Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

Again...you register the individual who can't buy guns, not all gun owners, there is no need. And if the straw buyer process was so difficult, the criminals wouldn't use it as one of their main sources for illegal guns....friends and family are a major source for illegal guns....and again, the baby mommas and grandmothers buying the guns for their boyfriend and grandson criminals often do it under threats........

Mass shooters rarely use straw buyers because they can already pass current background checks, which means they can use regular gun stores. They have no criminal records...for example...the Pulse Night Club shooter passed a criminal background check for his job as a security guard....he passed a current, federally mandated background check for each gun he bought, he was under covert FBI surveillance for a year, he was given a complete FBI criminal investigation as well, and he was interviewed by the FBI 2 times.....he passed all of it even though someone reported him as a possible terrorist....then he went on to attack the night club.

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....bypassing both current Federal background checks, and if they wanted to buy a gun from a private individual, their straw buyer could buy the gun from those sources too...since they can pass background checks.

Besides...from actual research, criminals do not like to use unknown, private sellers......they are too afraid the sellers might be police.

Besides....it is already against the law to use a gun in a crime...if you do we can already arrest you. It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun.....if they are caught they can already be arrested.

We have all the laws we need to reduce gun crime...the problem isn't that we don't have enough laws, the problem is that judges give bail to repeat gun offenders, prosecutors plea bargain away the gun charge, and politicians reduce sentences for gun offenders because they think the criminal justice system is unfair..

That is where the gun violence problem comes from...not John and Jane citizen having a gun for self defense.

The focus on banning guns is a waste of time. The focus needs to be on keeping the known, repeat gun offenders in prison.

Japan keeps their criminals from using guns with a life sentence for any crime involving a gun....that is how you actually dry up gun crime. Here? You have felons, with repeat arrests for illegal gun possession getting personal recognizance bonds, walking out of the court room in a matter of days, going out and shooting people.....that is our problem...

Here are the reasons we have a gun problem in our big cities...if any of these criminals were refused bond for repeat gun violations, and then, when convicted were sentenced to 30 years to life for using a gun, even for armed robbery where they didn't fire the weapon.....criminals would stop using guns for crime. The gangs would start using gullible 15 year olds to commit their murders, but the majority of gun crime would dry up....

Look at the following stories...the facts and reality of lax enforcement.......if you kept these guys in jail, you wouldn't have gun violence....

Top cop laments violence as 66 shot, 5 fatally, over long Fourth of July weekend


Between last Wednesday and Friday, 42 people were charged with felony gun-related offenses, he said, but only 15 remain in custody.


That lack of accountability for gun offenders has damaged the Police Department’s relationship with the communities most beset by violence, Johnson said, making victims of crimes less likely to cooperate with officers.
-----
“It’s not about mass incarceration. It’s not about having quotas. But when somebody has a demonstrated track record of being a violent gun offender, that should say something to the judges who are making decisions about bail. They shouldn’t be out on the street,” Lightfoot said. “We can’t keep our communities safe if people just keep cycling through the system because what that says to them is, I can do whatever I want, I can carry whatever I want, I can shoot up a crowd and I’m going to be back on the street. How does that make sense? It doesn’t.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/criminal_justice_reform_comes_home_to_roost.html
=======

CWB Chicago: You Be The Judge: We give you the case details. You try to guess their bail amount.

McKay was sentenced to four years for robbery in 2008; two years for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (firearm) in 2010; seven years for being a felon in possession of a weapon (firearm) in 2012; and three years for possession of fentanyl in 2016.
-----
For McKay, who has two gun convictions and a robbery conviction, Willis set bail at….$5,000. McKay will need to put down a 10% deposit of $500 to go free. Willis also ordered him to go on electronic monitoring if he is released.

Some details that Willis did not know:
• McKay’s 2008 robbery conviction involved an armed carjacking. Prosecutors reduced the charge to “ordinary” robbery as part of a plea deal.• In 2012, McKay’s second gun case also included allegations that he fired the weapon. Prosecutors dropped the weapon discharge count and seven other weapons charges in a plea deal.• The 2016 drug possession charge started as allegations of manufacture-delivery of fentanyl, but, again, prosecutors pleaded that down to possession.

========


Under DA Krasner, more gun-possession cases get court diversionary program

In June 2018, Maalik Jackson-Wallace was arrested on a Frankford street and charged with carrying a concealed gun without a license and a gram of marijuana. It was his first arrest.

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office recommended the Frankford man for a court diversionary program called Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) that put him on two years’ probation. His record could have been expunged if he had successfully completed the program.

But Jackson-Wallace, 24, was arrested again on gun-possession charges in March in Bridesburg. He was released from jail after a judge granted a defense motion for unsecured bail. And on June 13, he was arrested a third time — charged with murder in a shooting two days earlier in Frankford that killed a 26-year-old man.

Jackson-Wallace’s case has been cited by some on social media as an example of how they say District Attorney Larry Krasner’s policies are too lenient and lead to gun violence.



In fact, statistics obtained from the DA’s Office show that in 2018, Krasner’s first year in office, 78 gun-possession cases were placed in the ARD program — compared with just 12 such diversions in gun-possession cases the previous year, 11 in 2016, 14 in 2015. and 10 in 2014.

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

Officials Address 'Vicious Cycle' Of I-Bond Violations After Violent Weekend

Many of the gun offenders arrested by Chicago police over the weekend walked out of jail on bond, without having to pay a dime.

As of Monday morning, 19 people had been arrested on gun-related charges. By Monday afternoon, 11 were back on the street, some with prior gun offenses.


“We know who a lot of these people are,” Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson said. “And how do we know that? Because we keep arresting them over and over and over and over and over again. And it’s just a vicious cycle.”

In a tweet Sunday night, a Chicago police spokesperson criticized the practice of letting gun offenders out on Individual Recognizance Bonds or “I-Bonds.”

-----

The tweet said, in part, “Letting gun offenders out on I-Bonds shows there is absolutely no repercussion for carrying illegal guns In Chicago.”
-----
In a statement, an office representative said since the beginning of this year, 72% of gun related cases received monetary bail or no bond.

==================
http://www.cwbchicago.com/2019/05/man-connected-to-whitney-young-high.html


The man who is charged with driving the carjacked SUV of a Whitney Young High School teacher this week is on probation for possessing a handgun—a probation term that was cut in half just three weeks ago by a Cook County judge.

The CPD arrest report that documents the capture of Nicholas Williams on Tuesday says cops and federal agents found Williams “in possession” of a loaded 9-millimeter handgun with a defaced serial number. But, a source with knowledge of the case told CWBChicago tonight that the gun was “ditched” and weapons charges could not be approved.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to an after-hours email seeking comment.

Court records show that in Aug. 2017 Williams was charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon for allegedly carrying a handgun in the front of his waistband during a traffic stop on the West Side. Police said in a report that the gun had been reported stolen one month earlier.

A grand jury returned a 12 felony count true bill against Williams. But the Cook County State’s Attorney dropped all charges on May 3, 2018.

Five months after that case was dropped, Williams was charged with a new set of eight weapons felonies for allegedly carrying a handgun in the front of his waistband while riding his bike on the West Side.

----

Last month, Judge Maria Kuriakos-Ciesil sentenced Williams to two year’s probation, 30 hours of community service and 175 days time served in the case.

His attorneys asked for a reduced sentence and, on April 29th, Kuriakos-Ciesil granted the motion by reducing Williams’ punishment to one year of TASC probation and 30 hours of community service.

-------------------------
14 year old shot two men, released without bond or home confinement...


Cook County, IL: 14-Year-Old Charged With Shooting Two, Freed Without Supervision - The Truth About Guns

Welcome to Cook County, Illinois, where crime often has no meaningful consequences. Between a State’s Attorney’s Office reluctant to file charges and judges who mollycoddles defendants, Chicagoland has become the modern Wild West.

Case in point: a 14-year-old who (reportedly) shot and tried to kill two in a nice uptown neighborhood was released by a judge Friday to his parent with no bond – not even electronic home monitoring.


The Cook County judge claims the police failed to bring this suspected would-be gang killer (pictured above, right) in front of a judge quickly enough. So the judge, in order to penalize the police, released the kid without conditions other than to report to court next week.

Of course, the judge is really only penalizing the community as the accused certainly missed his calling as a choir boy.

The police, on the other hand, said they had concerns about the young man’s safety. Police released images of the suspects to the media in an effort to identify them and the media published them.

The Chicago mainstream media refer to the accused as a “boy.” Even though this “boy”reportedly shot one man in the back, abdomen, buttocks and groin and the other in the head.
===========

16 year old shooter released on 10,000 bond.....Cuomo's Raise the age bill for family court let this shooter go free on bail...

Case Of 16-Year-Old Accused Of Shooting Up Bronx Street Prompts Criticism Of NY's Raise The Age Law
Bronx Supreme Court Justice John Collins made Garcia’s release contingent on either $10,000 bail or $25,000 bond, he made bail and he was freed.

As The New York Post explains, “The law already guarantees that he can’t be held in a jail that also houses adults — and if convicted, his sentencing judge would have to take his age into account.”

--------
On Monday, prosecutor Daniel Defilippi indicated he would try to stop the case from being transferred to Family Court. Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, referring to the case as a “prime example” of the problems with the Raise the Age bill, said, “One of the things we brought up during debate was how this encourages gang recruitment. Gangs can recruit young people to do dirty work because they won’t be treated the same when caught.
------
Residents of the neighborhood
acknowledged that the neighborhood has become a frightening place to live; one said, “We don’t go out. We don’t go to the park. I keep my kids in the house. We’re scared.” Another commented, “People don’t feel safe. People shooting in the street like that? No one is safe.” A third commented of the young girl, “She is lucky. Like an angel is watching over her because she was really close.”
I’m glad you like to add info to back up your statements but you really gotta work on being more concise. It will yield a much better conversation


You want to know why we have gun crime....I gave you all the information you need to understand that it isn't gun owners....it is the constant releasing of violent gun offenders back into the public......
Oh I think the issue is much more complicated than that with many of factors involved


I didn't say it was...but those posts show the leading cause of violent crime in these cities, while the "root" cause is fatherless homes......

So, it's because of fatherless homes that violent crime happens? You've gotta be kidding.

BTW................your signature should read correctly. It's actually "it's better to serve in Heaven than to rule in Hell".

The correct quote says serve, not live.

Where is violent crime most prevalent in this country?

In urban areas that have been historically plagued by segregation, high unemployment and under employment, poor education, poverty and drugs, and the breakdown of the family unit.

This isn't rocket science it's an historical fact.

Take an urban area of comparable size where those societal ills are less present and compare the two then tell me it's guns and guns alone that are the problem
 
I am not saying that guns reduced crime.......

You're not? Oh. Ok then I'm with you on that.

Not on the rest, but at least on this.


Not on this point...

Concealed carry and gun ownership does lower the crime rate....

The research on concealed carry helping to lower the crime rate......

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center


Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

Sorry, I haven't looked into concealed carry yet and what it's impact is.

it's negligible.

People with CCW permits tend to be some of the mst law abiding people in the country

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Crime Statistics (updated)
 
There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.
The need for the right to keep and bear arms applies today as it did in 1791; the protections provided for it by the 2nd are FAR more necessary now than ever in our history.
No, you just want to keep your guns. It's lucky for you that a powerful organization like the NRA comes up with all these snazzy arguments for you.
Why wouldn't any law abiding gun owner want to give up his guns?

My guns are not going to be used to commit murder so they are no danger to the public.

You do not curb the rights of people who have never done anything wrong
Of course we do; we do it all the time. There are always a few who ruin it for everybody else, as my second grade teacher used to say.
I have never been a terrorist, but I cannot take a bottle of water on the plane with me, or a normal size bottle of shampoo, or a lighter or my Swiss Army knife. Why am I being inconvenienced with all this tripe when I never did anything wrong?
 
I’m glad you like to add info to back up your statements but you really gotta work on being more concise. It will yield a much better conversation


You want to know why we have gun crime....I gave you all the information you need to understand that it isn't gun owners....it is the constant releasing of violent gun offenders back into the public......
Oh I think the issue is much more complicated than that with many of factors involved


I didn't say it was...but those posts show the leading cause of violent crime in these cities, while the "root" cause is fatherless homes......

So, it's because of fatherless homes that violent crime happens? You've gotta be kidding.

BTW................your signature should read correctly. It's actually "it's better to serve in Heaven than to rule in Hell".

The correct quote says serve, not live.

Where is violent crime most prevalent in this country?

In urban areas that have been historically plagued by segregation, high unemployment and under employment, poor education, poverty and drugs, and the breakdown of the family unit.

This isn't rocket science it's an historical fact.

Take an urban area of comparable size where those societal ills are less present and compare the two then tell me it's guns and guns alone that are the problem
You're right, of course. Limiting guns alone is NOT going to be the answer.
 
2aguy

I ran the numbers for a few more measurements and I think the results are interesting. I'll post some of them.

Gun ownership rate vs Gun Death Rate (Includes suicide, self-defense, and accidents) This is the one I referred to before.

Correlation = 0.698. This is a moderate to strong positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people die from guns.

Gun ownership rate vs Accidental Death Rate (Doesn't include car accidents)

Correlation = 0.138. This is a weak positive correlation. It's slightly upward. I'm curious what this would look like if it specifically looked at accidental gun-related deaths. Interestingly, this is more positive than the slightly negative correlation comparing gun ownership rates vs murder rates. (-0.095)

Gun ownership rate vs Suicide Rate (includes various forms of suicide)

Correlation = 0.553. This is moderate positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people commit suicide.

This could be because people who want to kill themselves will go out and buy a gun to do so. Or it could be because people who already have a gun in the house, and have a bad day, are more likely to finish themselves off. I suspect it's a bit of both, though it's probably not possible to tell for sure.

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

Correlation = 0.111. This is another weak positive correlation. It's only slightly upward. Isn't gun ownership supposed to prevent these kinds of incidents? That doesn't appear to be the case.


These are a few negative statistics showing that more guns owners are correlated with more gun deaths. The positive impact of preventing murder is highly over-romanticized in my opinion as it's the only negative correlation and it's the weakest of all the numbers I've calculated. Even violent crime, which gun ownership is also intended to prevent, is going in the wrong direction. Granted it's only a slight positive correlation, but its still positive.


You are way off......

320 million people..... 600 million guns in private hands, likely more.....over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense......how many died in gun accidents..according to the CDC...?

486 in 2017......

Yeah, your numbers don't add up....


https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html

2017...486
2016 495
2015...489

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

Everyone has their own opinion, but we should at least be able to agree on numbers.

How do my numbers not "add up"? How am I "way off"? Please be specific.


You are adding suicide to gun murder.....that is incorrect. You are not computing the numbers with the methods used by actual researchers who take into account other factors, remove other factors and base their numbers on actual methods for calculating these numbers....

C'mon man, let's be intellectually honest here.

I specifically stated that "gun death rate" includes suicides. You don't like the statistic, which is understandable, because it uses suicide. But there's nothing wrong with the numbers themselves. So don't tell me that the numbers "don't add up" or that I'm "way off" on the calculations I ran just because you don't agree with the statistic.

Fair?

By using the term "gun death" or " gun murder" you are massaging the outcomes. Lies damn lies and statistics

What is the murder rate on these areas as compared to others?

The entire argument is more guns equals more murder and that is untrue.

Suicide numbers are completely irrelevant. Suicide is not a crime and there is absolutely no evidence that a person would not have committed suicide if a gun was not available.
 
Last edited:
You want to know why we have gun crime....I gave you all the information you need to understand that it isn't gun owners....it is the constant releasing of violent gun offenders back into the public......
Oh I think the issue is much more complicated than that with many of factors involved


I didn't say it was...but those posts show the leading cause of violent crime in these cities, while the "root" cause is fatherless homes......

So, it's because of fatherless homes that violent crime happens? You've gotta be kidding.

BTW................your signature should read correctly. It's actually "it's better to serve in Heaven than to rule in Hell".

The correct quote says serve, not live.

Where is violent crime most prevalent in this country?

In urban areas that have been historically plagued by segregation, high unemployment and under employment, poor education, poverty and drugs, and the breakdown of the family unit.

This isn't rocket science it's an historical fact.

Take an urban area of comparable size where those societal ills are less present and compare the two then tell me it's guns and guns alone that are the problem
You're right, of course. Limiting guns alone is NOT going to be the answer.

Limiting guns at all isn't an answer.

Guns do not cause crime
 
There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.
The need for the right to keep and bear arms applies today as it did in 1791; the protections provided for it by the 2nd are FAR more necessary now than ever in our history.
No, you just want to keep your guns. It's lucky for you that a powerful organization like the NRA comes up with all these snazzy arguments for you.
Why wouldn't any law abiding gun owner want to give up his guns?

My guns are not going to be used to commit murder so they are no danger to the public.

You do not curb the rights of people who have never done anything wrong
Of course we do; we do it all the time. There are always a few who ruin it for everybody else, as my second grade teacher used to say.
I have never been a terrorist, but I cannot take a bottle of water on the plane with me, or a normal size bottle of shampoo, or a lighter or my Swiss Army knife. Why am I being inconvenienced with all this tripe when I never did anything wrong?

I'm not a second grader anymore.

And your airplane analogy misses the mark by a light year at least. Your rights are not violated because you can't take a bottle of water through airport security and you are free to buy another bottle of water from any of the places on the concourse and you can take that bottle of water on any plane.
 
The Center for Disease Control has been effectively prohibited from conducting any meaningful research on guns in the country for decades.
Someone lied to you - the CDC has -all kinds- of information and research regarding gun violence.
Don't ignore the Dickey Amendment. Don't you dare.
the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1] In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.[2]

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]
Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia
Dickey doesn't prohibit the CDC from doing any research on guns as they relate to the health of the people in this country.

Your own quote explicitly shows that the only restriction was that the money granted not be used to promote gun control.
The CDC has some of the smartest people in the country working for it. As a government agency, it has some of the best access to information from various places and the ability to carry out some real research into what in hell is causing so much gun violence in our country. If it isn't guns, what is it?
YOU may think the Dickey Amendment was a nothing burger, but the NRA was obviously feeling pretty threatened by the fact that the CDC might conduct some research into it. And the NRA was feeling pretty sure what the CDC's overall conclusions would be.
Argue your micro-points. This is not how science is done; everyone knows it but you.
 
The Center for Disease Control has been effectively prohibited from conducting any meaningful research on guns in the country for decades.
Someone lied to you - the CDC has -all kinds- of information and research regarding gun violence.
Don't ignore the Dickey Amendment. Don't you dare.
the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1] In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.[2]

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]
Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia
Dickey doesn't prohibit the CDC from doing any research on guns as they relate to the health of the people in this country.

Your own quote explicitly shows that the only restriction was that the money granted not be used to promote gun control.
The CDC has some of the smartest people in the country working for it. As a government agency, it has some of the best access to information from various places and the ability to carry out some real research into what in hell is causing so much gun violence in our country. If it isn't guns, what is it?
YOU may think the Dickey Amendment was a nothing burger, but the NRA was obviously feeling pretty threatened by the fact that the CDC might conduct some research into it. And the NRA was feeling pretty sure what the CDC's overall conclusions would be.
Argue your micro-points. This is not how science is done; everyone knows it but you.

The CDC has never been prohibited from doing research on gun violence.
That Congress hasn't granted money for any gun study is not a result of the Dickey Amendment
 
OK thanks but those links prove nothing because all data is impossible to collect and it is impossible to know just how many guns there are. There is over 393,000,000 known guns in the U.S. but those are the only the ones that are known and can be quantified. The number of guns leaving circulation, illegal, etc. is unknown so, even trying to count the number of guns in the U.S. is nothing more than an academic exercise. Taking such sketchy data and trying to apply a statistical model to prove some kind of point is pretty futile. Like they used to say in the early days of computing ..... "garbage in - garbage out."

The same can be said of just about any data.

Both sides are looking at the same data. Both sides are using that data to make arguments for or against gun legislation. Yet somehow the quality of the data only becomes a concern when the opposition uses it.


No.......Pew looked at actual gun murder and gun crime.....gun murder over the last 26 years has gone down 49%, gun crime is down 75%.... not even looking at the argument that law abiding people owning more guns has helped to reduce those stats....the one thing that is clear......more Americans now own guns, more Americans now carry guns for self defense....and it did not cause the gun murder rate to go up...it did not cause the gun crime rate to go up.....this shows that the entire argument of the anti-gun movement..... More Guns = More Gun crime...is wrong....and has no basis in fact, truth or reality......

That is the truth....you don't have the information to crunch those numbers.....so you can say your math is correct all you want...you don't have all the data.....

What we do have is 26 years of actual experience implementing the theory of anti-gunners...

More Guns = More Gun Crime.....and the exact opposite happened......in science, that means their theory is wrong.

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
 
The Center for Disease Control has been effectively prohibited from conducting any meaningful research on guns in the country for decades.
Someone lied to you - the CDC has -all kinds- of information and research regarding gun violence.
Don't ignore the Dickey Amendment. Don't you dare.
the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1] In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.[2]

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]
Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia
Dickey doesn't prohibit the CDC from doing any research on guns as they relate to the health of the people in this country.

Your own quote explicitly shows that the only restriction was that the money granted not be used to promote gun control.
The CDC has some of the smartest people in the country working for it. As a government agency, it has some of the best access to information from various places and the ability to carry out some real research into what in hell is causing so much gun violence in our country. If it isn't guns, what is it?
YOU may think the Dickey Amendment was a nothing burger, but the NRA was obviously feeling pretty threatened by the fact that the CDC might conduct some research into it. And the NRA was feeling pretty sure what the CDC's overall conclusions would be.
Argue your micro-points. This is not how science is done; everyone knows it but you.


Guns are not germ cells....they do not take over the minds of human beings and cause them to commit murder.

Actual research into crime shows that children from broken homes...... homes without fathers, are involved in crime in huge percentages......it is young males raised without fathers in communities with over 75 percent of the children raised without fathers that causes murder and violence...not guns......you guys don't care about that truth...you just want to ban guns.

Actual research shows that the people who use guns to murder people are a tiny number.....isolated to small areas of our major cities.......that is the truth....you don't care about that, you just want to ban guns.

The CDC....after the Dickey Amendment........researched gun violence in Delaware.....

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C.

WILMINGTON, Del. — When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.

---

The study has been received here with a measure of enthusiasm and questions about what to do next.
-----

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
-----

“You’ve got maybe a few hundred holding the city hostage,” a county councilman, Jea P. Street, said.
 
All that accept a magazine.

I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Plugged to 3 but could hold 5.

No reason to ban magazine fed weapons whatsoever because 99.9999% of them are never used to commit any crime
What are they used for that requires a detachable magazine that could not be accomplished without a built in, limited size magazine.

Doesn't matter. What matters is how they are actually used now and 99.999% magazine fed firearms will never be used to commit any crimes.

The fact that a minuscule fraction of people will use a gun for violence is not reason enough to put restrictions on everyone

It does matter.

To ban something that leads to mass killings that has no other use is a nobrainer.

So what can't to do with a built in smaller magazine that you can do with a detachable larger magazine?



.
The gun doesn't lead to mass killings.

If the AR 15 led to mass killings there would be a hell of a lot more of them since there are over 8 million AR 15s in private hands.

What percentage of privately owned Ar 15s are used to commit murder?
Backwards thinking and deceptive by looking at murder rates instead of mass killings.

The availability of the AR-15 leads those who decide to do mass killing a powerful weapon to enable the high body counts they want.

If the assault type rifle was not available, would they have have made the attack? Would they have had the courage? Would law enforcement more aggressively go after these shooters if they were not so well armed?

People are breing slaughtered because a bunch of gun nuts want their toy. And it is a toy because there is no need for them in the general public.
 
No reason to ban magazine fed weapons whatsoever because 99.9999% of them are never used to commit any crime
What are they used for that requires a detachable magazine that could not be accomplished without a built in, limited size magazine.

Doesn't matter. What matters is how they are actually used now and 99.999% magazine fed firearms will never be used to commit any crimes.

The fact that a minuscule fraction of people will use a gun for violence is not reason enough to put restrictions on everyone

It does matter.

To ban something that leads to mass killings that has no other use is a nobrainer.

So what can't to do with a built in smaller magazine that you can do with a detachable larger magazine?



.
The gun doesn't lead to mass killings.

If the AR 15 led to mass killings there would be a hell of a lot more of them since there are over 8 million AR 15s in private hands.

What percentage of privately owned Ar 15s are used to commit murder?
Backwards thinking and deceptive by looking at murder rates instead of mass killings.

The availability of the AR-15 leads those who decide to do mass killing a powerful weapon to enable the high body counts they want.

If the assault type rifle was not available, would they have have made the attack? Would they have had the courage? Would law enforcement more aggressively go after these shooters if they were not so well armed?

People are breing slaughtered because a bunch of gun nuts want their toy. And it is a toy because there is no need for them in the general public.

Less than 1% of all murders are committed in mass shootings. Not all mass shooting involve AR 15 rifles.

Your argument doesn't hold water as you can provide absolutely no evidence that if an AR 15 had not been available that any mass shooting would not have happened anyway
 
There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.
The need for the right to keep and bear arms applies today as it did in 1791; the protections provided for it by the 2nd are FAR more necessary now than ever in our history.
No, you just want to keep your guns. It's lucky for you that a powerful organization like the NRA comes up with all these snazzy arguments for you.
Why wouldn't any law abiding gun owner want to give up his guns?

My guns are not going to be used to commit murder so they are no danger to the public.

You do not curb the rights of people who have never done anything wrong
Of course we do; we do it all the time. There are always a few who ruin it for everybody else, as my second grade teacher used to say.
I have never been a terrorist, but I cannot take a bottle of water on the plane with me, or a normal size bottle of shampoo, or a lighter or my Swiss Army knife. Why am I being inconvenienced with all this tripe when I never did anything wrong?

I'm not a second grader anymore.

And your airplane analogy misses the mark by a light year at least. Your rights are not violated because you can't take a bottle of water through airport security and you are free to buy another bottle of water from any of the places on the concourse and you can take that bottle of water on any plane.
I haven't flown in awhile. 'Bout time they let you do that.
The Center for Disease Control has been effectively prohibited from conducting any meaningful research on guns in the country for decades.
Someone lied to you - the CDC has -all kinds- of information and research regarding gun violence.
Don't ignore the Dickey Amendment. Don't you dare.
the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1] In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.[2]

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]
Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia
Dickey doesn't prohibit the CDC from doing any research on guns as they relate to the health of the people in this country.

Your own quote explicitly shows that the only restriction was that the money granted not be used to promote gun control.
The CDC has some of the smartest people in the country working for it. As a government agency, it has some of the best access to information from various places and the ability to carry out some real research into what in hell is causing so much gun violence in our country. If it isn't guns, what is it?
YOU may think the Dickey Amendment was a nothing burger, but the NRA was obviously feeling pretty threatened by the fact that the CDC might conduct some research into it. And the NRA was feeling pretty sure what the CDC's overall conclusions would be.
Argue your micro-points. This is not how science is done; everyone knows it but you.

The CDC has never been prohibited from doing research on gun violence.
That Congress hasn't granted money for any gun study is not a result of the Dickey Amendment
Then what was the Dickey Amendment for, if not to specifically stop gun studies that might conclude guns have something to do with gun violence?
 
You want to know why we have gun crime....I gave you all the information you need to understand that it isn't gun owners....it is the constant releasing of violent gun offenders back into the public......
Oh I think the issue is much more complicated than that with many of factors involved


I didn't say it was...but those posts show the leading cause of violent crime in these cities, while the "root" cause is fatherless homes......

So, it's because of fatherless homes that violent crime happens? You've gotta be kidding.

BTW................your signature should read correctly. It's actually "it's better to serve in Heaven than to rule in Hell".

The correct quote says serve, not live.

Where is violent crime most prevalent in this country?

In urban areas that have been historically plagued by segregation, high unemployment and under employment, poor education, poverty and drugs, and the breakdown of the family unit.

This isn't rocket science it's an historical fact.

Take an urban area of comparable size where those societal ills are less present and compare the two then tell me it's guns and guns alone that are the problem
You're right, of course. Limiting guns alone is NOT going to be the answer.


Here.....some actual answers...from a left winger who hates guns.......notice that after she does the research, her answer focuses on specific types of people...not guns......

Since she isn't talking about banning guns, you likely will ignore her.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0630863f284c

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way.

We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
----

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference.
----

But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.
-----

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.
 
The need for the right to keep and bear arms applies today as it did in 1791; the protections provided for it by the 2nd are FAR more necessary now than ever in our history.
No, you just want to keep your guns. It's lucky for you that a powerful organization like the NRA comes up with all these snazzy arguments for you.
Why wouldn't any law abiding gun owner want to give up his guns?

My guns are not going to be used to commit murder so they are no danger to the public.

You do not curb the rights of people who have never done anything wrong
Of course we do; we do it all the time. There are always a few who ruin it for everybody else, as my second grade teacher used to say.
I have never been a terrorist, but I cannot take a bottle of water on the plane with me, or a normal size bottle of shampoo, or a lighter or my Swiss Army knife. Why am I being inconvenienced with all this tripe when I never did anything wrong?

I'm not a second grader anymore.

And your airplane analogy misses the mark by a light year at least. Your rights are not violated because you can't take a bottle of water through airport security and you are free to buy another bottle of water from any of the places on the concourse and you can take that bottle of water on any plane.
I haven't flown in awhile. 'Bout time they let you do that.
Someone lied to you - the CDC has -all kinds- of information and research regarding gun violence.
Don't ignore the Dickey Amendment. Don't you dare.
the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1] In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.[2]

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]
Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia
Dickey doesn't prohibit the CDC from doing any research on guns as they relate to the health of the people in this country.

Your own quote explicitly shows that the only restriction was that the money granted not be used to promote gun control.
The CDC has some of the smartest people in the country working for it. As a government agency, it has some of the best access to information from various places and the ability to carry out some real research into what in hell is causing so much gun violence in our country. If it isn't guns, what is it?
YOU may think the Dickey Amendment was a nothing burger, but the NRA was obviously feeling pretty threatened by the fact that the CDC might conduct some research into it. And the NRA was feeling pretty sure what the CDC's overall conclusions would be.
Argue your micro-points. This is not how science is done; everyone knows it but you.

The CDC has never been prohibited from doing research on gun violence.
That Congress hasn't granted money for any gun study is not a result of the Dickey Amendment
Then what was the Dickey Amendment for, if not to specifically stop gun studies that might conclude guns have something to do with gun violence?

You answered that question when you posted the description of the Dickey Amendment

The purpose was to prohibit the CDC from using government funds to promote gun control as that type of political activism in not part of the CDC's mandate.
 
The need for the right to keep and bear arms applies today as it did in 1791; the protections provided for it by the 2nd are FAR more necessary now than ever in our history.
No, you just want to keep your guns. It's lucky for you that a powerful organization like the NRA comes up with all these snazzy arguments for you.
Why wouldn't any law abiding gun owner want to give up his guns?

My guns are not going to be used to commit murder so they are no danger to the public.

You do not curb the rights of people who have never done anything wrong
Of course we do; we do it all the time. There are always a few who ruin it for everybody else, as my second grade teacher used to say.
I have never been a terrorist, but I cannot take a bottle of water on the plane with me, or a normal size bottle of shampoo, or a lighter or my Swiss Army knife. Why am I being inconvenienced with all this tripe when I never did anything wrong?

I'm not a second grader anymore.

And your airplane analogy misses the mark by a light year at least. Your rights are not violated because you can't take a bottle of water through airport security and you are free to buy another bottle of water from any of the places on the concourse and you can take that bottle of water on any plane.
I haven't flown in awhile. 'Bout time they let you do that.
Someone lied to you - the CDC has -all kinds- of information and research regarding gun violence.
Don't ignore the Dickey Amendment. Don't you dare.
the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1] In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.[2]

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]
Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia
Dickey doesn't prohibit the CDC from doing any research on guns as they relate to the health of the people in this country.

Your own quote explicitly shows that the only restriction was that the money granted not be used to promote gun control.
The CDC has some of the smartest people in the country working for it. As a government agency, it has some of the best access to information from various places and the ability to carry out some real research into what in hell is causing so much gun violence in our country. If it isn't guns, what is it?
YOU may think the Dickey Amendment was a nothing burger, but the NRA was obviously feeling pretty threatened by the fact that the CDC might conduct some research into it. And the NRA was feeling pretty sure what the CDC's overall conclusions would be.
Argue your micro-points. This is not how science is done; everyone knows it but you.

The CDC has never been prohibited from doing research on gun violence.
That Congress hasn't granted money for any gun study is not a result of the Dickey Amendment
Then what was the Dickey Amendment for, if not to specifically stop gun studies that might conclude guns have something to do with gun violence?


This is what the Dickey Amendment was for...

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.
 
Oh I think the issue is much more complicated than that with many of factors involved


I didn't say it was...but those posts show the leading cause of violent crime in these cities, while the "root" cause is fatherless homes......

So, it's because of fatherless homes that violent crime happens? You've gotta be kidding.

BTW................your signature should read correctly. It's actually "it's better to serve in Heaven than to rule in Hell".

The correct quote says serve, not live.

Where is violent crime most prevalent in this country?

In urban areas that have been historically plagued by segregation, high unemployment and under employment, poor education, poverty and drugs, and the breakdown of the family unit.

This isn't rocket science it's an historical fact.

Take an urban area of comparable size where those societal ills are less present and compare the two then tell me it's guns and guns alone that are the problem
You're right, of course. Limiting guns alone is NOT going to be the answer.


Here.....some actual answers...from a left winger who hates guns.......notice that after she does the research, her answer focuses on specific types of people...not guns......

Since she isn't talking about banning guns, you likely will ignore her.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0630863f284c

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way.

We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
----

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference.
----

But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.
-----

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.
No one said those things weren't true. They're obvious. They have one thing in common, though--protection from GUNS.
 
No reason to ban magazine fed weapons whatsoever because 99.9999% of them are never used to commit any crime
What are they used for that requires a detachable magazine that could not be accomplished without a built in, limited size magazine.

Doesn't matter. What matters is how they are actually used now and 99.999% magazine fed firearms will never be used to commit any crimes.

The fact that a minuscule fraction of people will use a gun for violence is not reason enough to put restrictions on everyone

It does matter.

To ban something that leads to mass killings that has no other use is a nobrainer.

So what can't to do with a built in smaller magazine that you can do with a detachable larger magazine?



.
The gun doesn't lead to mass killings.

If the AR 15 led to mass killings there would be a hell of a lot more of them since there are over 8 million AR 15s in private hands.

What percentage of privately owned Ar 15s are used to commit murder?
Backwards thinking and deceptive by looking at murder rates instead of mass killings.

The availability of the AR-15 leads those who decide to do mass killing a powerful weapon to enable the high body counts they want.

If the assault type rifle was not available, would they have have made the attack? Would they have had the courage? Would law enforcement more aggressively go after these shooters if they were not so well armed?

People are breing slaughtered because a bunch of gun nuts want their toy. And it is a toy because there is no need for them in the general public.


Let's look at mass public shootings....

US mass shootings, 1982-2019: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

2018.....12......how many involved a rifle....? 3 of them used a semi-auto rifle....

There are close to, if not over, 18 million of these rifles in public hands....

18,000,000 vs. 3 used for mass shootings, out of 12 shooting that year...

Keep in mind, in one of those shootings an AR-15 owned by a legal gun owner stopped the shooter......

93 people were killed in the entire 12 shootings......

So excuse us if these numbers don't prove to us that you aren't irrational in your fear of these weapons....

A rental truck in Nice, France was used to kill 86 and wound 435......so again, don't tell us these rifles pose a serious threat when you look at these actual numbers....

All rifle types are used to murder fewer people each and every year than knives, clubs and bare hands.....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


Rifles..... 403

Knives.....1,591

Hands and feet......696

Clubs.....467

You are irrational....
 
No reason to ban magazine fed weapons whatsoever because 99.9999% of them are never used to commit any crime
What are they used for that requires a detachable magazine that could not be accomplished without a built in, limited size magazine.

Doesn't matter. What matters is how they are actually used now and 99.999% magazine fed firearms will never be used to commit any crimes.

The fact that a minuscule fraction of people will use a gun for violence is not reason enough to put restrictions on everyone

It does matter.

To ban something that leads to mass killings that has no other use is a nobrainer.

So what can't to do with a built in smaller magazine that you can do with a detachable larger magazine?



.
The gun doesn't lead to mass killings.

If the AR 15 led to mass killings there would be a hell of a lot more of them since there are over 8 million AR 15s in private hands.

What percentage of privately owned Ar 15s are used to commit murder?
Backwards thinking and deceptive by looking at murder rates instead of mass killings.

The availability of the AR-15 leads those who decide to do mass killing a powerful weapon to enable the high body counts they want.

If the assault type rifle was not available, would they have have made the attack? Would they have had the courage? Would law enforcement more aggressively go after these shooters if they were not so well armed?

People are breing slaughtered because a bunch of gun nuts want their toy. And it is a toy because there is no need for them in the general public.

The availability of the AR-15 leads those who decide to do mass killing a powerful weapon to enable the high body counts they want.

Gilroy.....3 killed....stopped by someone with a gun...

Republican baseball team shooting....same rifle, 0 killed

Russian Polytechnik shooting 20 killed with 5 shot pump action shot gun 70 injured.

Navy Yard shooting....12 killed

Virginia Tech shooting....32 killed, 2 pistols.

Luby's Cafe...24 killed, 2 pistols...

It isn't the gun, it is the gun free zone that allows these killers to kill.......they stop when someone points a gun at the shooter....they surrender, commit suicide, run away or are killed....

Armed normal people at mass shootings have 94% success rate at stopping these killers.......

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.



In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.
 

Forum List

Back
Top