CommieGIR posted:

I love that you brought up the Wiemar Republic as the danger of Gun Registries, then ignored how the Nazis loosened gun control, and how personal firearms ownership did very little to actually stop them from seizing the weapons anyways and enacting a genocide, and the only major uprising was the Warsaw Uprising, which was conducted using seized military weapons, and was readily crushed.

So what was the point of ownership again?

Professor Bling posted:

Loosened gun control for *some* Germans. They specifically completely banned Jews from owning firearms (or having other rights accorded to Aryans). So what was the point of bans again?

Professor Bling posted:

Glad we agree that doing everything possible to curtail any legislative steps towards seizure while we can is a good thing.

CommieGIR posted:

So what was the point of ownership again?

CommieGIR posted:

Yeah, its just about feeling good. No effects. That's why the NRA is so busy lobbying against CDC studies, because they don't want me to feel good.

some smart guy from TFR posted:

There's updated and detailed crime and suicide statistics available from both of these sources

https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-publications&#160;<-- annual crime stats which include total assaults/robberies/homicides, any known circumstances or causes for homicides, any known victim/perp relationships, and weapons used down to the specific types of guns (rifle, shotgun, or pistol) among other data

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html&#160;<-- public database which lets you search annually recorded deaths for any common cause or weapon, suicide and homicide and accidents alike

They're a couple years behind because it takes time to compile the data, but statistical tracking was never prohibited in the case of either organization. The FBI never had any sort of prohibition placed on them, it was the CDC only, and that was not on stat collection but rather using public funds to produce pro-gun control studies based on that data. 

As I understand it, back during the Clinton administration and their big gun control push, the CDC was spending millions upon millions of dollars of public health funds to let dudes like Arthur Kellermann and Garen Wintemute crank out really really flawed and biased studies that were being specifically used to support more gun laws. The former is the guy who made the studies that you always see trumpeted in occupy democrats memes proclaiming that A GUN IN THE HOME IS 43 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO KILL A LOVED ON THAN AN INTRUDER, and to come to this conclusion he cherry-picked data from a place with a very low crime rate but a really high suicide rate, specifically Seattle circa 1986. His actual conclusion should have been "there's a high correlation between low crime rates and not often needing to shoot criminals but a high correlation between 300 consecutive days of rain and wanting to kill yourself" but instead he passed it off as proof that guns are almost never used in self-defense while instead constantly shooting your family members.

The latter guy produced a bunch of studies claiming that "a gun in the home" significantly increased your chances of being murdered, but I read the methodology of one of his CDC-funded studies on this topic back during one of the last GBS gun control slapfights and it was insane. He cherry-picked just 1993 for his homicide data because it was by far the most violent year in the US on record despite much newer records being available, he oversampled african-american males between the ages of 15-35 living in southern cities to the point that was about 80% of his data set (despite the fact that census data from that year told me that was less than 2% of the total population,) and his metric for "gun ownership" was surveying friends and family if they thought a gun had been anywhere on their property in the last year. Did someone get stabbed in the neck in their driveway after an argument, while a defensive handgun was locked in their bedside nightstand? Did a friend whip his new hunting gun out of his pickup at a bbq at the house of the victim to show it off, and then 6 months later the property's unarmed owner was shot and killed in a robbery? Under their metrics that was used as evidence for a correlation between gun ownership and homicide. It was junk science that didn't produce any useful guidance for social policy, instead it was expensive fodder for political soundbytes and Brady Campaign mailers

Here's the only actual prohibition on CDC research I was able to find anywhere codified in law, in the CDC's annual appropriations bill: “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.” Maybe you can provide evidence otherwise I missed but as far as I can tell that's it, nothing about not collecting stats or even studying violence but they apparently had no interest in doing studies that couldn't be manipulated into providing "evidence" against gun ownership and self-defense.

Doc Hawkins posted:

It's fun. Why do you hate fun?

Bored As gently caress posted:

quote:

“The original concern from the National Rifle Association back in 1996, which Dr. Rivara mentioned, made that very implication,” says Zwillich. “The NRA complained to Congress that the CDC was using the results of its research to essentially advocate for gun control. They called it propaganda. And back at that time, Congress slashed the CDC’s funding by the exact amount that was used for gun-related public health research.”

Rivara and his team discovered that having a gun in the home is associated with a threefold increase in the risk of a homicide — they released this information in a series of peer-reviewed articles that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. The CDC both funded Rivara’s original research and stood by the findings.

But after Congress seemingly retaliated against the CDC for publishing Rivara’s findings, Zwillich says researchers with the agency have shied away from conducting gun research.

“There is other research that goes on at the CDC that does have to do with guns,” says Zwillich. “There is a National Violent Death Reporting System, which does record the causes of all violent deaths, including in domestic abuse, youth violence, and child abuse. If a gun is the cause, that’s recorded — it’s not like they ignore it entirely. But gun deaths and gun injuries as a public health issue, as Rivara said, are still basically anathema to CDC researchers and anyone who gets CDC funding, which is potentially millions of dollars.”

quote:

“There is other research that goes on at the CDC that does have to do with guns,” says Zwillich. “There is a National Violent Death Reporting System, which does record the causes of all violent deaths, including in domestic abuse, youth violence, and child abuse. If a gun is the cause, that’s recorded — it’s not like they ignore it entirely. But gun deaths and gun injuries as a public health issue, as Rivara said, are still basically anathema to CDC researchers and anyone who gets CDC funding, which is potentially millions of dollars.”

Many federally funded researchers are afraid how the interpretation of their data might be used — and used against them.

“Congressional prohibition, which was extended in this very vote that we’re talking about with that appropriations bill, prevents the CDC from advocating for any form of gun control,” says Zwillich. “Researchers are concerned that if they report the results of their data publicly and say, for instance, as Fred Rivara found in the ‘90s, that having a gun in the home makes you more likely to be injured than if you don’t have a gun in a home, then they’ll be accused by Congress of breaking the rules and advocating for gun control.”

quote:

In the 1990s, Rivara received funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence. His research found that the chances of homicide or suicide increase threefold when there is a gun present in a home,[2] while the risk of suicide for teens increases as much as tenfold.[5] Rivara and his colleagues published their research in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993 in a series of articles on their findings.[5]
“[Our research] underwent peer review and was thought to be very solid and worthwhile research,” Rivara told PRI program The Takeaway in a 2015 interview. “The CDC stood by our research—they had funded it and they stood by it. Unfortunately, it raised the attention of the National Rifle Association, who then worked with pro-gun members of Congress to essentially stop funding firearm research.”[5]
The NRA then lobbied congress, saying that since guns aren't a disease, CDC funds should not be allocated to them. A bill passed that prevented the CDC from setting aside funds for gun research.

quote:

Unsurprisingly, the NRA does not like research findings.[20][19] They called it "junk science" and encouraged in American Rifleman to protest against the CDC for funding such research. They have effectively lobbied against funding of aspects of the CDC since mid-1990s. For instance, in 1996, Congress has cut $2.6 million of the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had been allocated for firearm research the previous year.

CommieGIR posted:

I love that you brought up the Wiemar Republic as the danger of Gun Registries, then ignored how the Nazis loosened gun control, and how personal firearms ownership did very little to actually stop them from seizing the weapons anyways and enacting a genocide, and the only major uprising was the Warsaw Uprising, which was conducted using seized military weapons, and was readily crushed.

So what was the point of ownership again?

bird food bathtub posted:

I love me some range time and hoofed forest rats taste delicious but guns in America are basically going to do sweet gently caress all to stop "tyranny" when people vote someone like Trump into office.

If poo poo goes pear shaped and we're trying to resist "tyranny" from the top we need the rest of the government fighting along with the citizens or it's loving over and done with. No amount of pawpaw's shoot-guns is going to stop the entire law enforcement and military apparatus deciding to go along with it. The only effective resistance would be anything that makes those members question orders and change their minds, and I doubt armed resistance fighting back would do that.

bird food bathtub posted:

I love me some range time and hoofed forest rats taste delicious but guns in America are basically going to do sweet gently caress all to stop "tyranny" when people vote someone like Trump into office.

If poo poo goes pear shaped and we're trying to resist "tyranny" from the top we need the rest of the government fighting along with the citizens or it's loving over and done with. No amount of pawpaw's shoot-guns is going to stop the entire law enforcement and military apparatus deciding to go along with it. The only effective resistance would be anything that makes those members question orders and change their minds, and I doubt armed resistance fighting back would do that.

Doc Hawkins posted:

I don't think all or even most of the gun-protectors in this thread are out-and-out Trump supporters.

Doc Hawkins posted:

If we're actually talking electoral politics, as a registered Democrat, I want our party platform to drop gun control entirely except for cops, because as much as I'd happily take all y'all's guns, it's not happening in our lifetimes and there's even worse human tragedies at stake.

NUKES CURE NORKS posted:

59 people dying and 200 wounded is pretty high up on the list imho, so you're going to need to define human tragedy for me.

NUKES CURE NORKS posted:

Yeah my bad.

59 people died? Well, we can't try to do anything about that because of this this and this.

M_Gargantua posted:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/914906488359079937

Twitter did a rundown of gun statistics. (I guess some of you aren't used to fancy modern stuff, so swipe left on mobile to flip pages)

Liberal conspiracy or falsified data!? Gun owners decide below.

Gun Violence Archive posted:

Gun Violence describes the results of all incidents of death or injury or threat with firearms without pejorative judgment within the definition. Violence is defined without intent or consequence as a consideration. To that end a shooting of a victim by a subject/suspect is considered gun violence as is a defensive use or an officer involved shooting. The act itself, no matter the reason is violent in nature.

Professor Bling posted:

That's not what I said. The options I laid out would absolutely reduce gun crime outside of statistical anomalies like the Vegas attacks, and lol if you think any ban on assault weapons would be anything other that 1) punishing law abiding owners of the nation's most popular rifle platform, 2) vague enough to be an actual infringement on the 2A rights of American citizens, or 3) so tightly written as to end up ineffective when confronted by anyone of means, like, say, the Vegas shooter.

VT was committed with pistols, one of which was a .22 caliber Walther. The Northern Illinois University shooting in which four students were killed was committed with a shotgun.

People that want to commit mass murder are going to find a way. Anders Breivik managed to jump through every legal hoop in Norway and still holds the world record for deadliest mass shooting.



So, yeah, when you suggest something actually effective at stopping this, then we'll talk. Bans aren't effective in any guise that doesn't punish lawful owners for a tragedy they had no hand in.

Professor Bling posted:

Okay so these statistics aren't of gun crime, they're of gun use both lawful and unlawful. And they define "mass shooting" as four or more injured, not the government's definition of four or more (aside from shooter) killed. Looks like some massaged statistics and scare mongering.

NUKES CURE NORKS posted:

Just because something is fun and most people don't break the law doesn't mean you should be granted ownership.

NUKES CURE NORKS posted:

The last ban we tried didn't work so we should never try it again.

Professor Bling posted:

Just because a couple batshit dudes broke the law doesn't mean I should be denied ownership. Work on the cause, not a symptom. Otherwise the disease is still there.

NUKES CURE NORKS posted:

The amount of gun violence in the US isn't perpetuated by a "couple" of anything.

Professor Bling posted:

And the majority of that violence is committed by pistols. Keep moving the goalposts if you want but you're trying to conflate two very different things here.

NUKES CURE NORKS posted:

The last ban we tried didn't work so we should never try it again.

I'm also not personally advocating banning firearms, but I don't think anyone needs a high cap assault rifle. Just because something is fun and most people don't break the law doesn't mean you should be granted ownership. I wouldn't advocate everyone having tanks even if every single tank was 100% guaranteed to sit in someone's driveway and never moved.

Professor Bling posted:

And the majority of that violence is committed by pistols. Keep moving the goalposts if you want but you're trying to conflate two very different things here.

Mr. Nice! posted:

So you're saying ban pistols. Sounds good to me and i say this as a pistol owner.