https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ate-217022

The basic argument is that what is missing from the debate is science. The author is a former director of the CDC injury center and has been a long-time proponent of research into gun violence to figure out how to reduce the rates of incidents. He was fired from the CDC around 20 years ago but he still maintains the CDC should be conducting the research into the various ideas being tossed around as preventative measures.

A lot of his argument is that gun violence reduction research is no different from cancer research.

And many of you will be happy (?) to know he calls them semi-automatic rifles rather than assault rifles (or do you want to play the semantics game on that term too)?

I'm guessing in advance people will quickly bring up the 2nd Amendment. Or perhaps the argument that the CDC should be concentrating on diseases like Ebola and not guns. But personally I don't think either argument bears fruit against the need to explore methods to stem the rates of violence.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/...ptionalism

In terms of the 2nd Amendment, only 3 countries' constitutions now have the provision which includes the right to bear arms (the USA, Mexico and Guatemala). Only the USA explicitly doesn't include any restrictions in those rights.

As it says in this article...

Constitutions with gun rights were reasonably well-represented in the late 1800s: 17 percent had the right in 1875. Since the early 1900s, however, the proportion has been less than 10 percent and falling. As new countries emerged in the interwar and post-World War II eras, their constitutions reflected a modern set of rights.

If arms were mentioned at all, it was to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them.

Now we're down to those 3 countries mentioned above.

FBI failed to investigate, police were called to his house 39 times, he committed a felony bringing ammo to school, no charges brought. He could have killed just as many with handguns which account for 99% of gun deaths, and over 60% of those are suicides.

We protect banks, airports, museums, courthouses with armed security, but not schools with kids. Go figure.
Blame the NRA, GOP, candlelight vigil, ban ARs, wash rinse repeat.

(02-19-2018 07:50 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/...ptionalism

In terms of the 2nd Amendment, only 3 countries' constitutions now have the provision which includes the right to bear arms (the USA, Mexico and Guatemala). Only the USA explicitly doesn't include any restrictions in those rights.

As it says in this article...

Constitutions with gun rights were reasonably well-represented in the late 1800s: 17 percent had the right in 1875. Since the early 1900s, however, the proportion has been less than 10 percent and falling. As new countries emerged in the interwar and post-World War II eras, their constitutions reflected a modern set of rights.

If arms were mentioned at all, it was to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them.

Now we're down to those 3 countries mentioned above.

That is interesting, so all of these countries in the Americas, which are much more violent than the USA, don't grant gun ownership rights as openly as the USA.

Never knew that wanting someone to factually describe something was playing semantics. I mean if my wife asks me to buy her an apple and I do so then she complains because it's not a pear is she playing the semantics game?

As for the article, I seriously doubt Dr. Rosenberg's sincerity as he has made clear statements in the past that he favors not just gun control but elimination.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2...bec028282d

Quote:A major danger of treating gun violence as a public health issue is that invites a false, politically-driven association of guns with disease, rather than the addressing much more fundamental mental health and social causes underlying violent behavior in general. This mischaracterization is made clear in 1994 American Medical News interview with Dr. Katherine Christoffel, head of the “Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan”, a CDC-funded organization who said: “guns are a virus that must be eradicated… They are causing an epidemic of death by gunshot, which should be treated like any epidemic…you get rid of the virus…get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths.”

In the same article, Mark Rosenberg, who then headed CDC, agreed: “Kathy Christoffel is saying about firearms injuries what has been said for years about AIDS: that we can no longer be silent. That silence equals death and she’s not willing to be silent anymore. She’s asking for help.”

That same year, Rosenberg told the Washington Post: “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.” And in the previous year, he had subtitled his part of an article on the public health approach to violence published in Atlanta Medicine: “The Bullet as Pathogen.”

Quote:In fact, the CDC conducted a major two-year independent study of various regulatory laws in 2003. The investigation considered bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry; and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The study concluded there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

As Don Kates and Henry Schaffer point out in a 1997 Reason article, the main function of treating gun violence as a public health issue with a disease metaphor is to: “…lend a patina of scientific credibility to the belief that guns cause violence…a belief that is hard to justify on empirical grounds.” Kates, a civil liberties lawyer, and Schaffer, a professor of genetics and biomathematics, cite several examples where CDC has sponsored flawed research to advance that belief.

A key go-to guy for many of the CDC’s studies was their favorite gun researcher, Arthur Kellermann, the director of Emory University’s Center for Injury Control. In a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine article, Kellermann and his coauthors cited a book written by James Wright and Peter Rossi titled “Under the Gun” to support their contention that “restricting access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate of homicide.” Yet the book actually says the opposite. With reference to that particular notion, it actually said: “There is no persuasive evidence that supports that view.”

Then in 1992, writing in another New England Journal of Medicine piece, Kellermann cited an American Journal of Psychiatry study to back up a claim that “limiting access to firearms could prevent many suicides.” Instead, that study really concluded that suicidal people who don’t have guns find other ways to kill themselves.

So perhaps the CDC should indeed stick to researching Ebola, etc.

(02-19-2018 07:50 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/...ptionalism

In terms of the 2nd Amendment, only 3 countries' constitutions now have the provision which includes the right to bear arms (the USA, Mexico and Guatemala). Only the USA explicitly doesn't include any restrictions in those rights.

As it says in this article...

Constitutions with gun rights were reasonably well-represented in the late 1800s: 17 percent had the right in 1875. Since the early 1900s, however, the proportion has been less than 10 percent and falling. As new countries emerged in the interwar and post-World War II eras, their constitutions reflected a modern set of rights.

If arms were mentioned at all, it was to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them.

Now we're down to those 3 countries mentioned above.

Doesn't include any restrictions? That seems patently false to me.

(02-19-2018 07:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ate-217022

The basic argument is that what is missing from the debate is science. The author is a former director of the CDC injury center and has been a long-time proponent of research into gun violence to figure out how to reduce the rates of incidents. He was fired from the CDC around 20 years ago but he still maintains the CDC should be conducting the research into the various ideas being tossed around as preventative measures.

A lot of his argument is that gun violence reduction research is no different from cancer research.

And many of you will be happy (?) to know he calls them semi-automatic rifles rather than assault rifles (or do you want to play the semantics game on that term too)?

I'm guessing in advance people will quickly bring up the 2nd Amendment. Or perhaps the argument that the CDC should be concentrating on diseases like Ebola and not guns. But personally I don't think either argument bears fruit against the need to explore methods to stem the rates of violence.

I wont push back against any of that.

And I’ll ask you a straight question, as I think you’re genuinely a straight shooter, left or right.

What do YOU think is an answer? The answer? What’s the driving force here?

Serious.

There’s something, either culturally, unique to USA, or broken down or perhaps all of the above that this schit is going on.

It ain’t “guns”. I’ve been around or near them all my life. Never felt threatened by, nor the need to shoot someone with one, especially not my classmates.

What’s your guess/opinion?

(02-19-2018 07:53 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  FBI failed to investigate, police were called to his house 39 times, he committed a felony bringing ammo to school, no charges brought. He could have killed just as many with handguns which account for 99% of gun deaths, and over 60% of those are suicides.

We protect banks, airports, museums, courthouses with armed security, but not schools with kids. Go figure.
Blame the NRA, GOP, candlelight vigil, ban ARs, wash rinse repeat.

Dammitt!

Again, for the umpteenth time around here,

Read the bottle!

It’s Lather, rinse, repeat!

Geeez, you heathens.

I think a big part of it is culture. I saw one argument recently that said all personal phones should be restricted from schools too, and I'm fine with that. I think the social media society is also possibly driving up school violence rates - some of the shooters like the one in Parkland are probably driven by the desire to become famous, and certainly social media gives them instant notoriety.

But I think we can do things to explore the 2nd Amendment and give the message that we want to make our society less violent. I don't think a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles from private citizens is a bad thing. Let certain ones of them only exist in the military. If a black market emerges, I don't think it would be that tough to quell the illegal sales.

Other things can be brought into the equation too like violent entertainment, mental health, etc. But to only approach the other issues without talking about guns is wrong IMO.

(02-19-2018 08:13 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I think a big part of it is culture. I saw one argument recently that said all personal phones should be restricted from schools too, and I'm fine with that. I think the social media society is also possibly driving up school violence rates - some of the shooters like the one in Parkland are probably driven by the desire to become famous, and certainly social media gives them instant notoriety.

But I think we can do things to explore the 2nd Amendment and give the message that we want to make our society less violent. I don't think a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles from private citizens is a bad thing. Let certain ones of them only exist in the military. If a black market emerges, I don't think it would be that tough to quell the illegal sales.

Other things can be brought into the equation too like violent entertainment, mental health, etc. But to only approach the other issues without talking about guns is wrong IMO.

OK, let's entertain this. Exactly which semiautomatic rifles shall we restrict and why. Please be as detailed as possible.

(02-19-2018 07:50 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/...ptionalism

In terms of the 2nd Amendment, only 3 countries' constitutions now have the provision which includes the right to bear arms (the USA, Mexico and Guatemala). Only the USA explicitly doesn't include any restrictions in those rights.

As it says in this article...

Constitutions with gun rights were reasonably well-represented in the late 1800s: 17 percent had the right in 1875. Since the early 1900s, however, the proportion has been less than 10 percent and falling. As new countries emerged in the interwar and post-World War II eras, their constitutions reflected a modern set of rights.

If arms were mentioned at all, it was to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them.

Now we're down to those 3 countries mentioned above.

For all of those that wish to eliminate guns - there is a way to do that. We have amended the constitution 27 times in 229 years. One would think that if that great a majority of Americans want this to happen - it would happen.

The real problem is that while the constitution has been amended 27 times successfully, it is set-up so that it takes a concerted effort and some time to accomplish. The biggest problem I see is that the anti-gun crowd wants their cake right now and are unwilling to take the time and effort to change the constitution.......it's too hard, waa - make me happy right now!!!!

For gun proponents - there is a real fear of a tyrannical government deciding to do whatever it wants, and given the things that have been coming to light with the FBI, DOJ, IRS, etc., I'm not so sure that fear isn't the correct feeling to have.

Another in the Americas, Brazil just pus their Military in charge of policing Rio, that dangerous.

In Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the minimum age for gun ownership being 25.[1] It is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence, and a special permit granting the right to do so is granted to certain groups, such as law enforcement officers.[2] To legally own a gun, an owner must hold a gun license, which costs BRL R$1000,[2] and pay a fee every three years to register the gun, currently at BRL R$85.[3] Registration can be done online or in person with the Federal Police.[4] Until 2008, unregistered guns could be legalized for free.[5]

It is estimated that there are around 17 million firearms in Brazil,[6] 9 million of which are unregistered.[1] Some 39,000 people died in 2003 from gun-related injuries nationwide.[6] In 2004, the number was 36,000.[1] Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere.[7] Approximately 80% of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil.[7] Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Brazil

(02-19-2018 08:13 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I think a big part of it is culture. I saw one argument recently that said all personal phones should be restricted from schools too, and I'm fine with that. I think the social media society is also possibly driving up school violence rates - some of the shooters like the one in Parkland are probably driven by the desire to become famous, and certainly social media gives them instant notoriety.

But I think we can do things to explore the 2nd Amendment and give the message that we want to make our society less violent. I don't think a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles from private citizens is a bad thing. Let certain ones of them only exist in the military. If a black market emerges, I don't think it would be that tough to quell the illegal sales.

Other things can be brought into the equation too like violent entertainment, mental health, etc. But to only approach the other issues without talking about guns is wrong IMO.

Then a killer tosses a few handguns and magazines in a backpack and kills just as many or more. Look these shootings are at close range, the weapon of choice does not matter.

(02-19-2018 07:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ate-217022

The basic argument is that what is missing from the debate is science. The author is a former director of the CDC injury center and has been a long-time proponent of research into gun violence to figure out how to reduce the rates of incidents. He was fired from the CDC around 20 years ago but he still maintains the CDC should be conducting the research into the various ideas being tossed around as preventative measures.

A lot of his argument is that gun violence reduction research is no different from cancer research.

And many of you will be happy (?) to know he calls them semi-automatic rifles rather than assault rifles (or do you want to play the semantics game on that term too)?

I'm guessing in advance people will quickly bring up the 2nd Amendment. Or perhaps the argument that the CDC should be concentrating on diseases like Ebola and not guns. But personally I don't think either argument bears fruit against the need to explore methods to stem the rates of violence.

Good for him for actually having the grey matter to not introduce an emotive term than doesnt mean anything. A semi-auto rifle is actually a term that *means* something. For the life of me no one (except in the Brady Bill) has ever bothered to define *what* an 'assault rifle' is, and even there it was defined in purely cosmetic terms.

By all means conduct the science. I would also say we need to conduct a **** load more research on car deaths, but thats just me....

And since *you* label the issue a "semantics game", I guess you would like the opportunity to state exactly what the functional differences between a semi-automatic weapon and an assault rifle are (that is stripped of the emotive effect you seemingly obvious prefer). Floor is open to you since you are obviously so derisive of the issue.

And, in reference to a post above, I am looking forward to your list of 'certain semiautomatic firearms' that 'obviously' need to be restricted and your (detailed, hopefully) explanation of why these certain firearms are just so bad they need to be delineated.

(02-19-2018 07:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ate-217022

The basic argument is that what is missing from the debate is science. The author is a former director of the CDC injury center and has been a long-time proponent of research into gun violence to figure out how to reduce the rates of incidents. He was fired from the CDC around 20 years ago but he still maintains the CDC should be conducting the research into the various ideas being tossed around as preventative measures.

A lot of his argument is that gun violence reduction research is no different from cancer research.

And many of you will be happy (?) to know he calls them semi-automatic rifles rather than assault rifles (or do you want to play the semantics game on that term too)?

I'm guessing in advance people will quickly bring up the 2nd Amendment. Or perhaps the argument that the CDC should be concentrating on diseases like Ebola and not guns. But personally I don't think either argument bears fruit against the need to explore methods to stem the rates of violence.

I'm definitely in the camp that wants the CDC to focus on studying infectious disease. Some other agency can study gun violence. Personally, I think gun violence is just a symptom. I'd rather they focus on why do a significant number of young American males desire to commit mass murder.

(02-19-2018 08:17 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 08:13 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I think a big part of it is culture. I saw one argument recently that said all personal phones should be restricted from schools too, and I'm fine with that. I think the social media society is also possibly driving up school violence rates - some of the shooters like the one in Parkland are probably driven by the desire to become famous, and certainly social media gives them instant notoriety.

But I think we can do things to explore the 2nd Amendment and give the message that we want to make our society less violent. I don't think a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles from private citizens is a bad thing. Let certain ones of them only exist in the military. If a black market emerges, I don't think it would be that tough to quell the illegal sales.

Other things can be brought into the equation too like violent entertainment, mental health, etc. But to only approach the other issues without talking about guns is wrong IMO.

OK, let's entertain this. Exactly which semiautomatic rifles shall we restrict and why. Please be as detailed as possible.

I have no idea. It's not up for me to make that decision.

But I do see that in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was written, muskets had a one round magazine capacity and could fire about three rounds per minute with an effective range of about 50 meters.

(02-19-2018 09:25 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I have no idea. It's not up for me to make that decision.

But I do see that in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was written, muskets had a one round magazine capacity and could fire about three rounds per minute with an effective range of about 50 meters.

Are you ever, not wrong?

(02-19-2018 07:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ate-217022
The basic argument is that what is missing from the debate is science. The author is a former director of the CDC injury center and has been a long-time proponent of research into gun violence to figure out how to reduce the rates of incidents. He was fired from the CDC around 20 years ago but he still maintains the CDC should be conducting the research into the various ideas being tossed around as preventative measures.
A lot of his argument is that gun violence reduction research is no different from cancer research.
And many of you will be happy (?) to know he calls them semi-automatic rifles rather than assault rifles (or do you want to play the semantics game on that term too)?
I'm guessing in advance people will quickly bring up the 2nd Amendment. Or perhaps the argument that the CDC should be concentrating on diseases like Ebola and not guns. But personally I don't think either argument bears fruit against the need to explore methods to stem the rates of violence.

I think some scientific analysis is a good thing. But it needs to be objective scientific research, not a biased attempt to legitimize one position. We are far too into what feels good instead of what will help on this issue.

It needs to consider the impact of a ban on semi-automatic weapons in the light that such weapons account for something like 0.3% of all gun deaths. It needs to start from the reality that 2/3 of our gun deaths are suicides and 2/3 of the remainder are gang-related. So those are the places to go to get rid of 90% of our gun deaths.

We kill 30,000 a year with guns. We outlaw semi-automatic weapons and thence kill 29,900 a year. Or maybe we don't get a reduction because mass shooters now use pistols, like the Virginia Tech shooter, or other weapons, like were used at Columbine, during the time of the "assault weapons ban."

We're in an era where you can 3-D print a gun. Trying to outlaw a particular gun can't have much effect against that technology. It simply can't. We need to attack why somebody chooses to pick up that gun and kill another human being with it.

And if you want to outlaw a gun, outlaw pistols. They kill more people than any other gun, and they were the weapon of choice for the biggest school shooting in our history.

(02-19-2018 09:25 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 08:17 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 08:13 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I think a big part of it is culture. I saw one argument recently that said all personal phones should be restricted from schools too, and I'm fine with that. I think the social media society is also possibly driving up school violence rates - some of the shooters like the one in Parkland are probably driven by the desire to become famous, and certainly social media gives them instant notoriety.

But I think we can do things to explore the 2nd Amendment and give the message that we want to make our society less violent. I don't think a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles from private citizens is a bad thing. Let certain ones of them only exist in the military. If a black market emerges, I don't think it would be that tough to quell the illegal sales.

Other things can be brought into the equation too like violent entertainment, mental health, etc. But to only approach the other issues without talking about guns is wrong IMO.

OK, let's entertain this. Exactly which semiautomatic rifles shall we restrict and why. Please be as detailed as possible.

I have no idea. It's not up for me to make that decision.

If you have no idea then why do you think it wouldn't be a bad thing?

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in this thread:
http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-843173.html

As is this:

Quote:But I do see that in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was written, muskets had a one round magazine capacity and could fire about three rounds per minute with an effective range of about 50 meters.

1. Muskets were muzzleloaders and as such did not have a magazine

2. Muskets could be loaded and fired in as fast as 15 seconds, or 45 rounds per minute. Rifles were a little slower to load at about 30 seconds but were far more accurate. Muskets were effective out to 100 yards, not 50 meters and rifles to 300 yards.

3. When the Constitution was written there were already several examples of repeating firearms available. The Puckle Gun, the Kalthoff repeater, the Girandoni air rifle, and the Cookson repeater.

4. Muskets were the M16 of their time. It was the standard issue battle rifle for the troops.


But if we are going to go down the path of applying technology of the time I want you to apply it to everything. Freedom of speech now only applies to the printing press and the non-electronically amplified human voice.

(02-19-2018 09:25 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 08:17 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 08:13 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I think a big part of it is culture. I saw one argument recently that said all personal phones should be restricted from schools too, and I'm fine with that. I think the social media society is also possibly driving up school violence rates - some of the shooters like the one in Parkland are probably driven by the desire to become famous, and certainly social media gives them instant notoriety.

But I think we can do things to explore the 2nd Amendment and give the message that we want to make our society less violent. I don't think a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles from private citizens is a bad thing. Let certain ones of them only exist in the military. If a black market emerges, I don't think it would be that tough to quell the illegal sales.

Other things can be brought into the equation too like violent entertainment, mental health, etc. But to only approach the other issues without talking about guns is wrong IMO.

OK, let's entertain this. Exactly which semiautomatic rifles shall we restrict and why. Please be as detailed as possible.

I have no idea. It's not up for me to make that decision.

But I do see that in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was written, muskets had a one round magazine capacity and could fire about three rounds per minute with an effective range of about 50 meters.

First, the Bill of Rights was presented by the Senate to the States for ratification on September 25, 1789. Kind of hard to to write the 2nd Amendment in 1791 without that tricked out DeLorean.

Second, I guess this is the first time I have ever seen a liberal-leaning person use a 'subjective and specific original meaning' to any portion of the Constitution *ever*.

Third, if you actually read the both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, or look at the Heller decision from 10 years ago (with a deep dive into Miller for what reasonable limitations might look like, and a wonderful examination of individual state protections at the time) that has a wonderful historical background on what the founders meant broadly, you would also understand that the one round magazine capacity that could fire about three rounds per minute with an effective range of about 50 meters were those in common use for lawful purposes, and that "those in common use for lawful purposes" are precisely the types of weapons that are covered for protection under the 2nd Amendment.

It is interesting that you seemingly think the only firearms that "[are] in common use for lawful purposes" these days are those with one round magazine capacity that could fire about three rounds per minute with an effective range of about 50 meters.

When you think about the terminology of what "[is] in common use for lawful purposes" and the historical context, you might note that my question to you about the functionality of the "AR" and my .223 semi-auto deer rifle isnt quite as pithy as it appears from the surface, but actually embodies much of both the legal and historical context of the 2nd Amendment.