Discussion with Gun Control Advocate

[AJ168]

Since last night, I had been having a few debates with people on Facebook about gun control, obviously sparked by the California attack. What is shocking to me is how belligerent these so called peaceful and enlightened people get.
Is there any way to have a logical conversation?


M


Basically, Democrats demand action and Republicans offer prayer. Still nothing gets resolved. "In short, basically anyone with a Twitter account shared thoughts and prayers in the immediate aftermath of the latest shooting,” the reporters wrote. “Which is kind of them to do, of course, but probably not enough to stop the next one.”
Prayer Shaming After a Mass Shooting in San Bernardino
Following the murder of at least 14 people in California, the reaction against calls for prayer has been sharp.
www.theatlantic.com|By Emma Green
LikeCommentShare[/I]



Comments

AJ
And what is that action that Democrats are demanding? Until someone figures out the mental and emotional reasons that this kind of thing happens, this isn't going to end.
Like · Reply · 5 hrs

M
Hi, I don't know who you are, but sure, let's have this discussion. If you read the article, Dems are asking for any action to bring gun violence to an end. People of any nation can and do experience mental and emotional problems, so yes, they should be helped. Besides war zones, it's this nation with the most lax gun laws that sees more mass shootings per diem than there are days in a yr. At some point, we should say, "Hmmm perhaps we need to evaluate our phrase, 'guns don't kill people; people kill people.'" It doesn't happen in a vacuum.

AJ
What measures of gun control would you suggest? I keep hearing more gun control, but have yet to hear a measure that's not already on the books.

M
Last time I checked, I don't make the rules so why does what I'd suggest matter?

AJ
I'm trying to have a discussion and be open to opinions, as I'd hope you'd be open to mine. The hope is that somewhere in between is a solution.

M
You get to decide these matters?


AJ
I still do have some faith in the ability of our government to listen to, and follow, the wishes of it's citizens. And since you and I fit that category, then yes, I'd say that in some small way, we both decide the final outcome.

M
The government needs to stop taking a top-down approach, unblock gun violence research, and stop using prayers and tired tropes to address what could've would've should've been. Address problems stemming from socioeconomic disparities. Stop funding wars and put that money to building up our failing education system. Provide more extra curricular activities to build children's self-esteem and keep kids out of trouble and off the streets. This will help make them well-rounded adults who are more pro-social with a good support system and less susceptible to blowing a short fuse. Fund more early intervention programs. Address addictions and mental illnesses with compassion and rehabilitative measures and don't always resort just to penal measures. If the research indicates clearly that guns are the issue, and I have a feeling it might and that's why research on gun violence is pretty much blocked, do away with the guns because we won't need them if other civilians don't have them. It works in every other corner of the world.


M
Politicians sitting around saying something needs to be done and then doing nothing or just sending out prayers doesn't solve anything.

AJ
I can absolutely agree with you on just about everything you've said. Especially about investing in education and more activities to keep kids involved and out of trouble. I have a feeling that this may solve far more issues than just violence.

AJ
I am curious though, why do you feel that gun research is blocked?

M
Articles such as these and a well known NRA-funded ban on research.

http://www.cnn.com/.../jay-dickey-gu...esearch/...See More
Former GOP congressman flips on support for gun violence research -…
cnn.com|By Jeremy Diamond, CNN


M
And if you look back to early July

http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun...
Congress quietly renewed a ban on gun-violence research
businessinsider.com

M
And as congressman David Price put it, "Gun violence is among the most difficult public health challenges we face as a country, but because of the deeply misguided ban on research, we know very little about it. Regardless of where we stand in the debate over gun violence, we should all be able to agree that this debate should be informed by objective data and robust scientific research. I am pleased to join members of the medical community from around the country to call for the ban’s repeal, which would allow for a more honest dialogue about possible solutions to the gun violence epidemic.”

AJ
Just because the CDC doesn't receive funding doesn't necessarily mean that the NRA (of which I am not a member, btw) is trying to stop any research from happening. Many government programs are now slowly dying due to lack of funding. It could have also...See More


M
I'm saying there's been a ban on researching gun violence.

AJ
Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that somebody like Blomberg, who is spending millions towards the cause, hasn't already funded the research that was nixed.
The data, from what I've seen, is publicly available via the FBI, and to do a study of citizens requires no government input.

AJ
There are millions of people in this country that everyday carry a gun. If the study that article was referencing were true, we'd all be dead. Surely you understand that in Pennsylvania, the estimate is that 10 to 20 percent of the population have a license to carry firearms. Let's say that 1 in 20 people you pass on the street is carrying a gun. We should all be doomed by that logic.
All these studies remind me of a stats course I took in college. The professor gave everyone the identical data set about climate change. The assignment was to prove or disprove the argument using legitimate statistical processes. With very little effort, one could swing the argument either way.


M
“It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide,” CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard wrote, “but our resources are very limited.”

Congress has continued to block dedicated funding. Obama requested $10 million for the CDC’s gun violence research in his last two budgets. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced bills supporting the funding. Both times the Republican-controlled House of Representatives said no. Maloney recently said she planned to reintroduce her bill this year, but she wasn’t hopeful.

So, the CDC is no closer to initiating gun-violence studies.

The roots of the research ban go back to 1996, when the NRA accused the public health agency of lobbying for gun control. That year, a Republican congressman stripped $2.6 million from the CDC budget, the exact amount spent on gun research the previous year. Soon the funding was restored, but designated elsewhere, and wording was inserted into the CDC’s appropriations bill that, “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 CDC interpreted this to mean it should avoid studying guns in any fashion.

“It basically was a shot across the bow by Congress on the part of the NRA,” said Mark Rosenberg, who was director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention when the ban went into effect. “All federally funded research was shut down.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../w...-cdc-still.../
Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two…
washingtonpost.com


M
Good for your statistics class. Don't you think it should at least be looked into by professionals as to why we're the only fucking country in the world that isn't a war zone where this happens pretty much more than once a day? And we're not the only country with lax gun laws so isn't it at least worth a look? This is why I didn't want to debate you. I don't even know who you are and I have my opinion and you have yours and clearly things aren't changing for the better. So if you want to keep going about things the same fucking way, which appears to be a downward spiral, be my guest. I'd at least like to see some kind of change so I don't have to feel unsafe sitting in a fucking chemistry class. I'm not going to respond to you anymore.

[streaker69]

Maybe he should be more upset at where the funding for the research he wants is actually going. Shrimp on treadmills, the quality of life of third world midget prostitutes and other such non-sense that our government has been funding.

[Lexington]

This sounds like the guy I encountered in Giant a couple months back. Good luck having a reasoned debate with that one.

[RockIsland]

Maybe he should be more upset at where the funding for the research he wants is actually going. Shrimp on treadmills, the quality of life of third world midget prostitutes and other such non-sense that our government has been funding.

You forgot about the millions spent to study of why lesbians are fat.

[Roadking]

You forgot about the millions spent to study of why lesbians are fat.

'cause they eat out so much?

Matt

[father-of-five]

The false assumption that money solves all problems.......in a magical mysterious way that can not yet be described......until the (unread?) funding bill is approved. Now, where have I heard that before?!

Yep. M totally overlooked France's strict gun laws. Whoops.

Nice conversation. Sadly they can only go so far when people ignore facts.

[Emptymag]

So the liberal crybaby took his/her ball and went home?

Nothing typical about that at all.

[Qtrborecrazy]

Discussion with a gun control advocate, how is that possible? Did they also mention sensible gun control laws also?

[AJ168]

Discussion with a gun control advocate, how is that possible? Did they also mention sensible gun control laws also?

That was actually the most recent discussion with a friend of a friend. She lives in Florida and was going on and on about Trump trying to allow people to carry in public. I wish I could have seen her face when I explained that Florida has, as far as I could find, always allowed concealed carry, and has 1.3 million permits out.

She kept going on and on about banning assault weapons, and I think something actually clicked when I explained the media definition and the true definition, and explained that an AR works in the same manner as the shotgun her husband keeps. God I wish Armalite had another name.... It'd make this whole assault rifle thing so much easier.

[jthrelf]

Why aren't you an NRA member?