Potential Solutions to Gun Violence

[BridgeTroll]

Oh I agree, BT & its def important. But everytime something like this happens, there's a lot of people who can't WAIT to paint the picture that this is some national crisis that requires emergency action & a Constitutional rewrite, completely brushing aside things that are much MUCH more likely to kill them or a loved one/someone they know. I mean, a life is a life, right??

But yes, these things are always sad & I couldn't imagine what the victim's loved ones go through. On the same note though, we could say the same about car accident victim's families. Seriously, how easy could it be to blame our car culture & total reliance on automobiles brought on by corporate greed on people's unnecessary deaths? But no one ever does that. Why not? Is it not important? It certainly kills people in droves like there's no tomorrow.

Anyways, gun violence def need talked about & figured out. It's just that the extreme "ban all the things" side obviously uses instances as fuel to push an agenda trumped up by flaky stats. The media doesn't help either & distorts a lot of what's reality for ratings. But the other "everyone should be packing" camp prob isn't correct either.

When its all said & done though, no one can really keep you safe. If someone wants to hurt you in a mall, they will. Maybe not if we lived in a total surveillance locked down police state, but that would be worse than the former. Society's problems stem from things much greater than the tool used to inflict the harm.

I like it... 

Society's problems stem from things much greater than the tool used to inflict the harm.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

But people always miss the other part of your analogy.  Cars are the most heavily regulated, expensive to own, legally mandated to insure, and come with revokable licenses for even minor infractions if they rack up.

And attributable to more fatalities, injuries and incarcerations than both firearm supporters and detractors care to imagine, yet, there's no outrage at all of the red tape one must go through in order to drive.

I differ with NRW on the auto analogy... I do not like it because there is no "Right to Drive" specifically listed in the Constitution. 

True.  I don't think I'm going to find "Right to Horse" in the constitution either.  I think my position on the guns is that I'm all for possession of whatever, I'm for some stricter screening and an adaptation of a renewal period for licenses (if there isn't already).  I'm also for gun owners having more liability when it comes to harm or damage done with a licensed firearm, no matter who pulls the trigger.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it's an amendable document and was written to be.  We're dealing with a little more than muzzle-loaded muskets, and I wouldn't have an issue with it (the 2nd) being amended in way to add classifications of firearms - not to prevent people from possessing them, but only to hinder. 

Do I think that someone needs a high-powered rifle with a high capacity magazine?  Not really, but if they're willing to jump through the hoops to own one, then there should be a defined path to ownership. 

[JeffreyS]

NRW provided this in another thread on a similar subject... I copied the "stats" portion for our use in this thread... it may come in handy...

Among the major findings of this Pew Research Center report:

U.S. Firearm Deaths

In 2010, there were 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people, compared with 7.0 in 1993, according to CDC data.
In 2010, CDC data counted 11,078 gun homicide deaths, compared with 18,253 in 1993.5
Men and boys make up the vast majority (84% in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The firearm homicide rate also is more than five times as high for males of all ages (6.2 deaths per 100,000 people) as it is for females (1.1 deaths per 100,000 people).

By age group, 69% of gun homicide victims in 2010 were ages 18 to 40, an age range that was 31% of the population that year. Gun homicide rates also are highest for adults ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 40.
A disproportionate share of gun homicide victims are black (55% in 2010, compared with the 13% black share of the population). Whites were 25% of victims but 65% of the population in 2010. Hispanics were 17% of victims and 16% of the population in 2010.

The firearm suicide rate (6.3 per 100,000 people) is higher than the firearm homicide rate and has come down less sharply. The number of gun suicide deaths (19,392 in 2010) outnumbered gun homicides, as has been true since at least 1981.

U.S. Firearm Crime Victimization

In 2011, the NCVS estimated there were 181.5 gun crime victimizations for non-fatal violent crime (aggravated assault, robbery and sex crimes) per 100,000 Americans ages 12 and older, compared with 725.3 in 1993.
In terms of numbers, the NCVS estimated there were about 1.5 million non-fatal gun crime victimizations in 1993 among U.S. residents ages 12 and older, compared with 467,000 in 2011.

U.S. Other Non-fatal Crime

The victimization rate for all non-fatal violent crime among those ages 12 and older—simple and aggravated assaults, robberies and sex crimes, with or without firearms—dropped 53% from 1993 to 2000, and 49% from 2000 to 2010. It rose 17% from 2010 to 2011.

Although not the topic of this report, the rate of property crimes—burglary, motor vehicle theft and theft—also declined from 1993 to 2011, by 61%. The rate for these types of crimes was 351.8 per 100,000 people ages 12 and older in 1993, 190.4 in 2000 and 138.7 in 2011.
Context

The number of firearms available for sale to or possessed by U.S. civilians (about 310 million in 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service) has grown in recent years, and the 2009 per capita rate of one person per gun had roughly doubled since 1968. It is not clear, though, how many U.S. households own guns or whether that share has changed over time.

Crime stories accounted for 17% of the total time devoted to news on local television broadcasts in 2012, compared with 29% in 2005, according to Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. Crime trails only traffic and weather as the most common type of story on these newscasts.

BT I find this very interesting was there a link on the original post?

[BridgeTroll]

Sorry.  NRW deserves credit for the find...

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

[finehoe]

But yes, these things are always sad & I couldn't imagine what the victim's loved ones go through. On the same note though, we could say the same about car accident victim's families. Seriously, how easy could it be to blame our car culture & total reliance on automobiles brought on by corporate greed on people's unnecessary deaths? But no one ever does that. Why not? Is it not important? It certainly kills people in droves like there's no tomorrow.

I think it's worth pointing out that prior to the mid-60s or so, carnage on the roads was just taken as a given (that's why crashes were called "accidents"), and that nothing really could be done about it, that humans were flawed creatures so auto-related deaths would always be with us.  But then a change of mind-set came about, and death and injury by automobile came to be viewed as a public health problem.  So we began to engineer roads and cars so that they were safer, and it resulted in this:



which is why I have a real problem with things like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?ref=us&pagewanted=all&_r=1&;

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

which is why I have a real problem with things like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?ref=us&pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Can you help me understand how the NRA can stymie their research. 

The basic questions that the researcher are trying to answer (according to the article):

1.)  Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe?

2.)  Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths?

3.)  Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?


I'm curious how the NRA can prevent them from researching this.  What methodology are they using that can/is blocked by legislature? 

[finehoe]

I'm curious how the NRA can prevent them from researching this.  What methodology are they using that can/is blocked by legislature?

Do you understand how lobbyists work? 

The article I linked to answers your question.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of "putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science," said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was "redundant" and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers' budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

"It's really simple with me," Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. "We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have."

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers' appropriations bill that remains in place today: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I'm curious how the NRA can prevent them from researching this.  What methodology are they using that can/is blocked by legislature?

Do you understand how lobbyists work? 

The article I linked to answers your question.

I do.

Sort of.

Do you believe that gun issues are indeed a 'public health' issue? 

Since I've been reading more from here lately, I'll offer this nugget:

Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/

When taken out of context, it seems that it's more of a private concern than a public one.  Not to mention that guns being listed as the cause of death in the US is far, far, far down the list (#107 according to the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_06.pdf). 

As PSU stated, quite nicely I might add: 

...Yes, saving a single life is important, but why not step back, take off the blinders, stop plucking at heart strings & look at the bigger picture. You wanna save lives? There's a million other places you could start first instead of worrying about some almost nonexistent threat of loony conspiracy theorist white guy.

So again, let's take a statement from your article,

"...The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say."

and phrase it correctly,

"...The amount of free, federal, hand-out money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say."

Because I think they should be able to answer their 'basic questions':

1.)  Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe?

2.)  Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths?

3.)  Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

Without the need of federal funds.  Seems some private funding for some questionaires, surveys and door-to-door campaigns should be able to accomplish their 'non-partisan' goal.

[BridgeTroll]

I'm curious how the NRA can prevent them from researching this.  What methodology are they using that can/is blocked by legislature?

Do you understand how lobbyists work? 

The article I linked to answers your question.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of "putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science," said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was "redundant" and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers' budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

"It's really simple with me," Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. "We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have."

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers' appropriations bill that remains in place today: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.

As this is a thread about exploring solutions...  We all understand what lobbyists do.  Usually there are lobbyists on both sides of issues... pro and con.  While we could debate whether these groups should have influence or not it really is not helpful here and now. 

Your article blames the NRA and "pro gun lawmakers" for the loss of funding to research gun violence.  The article fails to note what the "anti gun lobbyists and lawmakers were doing" while the other side was cutting funds.  My guess would be that passage of the legislation to limit funding was a bipartisan vote.

My view is that blaming the NRA for gun control failures is just a red herring.  Yeah they lobby... yeah they contribute to campaigns... but they cannot vote in congress.  Like it or not... the NRA and other lobby organizations are part of the process...

[finehoe]

Without the need of federal funds.  Seems some private funding for some questionaires, surveys and door-to-door campaigns should be able to accomplish their 'non-partisan' goal.

Perhaps, but federal government spending dwarfs all other sources of scientific reseach in the United States and often sets the tone for other research it doesn't fund.  I suppose gun manufacturers could sponsor it, but then the validity of the results would be questioned, even if everything was on the up-and-up.

[finehoe]

My guess would be that passage of the legislation to limit funding was a bipartisan vote.

And?  Did anyone claim pro-gun politicians only belong to one party?

[BridgeTroll]

My guess would be that passage of the legislation to limit funding was a bipartisan vote.

And?  Did anyone claim pro-gun politicians only belong to one party?

Just an observation finehoe... 

Here is a link to a listing of the "Gun control" lobby.  Seems pretty large to me...

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2004/anti-gun-lobbying-organizations.aspx

[finehoe]

As this is a thread about exploring solutions...  While we could debate whether these groups should have influence or not it really is not helpful here and now. 

Of course it is.  If you have a group that by all accounts wields an extraordinary amount of lobbying firepower preventing even rudimentary research on how the ownership of guns affects society, who is against virtually any kind of regulation at all, how is it not relevant to note the existence of such a obstruction when talking about "solutions"?

[finehoe]

My guess would be that passage of the legislation to limit funding was a bipartisan vote.

And?  Did anyone claim pro-gun politicians only belong to one party?

Just an observation finehoe... 

Here is a link to a listing of the "Gun control" lobby.  Seems pretty large to me...

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2004/anti-gun-lobbying-organizations.aspx

So what? 

[BridgeTroll]

As this is a thread about exploring solutions...  While we could debate whether these groups should have influence or not it really is not helpful here and now. 

Of course it is.  If you have a group that by all accounts wields an extraordinary amount of lobbying firepower preventing even rudimentary research on how the ownership of guns affects society, who is against virtually any kind of regulation at all, how is it not relevant to note the existence of such a obstruction when talking about "solutions"?

It would seem an equally powerful anti lobby would even things out?  Why is there not one?  Why is the anti gun lobby apparently so powerless?