Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
The right to bear arms has existed since at least the 9th century, however it was restated in English Common Law in 1689 when King James II legislated to deny this right from Protestants, (one that Catholics still enjoyed). This led to his "gentle" overthrow and the right to bear arms was restored. The American founding fathers only restated this right in their Second Amendment, so it was nothing new or extraordinary. Canada's Constitution also guarantees English Common Law rights so we too have the right to bear arms, or had until Jean Chretien had his thug Minister of Justice Alan Rock take that right away, fully, by 1995.
Some legal experts have said that there is a basis for a constitutional challenge on this issue, but the Supreme Court will not even grant leave to appeal and as is their right gave no reason.
So in fact it was a right not granted, but reaffirmed by the Crown only to be taken away by way of Prime Ministerial decree. A right turned into a privilege is an insult.
The Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, under the direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recently published a study of findings related to violence and guns. Some of the results may come as a shock – to those on both sides of the gun control argument.
The study was conducted as part of the 23 Executive Actions signed by President Obama in January in an effort to reduce gun violence. The order specifically called to “issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”
Some have posed the logical question as to why the CDC would become involved in such a study which focuses on gun violence when the priority of the agency lies in the preventing and control of diseases. The academic community chose to study gun violence as a public health problem, partly because, according to the study, “Violence, including firearm related violence, has been shown to be contagious.” Therefore, gun violence is being studied in the same manner of a contagious disease.
The study did, however, recognize the right to bear arms as a basic human right acknowledged by the United States Constitution.
“An individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.”
The initial summary of the study reiterated the need for sound evidence from a scientific standpoint to produce public policies that will best support the rights of the people while still doing whatever possible to protect the public from potential threats of violence.
“The evidence generated by implementing a public health research agenda can enable the development of sound policies that support both the rights and the responsibilities central to gun ownership in the United States. In the absence of this research, policy makers will be left to debate controversial policies without scientifically sound evidence about their potential effects.”
While the problem of gun violence is multi-faceted with no one single solution, the study resulted in a whole plethora of useful information (the entire study can be read here).
There were five primary areas of interest on which the study focused: The characteristics of firearm violence, risk and protective factors, interventions and strategies, gun safety technology, and the influence of video games and other media.
It was found that there are vast differences in who is more likely to become a victim of gun violence, with primary factors lying in socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Homicide rates were shown to be significantly higher in African Americans, while suicide rates were higher in Caucasians.
Additionally, the study concluded that high rates of poverty, illicit drug trafficking and substance use all increase the risk of becoming involved in gun violence. In addition, “criminals often engage in violence as a means to acquire money, goods or other rewards.”
However, the study also inadvertently explored some of the myths surrounding what seems like a recent epidemic of gun violence, including accidental deaths and mass shootings.
According to the study, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century.” Accidental deaths resulting from firearms accounted for less than one percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.
“Mass shootings are a highly visible and moving tragedy, but represent only a small fraction of total firearm-related violence. … It is also apparent that some mass murder incidents are associated with suicides. However, the characteristics of suicides associated with mass murders are not understood.”
The study also explored an often overlooked statistic regarding suicide, especially among veterans. “Firearm-related suicides — though receiving far less public attention — significantly outnumber homicides for all age groups, with suicides accounting for approximately 60 percent of all firearm injury fatalities in the United States in 2009. In 2010, suicide was the 10th leading cause of death among individuals in the United States over the age of 10.”
Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.
“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.
The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.
The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
In reference to gun safety technology, the study claims that “research from the injury prevention field indicates that changing products to make them safer is frequently more effective at reducing injury and death than trying to change personal behavior.”
Judging by what they’re wearing, it was both cold and wet that day. (Photo credit: Lehigh Valley Live)
With the latest gun debate, there has been more emphasis placed on violent video games, movies and other media. However, the study’s findings on the influence of these things were inconclusive.
“The vast majority of research on the effects of violence in media has focused on violence portrayed in television and the movies, although more recent research has been expanded to include music, video games, social media, and the Internet. Interest in media effects is fueled by the fact that youth are spending more time engaging with media that portrays increasing amounts of violence. Although research on the effects of media violence on real-life violence has been carried out for more than 50 years, none of this research has focused on firearm violence in particular as an outcome. As a result, a direct relationship between violence in media and real-life firearm violence has not been established and additional research is necessary.”
The results of this study were surprisingly unbiased for the most part and closely resemble the findings from a similar study conducted following the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, in which the CDC concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”
CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not
The study was conducted as part of the 23 Executive Actions signed by President Obama in January in an effort to reduce gun violence. The order specifically called to “issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”
Some have posed the logical question as to why the CDC would become involved in such a study which focuses on gun violence when the priority of the agency lies in the preventing and control of diseases. The academic community chose to study gun violence as a public health problem, partly because, according to the study, “Violence, including firearm related violence, has been shown to be contagious.” Therefore, gun violence is being studied in the same manner of a contagious disease.
The study did, however, recognize the right to bear arms as a basic human right acknowledged by the United States Constitution.
“An individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.”
The initial summary of the study reiterated the need for sound evidence from a scientific standpoint to produce public policies that will best support the rights of the people while still doing whatever possible to protect the public from potential threats of violence.
“The evidence generated by implementing a public health research agenda can enable the development of sound policies that support both the rights and the responsibilities central to gun ownership in the United States. In the absence of this research, policy makers will be left to debate controversial policies without scientifically sound evidence about their potential effects.”
While the problem of gun violence is multi-faceted with no one single solution, the study resulted in a whole plethora of useful information (the entire study can be read here).
There were five primary areas of interest on which the study focused: The characteristics of firearm violence, risk and protective factors, interventions and strategies, gun safety technology, and the influence of video games and other media.
It was found that there are vast differences in who is more likely to become a victim of gun violence, with primary factors lying in socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Homicide rates were shown to be significantly higher in African Americans, while suicide rates were higher in Caucasians.
Additionally, the study concluded that high rates of poverty, illicit drug trafficking and substance use all increase the risk of becoming involved in gun violence. In addition, “criminals often engage in violence as a means to acquire money, goods or other rewards.”
However, the study also inadvertently explored some of the myths surrounding what seems like a recent epidemic of gun violence, including accidental deaths and mass shootings.
According to the study, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century.” Accidental deaths resulting from firearms accounted for less than one percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.
“Mass shootings are a highly visible and moving tragedy, but represent only a small fraction of total firearm-related violence. … It is also apparent that some mass murder incidents are associated with suicides. However, the characteristics of suicides associated with mass murders are not understood.”
The study also explored an often overlooked statistic regarding suicide, especially among veterans. “Firearm-related suicides — though receiving far less public attention — significantly outnumber homicides for all age groups, with suicides accounting for approximately 60 percent of all firearm injury fatalities in the United States in 2009. In 2010, suicide was the 10th leading cause of death among individuals in the United States over the age of 10.”
Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.
“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.
The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.
The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
In reference to gun safety technology, the study claims that “research from the injury prevention field indicates that changing products to make them safer is frequently more effective at reducing injury and death than trying to change personal behavior.”
Judging by what they’re wearing, it was both cold and wet that day. (Photo credit: Lehigh Valley Live)With the latest gun debate, there has been more emphasis placed on violent video games, movies and other media. However, the study’s findings on the influence of these things were inconclusive.
“The vast majority of research on the effects of violence in media has focused on violence portrayed in television and the movies, although more recent research has been expanded to include music, video games, social media, and the Internet. Interest in media effects is fueled by the fact that youth are spending more time engaging with media that portrays increasing amounts of violence. Although research on the effects of media violence on real-life violence has been carried out for more than 50 years, none of this research has focused on firearm violence in particular as an outcome. As a result, a direct relationship between violence in media and real-life firearm violence has not been established and additional research is necessary.”
The results of this study were surprisingly unbiased for the most part and closely resemble the findings from a similar study conducted following the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, in which the CDC concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”
CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not
LOL probably not very legal at all, But is there a law designed for keeping guns locked up and ammunition locked in a separate place in New York City.
What really does bother me though, is how that 12 year old believes guns are for.......ie obtaining things he wants through force.
Even better, there is the Sullivan Act, which makes it a misdemeanor to own a concealable gun without a license, and a felony to carry such a gun without a license. So little Bradley was committing a misdemeanor and a felony, completely aside from attempted armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. The main reason gun control laws don't work is that criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.
That pretty much is what guns are for. None of the pro-gunners on this board will deny that. The purpose of a gun is power. That power can be used for good or ill. What we are saying, over and over again, and what y'all anti-gunners are ignoring, over and over again, is prosecute the ill, not the power.
This does not come as a shocker. The FBI has a database that indicates that handguns are the best form of defense for victims.
I did some gun control this morning. Controlled it real good, too. 45 shots, two in the nine-ring, one in the eight-ring, and 42(!) blew out the center. Glock 24C, .40 cal, 180 gr. FMJs, six-inch barrel, compensated, 25 meters.
I just LOVE my Glock.
I just LOVE my Glock.
I hope you used some good ear protection. Wouldn't want to put the taxpayer on the hook for your hearing loss.
All this rhetoric about banning guns is a knee jerk reaction that occurs every time reasonable suggestions for keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not or must not have them is broached,. NO ONE is suggesting banning guns!!
It is the same reaction that was encountered to the suggestion of seat-belts. I wonder how many gun owners actually picture themselves as saving civilization (heh, heh) from the evil governments they elect. There is a name for this condition,,,,,,,Paranoia,
It is the same reaction that was encountered to the suggestion of seat-belts. I wonder how many gun owners actually picture themselves as saving civilization (heh, heh) from the evil governments they elect. There is a name for this condition,,,,,,,Paranoia,
I wonder if Niemöller's statement could apply to full automatic rifles, then look alike semi-autos, then handguns, followed by hunting rifles, then shotguns.............
Umm yes there are plenty of people demanding we ban guns. Especially the ones they personally don't like. And as we have proved over and over and over it is not the law abiding gun owner that is the problem. Rather it is the criminal element that illegally possess guns and use them for illegal purposes. For some strange reason that the do-gooders can't seem to fathom criminals just don't care about their silly laws.
That you are.
Sane people have a proper understanding about guns which is widely recognized and from what I can see precludes the need for any more useless discussion on the matter. (Almost 7000 posts!!!!!!!!!!!)
Given that the gun lobby and the NRA are so supportive of Donald....wonder what the 'D' will do about the gun law issue. ir anything. seeing as how he is so busy attacking / over reacting via twitter.
I am paranoid??? LOL Keep all the guns you want, just make them safe from children, thieves, and don't sell them to someone you do not know without a background check. You may not carry your gun on your car seat but there are plenty who do. Good grief, one person I met boasted about sleeping with a loaded gun under his pillow. I asked his wife if she slept in the same bed. Apparently she doesn't,
Now, the neighbor man shooting across the road at our dog (which by the way was with my children) into our field is no longer around, and the motorcycle supply store that replaced it is a vast improvement, A crazy man with a gun " to protect himself" was worse than the crowds of cyclists that descend on the store from spring to fall. The cyclists are quite delightful.
I wonder how come Canada's stats on gun woundings and homicides is soo much better than US per 100,000? Are you suggesting that the US citizens are so much less civilized than Canadians??
Last edited: