Gun Control

BigRedBuster said:
Yeah....anyone with an open mind knows that's BS.  

If a gun manufacturer donates to the general fund for the NRA, that allows them to operate while other "donations" are going towards political action.  So, if they weren't donating those millions, the other donations would be needed to operate and wouldn't be available for political crap.
Click to expand...
From Devi’s article. 
“Contributions came from nearly 30,000 donors, with around 90% of donations made by people who gave less than $200 in a single year. According to the NRA, the average donation is around $35.”
 

do you have info to post that says the opposite of CNNMoney’s info?  If not, then you are wrong. 

 
Enhance said:
No idea. Quick Google search returned no results, but since the NRA was against the ban, one guess what Ricketts' opinion was on the matter.
Click to expand...
there were no results because the golden calf banned bump stocks.  it would have been blasphemy to say anything against the gun ban that trump built.   

 
DevoHusker said:
A slightly different view regarding the bold. Was it the Clinton Admin?


Gun rights supporters argue the CDC shouldn't get involved. The agency should stick to controlling and preventing disease, they say.



There’s also a healthy dose of distrust of any research the CDC might conduct – which is why the agency essentially stopped studying the issue in 1996 after the NRA accused the CDC of advocating for gun control. The resulting research ban caused a steep decline in firearms studies nationwide. As a University of Pennsylvania criminology professor explained it, “I see no upside to ignorance."








https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/ 
Click to expand...


Hadn't read that before. Thanks. Looks like the study is most notable for being inconclusive. It cannot conclude that new gun laws would lower gun fatalities, or that the defensive use of guns outweighs the accidental deaths and suicides from having guns in the home. So it did not give gun control advocates the uhm....smoking gun they wanted. But it did not disprove the concerns either, while confirming it was a legitimate public health issue. The one thing everyone in the study agreed on is that the subject deserves more study. The fact that it failed to fulfill a political role is a pretty good endorsement for the independence of the research authors. 

 
KW8q3a0E


 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Hadn't read that before. Thanks. Looks like the study is most notable for being inconclusive. It cannot conclude that new gun laws would lower gun fatalities, or that the defensive use of guns outweighs the accidental deaths and suicides from having guns in the home. So it did not give gun control advocates the uhm....smoking gun they wanted. But it did not disprove the concerns either, while confirming it was a legitimate public health issue. The one thing everyone in the study agreed on is that the subject deserves more study. The fact that it failed to fulfill a political role is a pretty good endorsement for the independence of the research authors. 
Click to expand...


Haha. Sorry, but I found the bolded funny. As someone who has had to read more than my fair share of scholarly reports, I feel I can safely saw, nearly every single study report ever done ends with all authors in agreement that "more study is needed." This is how they can continue to get new monies to research the same things over and over again. 

 
Born N Bled Red said:
Haha. Sorry, but I found the bolded funny. As someone who has had to read more than my fair share of scholarly reports, I feel I can safely saw, nearly every single study report ever done ends with all authors in agreement that "more study is needed." This is how they can continue to get new monies to research the same things over and over again. 
Click to expand...


Well maybe if someone had paid them enough money, they would have given the the conclusions they needed!

 
I'll do the study free of charge.

*cracks knuckles*

If you make it significantly harder to buy/own guns, and drastically reduce the volume of guns in the country, gun violence will go down.

Damn! I should've been paid for that...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Decoy73 said:
I’m guessing you’re not too familiar with different firearms and their ballistics/shoot-ability etc, because your statement on this is absolutely false.
AR-15 rifles and the like are specifically designed to shoot fast and accurate at virtually any reasonable combat range.   combine that with the capability to accept high capacity magazines and you have a killing machine that is unmatched by any other gun a normal citizen can legally own.  
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I own a handful of firearms and was also trained via the military with primarily a M16 and then a M4. Im fairly confident an individual could inflict equal or more damage via a vast array of available firearms. A high capacity semi auto shotgun such as an IWI Tavor TS12 for example. Additionally if an individual wanted to inflict mass amounts of casualties a wide variety of options are present that aren't even firearms. 

In the latest shooting for example it should be of no surprise that this nut job was on a FBI watch list. Should we close issues in this process? Absolutely. There are 20 million estimated AR15 platform rifles in the US. What percentage of gun violence does the most popular firearm account for? 

 
Back
Top