Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates
If only that were true. Test it against the Trump bandwagon (NY Times reports that he's asking rally attendees to raise their right hand and swear allegiance to him.) If "obvious absurdity" had any fallout, it would be here.commodorejohn wrote:This is true; however, said statements should at least not whallop the brain with their obvious absurdity, because that "hey, wait a minute!" reaction is a good way to undermine the gut reaction they're actually shooting for.
EdgarJPublius wrote:http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why ... ch-budget/Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.
CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor. In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.In the late ’80s and early ’90s, the CDC was openly biased in opposing gun rights. CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”CDC leaders were not shy about their intentions of banning guns from the public. Sure enough, they acted on their desires. In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC to the tune of $1.7 million, entitled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The leader author was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an epidemiologist, physician, and outspoken advocate of gun control.The final nail in the coffin came in 1995 when the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter told its readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.” Appearing on the same page as the article pointing the finger at gun owners for the Oklahoma City bombing were the words, “This newsletter was supported in part by Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
In summary:
The head of the CDC department which studies firearm violence explicitly stated they were trying to build a case to ban firearms. Then they funded research by openly biased gun control advocates. Furthermore, the CDC then funded a non-research publication by an anti-gun advocacy group. Which is when Congress de-funded the CDC by the 2.6 million they had used to pursue the anti-gun agenda and added a rider to the remaining funds that they not be used for exactly the kind of advocacy they had been doing.
While the language against advocating and promoting gun control did not explicitly ban the CDC from researching gun violence, the CDC stopped the work anyway.Linda Degutis, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said the action by Congress sent a strong message to the CDC. "Even though that language doesn’t say research is prohibited," Degutis said, "everyone who was making decisions interpreted it to mean that you could not do any research on gun violence." The language, and lack of funding, has carried on in spending bills and even been expanded to the National Institute of Health, another agency in the Department of Health and Human Services. "It is the equivalent of a ban," said David Hemenway, director of the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University. "It’s a touch more nuanced than a ban, but there’s basically no real difference in terms of research."
In the wake of mass shootings in 2013, President Barack Obama requested the CDC be granted new funding to study gun violence. Congress did not appropriate the funds.
ucim wrote:If only that were true. Test it against the Trump bandwagon (NY Times reports that he's asking rally attendees to raise their right hand and swear allegiance to him.) If "obvious absurdity" had any fallout, it would be here.commodorejohn wrote:This is true; however, said statements should at least not whallop the brain with their obvious absurdity, because that "hey, wait a minute!" reaction is a good way to undermine the gut reaction they're actually shooting for.
sardia wrote:EdgarJPublius wrote:http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why ... ch-budget/Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.
CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor. In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.
How does this match up with scientists being gunshy with regards to gun research?
Roosevelt wrote:I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?
Yes.
lorb wrote:That is, "easier to get a gun than a book" should be read as "easier to enter a (criminal) violent path of life than to get (higher) education" which is certainly true for a number of neighbourhoods. Or expressed more accurate: there are neighbourhoods where this is true for a high proportion of the population.
ijuin wrote:lorb wrote:That is, "easier to get a gun than a book" should be read as "easier to enter a (criminal) violent path of life than to get (higher) education" which is certainly true for a number of neighbourhoods. Or expressed more accurate: there are neighbourhoods where this is true for a high proportion of the population.
When you can't get an above-the-board job that you can live on (either because there's a general lack of jobs, or because you are rejected when you apply, or because what jobs you can get still leave you far below the poverty line), then illegal income sources start to look mighty appealing. Getting a high school diploma greatly reduces the likelihood of being rejected when one applies for jobs, which in turn reduces the incentive for low-level crime such as burglary, larceny, and drug dealing.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.
The Orlando shooting brought up theFederalist link again, so I dug into it.EdgarJPublius wrote:sardia wrote:EdgarJPublius wrote:http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why ... ch-budget/Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.
CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor. In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.
How does this match up with scientists being gunshy with regards to gun research?
In what way are scientists being 'gunshy'? the amount of published researched hasn't measurably changed.
The researchers complaining about a 'ban' are the ones who were publishing blatantly biased research before. Just because the CDC isn't funding their research anymore, doesn't mean research isn't being funded. (And it's not like Hemenway is having a hard time getting published anyway)
Roosevelt wrote:I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?
Yes.
Tyndmyr wrote:I have difficulty believing the US has more guns lying around than books. I certainly did look around the house for books as a kid. I'm sure I can't be unique in that.
I mean, yeah, a lot of homes DO have guns in them, but the average US home has 300,000 items in it*. It seems implausible that reading material is not among that.
*http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/21/health/la-he-keeping-stuff-20140322
Tyndmyr wrote:Someone has to purchase the gun for the kid.
Access is possible, but it essentially requires an adult to vouch for the child. This is not generally required for a book, so with respect to the original claim, I believe that a book is still obviously easier to access.
But it is possible for young folks to legally shoot firearms. There are youth shooting teams, etc, it's a pretty normal thing.
Tyndmyr wrote:Potentially. Assuming the seller is willing to sell to a 13 yr old, is a private seller, the kid lives in a state that does not prohibit it, and the kid can assemble the hundreds of dollars.
It's about 30 states that allow it. In practice, it's almost invariably a birthday present or similar. That's pretty normal.
Still, given that all 50 states allow purchase of books to 13 yr olds(mostly), and it's allowed at retail, not merely privately, it's a cinch that books are more available. If Obama had said cigarettes or beer, it'd be a much more interesting argument, I think.
In practice, it's almost invariably a birthday present or similar. That's pretty normal.
LjSpike wrote:I know people say kids are too glued to computer games now-a-days, but I don't reckon taking call of duty to the real world is the best thing for them either?
DanD wrote:Tyndmyr wrote:Someone has to purchase the gun for the kid.
Access is possible, but it essentially requires an adult to vouch for the child. This is not generally required for a book, so with respect to the original claim, I believe that a book is still obviously easier to access.
But it is possible for young folks to legally shoot firearms. There are youth shooting teams, etc, it's a pretty normal thing.
Again, there don't appear to be federal laws that prevent a thirteen year old from purchasing a gun in a private sale, and several states also don't appear to have any age limits.
So yes, someone has to have purchased the gun first, but if it is purchased, used, then resold, it wasn't purchased for the kid, it's just going back on the market. So, nope, the kid can purchase directly, unless I am missing something.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.
commodorejohn wrote:LjSpike wrote:I know people say kids are too glued to computer games now-a-days, but I don't reckon taking call of duty to the real world is the best thing for them either?
You seem to have confused real firearms with airsoft and paintball.
Lucrece wrote:DanD wrote:Tyndmyr wrote:Someone has to purchase the gun for the kid.
Access is possible, but it essentially requires an adult to vouch for the child. This is not generally required for a book, so with respect to the original claim, I believe that a book is still obviously easier to access.
But it is possible for young folks to legally shoot firearms. There are youth shooting teams, etc, it's a pretty normal thing.
Again, there don't appear to be federal laws that prevent a thirteen year old from purchasing a gun in a private sale, and several states also don't appear to have any age limits.
So yes, someone has to have purchased the gun first, but if it is purchased, used, then resold, it wasn't purchased for the kid, it's just going back on the market. So, nope, the kid can purchase directly, unless I am missing something.
Do you honestly think a seller would imperil their business by having word get out that they sold a gun to a 13 year old, even if it's not illegal?
You not only have to worry about legal questions. Gay marriage may be legal in the US, but that doesn't encourage me to go over in Downtown Miami (Florida) holding hands with someone of the same sex and not end up verbally abused/assaulted by some ghetto asshole at the end of the day.
Social inhibitors can be even more powerful than legal ones.
Tyndmyr wrote:Certainly. Social factors are huge. I do invite you to walk into a gun store and ask about buying a gun for a 13yr old, and see the kind of reaction you get.
I generally suggest not doing it at any store you intend to shop at in the future, and to carefully examine the laws regarding straw purchasing so you don't get tripped up if reported to the FBI. These sorts of experiments can easily go awry when people simply assume that the laws are ridiculously lax, and violate shitloads of them.commodorejohn wrote:LjSpike wrote:I know people say kids are too glued to computer games now-a-days, but I don't reckon taking call of duty to the real world is the best thing for them either?
You seem to have confused real firearms with airsoft and paintball.
Indeed.
And I'd wager that airsoft and paintball are fine activities for youngsters. More physical activity is generally a plus.
Tyndmyr wrote:That's probable, yes.
Most crime is highly non-randomly distributed, with serial offenders claiming a pretty decent share.
One pet peeve you'll often see noted in pro-firearm publications is that Obama's admin has a particularly poor enforcement rate of existing gun laws, primarily failed NCIS checks. The more conspiratorially bent folks will announce that this is because having bad things associated with guns furthers his gun control agenda. I suspect they don't fully understand the scope of federal government. That aside, shitty enforcement is still shitty enforcement.
Tyndmyr wrote:They do have records of NCIS checks. If you see shit like rejections being immediately followed by a request in someone else's name from the same location, maaaaybe you should check that shit out. I realize it's a bit of hassle, but if it's a small subset responsible for the vast majority, that makes prosecution relatively easy. Large effect for comparatively little work.
(i) Information in the NICS Audit Log, including information not yet destroyed under § 5.9(b)(1)(iii), that indicates, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, a violation or potential violation of law or regulation, may be shared with appropriate authorities responsible for investigating, prosecuting, and/or enforcing such law or regulation; and
Roosevelt wrote:I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?
Yes.
Tyndmyr wrote:...or maybe police could actually do the relevant police work, and close down the few people that are causing the vast majority of the crime?
They do have records of NCIS checks. If you see shit like rejections being immediately followed by a request in someone else's name from the same location, maaaaybe you should check that shit out. I realize it's a bit of hassle, but if it's a small subset responsible for the vast majority, that makes prosecution relatively easy. Large effect for comparatively little work.
lorb wrote:Yes, but absent other information "this request just came in after a fail from the same dealer" does not constitute "information [...] that indicates, either on its face [...] a violation or potential violation of law or regulation".
Depending on the reason for the fail the fact that someone tried to buy a gun may be enough to trigger a follow-up but you can't follow up on a passed check just because it happened directly after. I do agree that there is more that could be done on the part of enforcement. But my point is that the legal framework in place right now also restricts what can be done a lot and many common sense effective practices can't be put in place because of that. For example what Tyndmyr proposed.
LjSpike wrote:Same case with guns, Its hard to catch the 'skilled' dodgy dealers & the irresponsible parents. Thats proved by how many kids get access to guns in the US. Yet, look how many people, not just kids, but people in general, get access to guns in the UK. Ok, there is a population difference, but its pretty hard to obtain a gun in the UK.
Tyndmyr wrote:This is pretty unlikely to matter if you don't actually pursue criminal purchases, and in any case, it's a really, really bad idea from a due process perspective.
But a bad dealer is one that actually sells to underage folks, not one that has had underage folks try repeatedly to buy booze from.Tyndmyr wrote:We don't keep a database of everyone who buys booze, but we still prosecute people who sell booze to underage folks. Keeping a record of the bad dealers, and their past problems allows you to focus investigative efforts on the few bad apple dealers.
No crime has been committed by the dealer yet. Only when an application that should have been rejected is accepted and the gun is sold do you have actual evidence that this is a bad dealer. At that point yes, you have something to track. If this pattern persists, then it's not just a mistake but a systemic problem (this is a Bad Dealer).Tyndmyr wrote:If you see shit like rejections being immediately followed by a request in someone else's name from the same location, maaaaybe you should check that shit out.
But it's already illegal to shoot up a school or to perpetrate a terrorist attack. And making cars illegal would prevent many more accidents than making guns illegal.LjSpike wrote:I'd conclude that the most reasonable solution to these problems would be making gun purchases illegal, it'd solve school shootings, help stop terrorist attacks, and prevent many accidents.
ucim wrote:But a bad dealer is one that actually sells to underage folks, not one that has had underage folks try repeatedly to buy booze from.Tyndmyr wrote:We don't keep a database of everyone who buys booze, but we still prosecute people who sell booze to underage folks. Keeping a record of the bad dealers, and their past problems allows you to focus investigative efforts on the few bad apple dealers.
No crime has been committed by the dealer yet. Only when an application that should have been rejected is accepted and the gun is sold do you have actual evidence that this is a bad dealer. At that point yes, you have something to track. If this pattern persists, then it's not just a mistake but a systemic problem (this is a Bad Dealer).Tyndmyr wrote:If you see shit like rejections being immediately followed by a request in someone else's name from the same location, maaaaybe you should check that shit out.
Besides, isn't it like HTTP? Each request stands on its own. How can you tell that the second request is "really" from the same person that the first request is from? Stores can have multple customers; wouldn't you simply be investigating stores that have customers?
As for following up on a failed check, is it a crime to attempt to purchase a firearm if you are inelegible to do so? If so, then it's the potential purchaser that should be investigated on a fail anyway, not the store. If not, then doing this investigation is a form of presumption of guilt.
Low hanging fruit and all.Tyndmyr wrote:Sure, but I bet they are more likely to check out the booze store across from the school...
Doesn't the address tell you that, kind of like the booze store across from the school?Tyndmyr wrote:Lots of failed applications doesn't guarantee that the store is bad, but it indicates that it's in an area with a lot of potential bad customers.
Isn't that what's supposed to happen? It doesn't raise my suspicisions that a gun that was wanted by a criminal gets sold to a non-criminal. So, it seems to me that the information isn't very useful.Tyndmyr wrote:If you see the same serial numberselling frombeing inquired about (FTFY) the same shop to a different person post-denial, well...maybe a different person bought that gun.
Fair point.Tyndmyr wrote:It is a crime to do so knowingly. Multiple attempts after being denied is usually a pretty solid case for knowingly.
Agree here too. If (existing good) laws are not being enforced, adding more laws doesn't help, and actually hurts.Tyndmyr wrote:...but none of it really works without enforcement.
ucim wrote:Isn't that what's supposed to happen? It doesn't raise my suspicisions that a gun that was wanted by a criminal gets sold to a non-criminal. So, it seems to me that the information isn't very useful.Tyndmyr wrote:If you see the same serial numberselling frombeing inquired about (FTFY) the same shop to a different person post-denial, well...maybe a different person bought that gun.
DanD wrote:Except that background checks can only be kept for 24 hours, at which point the FBI is required to destroy them. Which means the purchaser can wait 1 day, re-submit, and the FBI has no evidence.
The ATF is also not allowed to require inventories from gun dealers, and the dealers are not required to report "lost" guns. And the ATF is not allowed to inspect a given dealer more than once a year. Which makes tracking illegal sales rather difficult. And even if they do turn up a lot of guns from a single dealer at crime scenes, they aren't allowed to use that trace data in proceedings to strip the dealer's license.
And even if they could, they aren't allowed to keep purchase records in an electronic database, so cross-referencing is essentially impossible.
So, it's not so much that current laws aren't being enforced, it's that an agency which has a budget not much larger than it was a decade ago, is restricted from enforcing them in any effective manner.
As far as whether current laws, alone, would be sufficient: estimates are that 85% of guns used in crimes change hands in a private sale at least once before they are found at a crime scene. And many of those "private" sales are from unlicensed dealers who are selling from their "collection" of several hundred weapons, all price tagged and ready for sale. The definition of a FFL dealer is extremely narrow. So no. Until we have universal background checks, current laws are not sufficient.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
