Now is not the time to talk about gun control (2 Viewers)

[brandon]

T&P

Redirect Notice

 

[brandon]

I'm guessing the government will move toward banning aggressive/tactical style long guns and associated gear, and will limit magazine capacities to a maximum of 10. That seems like the next practical compromise. Beyond that, I have no idea.

What needs to happen is a thorough scientific study, probably conducted by the CDC, of the causes of our gun violence epidemic and what the most effective solutions in mitigating the harm people can inflict in mass shooting situations.

Once we have the list of the most effective mitigation strategies, we should implement them.

 

[Saintman2884]

What needs to happen is a thorough scientific study, probably conducted by the CDC, of the causes of our gun violence epidemic and what the most effective solutions in mitigating the harm people can inflict in mass shooting situations.

Once we have the list of the most effective mitigation strategies, we should implement them.

What if some of those effective mitigation strategies aren't necessarily going to be politically viable or perhaps suggesting ideas that go way beyond just expanded universal background checks supported by a majority of Americans right now? Banning certain types of assault rifles or semiautomatic weapons might be a good, practical start but later on maybe have a few, progressive-minded politicos later on trying to push for European styled guns control laws where in some countries they don't even need a warrant to search your home to see if you're in possession of anything sharper then a steak knife. Some EU gun-control laws are seen or perceived as way too restrictive or even borderline oppressive by some Americans in terms of comparative politics. Especially in how some of them go about enforcing it.

I think System's views on tackling gun worship and gun culture are a lot more important and prescient to trying to sell common-sense gun control measures. If more and more Americans view it as being overtly partisan and pushing these measures as idealogues rather then framing the issue as a matter of increasing public safety and security, these measures won't have any real, long-term impacts.

 

[MT15]

Yes, I saw a clip of Ted Cruz angrily asserting that banning certain weapons would just make the killings worse...how does he know that? We haven’t been able to study gun violence because the NRA, through their lobbying, has actively blocked it. We have studied car crashes, and that was spectacularly successful in increasing crash survival. We studied airplane safety similarly. When I read years ago that the NRA was successfully blocking such safety studies that’s when I knew their metamorphosis was complete from a useful gun organization to actively trying to hurt America.

Just take an honest look at the problem.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

What needs to happen is a thorough scientific study, probably conducted by the CDC, of the causes of our gun violence epidemic and what the most effective solutions in mitigating the harm people can inflict in mass shooting situations.

Once we have the list of the most effective mitigation strategies, we should implement them.

ICYMI,

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 United States federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1] In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.[2]

The amendment was lobbied for by the National Rifle Association (NRA), and named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially penalized.[3] Congress clarified the law in 2018 to allow for such research, and the FY2020 federal omnibus spending bill earmarked the first funding for it since 1996.[4]

This past FY is the first time since this law was enacted that the CDC would be funded to conduct such research, but they have been really busy with other issues since then. It would be truly interesting to see what would happen if they ever conduct a study and if the study would actually lead to any action at all.

 

[Yoweigh]

What if some of those effective mitigation strategies aren't necessarily going to be politically viable or perhaps suggesting ideas that go way beyond just expanded universal background checks supported by a majority of Americans right now?

Why would it be a problem if some of the identified solutions weren't politically viable? It's not like performing a study would obligate us to implement the identified solutions. It would be good to have some hard data about the effectiveness of different policies so that we're able to make an informed decision about which to pursue. This should include the stuff you're advocating for like expanded background checks and addressing gun culture, however that might be done.

Weighing political viability against overall effectiveness is the key to this decision, imo.

 

[SaintForLife]

There was a lot of talk about white supremacy about the Colorado shooter until his name was revealed.



Race and Inclusion editor at USA today:

 

[MT15]

SFL, that doesn’t deserve any response whatsoever. It should be beneath you to post such nonsense.

here is why there’s been no progress on gun safety, in a nutshell.

 

[brandon]

There was a lot of talk about white supremacy about the Colorado shooter until his name was revealed.



Race and Inclusion editor at USA today:

So, no one in this thread has mentioned anything about white supremacy because we didn't have that information.

This thread is about gun control. Did you have any thoughts on that topic?

 

[Devildog]

*checks the thread*

Yeah, I don't see anyone in here claiming white supremacy.

 

[CoolBrees]

Did you just say white guys have it tough because they are stereotyped?

yeah, it’s about time those with middle eastern sounding names were discussed in the media when it comes to violence! They are NEVER stereotyped!

Fight on good brother! I too feel the rejection, burden and the scourge of being a white guy!

 

[SaintForLife]

So, no one in this thread has mentioned anything about white supremacy because we didn't have that information.

This thread is about gun control. Did you have any thoughts on that topic?

Did I say anyone in this thread mentioned white supremacy? You know there are discussions in this country beyond this message board right?

Many people online rushed to blame the shooting on white supremacy until the shooter's name was mentioned. I think that's relevant to the discussion.

What are the proposed gun control measures? Banning assault weapons? That didn't work when it was tried before.

 

[MT15]

Well, it would be nice if you had referenced something to back up your claim, the one tweet you posted was referring to the Atlanta mass murder, IIRC, and now appears to be gone (ETA: it didn’t load when I reopened the thread, but now it’s back. And it was tweeted last night, so you have one tweet. It was stupid, but is just one person being stupid on Twitter).

We can’t tell who you were talking about if you don’t say so.

I didn’t see any tweets speculating about the motive last night or today, and (sadly) I read twitter a good bit right now.

 

[Xeno]

What are the proposed gun control measures? Banning assault weapons? That didn't work when it was tried before.

Yeah, better to just stick with doing nothing. At least we know how well that doesn't work.

 

[SaintForLife]

Yeah, better to just stick with doing nothing. At least we know how well that doesn't work.

Considering the assault weapons ban didn't work before, why is Biden proposing it again? What do you suggest we should do?

 

[samiam5211]

Considering the assault weapons ban didn't work before, why is Biden proposing it again? What do you suggest we should do?

What makes you say it didn’t work before?

 

[SaintForLife]

What makes you say it didn’t work before?

Fact-Checking Feinstein on the Assault Weapons Ban

The senator says "the evidence is clear: the ban worked." Except there's no evidence it saved lives – and the researcher behind the key statistic Feinstein cites says it's an outdated figure that was based on a false assumption.

t.co

 

[Xeno]

Considering the assault weapons ban didn't work before, why is Biden proposing it again? What do you suggest we should do?

My solution is a minimum two years mandatory military service for every adult. This country is so obsessed with guns and being tacticool that those two years can be used to wash out anyone who has no business ever handling a weapon and train anyone actually responsible enough to do so.

After the end of the two years you keep your service weapon, go through yearly continuing firearms training, submit to yearly psychiatric testing and a yearly audit of all provided ammunition. Failure to comply would result in seizure of all weapons. Conviction of a violent crime would result in seizure of all weapons.

Hunting weapons would be required to be stored at a licensed hunting lodge and would have the same requirements as your service weapon, minus the ammunition audit.

 

[samiam5211]

Fact-Checking Feinstein on the Assault Weapons Ban

The senator says "the evidence is clear: the ban worked." Except there's no evidence it saved lives – and the researcher behind the key statistic Feinstein cites says it's an outdated figure that was based on a false assumption.

t.co

Yea, “We cannot clearly credit the law with the nations recent drop in gun crime” from a 2004 study isn’t evidence that it didn’t work.