The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Manfred Belheim]

nvm

 

[miaasma]

i hope someone takes that bait

 

[Lexicus]

we have reached peak projection

You say this, but it's because you're not thinking. We'll reach peak projection when Donald Trump suspends the elections until we can ensure no Russian interference, and the right-wing mediasphere repeatedly accuses Democrats of trying to engineer a fascist takeover of the government the entire time.

 

[miaasma]

You say this, but it's because you're not thinking. We'll reach peak projection when Donald Trump suspends the elections until we can ensure no Russian interference, and the right-wing mediasphere repeatedly accuses Democrats of trying to engineer a fascist takeover of the government the entire time.

unlike literal peaks, figurative peaks will keep growing

 

[Lexicus]

unlike literal peaks, figurative peaks will keep growing

"I stand upon some dreadful brink, and it is utterly dark in the abyss before my feet, but whether there is any light behind me I cannot tell. For I cannot turn yet. I wait for some stroke of doom."
-Eowyn, Lord of the Rings, Book VI

 

[EgonSpengler]

I've come to realize (as someone who couldn't care less about the issue) that progressives view gun control as merely a stick to beat the other side with and associate them with atrocities. They aren't interested in what policy might reduce gun violence. The ability to call conservatives "pro-death" is too tempting to resist.

And of course, both sides use the issue as a way of deflecting attention from why so many are willing to do this.

I'm curious where you get this idea from. It seems outlandish to me, but maybe you and I read and listen to different media outlets. iirc, recent studies have found a correlation between stricter gun laws and a reduction in gun fatalities. I don't have any of them at my fingertips, but I think there was one that compared US states, and another that compared Australia, before-and-after gun laws were passed (I think there was something about a gun buy-back program?). Progressives also work to improve conditions that lead to violence, promoting reforms in education, healthcare and criminal justice, while conservatives fight tooth-and-nail to oppose and repeal most of those efforts.

As for "both sides" deflecting attention from the causes of gun violence, we already know what conservatives and the NRA have done (quite successfully, I might add) to prevent informed debate:
The New York Times, March 12, 2018 - "Congress quashed research into gun violence. Since then, 600,000 people have been shot"

This is about the infamous "Dickey Amendment":
The Atlantic, February 15, 2018 - "Why can't Congress treat gun violence as a public-health problem?"

Congressman Dickey himself regretted his role, and publicly recanted in 2012, so for those who can only view issues through a liberal-or-conservative lens, we can see that conservatives are not some kind of monolithic hive-mind (now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder where people like George Will, Rich Lowry, Susan Collins or Jennifer Rubin stand on gun issues - something for me to look at over the weekend, if I can make the time):
The Washington Post, July 27, 2012 - "We won't know the cause of gun violence until we look for it", by Jay Dickey (R-AR) and Mark Rosenberg (US CDC)

Anyway, what I see here in the US is progressives - and a few conservatives - trying to figure the problem out and do something about it, in the face of determined opposition by the NRA and their conservative allies. If you see something different from where you stand, I'd be interested to see what it is.


EDIT: Oh yeah, duh, I forgot James Brady was a conservative gun control advocate.

 

[Broken_Erika]

The pro-gun control side has made numerous proposals in order to reduce the number of gun related deaths. That was the n°1 strategy. But if the gun nuts are going to block any attempt at reducing gun violence there's not much that can be done but remind everyone of their death toll.

Don't worry, the guns nuts will do everything they can to make talking about the death toll illegal.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I've seen it multiple times on this very forum. Usually aimed at opponents of termination (abortion).

Well you said you didn't care about this issue, but since you're taking the time to respond about something you claim you don't care about... again... I said:

I can't recall many (or any TBH) liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc., here on CFC (or elsewhere FTM), using that phrase to describe conservatives, Republicans, etc in this context.

The "in this context" referring to the actual topic of this thread, namely, "Guns and Gun Control". So now you're just goalpost switching your strawman, which tends to prove my point.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well you said you didn't care about this issue, but since you're taking the time to respond about something you claim you don't care about... again... I said: The "in this context" referring to the actual topic of this thread, namely, "Guns and Gun Control". So now you're just goalpost switching your strawman, which tends to prove my point.

I care about liberal smears, yes.

 

[Commodore]

Anyway, what I see here in the US is progressives - and a few conservatives - trying to figure the problem out and do something about it, in the face of determined opposition by the NRA and their conservative allies. If you see something different from where you stand, I'd be interested to see what it is.

What I see is an attempt to paint gun ownership as a disease. This is evidenced by the desire to get the CDC to do the research. They shouldn't be involved in this issue at all. If anyone is going to do research on gun violence, it should be the Department of Justice, and only the Department of Justice. That's because shooting someone without a legal reason to do so is a criminal matter, not a medical or public health matter.

Also, the first article you cite seems to fly in the face of claims that the CDC is being prevented from researching gun violence. If they are being prevented from researching it, then why do they have an entire department dedicated to specifically researching firearm violence? Also, if they are prevented from researching gun violence, then where did they get their statistics and the conclusions they drew from those statistics? Seems like one would have to do some...research for that.

And did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason the CDC and Democrats face so much opposition is because they are misrepresenting the statistics? They always cite the number of people who get shot and lump it all under gun violence. That is a gross misrepresentation of the numbers since around 60% of gun-related deaths and injuries result from suicide attempts or accidents. So that 60% should not be counted among the "gun violence" statistics, but they do it anyway. And that's because if they did take away that 60%, the numbers on supposed gun violence all of a sudden wouldn't look all that bad.

But, as I've stated before, even counting that 60% in the gun violence statistics, the supposed "gun violence epidemic" in the US is simply a myth. People like to quote these scary sounding numbers like 30,000 gun deaths a year, which does sound like a lot, but only if you look at that number by itself. Compared to the number of gun owners and compared to the general size of the US population in general, that 30,000 number starts to look pretty small and insignificant. If there are 30,000 gun deaths a year, that means roughly 83 people per day die from gun violence. Eighty-three people in a nation of over 320,000,000. And if you properly account for the number of deaths that are caused by actual gun violence (one person intentionally shooting another person) then you only get around 12,000 gun violence related deaths per year in the US, which drops the number of deaths by gun violence per day in the entire US to around 33 people. That doesn't sound like an epidemic to me. More people than that catch the common cold per day and you don't see the CDC running around calling that an epidemic.

 

[AdrienIer]

I didn't know that people usually died from the common cold

 

[Commodore]

I didn't know that people usually died from the common cold

ep·i·dem·ic
ˌepəˈdemik/
noun
noun: epidemic; plural noun: epidemics

1.​

a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time.

Nowhere in that definition does it require something to be fatal to be considered an epidemic.

 

[AdrienIer]

Should you be attempting to resolve an epidemic when

1. It fits the dictionary definition

or

2. thousands of people die, and will die as long as it is not contained

No one cares about a cold epidemic because at most a few older people die. It doesn't deserve a national response.

 

[Arwon]

f there are 30,000 gun deaths a year, that means roughly 83 people per day die from gun violence.

I dunno dude being, on average, a low intensity war zone? Seems like a lot

I think if (population adjusted) 6 people were getting shot every day in Australia we'd be trying to make that stop happening. That's double our road toll (1200 a year, about 3.3 per day), and we have mandatory roadside breath testing, speed cameras all over the place, 120 hours minimum practice to get drivers licenses.... we spend billions on road safety to address a death rate substantially lower than 6 per day.

Like I'd probably stick to principle and rights based arguments cos I don't think consequentialist or data based ones are really doing it.

 

[Uberfrog]

Nowhere in that definition does it require something to be fatal to be considered an epidemic.

Well, you're the one who quoted firearm death statistics. If you want to include non-lethal firearm injuries in your epidemiology, that's over 67,000 a year. In contrast to lethal injuries, which are predominately suicides, around 70% of non-lethal injuries are due to violent assaults. So in total you have more like 100,000 people suffering some sort of gunshot wound each year, or 270 a day.

(Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700838/)

 

[Lexicus]

What I see is an attempt to paint gun ownership as a disease. This is evidenced by the desire to get the CDC to do the research. They shouldn't be involved in this issue at all. If anyone is going to do research on gun violence, it should be the Department of Justice, and only the Department of Justice. That's because shooting someone without a legal reason to do so is a criminal matter, not a medical or public health matter.

And did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason the CDC and Democrats face so much opposition is because they are misrepresenting the statistics? They always cite the number of people who get shot and lump it all under gun violence. That is a gross misrepresentation of the numbers since around 60% of gun-related deaths and injuries result from suicide attempts or accidents. So that 60% should not be counted among the "gun violence" statistics, but they do it anyway. And that's because if they did take away that 60%, the numbers on supposed gun violence all of a sudden wouldn't look all that bad.

Will you then concede that the suicides are actually a public health issue that should be studied by the CDC? Or do you just, like, not care about preventing suicides? Incidentally, the CDC itself lists self-directed violence as a significant public health issue in the United States.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And suicide by gun disproportionately affects veterans, IIRC. But best not let any scientists study the issue because obviously they just want to secretly take everyone's guns. Those damn scientists. First they invented global warming, then they made the frogs gay with their fluoride and now they want to take our guns.

 

[Farm Boy]

What I see is an attempt to paint gun ownership as a disease.

Well, yes. Of course. Once it's for your own good and you aren't capable of making your own decisions, or if something is actually an infectious disease rather than human agency, the authority can be a lot more aggressive. That would be a major win for people who desire that authority to exist.

 

[Sommerswerd]

And did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason the CDC and Democrats face so much opposition is because they are misrepresenting the statistics?

That's funny. Did you even stop to think that maybe the reason Conservatives and Republicans face so much opposition is because they are misrepresenting the statistics? For example Trump falsely claimed that illegal immigrants killed 63,000 Americans since 9/11/2001. If you're not "stopping to think" that Conservatives and Republicans are lying about the issues, then its pretty ironic for you to finger wag Democrats for not doing the same about their allies.

But, as I've stated before, even counting that 60% in the gun violence statistics, the supposed "gun violence epidemic" in the US is simply a myth. People like to quote these scary sounding numbers like 30,000 gun deaths a year, which does sound like a lot, but only if you look at that number by itself. Compared to the number of gun owners and compared to the general size of the US population in general, that 30,000 number starts to look pretty small and insignificant. If there are 30,000 gun deaths a year, that means roughly 83 people per day die from gun violence. Eighty-three people in a nation of over 320,000,000. And if you properly account for the number of deaths that are caused by actual gun violence (one person intentionally shooting another person) then you only get around 12,000 gun violence related deaths per year in the US, which drops the number of deaths by gun violence per day in the entire US to around 33 people. That doesn't sound like an epidemic to me. More people than that catch the common cold per day and you don't see the CDC running around calling that an epidemic.

This reasoning doesn't stand up from a political perspective. I say "political" because I am assuming for the purposes of this post, that this argument you are making is more likely to be made by a conservative or Republican, which of course gun-advocates disproportionately are.

So anyway, even if we assumed that Trump's horse manure claim I cited above, about illegals killing 63,000 Americans since 9/11 was true, which it isn't... that would only be 3,500 deaths per year. So on that basis would you say that you personally... or Conservatives in general, or Republicans in general consider illegal immigration to be a "pretty small and insignificant" issue? I mean you're saying 30,000 deaths isn't a big deal, so surely you have to concede that 3,500 deaths is an even smaller deal, right? And remember, that 3,500 per year is bogus anyway, based on Trump's fabrications of 63,000 since 9/11. The real number is obviously much less. I read a National Review editorial (which I won't link, cause I don't regard National Review as the least bit credible) where the author begrudgingly cites the number as around 4000 since 9/11 (begrudgingly, because he says he think its higher than what his source claims).

In any case, if you're claiming that based on the 30,000 deaths, guns aren't a problem, then to be consistent you'd have to say illegal immigration isn't a problem, based on the even more "small and insignificant" number of deaths. And while I'm guessing that you personally, might be willing to make that concession, simply to protect your position/argument in this thread...since I know you personally prioritize gun-rights over most/all other political issues... I know for sure that Conservatives or Republicans in general would never agree in any way to characterize illegal immigration as "small and insignificant". So again, your position just doesn't stand up from a political perspective.

 

[EgonSpengler]

What I see is an attempt to paint gun ownership as a disease.

I haven't seen that. Can you point me to it? I do see gun violence characterized as a public health crisis, and gun ownership as a risk factor.

This is evidenced by the desire to get the CDC to do the research. They shouldn't be involved in this issue at all. If anyone is going to do research on gun violence, it should be the Department of Justice, and only the Department of Justice. That's because shooting someone without a legal reason to do so is a criminal matter, not a medical or public health matter.

The individual incident is a criminal matter, but the "big picture" is a public health concern.

Also, the first article you cite seems to fly in the face of claims that the CDC is being prevented from researching gun violence. If they are being prevented from researching it, then why do they have an entire department dedicated to specifically researching firearm violence? Also, if they are prevented from researching gun violence, then where did they get their statistics and the conclusions they drew from those statistics? Seems like one would have to do some...research for that.

I didn't know the CDC has an entire department dedicated to research firearm violence. Can you point us to that? The NY Times article cites a CDC study from 1993, as well as the Firearm Violence Research Center at UC-Davis.

And did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason the CDC and Democrats face so much opposition is because they are misrepresenting the statistics? They always cite the number of people who get shot and lump it all under gun violence. That is a gross misrepresentation of the numbers since around 60% of gun-related deaths and injuries result from suicide attempts or accidents. So that 60% should not be counted among the "gun violence" statistics, but they do it anyway. And that's because if they did take away that 60%, the numbers on supposed gun violence all of a sudden wouldn't look all that bad.

Of course suicides and accidents should be counted. I can't think of any reason they shouldn't be.

But, as I've stated before, even counting that 60% in the gun violence statistics, the supposed "gun violence epidemic" in the US is simply a myth. People like to quote these scary sounding numbers like 30,000 gun deaths a year, which does sound like a lot, but only if you look at that number by itself. Compared to the number of gun owners and compared to the general size of the US population in general, that 30,000 number starts to look pretty small and insignificant. If there are 30,000 gun deaths a year, that means roughly 83 people per day die from gun violence. Eighty-three people in a nation of over 320,000,000. And if you properly account for the number of deaths that are caused by actual gun violence (one person intentionally shooting another person) then you only get around 12,000 gun violence related deaths per year in the US, which drops the number of deaths by gun violence per day in the entire US to around 33 people. That doesn't sound like an epidemic to me. More people than that catch the common cold per day and you don't see the CDC running around calling that an epidemic.

First, I don't know why you think only intentional deaths should be counted. Second, why is 30,000 per year not an "epidemic"? The CDC estimate that influenza kills as "few" as 12,000 people (and as many as 56,000). Are you saying we shouldn't track influenza?