Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
More accurately I should have said "relative" lack of control when it comes to gun control. And surely you can understand that increased access to guns means increased gun crime? And if you are a first would country where as many people are getting shot as in some 3rd world war torn nation, you might need to look at why that is and ways of resolving it, including tightening and enforcing existing gun laws and a big drive to reduce illegal arms.

So you were in fact wrong, I'm glad that we cleared that up.

Still using false comparisons, and no sources to boot?

Increased access to legal guns, or illegal guns? Are most crimes committed by people who have had a background check (which includes their criminal record, if any) and buy a gun legally, or are they committed by people possessing the firearm illegally? There is an important difference there.

In what way do you think that the law needs tightened? Bearing in mind that until corrected you claimed that there was an "'almost complete lack of control " over firearm sales.

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

We make all our kids in school pledge themselves to the country everyday.

Why is this a bad thing again?

I've never said the pledge, I think it's stupid. Although that is probably a whole other thread...

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Ya'll get the feelin' we're dealin' with people with only half the script?

I get the impression that I am dealing with someone who may not have all the facts at his disposal, but he certainly has an opinion with a side order of flag waving.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Ya'll get the feelin' we're dealin' with people with only half the script?

I get the impression that I am dealing with someone who may not have all the facts at his disposal, but he certainly has an opinion with a side order of flag waving.

welcome to the internet!

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

We make all our kids in school pledge themselves to the country everyday.

Why is this a bad thing again?

I've never said the pledge, I think it's stupid. Although that is probably a whole other thread...

Many may think it's dumb...

But he made it soundlike there's this brainwashing indoctrination when you pledge... o.O


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Ya'll get the feelin' we're dealin' with people with only half the script?

I get the impression that I am dealing with someone who may not have all the facts at his disposal, but he certainly has an opinion with a side order of flag waving.

Yep...

But, let's be honest, we're all guilty of that on the interwebs.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

We make all our kids in school pledge themselves to the country everyday.

Why is this a bad thing again?

I've never said the pledge, I think it's stupid. Although that is probably a whole other thread...

Many may think it's dumb...

But he made it soundlike there's this brainwashing indoctrination when you pledge... o.O

You don't think being "forced" to pledge allegiance to something for 18 years might create some sort of bias?

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

We make all our kids in school pledge themselves to the country everyday.

Why is this a bad thing again?

Because nationalism is scary.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Ya'll get the feelin' we're dealin' with people with only half the script?

I get the impression that I am dealing with someone who may not have all the facts at his disposal, but he certainly has an opinion with a side order of flag waving.

Opinions are great, but if you dont have facts to brace your stand, it's just flapping in the breeze.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So you were in fact wrong, I'm glad that we cleared that up.

... I thought the context of my remarks was quite clear, but if you want to be a big internet tough guy, I'm not going to stop you

Still using false comparisons, and no sources to boot?

False comparisons like a continent with 3 times the population having only 20 school shootings in the past 100 years compared with the, what? one or two a year that the US enjoys?

Increased access to legal guns, or illegal guns?

Increased access to anything increases use of said item. And increased access to something legal generally means they are also easier to obtain illegally as well (in terms of access and cost). The vest number of illegally owned guns in the USA used in many crimes should perhaps be an indication that this is the case.

Are most crimes committed by people who have had a background check (which includes their criminal record, if any) and buy a gun legally, or are they committed by people possessing the firearm illegally? There is an important difference there.

Depending on exactly which crimes we are addressing, or crimes in general, certainly. I personally have not gone to extreme lengths to identify whether shooters in school shootings have owned their weapons legally or illegally, or whether they were thought to be "at risk" of potentially doing something silly and whether, had gun control been tighter and more integrated with mental health care/etc their access to guns would have been removed. A reasonable number of the synopsis comments on the list of US school shootings mention the shooter owning the weapon many don't say, and some say "weapons taken from relatives/sic".

In what way do you think that the law needs tightened? Bearing in mind that until corrected you claimed that there was an "'almost complete lack of control " over firearm sales.

Again, context when addressing what I said - apparently what I thought was clear was not. Compare the gun control laws in the USA to other countries where guns are more strictly controlled such as the UK, Germany, (apparently) Canada, etc... they are generally far more in depth and better suited to weeding out those who should not really have access to guns. I've read the synopsis on what is required to purchase guns in the USA on this and other threads, I've spoken to people who have owned guns both in the US and elsewhere (one of my friends does a lot of clay shooting here in the UK) and there is a significant relaxation in both the law and in attitudes towards guns in the USA compared to elsewhere.

The more strict the gun control, the safer the city! We have some great examples of cities in the US with very strict gun control, LA, Detroit, Chicago, New York.....oh wait...

 ironicsilence wrote:
welcome to the internet!

A magical place where people read into things what they want to see!

 d-usa wrote:


You don't think being "forced" to pledge allegiance to something for 18 years might create some sort of bias?

18 years maybe, but the 12 I went through, definitely not.

 Musashi363 wrote:
The more strict the gun control, the safer the city! We have some great examples of cities in the US with very strict gun control, LA, Detroit, Chicago, New York.....oh wait...

There ya go again, dragging in facts......

 Musashi363 wrote:
The more strict the gun control, the safer the city! We have some great examples of cities in the US with very strict gun control, LA, Detroit, Chicago, New York.....oh wait...

Yeah, and strict gun laws in areas surrounded by lax gun laws with no checks on people crossing into them may as well not exist...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
welcome to the internet!

A magical place where people read into things what they want to see!

Or type things without knowing what they hell they're typing.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
welcome to the internet!

A magical place where people read into things what they want to see!

Or type things without knowing what they hell they're typing.

If only you had a gun to protect you against that sort of thing...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
The more strict the gun control, the safer the city! We have some great examples of cities in the US with very strict gun control, LA, Detroit, Chicago, New York.....oh wait...

Yeah, and strict gun laws in areas surrounded by lax gun laws with no checks on people crossing into them may as well not exist...

Like the US government selling firearms to the Mexican cartels via Fast n Furious after the firearms stores initially refused to go along?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
welcome to the internet!

A magical place where people read into things what they want to see!

Or type things without knowing what they hell they're typing.

If only you had a gun to protect you against that sort of thing...

It's called the Ignore button

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Like the US government selling firearms to the Mexican cartels via Fast n Furious after the firearms stores initially refused to go along?

That was a move of genius, certainly.

It's called the Ignore button

Now I need to get an ignore proof vest or something... or maybe a tank

 Alfndrate wrote:

d-usa wrote:I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.

This might just be me, but on a micro level, I've never experienced issues with people maintaining the pride and traditions of heritage, Cleveland has vibrant populations of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation immigrants from various parts of the world, and each one has carved out places in the city, and it's not unlikely to see one, two, or three different cultural festivals going on during similar times of the year. On a macro level, I will say that other parts of my country seem to hate Central America, Caribbean, and African immigrants, which might sour people's opinions of our country.

It's definitely coming more from people than communities.

I still get lots of "speak English" when I'm talking to family while we are out and about as an example. Why the feth to they care what language I use to speak with my brother, but people just seem paranoid when they hear people speak another language while they are around.

For certain holidays I fly a German flag at my house, which seems to get people upset. Never mind that I always fly the US flag on those days as well.

I also decided to put a German flag on my helmet when I was volunteering with the fire department. I made sure that I also got a US flag that had the exact same dimensions and consulted the flag code to make sure I mounted them the same way as you would mount flags on a wall. But people still gave me grief about it.

It does seem like the people that usually complained the loudest are the same people that would have the 25 foot flag pole with the stars and stripes if they lived anywhere else, so go figure.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
**snip**.

So no sources for your claims over figures, name calling because you were wrong, claiming others are missing your context when your words are clear, and no actual clue as to what the law here entails for buying a firearm - let alone any actual suggestion on how to reform said law.

 d-usa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

d-usa wrote:I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.

This might just be me, but on a micro level, I've never experienced issues with people maintaining the pride and traditions of heritage, Cleveland has vibrant populations of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation immigrants from various parts of the world, and each one has carved out places in the city, and it's not unlikely to see one, two, or three different cultural festivals going on during similar times of the year. On a macro level, I will say that other parts of my country seem to hate Central America, Caribbean, and African immigrants, which might sour people's opinions of our country.

It's definitely coming more from people than communities.

I still get lots of "speak English" when I'm talking to family while we are out and about as an example. Why the feth to they care what language I use to speak with my brother, but people just seem paranoid when they hear people speak another language while they are around.

For certain holidays I fly a German flag at my house, which seems to get people upset. Never mind that I always fly the US flag on those days as well.

I also decided to put a German flag on my helmet when I was volunteering with the fire department. I made sure that I also got a US flag that had the exact same dimensions and consulted the flag code to make sure I mounted them the same way as you would mount flags on a wall. But people still gave me grief about it.

It does seem like the people that usually complained the loudest are the same people that would have the 25 foot flag pole with the stars and stripes if they lived anywhere else, so go figure.

Well... on behalf of all those idjits... I'm sorry you have to go through with that.

Maybe it's my natural curiosity... but, I think it's great you do that and if I meant anyone doing that, I wouldn't blink an eye.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
**snip**.

So no sources for your claims over figures, name calling because you were wrong, claiming others are missing your context when your words are clear, and no actual clue as to what the law here entails for buying a firearm - let alone any actual suggestion on how to reform said law.

If you want figures and sources, please let me know which ones in particular you want and I will attempt to get some for you (please be clear so we both know what we are expecting me to find ).

You assert that I am wrong, I personally think you are tilting at the wrong windmill through either a misinterpretation of what I have said (which is entirely possible as I personally thought the context of my comments throughout this thread has been reasonably clear but apparently not...), or because you are just want to argue and ignore anything I have said that is a valid criticism or suggestion (if it is either against your point of view, or "not right").

I know what the law in the USA entails for purchase of a firearm, at least to the extent of someone who a) is not American, b) has never attempted to buy a gun there and c) is taking a break from doing something else to post here can be motivated to go an look up the exact details. As to reformation of gun laws in the USA - I have made a few suggestions in this thread and even more in previous threads - since no one particularly seems to be interested in them or prefers to ignore the general thrust of the points and get bogged down in semantics over how these hypothetical laws would not work, make everything worse, or cause the founding fathers to explode, I have not gone into any particular depth or detail. My point remains that gun laws in the rest of the western world works well to make sure that those who actually need guns have access to them, and that, in some countries, those who want them have a chance of access to them get them.

Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.

Here's the study's FULL REPORT:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
There is some good and bad news for gun-control advocates. The good news, for them, is that there are parts of the report that tells us that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high income countries.” But, one interesting fact about this statistic, however, is that if one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington DC., the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country... that's funny because DC, along with these three states, have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

Other findings:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:

“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.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:

“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.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:

“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.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:

“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.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:

“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).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, 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.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:

“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

So... but the salient points contained within this CDC study on gun violence unquestionably contradicts the anti-gun narrative. It's really telling that President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent on this...

 d-usa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

d-usa wrote:I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.

This might just be me, but on a micro level, I've never experienced issues with people maintaining the pride and traditions of heritage, Cleveland has vibrant populations of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation immigrants from various parts of the world, and each one has carved out places in the city, and it's not unlikely to see one, two, or three different cultural festivals going on during similar times of the year. On a macro level, I will say that other parts of my country seem to hate Central America, Caribbean, and African immigrants, which might sour people's opinions of our country.

It's definitely coming more from people than communities.

I still get lots of "speak English" when I'm talking to family while we are out and about as an example. Why the feth to they care what language I use to speak with my brother, but people just seem paranoid when they hear people speak another language while they are around.

For certain holidays I fly a German flag at my house, which seems to get people upset. Never mind that I always fly the US flag on those days as well.

I also decided to put a German flag on my helmet when I was volunteering with the fire department. I made sure that I also got a US flag that had the exact same dimensions and consulted the flag code to make sure I mounted them the same way as you would mount flags on a wall. But people still gave me grief about it.

It does seem like the people that usually complained the loudest are the same people that would have the 25 foot flag pole with the stars and stripes if they lived anywhere else, so go figure.

Come to Cincinnati. Your German heritage will be smiled upon and you'll be promptly given a 40 ounce beer and a bratwurst.

 whembly wrote:
Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.

I will take a look in detail later as I am just about to go to the cinema and I am headed down to London tomorrow morning so it will be a few days until I can comment on this thread again (I am sure to many tears from some posters ).

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.

I will take a look in detail later as I am just about to go to the cinema and I am headed down to London tomorrow morning so it will be a few days until I can comment on this thread again (I am sure to many tears from some posters ).

It's all good. I'm sure someone else will pick up the "woefully underinformed" banner for you.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.

I will take a look in detail later as I am just about to go to the cinema and I am headed down to London tomorrow morning so it will be a few days until I can comment on this thread again (I am sure to many tears from some posters ).

Makes sense after a post like Whembly's

 SilverMK2 wrote:
You assert that I am wrong, I personally think you are tilting at the wrong windmill through either a misinterpretation of what I have said (which is entirely possible as I personally thought the context of my comments throughout this thread has been reasonably clear but apparently not...), or because you are just want to argue and ignore anything I have said that is a valid criticism or suggestion (if it is either against your point of view, or "not right").

I quoted your exact words - "almost complete lack of control ". It is hard to misinterpret that, unless there was some vital element that was missing. In which case that lies with you for not providing it. Sadly my crystal ball is under going maintenance, and so I can only base my responses on what you post rather than what you thought you posted.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I know what the law in the USA entails for purchase of a firearm, at least to the extent of someone who a) is not American, b) has never attempted to buy a gun there and c) is taking a break from doing something else to post here can be motivated to go an look up the exact details. As to reformation of gun laws in the USA - I have made a few suggestions in this thread and even more in previous threads - since no one particularly seems to be interested in them or prefers to ignore the general thrust of the points and get bogged down in semantics over how these hypothetical laws would not work, make everything worse, or cause the founding fathers to explode, I have not gone into any particular depth or detail. My point remains that gun laws in the rest of the western world works well to make sure that those who actually need guns have access to them, and that, in some countries, those who want them have a chance of access to them get them.

If you knew what the law was then why did you attempt to claim that there was an "almost complete lack of control "? Your nationality is not an excuse, I'm not American either but we both have access to the same information about firearm law. The difference is that you choose to disregard it because as far as you are concerned the US is doing it wrong. And if you're too busy then maybe you should wait until you have more time for a response.
Given your conduct in this thread its looking more like you didn't like legitimate criticisms of your ideas from people who understand how the law works here, rather than anything else.

 d-usa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

d-usa wrote:I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.

This might just be me, but on a micro level, I've never experienced issues with people maintaining the pride and traditions of heritage, Cleveland has vibrant populations of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation immigrants from various parts of the world, and each one has carved out places in the city, and it's not unlikely to see one, two, or three different cultural festivals going on during similar times of the year. On a macro level, I will say that other parts of my country seem to hate Central America, Caribbean, and African immigrants, which might sour people's opinions of our country.

It's definitely coming more from people than communities.

I still get lots of "speak English" when I'm talking to family while we are out and about as an example. Why the feth to they care what language I use to speak with my brother, but people just seem paranoid when they hear people speak another language while they are around.

I find foreign languages enthralling, love the sound of a native speaker, love the way words roll off the tongue, and I try to ask (if I'm actually conversing with them, not interrupting) what certain things mean. But then again, I had a German penpal when I was younger, and we used each other to practice English and German. Humorously enough, last Friday during my lunch I was sitting next to a girl who was face timing with friends/family, and speaking German. I only understood snippets, but it was cool to hear something other than, "HUR DUR MURICA!"

And like Whembly, sorry for those idiots man :-\

Ok, have a little time before I go out so a quick reply:

 whembly wrote:

Here's the study's FULL REPORT:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:

“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.”

No mention of those who did not use any form of self defence, ie capitulated to their attacker's requests?

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:

“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.”

Where guns are common, gun use is common - as I have said a number of times. Both in the commission and prevention (or during defence against) crime.

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:

“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.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

Of course, mass shootings are generally a very limited event when compared to general use of guns in crime. No mention is given to those wounded or affected by gun use, only those killed. Not a criticism as such, but I wondered if you knew if the report looked at that? Declining crime rates are consistent for most western countries, though obviously the USA has much higher incidence of gun crimes than most others - though no mention is made of gun crime as part of the wider crime figures. The figure quoted at the end also does not say whether it includes suicides in the "unintential fatalities", or only uses figures for murders.

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:

“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.”

I would suggest that "gun control" including assault rifle bans and gun free zones isn't really effective gun control and there has not been a significant change in background checks to measure how effective such a change would be.

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:

“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).”

I would suggest that such schemes again don't really have any effective use in gun control. Seize and destroy figures would be interesting though.

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, 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.”

No indication is given as to whether the guns they obtained from others are actually legally owned by said others.

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:

“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Gun suicides are horrifically common and reflect the availability of guns and the ease with which they can be used to kill.

So... but the salient points contained within this CDC study on gun violence unquestionably contradicts the anti-gun narrative.

I think even a very brief look at the quoted sections shows quite a few holes in your reasoning as this being a contradiction of the effectiveness of gun conrol and the prevelence of guns in crimes/deaths/etc.

It's really telling that President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent on this...

I can't really comment on this as I don't really follow the pro/anti gun stuff other than via dakka. But I think the main point to be gained from this is that people can read the same thing and come to very different conclusions - sometimes it is not worth the effort of attempting to contradict this. I accept that I have not read the full report, only those sections you have pulled out and some of my concerns may be addressed in the full text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.

I will take a look in detail later as I am just about to go to the cinema and I am headed down to London tomorrow morning so it will be a few days until I can comment on this thread again (I am sure to many tears from some posters ).

It's all good. I'm sure someone else will pick up the "woefully underinformed" banner for you.

And here you are!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I quoted your exact words - "almost complete lack of control ". It is hard to misinterpret that, unless there was some vital element that was missing. In which case that lies with you for not providing it. Sadly my crystal ball is under going maintenance, and so I can only base my responses on what you post rather than what you thought you posted.

Again, I meant, and I thought the context of my other posts made it quite clear, that there is relatively almost complete lack of control when comparing the USA and other western nations. As I believe I have now made clear on more than enough occasions.

If you knew what the law was then why did you attempt to claim that there was an "almost complete lack of control "? Your nationality is not an excuse, I'm not American either but we both have access to the same information about firearm law. The difference is that you choose to disregard it because as far as you are concerned the US is doing it wrong. And if you're too busy then maybe you should wait until you have more time for a response.
Given your conduct in this thread its looking more like you didn't like legitimate criticisms of your ideas from people who understand how the law works here, rather than anything else.

Given your conduct in this thread you are more concerned about hanging up discussion on trivial, already resolved points in an attempt to disrail and prevent discussion and to (perhaps further ) smear someone you disagree with.