6 New Gun Control Laws Pass in California

[Wry Catcher]

Once again, not all men are mentally or physically allowed to be in the Militia. COTUS gives the power to train the Militia under the rules set by the Congress. Has the Congress established such rules? If the State has the authority to appoint officers to train the Militia, which States have done so?

All the pretend constitutional experts abound on 2nd A. threads, so any number of them ought to have the answers to these questions on speed dial.
I await an answer which does not begin, end or include because gun right cannot be infringed. They are, get over it.

The second was put in place so people could form militias independent of the government
The government already had the power to raise an army

BULLSHIT! Why do you make stuff up?

Yes, the government could fund an army (Art. I, sec 8, clause 12), no such restriction to State Militias.

Not making anything up

the second was meant to allow the people to form militias not the government.

The bill or rights enumerates the rights of the people and restricts the power of the government

Have you not read Art. I, sec 8, clause 16? Maybe you should with an unbiased eye.

Yeah did you not see the "as may be employed in the service of the United States "Part?

BTW that does not contradict my assertion. The militia was the people not the government

LOL, I sure did read that part, it seems you intentionally missed, "...and for governing such part of them" ... reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the Authority of the training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

Now, answer this, what discipline did the officers appointed by the Governor of Oregon or Arizona provide to the self proclaimed militia members of the Bundy gang?

What? No officers were appointed to discipline the militia, err, gang?

But I'll digress for a moment, let's suppose 25 armed black men claimed federal land as their own? Don't answer, it is simply food for thought. You might lie to me, but don't lie to yourself.

 

[ChrisL]

The second was put in place so people could form militias independent of the government
The government already had the power to raise an army

BULLSHIT! Why do you make stuff up?

Yes, the government could fund an army (Art. I, sec 8, clause 12), no such restriction to State Militias.

Not making anything up

the second was meant to allow the people to form militias not the government.

The bill or rights enumerates the rights of the people and restricts the power of the government

Have you not read Art. I, sec 8, clause 16? Maybe you should with an unbiased eye.

Yeah did you not see the "as may be employed in the service of the United States "Part?

BTW that does not contradict my assertion. The militia was the people not the government

LOL, I sure did read that part, it seems you intentionally missed, "...and for governing such part of them" ... reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the Authority of the training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

Now, answer this, what discipline did the officers appointed by the Governor of Oregon or Arizona provide to the self proclaimed militia members of the Bundy gang?

What? No officers were appointed to discipline the militia, err, gang?

But I'll digress for a moment, let's suppose 25 armed black men claimed federal land as their own? Don't answer, it is simply food for thought. You might lie to me, but don't lie to yourself.

No. The Bill of Right is about citizen rights, not government "rights." Governments don't have "rights."

 

[Wry Catcher]

A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.
A car is not blamed in fatal crash, unless a malfunction was the cause, the shooter is culpable in a homicide by gun

Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.
Driving w/o a license is an infraction in CA. I doubt anywhere it is a felony. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor (14601 CVC)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one

Based upon what evidence?
IT MAY, Read my written words!

If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

I see you don't understand independent and dependent variable are considered in such studies, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

Maybe, and I bet such studies are conducted to prove CCW is beneficial. The NRA bibes (sorry) donates to members of the Republican Party who have withheld spending to study the costs in blood and treasure of guns by the CDC

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.

Ah, a lie of omission. You won't like my response:

"In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year."

Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in."

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study


http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx [This is leangthy and I've not read it all]

A careful reading is evidence on why I consider the NRA a terrorist organization.

 

[Wry Catcher]

BULLSHIT! Why do you make stuff up?

Yes, the government could fund an army (Art. I, sec 8, clause 12), no such restriction to State Militias.

Not making anything up

the second was meant to allow the people to form militias not the government.

The bill or rights enumerates the rights of the people and restricts the power of the government

Have you not read Art. I, sec 8, clause 16? Maybe you should with an unbiased eye.

Yeah did you not see the "as may be employed in the service of the United States "Part?

BTW that does not contradict my assertion. The militia was the people not the government

LOL, I sure did read that part, it seems you intentionally missed, "...and for governing such part of them" ... reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the Authority of the training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

Now, answer this, what discipline did the officers appointed by the Governor of Oregon or Arizona provide to the self proclaimed militia members of the Bundy gang?

What? No officers were appointed to discipline the militia, err, gang?

But I'll digress for a moment, let's suppose 25 armed black men claimed federal land as their own? Don't answer, it is simply food for thought. You might lie to me, but don't lie to yourself.

No. The Bill of Right is about citizen rights, not government "rights." Governments don't have "rights."

Duh (are you 2aguy in drag?).

That said, your response is also a non sequitur.

 

[2aguy]

A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.
A car is not blamed in fatal crash, unless a malfunction was the cause, the shooter is culpable in a homicide by gun

Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.
Driving w/o a license is an infraction in CA. I doubt anywhere it is a felony. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor (14601 CVC)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one

Based upon what evidence?
IT MAY, Read my written words!

If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

I see you don't understand independent and dependent variable are considered in such studies, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

Maybe, and I bet such studies are conducted to prove CCW is beneficial. The NRA bibes (sorry) donates to members of the Republican Party who have withheld spending to study the costs in blood and treasure of guns by the CDC

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.

Ah, a lie of omission. You won't like my response:

"In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year."

Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in."

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study


http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx [This is leangthy and I've not read it all]

A careful reading is evidence on why I consider the NRA a terrorist organization.

And the CDC was using it's position to publish only anti gun papers......which is why their people got into trouble in the first place...

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research 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.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”


And the truth.........

CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns

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?”

‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’

O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”


He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”

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.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.


Unreliable Gun Research

However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.


Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.


Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.

---------------

And this is a good point...

Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.

 

[2aguy]

A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.
A car is not blamed in fatal crash, unless a malfunction was the cause, the shooter is culpable in a homicide by gun

Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.
Driving w/o a license is an infraction in CA. I doubt anywhere it is a felony. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor (14601 CVC)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one

Based upon what evidence?
IT MAY, Read my written words!

If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

I see you don't understand independent and dependent variable are considered in such studies, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

Maybe, and I bet such studies are conducted to prove CCW is beneficial. The NRA bibes (sorry) donates to members of the Republican Party who have withheld spending to study the costs in blood and treasure of guns by the CDC

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.

Ah, a lie of omission. You won't like my response:

"In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year."

Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in."

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study


http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx [This is leangthy and I've not read it all]

A careful reading is evidence on why I consider the NRA a terrorist organization.

And your lie of omission...just what did the CDC do to get the Congress mad at it....they were useing fake gun research to attack Civil Rights...

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

 

[ChrisL]

A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.
A car is not blamed in fatal crash, unless a malfunction was the cause, the shooter is culpable in a homicide by gun

Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.
Driving w/o a license is an infraction in CA. I doubt anywhere it is a felony. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor (14601 CVC)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one

Based upon what evidence?
IT MAY, Read my written words!

If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

I see you don't understand independent and dependent variable are considered in such studies, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

Maybe, and I bet such studies are conducted to prove CCW is beneficial. The NRA bibes (sorry) donates to members of the Republican Party who have withheld spending to study the costs in blood and treasure of guns by the CDC

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.

Ah, a lie of omission. You won't like my response:

"In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year."

Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in."

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study


http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx [This is leangthy and I've not read it all]

A careful reading is evidence on why I consider the NRA a terrorist organization.

Since there actually was a published and peer reviewed study in 2010, you are wrong. Lol. Of course YOU would consider the NRA a terrorist organization. You are sick in the head!

 

[Wry Catcher]

A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.
A car is not blamed in fatal crash, unless a malfunction was the cause, the shooter is culpable in a homicide by gun

Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.
Driving w/o a license is an infraction in CA. I doubt anywhere it is a felony. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor (14601 CVC)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one

Based upon what evidence?
IT MAY, Read my written words!

If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

I see you don't understand independent and dependent variable are considered in such studies, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

Maybe, and I bet such studies are conducted to prove CCW is beneficial. The NRA bibes (sorry) donates to members of the Republican Party who have withheld spending to study the costs in blood and treasure of guns by the CDC

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.

Ah, a lie of omission. You won't like my response:

"In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year."

Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in."

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study


http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx [This is leangthy and I've not read it all]

A careful reading is evidence on why I consider the NRA a terrorist organization.

And the CDC was using it's position to publish only anti gun papers......which is why their people got into trouble in the first place...

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research 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.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”


And the truth.........

CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns

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?”

‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’

O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”


He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”

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.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.


Unreliable Gun Research

However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.


Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.


Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.

---------------

And this is a good point...

Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.

From my link:

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in.

Read through the Wilmington report, though, and you get a different story — one about the strange contortions that result as the CDC seeks to fulfill its public health mission without violating Congress’s orders.

While the new study analyzed Wilmington’s 127 recorded shootings in 2013, it does not address how the perpetrators acquired their weapons, or if attempts to limit access to firearms might lead to a dip in crime"

For the entire story, here's the link

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study

 

[2aguy]

You mean they didn't use their research to attack the Civil Rights of the American people....by lying about their research and their methods.....you mean that...right?

 

[2aguy]

A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.
A car is not blamed in fatal crash, unless a malfunction was the cause, the shooter is culpable in a homicide by gun

Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.
Driving w/o a license is an infraction in CA. I doubt anywhere it is a felony. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor (14601 CVC)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one

Based upon what evidence?
IT MAY, Read my written words!

If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

I see you don't understand independent and dependent variable are considered in such studies, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

Maybe, and I bet such studies are conducted to prove CCW is beneficial. The NRA bibes (sorry) donates to members of the Republican Party who have withheld spending to study the costs in blood and treasure of guns by the CDC

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.

Ah, a lie of omission. You won't like my response:

"In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year."

Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in."

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study


http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx [This is leangthy and I've not read it all]

A careful reading is evidence on why I consider the NRA a terrorist organization.

Since there actually was a published and peer reviewed study in 2010, you are wrong. Lol. Of course YOU would consider the NRA a terrorist organization. You are sick in the head!

Yes...the NRA, who have never injured anyone or advocated violence...is the terrorist organization....ask him about islam and see what he says.....

 

[2aguy]

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.
A car is not blamed in fatal crash, unless a malfunction was the cause, the shooter is culpable in a homicide by gun

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.
Driving w/o a license is an infraction in CA. I doubt anywhere it is a felony. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor (14601 CVC)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

Based upon what evidence?
IT MAY, Read my written words!

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

I see you don't understand independent and dependent variable are considered in such studies, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

Maybe, and I bet such studies are conducted to prove CCW is beneficial. The NRA bibes (sorry) donates to members of the Republican Party who have withheld spending to study the costs in blood and treasure of guns by the CDC

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.

Ah, a lie of omission. You won't like my response:

"In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year."

Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in."

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study


http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx [This is leangthy and I've not read it all]

A careful reading is evidence on why I consider the NRA a terrorist organization.

And the CDC was using it's position to publish only anti gun papers......which is why their people got into trouble in the first place...

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research 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.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”


And the truth.........

CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns

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?”

‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’

O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”


He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”

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.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.


Unreliable Gun Research

However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.


Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.


Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.

---------------

And this is a good point...

Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.

From my link:

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in.

Read through the Wilmington report, though, and you get a different story — one about the strange contortions that result as the CDC seeks to fulfill its public health mission without violating Congress’s orders.

While the new study analyzed Wilmington’s 127 recorded shootings in 2013, it does not address how the perpetrators acquired their weapons, or if attempts to limit access to firearms might lead to a dip in crime"

For the entire story, here's the link

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study

Keep pointing out that in 2015 the CDC actually did gun research....and then tell us how they were prevented from doing gun research........

 

[ChrisL]

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.
A car is not blamed in fatal crash, unless a malfunction was the cause, the shooter is culpable in a homicide by gun

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.
Driving w/o a license is an infraction in CA. I doubt anywhere it is a felony. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor (14601 CVC)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

Based upon what evidence?
IT MAY, Read my written words!

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

I see you don't understand independent and dependent variable are considered in such studies, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

Maybe, and I bet such studies are conducted to prove CCW is beneficial. The NRA bibes (sorry) donates to members of the Republican Party who have withheld spending to study the costs in blood and treasure of guns by the CDC

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.

Ah, a lie of omission. You won't like my response:

"In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year."

Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in."

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study


http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx [This is leangthy and I've not read it all]

A careful reading is evidence on why I consider the NRA a terrorist organization.

And the CDC was using it's position to publish only anti gun papers......which is why their people got into trouble in the first place...

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research 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.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”


And the truth.........

CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns

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?”

‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’

O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”


He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”

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.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.


Unreliable Gun Research

However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.


Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.


Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.

---------------

And this is a good point...

Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.

From my link:

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in.

Read through the Wilmington report, though, and you get a different story — one about the strange contortions that result as the CDC seeks to fulfill its public health mission without violating Congress’s orders.

While the new study analyzed Wilmington’s 127 recorded shootings in 2013, it does not address how the perpetrators acquired their weapons, or if attempts to limit access to firearms might lead to a dip in crime"

For the entire story, here's the link

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study

So . . . you are claiming that there is a "ban" on gun violence studies, yet you are posting a link to a STUDY.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

(CNSNews.com) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.

“In 2010, incidents in the U.S. involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 Americans, of which there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths.”

The White House unveiled a plan in January that included orders to the CDC to “conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence.” According to the White House report, “Research on gun violence is not advocacy; it is critical public health research that gives all Americans information they need.”

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

“Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources,” adds the report, while “stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals.”

Researchers also found that the majority of firearm deaths are from suicide, not homicide. “Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States."

African American males are most affected by firearm-related violence, with “32 per 100,000” deaths. Risk factors and predictors of violence include income inequality, “diminished economic opportunities . . . high levels of family disruption” and “low levels of community participation.”

 

[ChrisL]

Not making anything up

the second was meant to allow the people to form militias not the government.

The bill or rights enumerates the rights of the people and restricts the power of the government

Have you not read Art. I, sec 8, clause 16? Maybe you should with an unbiased eye.

Yeah did you not see the "as may be employed in the service of the United States "Part?

BTW that does not contradict my assertion. The militia was the people not the government

LOL, I sure did read that part, it seems you intentionally missed, "...and for governing such part of them" ... reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the Authority of the training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

Now, answer this, what discipline did the officers appointed by the Governor of Oregon or Arizona provide to the self proclaimed militia members of the Bundy gang?

What? No officers were appointed to discipline the militia, err, gang?

But I'll digress for a moment, let's suppose 25 armed black men claimed federal land as their own? Don't answer, it is simply food for thought. You might lie to me, but don't lie to yourself.

No. The Bill of Right is about citizen rights, not government "rights." Governments don't have "rights."

Duh (are you 2aguy in drag?).

That said, your response is also a non sequitur.

Are you crazy or just desperately clinging to nonsense to save face?

 

[2aguy]

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.

Ah, a lie of omission. You won't like my response:

"In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year."

Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in."

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study


http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx [This is leangthy and I've not read it all]

A careful reading is evidence on why I consider the NRA a terrorist organization.

And the CDC was using it's position to publish only anti gun papers......which is why their people got into trouble in the first place...

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research 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.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”


And the truth.........

CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns

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?”

‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’

O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”


He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”

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.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.


Unreliable Gun Research

However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.


Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.


Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.

---------------

And this is a good point...

Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.

From my link:

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in.

Read through the Wilmington report, though, and you get a different story — one about the strange contortions that result as the CDC seeks to fulfill its public health mission without violating Congress’s orders.

While the new study analyzed Wilmington’s 127 recorded shootings in 2013, it does not address how the perpetrators acquired their weapons, or if attempts to limit access to firearms might lead to a dip in crime"

For the entire story, here's the link

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study

So . . . you are claiming that there is a "ban" on gun violence studies, yet you are posting a link to a STUDY.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

(CNSNews.com) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.

“In 2010, incidents in the U.S. involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 Americans, of which there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths.”

The White House unveiled a plan in January that included orders to the CDC to “conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence.” According to the White House report, “Research on gun violence is not advocacy; it is critical public health research that gives all Americans information they need.”

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

“Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources,” adds the report, while “stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals.”

Researchers also found that the majority of firearm deaths are from suicide, not homicide. “Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States."

African American males are most affected by firearm-related violence, with “32 per 100,000” deaths. Risk factors and predictors of violence include income inequality, “diminished economic opportunities . . . high levels of family disruption” and “low levels of community participation.”

Yes....wry catcher is just that stupid........

And the bigger problem...the study supports everything I, and you and the rest of the 2nd Amendment supporters have been saying about gun control.......they should have just asked me, or you or one of the others......they could have saved time and money........I should email the CDC and link them to my posts.....

 

[2aguy]

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.

Ah, a lie of omission. You won't like my response:

"In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year."

Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in."

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study


http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx [This is leangthy and I've not read it all]

A careful reading is evidence on why I consider the NRA a terrorist organization.

And the CDC was using it's position to publish only anti gun papers......which is why their people got into trouble in the first place...

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research 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.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”


And the truth.........

CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns

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?”

‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’

O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”


He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”

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.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.


Unreliable Gun Research

However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.


Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.


Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.

---------------

And this is a good point...

Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.

From my link:

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in.

Read through the Wilmington report, though, and you get a different story — one about the strange contortions that result as the CDC seeks to fulfill its public health mission without violating Congress’s orders.

While the new study analyzed Wilmington’s 127 recorded shootings in 2013, it does not address how the perpetrators acquired their weapons, or if attempts to limit access to firearms might lead to a dip in crime"

For the entire story, here's the link

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study

So . . . you are claiming that there is a "ban" on gun violence studies, yet you are posting a link to a STUDY.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

(CNSNews.com) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.

“In 2010, incidents in the U.S. involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 Americans, of which there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths.”

The White House unveiled a plan in January that included orders to the CDC to “conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence.” According to the White House report, “Research on gun violence is not advocacy; it is critical public health research that gives all Americans information they need.”

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

“Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources,” adds the report, while “stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals.”

Researchers also found that the majority of firearm deaths are from suicide, not homicide. “Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States."

African American males are most affected by firearm-related violence, with “32 per 100,000” deaths. Risk factors and predictors of violence include income inequality, “diminished economic opportunities . . . high levels of family disruption” and “low levels of community participation.”

That is two studies.........both by the CDC.....

 

[2aguy]

Have you not read Art. I, sec 8, clause 16? Maybe you should with an unbiased eye.

Yeah did you not see the "as may be employed in the service of the United States "Part?

BTW that does not contradict my assertion. The militia was the people not the government

LOL, I sure did read that part, it seems you intentionally missed, "...and for governing such part of them" ... reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the Authority of the training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

Now, answer this, what discipline did the officers appointed by the Governor of Oregon or Arizona provide to the self proclaimed militia members of the Bundy gang?

What? No officers were appointed to discipline the militia, err, gang?

But I'll digress for a moment, let's suppose 25 armed black men claimed federal land as their own? Don't answer, it is simply food for thought. You might lie to me, but don't lie to yourself.

No. The Bill of Right is about citizen rights, not government "rights." Governments don't have "rights."

Duh (are you 2aguy in drag?).

That said, your response is also a non sequitur.

Are you crazy or just desperately clinging to nonsense to save face?

"Crazy" is a strong word to use...wry catcher is just out of his f*****g mind..........that is a clinical definition by the way...

 

[rhodescholar]

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

No, there is no right to appeal. NYC has decided only the wealthy, celebrities and those who carry cash on hand may obtain a handgun permit.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

It shows that liberals have a habit of picking and choosing at their convenience which laws to follow, and how they want to create laws to punish others and limit their freedoms, but will look the other way at laws that affect their allies/those they deem as such.

 

[2aguy]

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

No, there is no right to appeal. NYC has decided only the wealthy, celebrities and those who carry cash on hand may obtain a handgun permit.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

It shows that liberals have a habit of picking and choosing at their convenience which laws to follow. It shows they want to create laws to punish others and limit their freedoms, but will look the other way at laws that affect their allies/those they deem as such.

And only certain celebrities....John Stossel, of Fox Business news could not get a concealed carry gun permit even though he could actually show cause due to death threats......

and of course the only "cause" needed is being a law abiding American....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Have you not read Art. I, sec 8, clause 16? Maybe you should with an unbiased eye.

Yeah did you not see the "as may be employed in the service of the United States "Part?

BTW that does not contradict my assertion. The militia was the people not the government

LOL, I sure did read that part, it seems you intentionally missed, "...and for governing such part of them" ... reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the Authority of the training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

Now, answer this, what discipline did the officers appointed by the Governor of Oregon or Arizona provide to the self proclaimed militia members of the Bundy gang?

What? No officers were appointed to discipline the militia, err, gang?

But I'll digress for a moment, let's suppose 25 armed black men claimed federal land as their own? Don't answer, it is simply food for thought. You might lie to me, but don't lie to yourself.

No. The Bill of Right is about citizen rights, not government "rights." Governments don't have "rights."

Duh (are you 2aguy in drag?).

That said, your response is also a non sequitur.

Are you crazy or just desperately clinging to nonsense to save face?

No, at the moment I'm watching the Giants game and laughing at how obsessive you and 2aguy have become, and how you fail to understand those who enable killers are terrorists, though they don't fire a gun or toss a bomb. Periodically our dog drops a Frisbee at my feet and I go out and toss her a few, then check the ribs slowly cooking on our Giant Green Egg.

 

[ChrisL]

A license is required worldwide to drive a car, which can be a deadly device; guns are a deadly device.

This is true, but the blame for a crime should fall on the shoulders of the criminal, not the weapon used.
A car is not blamed in fatal crash, unless a malfunction was the cause, the shooter is culpable in a homicide by gun

Driving without a license is an infraction, and not recorded on a record of arrest.

Depends upon which state. This might not be classified as a felony in many states, but it is a misdemeanor punishable with prison time.
Driving w/o a license is an infraction in CA. I doubt anywhere it is a felony. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor (14601 CVC)

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx

Due process protects those who want to own, possess or have a gun in their custody and control

Not in NYC, where only a tiny fraction of those who apply for a handgun license - after waiting almost a year and paying an exorbitant application fee - can get one.

So? If denied do they have the right to appeal?

The bullet points above will not prevent gun violence, it may reduce the proliferation of guns in the hands of those who should not have one

Based upon what evidence?
IT MAY, Read my written words!

If some states employ the bullet points, and some do not, we will answer the question if gun controls work.

Disagree, as each situation can be affected by other factors.

I see you don't understand independent and dependent variable are considered in such studies, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

We know the NRA, Congressional Republicans and 2aguy(s) don't want studies on guns and violence in America

Not true, as the NRA has conducted many studies on CCW, for instance.

Maybe, and I bet such studies are conducted to prove CCW is beneficial. The NRA bibes (sorry) donates to members of the Republican Party who have withheld spending to study the costs in blood and treasure of guns by the CDC

===================

I digress, but do find it quite fascinating that many liberals worship at the alter of increased gun laws to stop criminals - but regarding immigration and illegal aliens they declare the immigration laws should not be followed and that only amnesty - a reward for those who ignore the country's laws - should be embraced. It is this questionable selectivity and misapplication of laws by liberals that undermines their credibility with respect to gun control legislation.

You digress with a Straw Man. Next time make sure your straw is dry and the scarecrow isn't dressed in asbestos overalls.

Note: See my rebuttal posted in red by expanding the post above mine.

Please ask if you don't understand dependent and independent variables, and the meaning of reliability and validity

The CDC did a study directed by the Obama White House. You wouldn't like the results.

Ah, a lie of omission. You won't like my response:

"In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year."

Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence

"On November 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a 14-page report on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, a medium-sized city of roughly 70,000 residents that also experiences one of the highest murder rates in the country. To judge by the language in its title — “Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention” — the study might seem to have been an overlooked watershed: Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old Congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in."

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study


http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx [This is leangthy and I've not read it all]

A careful reading is evidence on why I consider the NRA a terrorist organization.

And your lie of omission...just what did the CDC do to get the Congress mad at it....they were useing fake gun research to attack Civil Rights...

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

Very informative, and this gives us even more insight into the lengths of depravity the anti-rights loons will use to impose their tyranny on us, United States citizens.