Between
Crime skyrocketed up in Detroit when the handgun ban went into place...
And
But that's when it's industry was getting demolished, and abject poverty in the area appeared as well.
Which of the two do you really think is the more likely cause of the increase in crime?
To bring this more on-topic, why is federal money to study WHY people are committing these mass shooting banned by Congress? The study would be conducted by the CDC.
The CDC chose to enforce a self-imposed ban on gun research on itself after threats to defund it after bias was found in their senior staff.
Dr. Rosenberg, director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, recently extolled the CDC's hope to create a public perception of firearms as "dirty, deadly--and banned."
http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html#fnb288
This (self-imposed) ban was lifted by Obama under executive order a few years back, and the CDC's published research from last year found the following conclusions.
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
“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.”
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.”
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
Correlation is not causation, so it can't be determined 1 way or the other. At least not without more data.
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
The study can be viewed here http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 and the quotes should be google-able
Here's my question then: if gun control is not going to solve this mass shootings issue in the US, then what will? What do people honestly propose instead of gun control? Do people have a solution? I'm genuinely curious.
On a more related note, I found this article: http://markmanson.net/school-shootings. I think it makes some valid points. I'm all for more gun control, but it's interesting to note that there is a cultural issue as well. The place on 4chan where the Oregon shooter's post (and another threat that caused Philadelphia universities and colleges to go into security overdrive) were posted is scary. There's something seriously wrong with that sort of thing existing.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
The CDC chose to enforce a self-imposed ban on gun research on itself after threats to defund it after bias was found in their senior staff.
That doesn't seem like a fair description of what happened. The CDC funded and endorsed gun research by a physician, the NRA responded by lobbying hard (and successfully) for a law prohibiting the CDC from endorsing or promoting gun control. Congress just renewed that law, in fact. As a follow-up to that, funding for gun research dried up. Now the CDC can cannibalize other projects for funds to study guns, at the expense of those projects. And the results might not even be publishable, because if the study could be construed by the NRA as advocating gun control in some way the agency would be dealing with legal problems and an again-hostile Congress. "Research ban" is a too strong, though that's the popular description of what happened. However, research is irrelevant to the group behind the legislation-- they banned discussing a specific result, regardless of what the research finds. That's as far from good faith as it's possible to get.
Here's my question then: if gun control is not going to solve this mass shootings issue in the US, then what will? What do people honestly propose instead of gun control? Do people have a solution? I'm genuinely curious.
They do not. I will mention that there is probably a difference between a mass killing, like the UCC shooting in Oregon, and the day-to-day gun violence we have. But America as a country, for all intents and purposes, doesn't care enough about either to do anything. People may prefer a world with fewer mass shootings, but not strongly enough to do the things that might be necessary to get there.
-------R.I.P.-------
Selective Quote
~Too Late - Too Soon~
An article I read today on CNN, which looks at triggers for gun violence from the viewpoint of a contagion. Though obviously guns are what ultimately allows there to be gun violence, evidence suggests that the people who do this display publicly reasons and actions that indicate they will commit these types of acts. So I think there are things we can do.
That's not an exhaustive list, but I think it would lessen gun violence. But to be clear, having military grade weaponry as a citizen, I'm not in agreement with that. I have no compelling to be.
And then there's incidents like this: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/72734192/another-shooting-shocks-america-as-11yearold-boy-kills-8yearold-neighbour
WTH. we have no guns here in Australia but there was some kid killed a police worker and then was shot dead too.
Dude whats wrong with everyone. So all the bad people have the weapons great.
WTH. we have no guns here in Australia but there was some kid killed a police worker and then was shot dead too.
Not actually true. Guns are not illegal in Australia, simply regulated. There are actually around 2.75 million registered firearms in Australia.
And you can't say it hasn't worked either.
Once again, no-one says you have to ban guns, just regulate them like any dangerous tool.
Here's my question then: if gun control is not going to solve this mass shootings issue in the US, then what will? What do people honestly propose instead of gun control? Do people have a solution? I'm genuinely curious.
I think we can accomplish a mutually satisfying resolution through actual compromise. For example, instate shall-issue permits to CCW's federally (Something proven to cause no issue from law abiding citizens), and lengthen the federal sentencing guidelines for felons that have guns (Once you have a felony you aren't allowed to have/own/be alone with a gun).
remove the need for pistol purchase permits being needed in certain states (Pistol purchase permit is separate from a concealed carry permit), but make straw purchasers criminally responsible if their guns are used in crimes.
Strike down state-specific magazine capacity bans, but enforce NICS checks on magazine purchases over 7 rounds (NYC's current strict law limit)
Get rid of ridiculous "assault weapon" classifications, and make handgun crime (This is the issue) more punishable with minimum sentencing guidelines.
Make it easier for interstate hunters (It is VERY hard to legally transport guns across state borders, despite that being a protected right under the Firearms owners protection act. States (like NYC) will arrest you for transporting an unloaded hunting rifle with no ammo in the trunk to a hunting site), but charge a tax to those who hunt in another state.
The goal should be to target the largest hotspot of crime (Re-offenders, Handgun robberies), while offering compromises for the people who have shown to be responsible (Long gun owners that can pass NICS checks). Even the GOA would back any one of these (Well, maybe not NICS checks on magazines).
Congress just renewed that law, in fact. As a follow-up to that, funding for gun research dried up. Now the CDC can cannibalize other projects for funds to study guns, at the expense of those projects. And the results might not even be publishable, because if the study could be construed by the NRA as advocating gun control in some way the agency would be dealing with legal problems and an again-hostile Congress.
Can you find that law? Because I can't.
This is the best source I can find
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence
But there's no law cited against the research, nor did congress ban anything I can find. The NRA pointed out anti-gun agenda in the initial research, congress said the evidence of that looked legitimate and the CDC took a self-imposed ban on the topic to avoid their own bias.
Obama reversed their decision by executive order, and the CDC published gun statistics for last year as well that showed guns had either a nuetral or positive impact.
