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.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a lot of queries to answer all at one go and try to make it succinct, so let me start with gun classification.

How would I classify guns? While I'm not an expert it seems to me there are some technical factors such as 'type' -- rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc -- action and calibre, that are pretty obvious differences between weapons.

An AR-15 may be possible to assemble with different accessories but it's never going to become a shotgun, a pistol, or a bolt-action rifle, or convert from 0.223-inch to 0.5-inch. A difference like having a pistol grip on the front is actually fairly trivial compared to the main points.

That IMO is a possible starting point.

Maybe you didn't see my original question in response to your post on classification, so I'll pose it again: To what end?

The no.1 problem with guns in the USA is that there isn't any reliable data. Who has what, how many, what are they used for and how does this relate to injuries, crime, prevention of crime and so on.

Without this kind of information it's impossible to know if guns are a Good Thing, a Bad Thing, or an indifferent thing.

We might find that 80% of gun injuries could be eliminated by controls on elephant guns. Or we might find that the elephant gun is the only thing that stands between US society and pachyderm armageddon. We can only guess.

Not really. We know the overwhelming number of injuries - intentional or otherwise - come from handguns. We know which guns are and are not being used in crimes. We know that concealed carry permit holders are far less likely to break the law than the average citizen.

I mean, what specifically do you want to know? The data's out there. Pretending that it isn't to make a point about registries is a bit odd, in my opinion. As we already covered, you could make a nationwide registry tomorrow (hypothetically, I mean; such an act would be illegal), and it wouldn't get you any reliable data, because the non-compliance rate would be off the charts, as we saw in New York (a liberal state, let us not forget).

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The no.1 problem with guns in the USA is that there isn't any reliable data. Who has what, how many, what are they used for and how does this relate to injuries, crime, prevention of crime and so on.

Without this kind of information it's impossible to know if guns are a Good Thing, a Bad Thing, or an indifferent thing.

We might find that 80% of gun injuries could be eliminated by controls on elephant guns. Or we might find that the elephant gun is the only thing that stands between US society and pachyderm armageddon. We can only guess.

I'm really confused by that. The #1 problem is lack of data? How can you seriously present that as the #1 problem? There is all kinds of data on injuries/accidental deaths (and deliberate deaths) due to all kinds of situations and devices to include guns. That is why we know for example that blunt objects kill WAY more people than all types of rifles each year.

Again, what is your goal/endstate? What actual problem is this 'important data' (the lack of which is the #1 problem) supposed to address? How specifically do you intend to use this data if you could collect it? How does that use address the actual problem (problem needs to be defined as other than 'lack of data').

 Steve steveson wrote:
The biggest problem in having a real debate is the NRA. They stifle any debat as "taking away our guns", and then they come up with bizarre things like banning people on one of the terror watch lists from buying guns. Because using letting the government use a secret list of people which requires no oversight, no chance of appeal and no review to control access to something is a brilliant way to ensure there is no government abuse. I think the fact that the NRA blocks all debate on an open and transparent registration system but is happy for people to be banned because of a secret list says a lot.

No. The NRA has about 4.5 million dues paying members and that's only about 5% of the gun owners in the US. The NRA gets media attention because they're the largest group that lobbies for 2A rights but it's not the obstacle that some pundits like to make it out to be. The 80 million gun owners spread over dozens of states are what kills gun control legislation in Congress. Bernie Sanders votes against gun control because he represents Vermont the most permissive state in the country when it comes to gun control. The NRA doesn't give Sanders a dime. The biggest proponents of gun restrictions are politicians from low gun ownership states, people like Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. The NRA could offer Schumer a giant check and it wouldn't sway him. The politicians that block gun control do it because their constituents don't want it. Harry Reid blocks gun control because Nevada is full of gun owners not because the NRA gives him money. In a similar fashion politicians from states like Wyoming are going to be pro 2A regardless of whether or not the NRA contributes anything to their campaigns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a lot of queries to answer all at one go and try to make it succinct, so let me start with gun classification.

How would I classify guns? While I'm not an expert it seems to me there are some technical factors such as 'type' -- rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc -- action and calibre, that are pretty obvious differences between weapons.

An AR-15 may be possible to assemble with different accessories but it's never going to become a shotgun, a pistol, or a bolt-action rifle, or convert from 0.223-inch to 0.5-inch. A difference like having a pistol grip on the front is actually fairly trivial compared to the main points.

That IMO is a possible starting point.

Maybe you didn't see my original question in response to your post on classification, so I'll pose it again: To what end?

The no.1 problem with guns in the USA is that there isn't any reliable data. Who has what, how many, what are they used for and how does this relate to injuries, crime, prevention of crime and so on.

Without this kind of information it's impossible to know if guns are a Good Thing, a Bad Thing, or an indifferent thing.

We might find that 80% of gun injuries could be eliminated by controls on elephant guns. Or we might find that the elephant gun is the only thing that stands between US society and pachyderm armageddon. We can only guess.

You mean data like this:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

And this:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/guns.cfm

The Department of Justice keeps extremely detailed records on gun crimes across the nation. Who commits the crimes, who is victimized by the crimes, what guns are used, etc. and it's all updated annually.

The end state desired is to be able to find the best balance of positive gun use compared to injuries in order to reduce unnecessary injuries.

There is good data on the number of injuries, but there are other factors involved in the situation, and the information on these is scrappy.

I wish we could get somebody like the CDC to do some research..... wait a second.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I wish we could get somebody like the CDC to do some research..... wait a second.....

They're not barred from doing research.

That's why Obama told them to do some after Sandy Hook.

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I wish we could get somebody like the CDC to do some research..... wait a second.....

They're not barred from doing research.

That's why Obama told them to do some after Sandy Hook.

Didn't say they are barred. But they are severely hamstrung on what funding they are allowed to spend on it.

That one piece of research is not even close to the amount they want to be spending and should be spending on it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Didn't say they are barred.

That's true, you merely implied it.

But they are severely hamstrung on what funding they are allowed to spend on it.

No, they aren't.

That one piece of research is not even close to the amount they want to be spending and should be spending on it.

Fortunately, it's far from the only "piece of research" on guns that the CDC has produced.

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Didn't say they are barred.

That's true, you merely implied it.

But they are severely hamstrung on what funding they are allowed to spend on it.

No, they aren't.

That one piece of research is not even close to the amount they want to be spending and should be spending on it.

Fortunately, it's far from the only "piece of research" on guns that the CDC has produced.

Well first, no I didn't.

Second, yes they very much are.

Third, it is one of very few pieces of research the CDC has produced after Jay Dickey cut their funding after being pressured by the NRA.

Here: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

“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.”

Quoted to help you out!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Well first, no I didn't.

Well argued.

Second, yes they very much are.

Third, it is one of very few pieces of research the CDC has produced after Jay Dickey cut their funding after being pressured by the NRA.

Here: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

“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.”

Quoted to help you out!

No. They can study as much as they want; they're not allowed to become political advocates. Largely because they ran into a bit of a problem with that before that law existed.

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Well first, no I didn't.

Well argued.

An example of how this thread has gotten far too snarky, moved too close to rule 1 violations, over its time. And now it's done.