Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Stormopolis]

I think we need to address the question why America has a such a problem with guns while other countries do not. What makes America so special in this regard?

It would be really helpful if Congress wouldn't strong-arm the CDC into not investigating gun violence. Whatever side you take on gun control, if you're opposing research into the subject that's a red flag that you're mote interested in ideology than facts, and that you're a jackass.

What does the Center for Disease Control have to do with anything? Owning guns is not a disease, as far as I know.

[Big Jim P]

It would be really helpful if Congress wouldn't strong-arm the CDC into not investigating gun violence. Whatever side you take on gun control, if you're opposing research into the subject that's a red flag that you're mote interested in ideology than facts, and that you're a jackass.

What does the Center for Disease Control have to do with anything? Owning guns is not a disease, as far as I know.

True, and as SoH pointed out, their own admitted bias lost them the government funding to do "reasearch" on the subject.

See my point about the difficulty in finding unbiased sources.

[Zoice]

It would be really helpful if Congress wouldn't strong-arm the CDC into not investigating gun violence. Whatever side you take on gun control, if you're opposing research into the subject that's a red flag that you're mote interested in ideology than facts, and that you're a jackass.

What does the Center for Disease Control have to do with anything? Owning guns is not a disease, as far as I know.

The CDC doesn't just deal with medical issues like illness, all sources of injury or death, including violence, are something they take interest in.

What does the Center for Disease Control have to do with anything? Owning guns is not a disease, as far as I know.

True, and as SoH pointed out, their own admitted bias lost them the government funding to do "reasearch" on the subject.

See my point about the difficulty in finding unbiased sources.

The quote that Stormopolis is not confirmed and has been flat out denied.

[Zoice]

It would be really helpful if Congress wouldn't strong-arm the CDC into not investigating gun violence. Whatever side you take on gun control, if you're opposing research into the subject that's a red flag that you're mote interested in ideology than facts, and that you're a jackass.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” - A statement made by a section head of the CDC regarding a potential gun violence "investigation."

Your position is that Congress is the one strong arming them? Maybe they were just more interested in facts rather than ideology.

That's a hugely biased source and the quote you gave is not accepted as a real one.

[Licana]

That's a hugely biased source and the quote you gave is not accepted as a real one.

I wasn't aware that the Journal of the American Medical Association was a hugely biased source.

[Zoice]

That's a hugely biased source and the quote you gave is not accepted as a real one.

I wasn't aware that the Journal of the American Medical Association was a hugely biased source.

The specific blog is, and every journal has a few shifty papers in its history.

[Licana]

The specific blog is

The specific blog is just the first thing with a full citation that I found, which includes the source material, the publisher, and the exact page in which the quote was made.

If I had simply posted the citation without a link, you probably would have jumped on it for being "unsourced" rather than simply "biased." Which is a claim you probably would have made of any secondary site that published the same quote.

and every journal has a few shifty papers in its history.

And this is one of them because it states something that doesn't agree with your rhetoric?

[Imperializt Russia]

1) http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm

1.4 million guns stolen over 6 years averages to 200,000ish each year.

You're correct that not all gun defense incidents are fatal, but neither are all gun hussling incidents where the gun is used in intimidation. I don't think it is fair to compare ALL gun defenses with just the fatal portion of non-defense gun incidents.

Thanks. I read the source. Some interesting points from it (emphasis mine):

These estimates are based on data from the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which has collected information from victims of crime since 1973.

"Estimates", much like the often derided "estimates" of the prevalence of DGUs

From 2005 through 2010, firearms were stolen in about four percent of the 2.4 million household burglaries and in less than one percent of the 13.6 million other property crimes involving a completed theft that occurred during the period.

From less than one to 2.4 percent. Not a very high rate.

Longer trends from 1994 to 2010 show a 49 percent decline in the total number of victimizations involving the theft of at least one firearm, from about 283,600 victimizations in 1994 to about 145,300 in 2010.

Dropping, along with the overall crime rate. Good.

When you compare all gun incidents, the legitimate defense estimates range from 60,000 to 3 million, while the largest estimates for criminal use I have seen (posted here in another gun control thread. I cannot remember if it was sourced or not) was 400,000.

I would really like better numbers from non-biased sources to use (for both sides of this argument), but finding non-biased sources is damn near impossible.

DGU estimates are "derided" because it's astoundingly difficult to qualify what is A, a defensive use with a firearm, and B, whether it was the firearm that influenced the situation. When the upper estimates of millions are brought out, there's no clear evidence that the gun was effective, since by this point we're now discussing brandishing a firearm.

It is possible that a gun-wielding homeowner, in some cases, disturbed a burglar who did not even realise the homeowner was armed. It is also possible that in some cases - I would argue many cases, given that a firearm is inherently an escalation of violence - a situation where someone believed to defend themselves was actually responding inappropriately to a situation that did not exist. Imagine walking behind someone down the street at night, and they pull a firearm on you because you being there has spooked you.
I've not done anything, you've not defended yourself from shit. That's probably going to end up in the survey as a "defensive use", then be extrapolated up to the whole survey.

Think of it like kill reporting in air forces. Over Korea, for example, USAF pilots claimed four times as many kills over KPAF aircraft as were actually lost.
Whether or not a firearm is stolen is slightly easier to quantify by the very unambiguous scenario of "my firearm no here no more".

4% of burglaries and 1% of other property crimes involving a theft isn't a high rate, no. But because America has so many guns, it results in up to 230,000 firearms stolen per year. A quarter of a million.
That's, y'know, a lot.

Gun registries would probably make stolen guns harder to fence, acquire illegally and be easier to recover and return to their rightful owners, js.

[Imperializt Russia]

What does the Center for Disease Control have to do with anything? Owning guns is not a disease, as far as I know.

True, and as SoH pointed out, their own admitted bias lost them the government funding to do "reasearch" on the subject.

See my point about the difficulty in finding unbiased sources.

CDC is the general health research body for the US. It collates and publishes all the major death reports. It also is responsible for disease control, prevention, and management strategies.

If by "admitted bias", we're talking about the "building a case that guns cause homicide" quote, that's almost certainly taken out of context. The gun debate is no less controversial than the climate change debate, and deliberately changing or misquoting actually innocuous passages then having them mass-reproduced by the internet is big there.

[Zoice]

The specific blog is

The specific blog is just the first thing with a full citation that I found, which includes the source material, the publisher, and the exact page in which the quote was made.

If I had simply posted the citation without a link, you probably would have jumped on it for being "unsourced" rather than simply "biased." Which is a claim you probably would have made of any secondary site that published the same quote.

and every journal has a few shifty papers in its history.

And this is one of them because it states something that doesn't agree with your rhetoric?

No, because it disagrees with every other source on the issue. There is such thing as a scientist or professional with relevant qualifications making a mistake.

[Licana]

No, because it disagrees with every other source on the issue. There is such thing as a scientist or professional with relevant qualifications making a mistake.

Disagrees on what points? With what sources? "Every other source" is a fairly wide and sweeping claim, especially since I'm fairly sure you haven't even read the original source of the quote let alone every single source on the subject of gun crime, violence, and control.

[Union Of Autocratic Empires]

To be honest, I think weapons should only be sold to hunters and/or people who can't rely on the authorities to be protected. I would also make semi authomatic weapons completely banned from civilian life. This is one of the things I think my country does better than others.

Also, OP, you should specify what President you are talking about. After all, not all of us are American, you know

[Spirit of Hope]

To be honest, I think weapons should only be sold to hunters and/or people who can't rely on the authorities to be protected. I would also make semi authomatic weapons completely banned from civilian life. This is one of the things I think my country does better than others.

Also, OP, you should specify what President you are talking about. After all, not all of us are American, you know

No one can rely on the authorities for protection. Even the best police response time is minutes, and that assumes you contact them as the crime begins.

Banning semi autos seems a bit extreme to me, given how popular they are with collectors, hunters, sportsmen, and for self defense. Semi auto pistols don't have an increased deadliness, statistically, over revolvers.

Also OP specify who he was talking about:

I just received an email today from Vice President Joe Biden

[Genivaria]

To be honest, I think weapons should only be sold to hunters and/or people who can't rely on the authorities to be protected. I would also make semi authomatic weapons completely banned from civilian life. This is one of the things I think my country does better than others.

Also, OP, you should specify what President you are talking about. After all, not all of us are American, you know

No one can rely on the authorities for protection. Even the best police response time is minutes, and that assumes you contact them as the crime begins.

Banning semi autos seems a bit extreme to me, given how popular they are with collectors, hunters, sportsmen, and for self defense. Semi auto pistols don't have an increased deadliness, statistically, over revolvers.

Also OP specify who he was talking about:

I just received an email today from Vice President Joe Biden

I'm really not concerned about semi-autos.
Automatics yes but they're harder to sneak into place anyway.

This defeatist attitude about law enforcement however is a problem.

[Imperializt Russia]

js, but this is a fully automatic weapon with a rate of fire about that of a fully-auto AR-15.

[Spirit of Hope]

No one can rely on the authorities for protection. Even the best police response time is minutes, and that assumes you contact them as the crime begins.

Banning semi autos seems a bit extreme to me, given how popular they are with collectors, hunters, sportsmen, and for self defense. Semi auto pistols don't have an increased deadliness, statistically, over revolvers.

Also OP specify who he was talking about:

I'm really not concerned about semi-autos.
Automatics yes but they're harder to sneak into place anyway.

This defeatist attitude about law enforcement however is a problem.

It really isn't defeatist, it is realism. Police take time to respond, they can only respond once a crime has been reported. They patrol, but they don't have unlimited resources so they can't be everywhere at once.

[Genivaria]

js, but this is a fully automatic weapon with a rate of fire about that of a fully-auto AR-15.
(Image)

That's a machine pistol?
Wow designs have changed since WW2.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... howiec.jpg

[Genivaria]

I'm really not concerned about semi-autos.
Automatics yes but they're harder to sneak into place anyway.

This defeatist attitude about law enforcement however is a problem.

It really isn't defeatist, it is realism. Police take time to respond, they can only respond once a crime has been reported. They patrol, but they don't have unlimited resources so they can't be everywhere at once.

Which is one of the reasons I'm in favor of a CCTV system like the Brits have.
It's not big brother if it's in a public space.

[The balkens]

It really isn't defeatist, it is realism. Police take time to respond, they can only respond once a crime has been reported. They patrol, but they don't have unlimited resources so they can't be everywhere at once.

Which is one of the reasons I'm in favor of a CCTV system like the Brits have.
It's not big brother if it's in a public space.

no.

[Genivaria]

Which is one of the reasons I'm in favor of a CCTV system like the Brits have.
It's not big brother if it's in a public space.

no.

Yes.
One word replies are annoying aren't they?

[Imperializt Russia]

js, but this is a fully automatic weapon with a rate of fire about that of a fully-auto AR-15.
(Image)

That's a machine pistol?
Wow designs have changed since WW2.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... howiec.jpg

Yes, it's a Russian Stechkin.
How have you not heard of machine pistols like the Glock G18, a fully-automatic version of the G17 pistol?

[Spirit of Hope]

It really isn't defeatist, it is realism. Police take time to respond, they can only respond once a crime has been reported. They patrol, but they don't have unlimited resources so they can't be everywhere at once.

Which is one of the reasons I'm in favor of a CCTV system like the Brits have.
It's not big brother if it's in a public space.

Doesn't actually change anything. Police still take time to respond, and they aren't going to be able to monitor all the cameras at the same time. It just gives the police a better ability to catch criminals after the fact.
Plus I'm not really in agreement with the later statement.

[Genivaria]

That's a machine pistol?
Wow designs have changed since WW2.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... howiec.jpg

Yes, it's a Russian Stechkin.
How have you not heard of machine pistols like the Glock G18, a fully-automatic version of the G17 pistol?

Heard of? Yes.
Cared to research? No.

I don't even play shooter games that often so no I don't know much about gun models other than what is relevant to my history interests.
Muskets and rifles I find cool.

[Union Of Autocratic Empires]

No one can rely on the authorities for protection. Even the best police response time is minutes, and that assumes you contact them as the crime begins.

They might take time to come, but I think that's a bit defeatist. Saying they are always late.

Banning semi autos seems a bit extreme to me, given how popular they are with collectors, hunters, sportsmen, and for self defense. Semi auto pistols don't have an increased deadliness, statistically, over revolvers.

More bullets equal more possibilities to hit. In the case of hunters and people in isolated communities,I can see how that is useful. In an urban environment? Not so much.

I also think collectors should blind (is that how you call rendering a gun useless in English?) their weapons by law.

Also OP specify who he was talking about:

I just received an email today from Vice President Joe Biden

[/quote]
Thanks for pointing it out!

Which is one of the reasons I'm in favor of a CCTV system like the Brits have.
It's not big brother if it's in a public space.

I wholeheartedly agree.

js, but this is a fully automatic weapon with a rate of fire about that of a fully-auto AR-15.
(Image)

That idea is terrifying.

[Genivaria]

Which is one of the reasons I'm in favor of a CCTV system like the Brits have.
It's not big brother if it's in a public space.

Doesn't actually change anything. Police still take time to respond, and they aren't going to be able to monitor all the cameras at the same time. It just gives the police a better ability to catch criminals after the fact.
Plus I'm not really in agreement with the later statement.

Sure Hollywood style badguys break into home (most likely in the afternoon when noone is home) and take your TV.
Now their car and license plate is on a recording, good job dumbasses.

Increasing the likelihood of getting caught and punished reduces the chance of an attempt in the first place.
And what do you disagree with?