Gun Control is About Control, Not About Saving Lives

[Cascade Kid]

Make not mistake, gun control does not stop gun crimes. Stop blaming the guns and start blaming the criminals.

-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXNg9fTPWQk

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Good video.
Great message.

He needs to not move his hands so much; then the camera will stop auto-focusing.

[auroraave]

This is the type of "issue" the dems will desperately need to fan the flames of leading into the next election - they cannot run on crime, safety, foreign policy, the economy, energy prices etc - they have 100% failed all of these issues - just like when Brandon was running v Trump - could not make it about the real issues most people care about because Dem policies are complete and utter failures - so they have to distract you. Gun control, Healthcare (notice how long "free healthcare" has been a politicians best friend talking point during run up to elections - but then noithing ever happens after the election?), equality, climate change (insert laugh track), waiving student debt - it's always "we're gonna give you free shit if you just vote for us" but it's never free, and all the real issues, the Dems cannot afford to actually talk about lest thier failures take center stage. Seattle, Portland, SF, LA, Chicago, NYC, all Dem policy disaster areas.

"Gun control" just the latest media fueled distraction. Anyone remember the Vegas shooter? Remember how quickly that story was swept under the carpet? How was that even possible? There was some news story recently claming the shooters motivations were (I can't rememeber) and some alt news source like The Hill was laughing at the absurdity of the claim. Expect the media to get their 'narrative" marching orders and run with it - while ignoring the shit Americans need and care about.

Why is no one talking about the riots in France? The storming of Black Rock headquarters?

Wash, rince, repeat.

[gil]

I know quite a few people who are much more in favor of limitations on guns than am I, and I think every single one would argue it is about safety. Maybe they are wrong, but that is their motivation.

In the bigger picture, I see many Republicans retreating into extreme positions, and increasingly sure that these are "winning" positions with the majority of Americans, and increasingly sure that only way Democrats can win the next election is because of cheating and/or fraud. Meanwhile, I see many Democrats retreating into extreme positions, and increasingly sure that these are "winning" positions with the majority of Americans, and increasingly sure that only way Republicans can win the next election is because of cheating and/or fraud.

[Cascade Kid]

I know quite a few people who are much more in favor of limitations on guns than am I, and I think every single one would argue it is about safety. Maybe they are wrong, but that is their motivation.

In the bigger picture, I see many Republicans retreating into extreme positions, and increasingly sure that these are "winning" positions with the majority of Americans, and increasingly sure that only way Democrats can win the next election is because of cheating and/or fraud. Meanwhile, I see many Democrats retreating into extreme positions, and increasingly sure that these are "winning" positions with the majority of Americans, and increasingly sure that only way Republicans can win the next election is because of cheating and/or fraud.

Quite the conundrum isn't it? There are also Republicans that believe gun control will create a positive life safety outcome. It's amazing how strong the media and the herd mentality will take us into a direction. This goes with election fraud too, which did not happen, at least no more than it did 40 years ago.

I will point out however, that whatever is happening to that dumb ass Trump in NY is an appaulling political assault. How many felony counts was he charged with? Really? How is this actually a normal charging trend by this prosecutor? This may actually become election interference while using government as a tool to commit interference. It's a really sad, low tactic. But we shouldn't be surprised. We also see these same sad, low tactics used to pass unconstitutional laws against your Bill of Rights.

There are good Bill of Rights supporters on both left and right sides that believe in our 2nd Amendment rights. Then there's a wad of political pundits and media mongers that aimlessly work hard to rip your rights away, and not just your 2nd Amendment right.

[gil]

Regarding saving lives ... I posted this in another thread viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7949&start=20. I don't think anyone responded to the evidence presented. The Scientific American article is from May 2022. I'll emphasize that I really like what the article said about modeling gun safety research on highway safety research. Assume guns will be around (just like assuming cars and trucks will be around). But work on reducing deaths and serious injuries without simply sticking to a pre-conceived political agenda.

***

What do people think of this Scientific American article? ("The Science is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives")

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ves-lives/

I feel that "laws will prevent a mass shooting" is a ridiculous statement, but "laws will reduce the probability of mass shootings" is a testable hypothesis.

In the Scientific American article, the Editors argue for more research into safety from gun violence. They say the model is research into highway and vehicle safety, which has resulting in driving and roads being much safer than ever. But in fact, federal support for such gun research was non existent for 20 years (due to the Dickey Amendment).

Some of the research the Scientific American article cites has found:

1. "states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26091930/ ("As we previously reported, in 2015, assaults with a firearm were 6.8 times more common in states that had the most guns, compared to the least")

2. "More than a dozen studies have revealed that if you had a gun at home, you were twice as likely to be killed as someone who didn’t" https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326 ... id=1814426

3. "When Missouri repealed its permit law, gun-related killings increased by 25 percent." https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers- ... licensing/

4. Regarding "a ban [on] people who are convicted of violent crime from buying a gun. In California, before the state passed such a law, people convicted of crimes were almost 30 percent more likely to be arrested again for a gun or violent crime than those who, after the law, couldn’t buy a gun." https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... shootings/

I'm an empirical person, and I believe in figuring out cause and effect relationships. Protecting 9 year olds shouldn't be the subject of partisan grandstanding and repeating the same old talking points.

[DanielVogelbach]

1 (2).jpg (359.05 KiB) Viewed 953 times

[DanielVogelbach]

There is nothing about "government" that gives them any right to arm themselves differently than anyone else.

All gun control is tyranny.

Gun control is essentially gun violence, because the "government" is using their guns to take away other people's guns.

There's nothing unlawful about possessing any weapon. A law is only broken if that weapon is used outside of self defense.

Advocating for gun control is advocating for violent aggression against your neighbors just like every other aspect of statism.

[Cascade Kid]

Regarding saving lives ... I posted this in another thread viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7949&start=20. I don't think anyone responded to the evidence presented. The Scientific American article is from May 2022. I'll emphasize that I really like what the article said about modeling gun safety research on highway safety research. Assume guns will be around (just like assuming cars and trucks will be around). But work on reducing deaths and serious injuries without simply sticking to a pre-conceived political agenda.

***

What do people think of this Scientific American article? ("The Science is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives")

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ves-lives/

I feel that "laws will prevent a mass shooting" is a ridiculous statement, but "laws will reduce the probability of mass shootings" is a testable hypothesis.

In the Scientific American article, the Editors argue for more research into safety from gun violence. They say the model is research into highway and vehicle safety, which has resulting in driving and roads being much safer than ever. But in fact, federal support for such gun research was non existent for 20 years (due to the Dickey Amendment).

Some of the research the Scientific American article cites has found:

1. "states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26091930/ ("As we previously reported, in 2015, assaults with a firearm were 6.8 times more common in states that had the most guns, compared to the least")

2. "More than a dozen studies have revealed that if you had a gun at home, you were twice as likely to be killed as someone who didn’t" https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326 ... id=1814426

3. "When Missouri repealed its permit law, gun-related killings increased by 25 percent." https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers- ... licensing/

4. Regarding "a ban [on] people who are convicted of violent crime from buying a gun. In California, before the state passed such a law, people convicted of crimes were almost 30 percent more likely to be arrested again for a gun or violent crime than those who, after the law, couldn’t buy a gun." https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... shootings/

I'm an empirical person, and I believe in figuring out cause and effect relationships. Protecting 9 year olds shouldn't be the subject of partisan grandstanding and repeating the same old talking points.

That Scientific American article is complete conjecture and garbage. But let's go through there sources.

Here's its first source. Which is supported by a bunch of gaslighting material that does not soundly support the arguement. And your quote you provided above this same link I cannot find. But I did find this quote below in the abstract.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26091930/

-

Although some view the ownership of firearms as a deterrent to crime, the relationship between population-level firearm ownership rates and violent criminal perpetration is unclear. The purpose of this study is to test the association between state-level firearm ownership and violent crime.

Here's one of the horse crap resource quotes and the link to support that very poor NIH submission. And none of these authors have a PhD. Furthermore, the first author Siegle M has a propensity to target tobacco, alcohol, food, and push left social agenda matters in his other papers. Looks like an insider publishing serveral BS pieces just to get his name on papers and dilute the scientific community with conjecture.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25121817/

-

Here's a Wikipedia source that should have been referenced in the study. But hey, truth is accuracy so it might not fit the criteria of this poorly supported paper you've linked.

Right away the abstract is stating the association is unclear. And I'm sure it is from a lack of looking.
Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, country, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach 4.7 million per year. A May 2014 Harvard Injury Control Research Center survey about firearms and suicide completed by 150 firearms researchers found that only 8% of firearm researchers agreed that 'In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime'

Your second source is a very said matter. People will take their own lives in a number of ways. Hangings, overdose, bleeding out, carbon monoxide poisoning, fatal falls, car accidents, drowning, electocution, and the list goes on. I always feel we could do a better job at speaking about suicide and mental illnesses, but we are horrible at it. We even neglect your state hospitals such as Western State (one of the largest mental hospitals on the west coast) to the point of federal defunding. I government is failing when put in charge of this kind of responsibility.

But the second source links self-inflicted which is not against the law or harms someone else's liberty. But nevertheless, the person committed suicide, the gun did not commit murder.

The third source is again predicated on suicides. And in every state background checks are already required. The third source also quote an incomplete study by, once again, the NIH.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074329/

Scientific American is not a reliable resource of information used soundly in the scientific community. These are conjecture based studies which truely avoids the 20/20 viewpoint of the arguement.

[gil]

Regarding saving lives ... I posted this in another thread viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7949&start=20. I don't think anyone responded to the evidence presented. The Scientific American article is from May 2022. I'll emphasize that I really like what the article said about modeling gun safety research on highway safety research. Assume guns will be around (just like assuming cars and trucks will be around). But work on reducing deaths and serious injuries without simply sticking to a pre-conceived political agenda.

***

What do people think of this Scientific American article? ("The Science is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives")

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ves-lives/

I feel that "laws will prevent a mass shooting" is a ridiculous statement, but "laws will reduce the probability of mass shootings" is a testable hypothesis.

In the Scientific American article, the Editors argue for more research into safety from gun violence. They say the model is research into highway and vehicle safety, which has resulting in driving and roads being much safer than ever. But in fact, federal support for such gun research was non existent for 20 years (due to the Dickey Amendment).

Some of the research the Scientific American article cites has found:

1. "states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26091930/ ("As we previously reported, in 2015, assaults with a firearm were 6.8 times more common in states that had the most guns, compared to the least")

2. "More than a dozen studies have revealed that if you had a gun at home, you were twice as likely to be killed as someone who didn’t" https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326 ... id=1814426

3. "When Missouri repealed its permit law, gun-related killings increased by 25 percent." https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers- ... licensing/

4. Regarding "a ban [on] people who are convicted of violent crime from buying a gun. In California, before the state passed such a law, people convicted of crimes were almost 30 percent more likely to be arrested again for a gun or violent crime than those who, after the law, couldn’t buy a gun." https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... shootings/

I'm an empirical person, and I believe in figuring out cause and effect relationships. Protecting 9 year olds shouldn't be the subject of partisan grandstanding and repeating the same old talking points.

That Scientific American article is complete conjecture and garbage. But let's go through there sources.

Here's its first source. Which is supported by a bunch of gaslighting material that does not soundly support the arguement. And your quote you provided above this same link I cannot find. But I did find this quote below in the abstract.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26091930/

-

Although some view the ownership of firearms as a deterrent to crime, the relationship between population-level firearm ownership rates and violent criminal perpetration is unclear. The purpose of this study is to test the association between state-level firearm ownership and violent crime.

Here's one of the horse crap resource quotes and the link to support that very poor NIH submission. And none of these authors have a PhD. Furthermore, the first author Siegle M has a propensity to target tobacco, alcohol, food, and push left social agenda matters in his other papers. Looks like an insider publishing serveral BS pieces just to get his name on papers and dilute the scientific community with conjecture.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25121817/

-

Here's a Wikipedia source that should have been referenced in the study. But hey, truth is accuracy so it might not fit the criteria of this poorly supported paper you've linked.

Right away the abstract is stating the association is unclear. And I'm sure it is from a lack of looking.
Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, country, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach 4.7 million per year. A May 2014 Harvard Injury Control Research Center survey about firearms and suicide completed by 150 firearms researchers found that only 8% of firearm researchers agreed that 'In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime'

Your second source is a very said matter. People will take their own lives in a number of ways. Hangings, overdose, bleeding out, carbon monoxide poisoning, fatal falls, car accidents, drowning, electocution, and the list goes on. I always feel we could do a better job at speaking about suicide and mental illnesses, but we are horrible at it. We even neglect your state hospitals such as Western State (one of the largest mental hospitals on the west coast) to the point of federal defunding. I government is failing when put in charge of this kind of responsibility.

But the second source links self-inflicted which is not against the law or harms someone else's liberty. But nevertheless, the person committed suicide, the gun did not commit murder.

The third source is again predicated on suicides. And in every state background checks are already required. The third source also quote an incomplete study by, once again, the NIH.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074329/

Scientific American is not a reliable resource of information used soundly in the scientific community. These are conjecture based studies which truely avoids the 20/20 viewpoint of the arguement.

I appreciate your critique and feedback. I'll look into everything you wrote. Thanks!