Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumNRA Gun Safety Research Restrictions Prevent Violence Solutions, Scientists Tell Biden
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/nra-gun-safety_n_2449591.htmlSAN FRANCISCO, Jan 10 (Reuters) - Research restrictions pushed by the National Rifle Association have stopped the United States from finding solutions to firearms violence, more than a hundred scientists from virtually every major U.S. university told Vice President Joe Biden's task force on gun violence in a letter on Thursday.
In the wake of the December school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, and other mass homicides, the group of economists, health researchers, educators, doctors and criminologists said funding should be restored to a range of study areas, from gun safety to tracking illegal guns.
President Barack Obama has asked Biden to head a task force to come up with gun policy proposals, and Biden was to meet with NRA representatives on Thursday. He said the task force will have recommendations ready for the president by Tuesday.
"While mortality rates from almost every major cause of death declined dramatically over the past half century, the homicide rate in America today is almost exactly the same as it was in 1950," the academics wrote in a letter organized by scholars at the University of Chicago Crime Lab research center.
<more>
More gun nut douchebaggery from the NRA
yup
Skyline
(35 posts)Quotes like this.
""While mortality rates from almost every major cause of death declined dramatically over the past half century, the homicide rate in America today is almost exactly the same as it was in 1950," the academics wrote in a letter organized by scholars at the University of Chicago Crime Lab research center."
Are true but have been made to be a bad thing.
Violence is around the same levels it was in the 50's which is also down from the 90's. so while the quote is true they made it into a bad thing.
Violence has been on the decline for the last 20 years, and has been declining since the sunset of the AWB in 2004 despite the fact that there are now 300,000,000 firearms and 80,000,000 gun owners in the USA today, yet violence is at the lowest it has been since the late 50's.
This should not be misrepresented as a bad thing like the Chicago crime lab is doing.
I will also add Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the USA but also leads the USA in violence.
jpak
(41,760 posts)The Backlash is HERE
yup
Clames
(2,038 posts)The Backlash is nothing but a parade of ignorance.
Yup.
jpak
(41,760 posts)yup
Had 10 years to make it work. Nothing but failure. Some people just like repeating their mistakes no matter what though. Einstein was right about such folks.
yup.
Skyline
(35 posts)The AWB did nothig to stop crime, and once its sunset came gun sales skyrocketed and crime continued to decline. At the same time the Democrats lost everything because of it, that is something I do not want to see repeated.
jpak
(41,760 posts)yup
Clames
(2,038 posts)They promised. They failed.
yup
jpak
(41,760 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)Even 100 more years. That's all it did was fail.
yup
jpak
(41,760 posts)Try Try Again
yup
Clames
(2,038 posts)And Forest Gump too when it comes down to it.
Yup...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)did he put the sunset provision in?
jpak
(41,760 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It wasn't repealed. It sunsetted. Both political parties ran away from it in 2004.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)world by a factor of 10. Yes, it is a bad thing that we've been able to reduce most major causes of death dramatically, but gun violence rates are still sky-high.
There's a reason why scientists and ignorant gun nuts are on opposite sides of the gun debate, and why the NRA wants to suppress research into gun violence. And it's not "anti-gun bias", except in the sense that reality has a liberal bias.
And by the way, Chicago does not lead the nation in gun violence. That would be New Orleans.
Ya know, these NRA talking points are so familiar, it almost seems to me that you've posted them here before...
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)jpak
(41,760 posts)CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Love that commercial.
spin
(17,493 posts)is a LARGE improvement.
I grew up in the 50s and 60s. We never locked our doors and often left the keys in our car. Admittedly I grew up in a fairly rural area of Ohio. There were drugs and far more crime in the large urban areas but it was significantly lower than the crime rate was in the 70s, 80s and 90s.
Crime in the United States
Crime statistics for the United States are published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Uniform Crime Reports which represents crimes reported to the police. The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the annual National Crime Victimization Survey which captures crimes not reported to the police.
***snip***
Crime over time
Crime has been a long-standing concern in the United States, with high rates at the beginning of the 20th century compared to parts of Western Europe. In 1916, 198 homicides were recorded in Chicago, a city of slightly over 2 million at the time. This level of crime was not exceptional when compared to other American cities such as New York City, but was much higher relative to European cities, such as London, which then had three times the population but recorded only 45 homicides in the same year.[6]
In the long term, homicide in America has been in decline since colonial times.[7]
As shown in the charts above, reported violent crime nationwide nearly quadrupled between 1960 and its peak in 1991. Property crime more than doubled over the same period. Since 1993, crime has declined steeply. Several theories have been proposed to explain the cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
But I feel we can do much better. A high percentage of the violence in our nation is due to our failed war on drugs. Chicago is a prime example as a high percentage of gun violence there is due to turf warfare between completing drug gangs. Perhaps we should consider the legalization of some drugs in order to take some of the profit out of the smuggling and distribution.
Our mental health system also needs to be examined. Most shooters who have committed massacres have waved numerous red flags before they ran amok.
Both sides of the gun control issue claim that violent crime is epidemic in our nation. Gun manufacturers try to convince people that a firearm is necessary for protection against home invaders and street thugs in order to increase the sales of the items they produce. Gun control groups all too often portray gun owners as largely fearful paranoid people or bloodthirsty vigilantes looking for an opportunity to kill someone and use the Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin as an example.
Both sides are exaggerating facts for their agenda. We don't really have an epidemic of violent crime but it does exist. 99.99 percent of firearm owners use their weapons responsibly and are not a threat to our society.
I feel that in order to reduce gun violence in our nation it is necessary to first debate the issue in a polite and honest manner. If we do so we might be able to make a true difference.
Trying to convince people that they absolutely need a firearm for self defense or that they need to ban certain or all firearms will accomplish little or nothing. All we will do is yell at each other and throw insults. Ten years from now we will still be doing the exact same thing.
Let's all try to be responsible and respectful toward each other. If we do so we make some true headway in making this a much safer nation than it was even in the 60s. Both sides of the issue can find common ground and pass legislation that will make a true difference.
As long as we have firearms in our nation we will have some tragedies that result. Unfortunately any attempt to remove all firearms from civilian possession will fail in a society such as ours that has 80,000,000 gun owners and 300,000,000 firearms and a strong gun culture. Any attempt to remove certain classes of firearms will cause gun owners to fear that it would merely be a first step to total confiscation.
Gun owners have a vested interest in protecting their investment and their hobby but they also realize the gun violence is a serious threat.
I personally feel both sides can find compromise if the gun rights supporters resist any truly reasonable ideas and the anti-gun forces give up on the idea of turning us into the UK with their draconian gun laws.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)skyline: Violence has been on the decline for the last 20 years, and has been declining since the sunset of the AWB in 2004
Skyline spews pro gun rightwing propaganda, misleading; fact>> violent crime rates decreased almost every year the assault weapons ban was in effect, from 1994 thru 2004 violent crime rates & murder rates DECLINED under the assault weapons ban, a steady decrease throughout.
despite the fact that there are now 300,000,000 firearms and 80,000,000 gun owners in the USA today, yet violence is at the lowest it has been since the late 50's.
duh, skyline leaves out the part where violent crime & murder INCREASED from the mid 1960s to early 1990's, the same time period where national gunstock DOUBLED to tripled, from about 75 million guns to maybe 225 million in early 90's. So guns tripled & crime rates rose to record highs, but skyline cherry picks 1991 thru 2012 where gunstock increased by 30% and attributes declining crime & murder rates to guns. ANYONE SEE THE SERIOUS FLAW IN THIS MAN'S REASONING????
Skyline is an obvious happy clappy adherent to the 2nd Amendment MYTHOLOGY.
skyline: I will also add Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the USA but also leads the USA in violence.
No it doesn't lead in violence, Detroit with shall issue ccw does, with St Louis with shall issue ccw close behind. Chicago is back in the pack about 20th after these two pro gun states. Grow up skyline, stop spewing rightwing propaganda, it's called LYING.
Compare pro gun Memphis Tennessee with chicago:
2010 Crime Rate Memphis,TN ..... Chicago,IL
Total Crime Risk.. 364.............. 238
Murder Risk .......361.............. 356
Rape Risk..........342.............. 260
Robbery Risk...... 522.............. 465
Assault Risk...... 286.............. 289
Burglary Risk..... 366.............. 122
Larceny Risk...... 205.............. 133
MotVeh TheftRisk.. 374.............. 212
http://www.clrsearch.com/Kennesaw-Demographics/Ga/Crime-Rate
bubbayugga
(222 posts)they're all good old boy Republican strongholds, except for Chicago of course.
Skyline
(35 posts)I was taking numbers from the country as a whole, and as a whole crime has been declining for the last 20 years.
I got my info from the FBI but I am sure you will just tell me its fake or something since it does not fit your agenda.
Hmmm from january-june 2012 there was 240 murders alone in chicago, yep seems safe to me.
[link:http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120626/chicago-homicide-rate-up-38-percent|
You say I make stuff up? I say you do.
Ill add what I posted in another thread.
1968 13,000 murders
1994(AWB date) 23,000 murders
2004(AWB ends) 16,000 murders
2011(more guns in USA than ever) 14,600 murders.
So yes gun violence dropped from 1994-2004 bu not because of gun control. If the AWB is what caused the drop then the sunsetting of it and the increase in firearms would have murder on the rise, it does not and it is still declining.
Although you keep living in your bubble while the murder rate in chicago is up 25% for 2012 from 2011.
jody
(26,624 posts)Sounds like some group has a disinformation effort in full swing.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)opinion from that group is acceptable as an "expert" only if she/he has a string of research reports she/he directed and published in referred journals, and accepted by the appropriate community on the topic of gun type/number causing crime.
Given that no research to date has found a link between gun type or number and crime, then it's highly unlikely an expert is among that 100.
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=97122
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I gotta say, I'm used to seeing people make stuff up in here, but sometimes I wonder if it is possible to be a pro-gunner and have any regard at all for the truth!
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
Of course, even if you don't accept the peer-reviewed studies linking gun ownership and homicide (I know, I know, science has an "anti-gun bias" , there is still no justification for stifling research into gun violence. In fact, that report you keep linking to precisely calls for more research in this area, not less -- exactly the opposite of what the NRA has been doing, which is stifling the research by getting the GOP to withhold funds and data.
jody
(26,624 posts)Academy of Sciences reviewed all credible research and found none that supported the claim of gun-creationists that guns create crime.
Either one accepts science or faith, your choice.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And you are also wring about what the NRC said. It said that the research is not sufficient to conclusively determine the effectiveness of gun-control policies. For example, it found that research on "shall-issue" laws didn't conclusively prove that increased or decreased crime. That's because there are a lot of factors, and it is hard to isolate the effect of individual policies amid all the noise.
But saying that we don't have conclusive empirical research about the effects of certain gun policies is not at all the same thing as saying there is no research linking guns to homicide rates. If you read the report, it often says thing like that the research is "suggestive, but not conclusive", and suggests further research to back up initial findings. Given the politically-charged atmosphere that surrounded that report, it is not surprising that the conclusions it drew were cautious.
Sorry, it is you against the peer-reviewed science here. For example, all of those studies that I linked to above (some of which were published after 2003, and thus were not covered by the 2003 NRC Panel). And most importantly the NRC recommended that further research be done, which is exactly what the NRA is blocking. Is this really so complicated?
jody
(26,624 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Firearms-related deaths and injuries are overwhelmingly the result of criminal activity, not accidents. If anything, gun safety has improved over time, with the rate of accidental deaths by firearms steadily decreasing for many decades. Accidental death by firearm is a very minor player in overall accidental death rates:
I certainly oppose efforts to limit criminological research, but claiming that there's been opposition to gun safety research seems dubious.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)First of all, gun safety doesn't just include accidents. For example, keeping a gun in a home with children increases the chances that a child in the home commits suicide. That is certainly a safety issue. Also, the fact that guns in the home increase, rather than decrease, the likelihood that someone in the home will be the victim of a firearm homicide is a safety issue -- people buy guns because they think it will make them more safe, but they end up being less safe.
The NRA is basically opposed to any research that might reveal truths that are politically inconvenient.
Skyline
(35 posts)Was raised with guns and no one has ever had to use them outside of service to this country and no one has ever commited suicide.
Then again we are taught young how to properly use and handle a firearm.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)rbixby
(1,140 posts)But the fact that the NRA is essentially preventing any studies about guns, ammunition, and their relationship to anything, from happening. If guns are are so great and infallible, why not let some studies prove it?
That's kind of the intent of this article, before it got hijacked by the same old argument.