every year than are killed by weapons of all kinds.

Also just what percentage of deaths are caused by assault weapons? What proof do you offer that it is assault weapons that are more deadly, as opposed to the typical owner of an assault weapon being more  likely to have greater proficiency with firearms of all kinds in such a situation  compared to your typical hick with a bolt action.

what proof do you have that fast food is causing all those deaths?  and dont you think that the research on those is also based on people who have an agenda?

midway

[TwinBoom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XMg0FQS6Fqo

[Dadsguns]

^^Score 1 for the good guys.... 

[TonyJoey]

By lobbying heavily to cut funding for firearms research, such as that done by the CDC.

[Tank-Ace]

what proof do you have that fast food is causing all those deaths?  and dont you think that the research on those is also based on people who have an agenda?

midway

Well, theres that morgan spurlock guy for one thing, and common sense backed up by cause and effect for another. And its a major contributing factor, not the direct cause. But you miss the point.

Firearms aren't the leading cause of death, even for non-natural causes. IIRC, automobile accidents kill more people each year than projectile weapons. Yet we still don't see the kind of hysteria that a shooting causes, when they differ very little in principle. You're just as dead if you get hit by a drunk driver as you are if you take a .30cal round to the face, and its just as invoulantary on your part.

Really, that it only becomes an issue when there is a shooting, despite the fact that there have been multiple shootings in the past and the threat of shootings is well recognized, damn near proves that its just an illogical, irrational, knee-jerk, emotion-driven response.

This most recent shooting in a long line of shootings and killings didn't change anything. It wasn't piviotal. It wasn't the final straw that finally provoked people to long-needed action. The simple is that it was worse than most, and elicited a stronger-than-usual emotional response.



Untill there is the same demand for action against obesity, drunk driving, and all the other things that result in more deaths than firearms, theres no way to call those supporting extensive gun-control anything but stupid.

[TonyJoey]

A life saved is a life saved. Why do you consider someone trying to reduce gun violence stupid? If you disagree with their beliefs on how gun violence would be reduced, fine, that's your prerogative, but calling them stupid for trying to reduce gun violence?

[Dago]

True. But the constitution is "a living document". It's subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS. Australia gives a good case study in solving the problem. But I agree, the US is not Australia.

No, it's not a living document, that is just some nonsense the left has been trying to sell for years so they could have the ability to go in and rewrite the very basis upon which our country was founded to their way of thinking.  The SCOTUS decides when certain issues are in line with the Constitution, or not.  They do not have the ability to change it, only interpret the framers intent.

They have ruled on the 2nd plenty, and like it or not, they accepted the framers intent to let the people have firearms.  Most types.