And if objective research shows that more guns is not the answer, it must be junk science aimed at taking away everyone's guns.
I'm going to be fair, there's no such thing as objective research about guns. Because so many factors affect gun deaths other than gun control, small differences in how you set up your model lead to different conclusions.
Ok, that's fair. But the late congressman whose namesake amendment effectively barred the CDC from doing any research on gun violence later said he had regrets about it. Right now, we have one side of the political aisle wanting some kind of gun control while the other side seems ok with doing nothing. Without any data, it's easy to say "We need more guns everywhere!!!!!!" or "Ban all guns!!!!!" Surely, there's a middle ground that good data can lead to like it did for automobiles.
i'm sure there is a middle ground. but one side doesn't trust the other to stop once they gain any traction and the other side is engaged in name calling at the slightest disagreement good luck getting any intelligent conversation going. as far as studies, it's a little different then studying car crashes. that's physics, this is psychology. whats making these people want to do what they do. i know everyone is focused on why he is allowed to get a gun, thats just the symptom. when we're ready to figure out why he wanted to shoot up the place in the first place we will be closer to fixing this.
Those countries are lucky not to have a gun lobby with a nut leader who thinks God grants him the right to own weapons of war. Remember how quickly that clown Marco Rubio came out and said gun legislation would not have prevented the Florida massacre? That's the NRA bribe money talking. Give him credit for showing up and looking like a fool though. All those countries you listed have shown that effective gun control works, but we need many more generations of children survivors I guess to vote all the old farts out of office.
Getting big money out of politics would be a good first step. Nobody should be able to buy elected officials, but our system has allowed it thanks in large part to Citizens United. Maybe the next generation of leaders will do something about this and gerrymandering.
I'm not so sure. Hillary was far better bankrolled than her competitors and she needed a stacked deck to beat Bernie, and of course, you know the rest of the story.
Hillary may have been the worst Dem POTUS candidate since Mondale and Gore. Dark Money does flow in both directions and in the long run, will destroy American Democracy.
I've been saying that for some time now. We need to destroy that stupid ruling and get back to the basics.
I could not disagree more HOTJ and we usually agree on things. Researchers are used to investigating subjects with many complicated factors. That's what academic or social research is all about. Gun violence is not any more complicated than drug epidemics or domestic violence or terrorism, etc.. there is even an argument that it is simpler than some of the other subjects I mentioned because at least there is a single common denominator in the research - guns. The difference is that people and certain groups are fighting research on gun violence when they aren't with those other examples. That needs to stop. The notion that we can't come to any informed background on the subject because researchers might be "biased" is, and I'll be nice when I say this, it is both wrong and dangerous.
I know exactly what academic/social research is about because that's what I do. If you hired me to build a model showing gun control works, I could do that. If you hired me to build a model showing gun control doesn't work, I could also do that. I personally believe some forms of gun control work, and I generally take the liberal point of view on it. But the pro-gun control papers, as well as the anti-gun control papers, have dubious mathematical/economic assumptions, and none of them offer any real proof of anything. Obviously I'm against the right-wing political groups that try to stifle research on gun control.
I don't know how you can do that. I don't think CDC has sufficient information to conduct anything serious - or do they? Last time I checked, some people - I'm not going to say who - were vehemently against such study.
Yes, the Dickey Amendment which was passed in the 1996 Appropriations Bill. Jay Dickey later said that he had regrets about gun violence research being effectively halted after his amendment took effect. He also published an op ed with Mark Rosenberg, the doctor who wanted to research gun violence at the CDC. The 2 guys were once "sworn enemies," but slowly became friends and agreed that it's possible to do research on gun violence while respecting the rights of law abiding gun owners.
What I highlighted is the problem. No one should be hired to prove anything works they should be hired to investigate the situation. We have very little facts that we agree on in the first place. But that's how certain groups want it
I think it's obvious there is room for improvement on how we approach gun ownership in this country. I think most politicians on both sides of the aisle would agree on that (but not all will admit it out of fear of NRA reprisals). The solutions themselves may not be as obvious though. What are your ideas on solutions? Personally, I have no issue with gun ownership, and it's way too ingrained in this country to drastically change. We will never be Australia or Japan. I do think we need to revisit the types of weapons which are legal, what modifications to weapons that are legal, universal background check reform, sales to domestic violence abusers, sales to those with history of mental illness, legal age of purchase, loop holes in private sales or gun shows, etc...... Note those are not solutions, just areas to revisit which could potentially be improved upon.
"Trump: I would have run into school during shooting even without a gun" LMAO - didn't this dude dodge the draft?
He dodged Vietnam like a half a dozen times for numerous reasons. School and some made up foot condition. This is the guy calling for a military parade and talks about "Fire and Fury" like he's some combat veteran or some shit.
