It takes only 5 people to end gun violence in America.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

It only takes 5 Supreme Court Justices to end gun violence in America.

Just like it ended drinking in America? Just because something is made illegal doesn't mean it will automatically go away.

Is there actually any unbiased evidence that banning guns has an effect on lowering gun deaths? From the data I've seen, banning handguns in D.C, Chicago, etc. didn't really do anything when comparing against the national average. I could see it having an effect on suicides but that is preventable through other measures as well.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

From the data I've seen, banning handguns in D.C, Chicago, etc. didn't really do anything

Think about that for a second. Were people free to leave DC and cross the bridge into Virginia where gun laws are lax? If there is a nation wide ban, would there be such an easy path around the law?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by glatt

Think about that for a second. Were people free to leave DC and cross the bridge into Virginia where gun laws are lax? If there is a nation wide ban, would there be such an easy path around the law?

I don't see much difference between a hypothetical gun ban in the US with prohibition on alcohol, weed, cocaine, etc. Would there maybe be some initial instability? Probably. However, if there is a demand for guns, I'm sure the black market would be more than happy to supply. It already does in many urban areas.

We have over 300 million guns in this country and only a very very small proportion of those are used to kill people. I would imagine that a ban on guns would greatly reduce the number of guns that are being used responsibility but have little impact on the number of guns being used irresponsibly. Any gun regulation needs to address this IMO.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Just like it ended drinking in America? Just because something is made illegal doesn't mean it will automatically go away.

Is there actually any unbiased evidence that banning guns has an effect on lowering gun deaths? From the data I've seen, banning handguns in D.C, Chicago, etc. didn't really do anything when comparing against the national average. I could see it having an effect on suicides but that is preventable through other measures as well.

Here is all the surprising, inconvenient, confusing, complicated, and non-soundbite-worthy evidence.

It's not simple.

http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[tw]

Less than 24 hours after the killings, a local Convention Center had it quarterly gun show. Only hours after routine killing of children (this time in the same location), the gun show clearly had its largest crowd. Only a national dog show had a crowd as large.

Gun shows are where one buys the most deadly weapons and ammunition without even a background check. Dead kids promote more gun sales. Because those who most need guns are the same emotional type who make decisions based in fear and ego.

What to do with a kid who (according to his mother) had mental problems? Take him to gun ranges to practice with weapons once restricted only to trained soldiers. Keep him out of school because his emotional problems must be traceable to the school system. Does that make sense? Of course not. Decisions based in emotions explain why the mother purchased a large stockpile of assault weapons. And hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

Some people think like adults. They use reason rather than feelings. Others who need to entertain the emotion of a bigger gun to prove their adulthood. She was not a victim. If alive, she should be prosecuted as an accessory to the crime. But we still do not hold gun owners responsible for their actions. It would be a threat to their feelings. After all, the least adult among us need more guns. And hundreds of rounds of ammuntion only useful for killing people.

And so the gun show had its largeest turnout only hours after children were massacred. The mentality is strongly associated with those who most need bigger guns.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Here is all the surprising, inconvenient, confusing, complicated, and non-soundbite-worthy evidence.

It's not simple.

http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

James D. Agresti, the president and primary researcher, holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Brown University and has worked as a designer of jet aircraft engines, a technical sales professional, and chief engineer of a firm that customizes helicopters. He is the author of Rational Conclusions, a highly researched book evidencing factual support for the Bible across a broad array of academic disciplines.

Oh lord, here we go again.

7:00 Sussex County Creation Science Club, Sparta, NJ (Sussex County)
We will be hosting speaker, Jim Agresti, an author and creation speaker who will be speaking on the "Cosmos and a Super Natural Creation"

So the head researcher for justfacts is a 'creation scientist'? While this might give him a different viewpoint, sort of like inviting Jeffrey Dahmer to research a book on food safety, it argues against unbiased collection and interpretation of facts.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Oh lord, here we go again.

So the head researcher for justfacts is a 'creation scientist'? While this might give him a different viewpoint, sort of like inviting Jeffrey Dahmer to research a book on food safety, it argues against unbiased collection and interpretation of facts.

Great. Apart from your highly effective Ad Hominem attack what facts did you find, pertaining to gun laws, that were erroneous?

Nearly everyone has personal political views, especially those involved in policy research and journalism. In the interest of transparency, we think it is incumbent upon such individuals to straightforwardly disclose this information, despite the fact that they often fail to do so and claim that this lack of disclosure is a mark of objectivity. As is the case with any thoughtful group of people, the staff and board members of Just Facts have some varying opinions, but we overwhelmingly subscribe to these defining principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In general parlance, we are conservative/libertarian in our viewpoints, but unlike many organizations and media outlets, this does not mean we give preference to facts that coincide with our opinions. Quite the contrary, we are committed to objectivity and will report any fact that meets the criteria below, regardless of the implications.

Standards Of Credibility

* Facts: Every effort is made to keep the facts as plain as possible and to use language that is clear and precise.

* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.

* Accuracy: Just Facts does not use sources uncritically, and before citing them, we often perform investigative and feasibility studies to test their veracity. Just Facts is also committed to documenting the facts we publish far more thoroughly than standard academic practice requires. Hence, all of our research since 2001 contains footnotes with direct quotes and/or raw data from the cited sources. This allows readers to quickly verify that we accurately represent these citations. Our goal for every fact is 100% transparency.

* Estimates and Minor Discrepancies: These are handled by giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints and by using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data.

* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

* Incomplete Data: "Facts" that do not account for vital contextual information are not included in our research. Example: A study determines that under a certain proposal, "taxes for the average family will increase by $700 over the next four years." This would be excluded if the study did not account for inflation, which may add $300 to the average tax bill regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted.

* Balance: Our goal is comprehensive accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This, in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest from the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish verifiable facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.

Our Challenge

While today's news media can be entertaining, ask yourself, "Does it give me the information I need to make quality decisions in my life and in the voting booth?"

Make the effort to gather credible facts and ponder their implications. Your views and your vote impact not only your life, but the people around you. Refuse to allow misinformation and bias to restrict or manipulate your thinking. Form your own opinions based upon serious thought and broad knowledge.

Despite their wacky creationist viewpoints, they seem more open minded than you.

An example of a "fact" that didn't meet their standards of credibility:

"In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."[12] [13]

* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:

1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]

2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]

3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])

Yeah, that really smacks of wacky creationist agenda.

For the record, I am adamantly opposed to semi-automatic firearms, and I think gun ownership requirements in this country are looser than lax. A bolt action rifle with a four round clip is all one needs for hunting.

Australia's rules sound good to me.

AND we need to address mental health care in this country.

[glatt]

There are some interesting points there, but I don't like two active threads about gun control. So I'm going to post all my replies in the original thread. Guns Don't Kill People.

[footfootfoot]

I was thinking that they should be merged.