The Science Between Gun Regulation vs. Climate Change

[Agent Zero]

Elsewhere on this forum is a linkless thread comparing "gun control" with "climate change". Nowhere does it actually delve into the science of either, rather there's some obscure criticisms of one group vs another.

So let's look the truth..

https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-reduce-gun-violence-ask-some-scientists/

This is where the science should come in. A straight-up restriction on gun ownership would work, yes, but that’s politically—constitutionally—untenable, at least as the current Supreme Court would have it. But other, more subtle options and interventions are out there. Work on reducing deaths in car crashes doesn’t demand banning all cars; requiring seat belts made a huge difference. So what’s the gun policy equivalent of a seat belt?


To answer that, you need data, hypotheses, experiments. And that’s a problem. Many basic statistics about gun violence stubbornly fail to exist. The science of how many, how often, and how bad hasn’t been done. The studies of what causes people to become violent and use firearms, of who those people are, of how to find them and stop them—they haven’t been done.


The deeper problem here is that in 1996 Congress made it illegal (https://www.wired.com/story/what-if-the-cdc-could-fund-gun-research/) to put federal money (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/433079-house-dems-renew-push-for-funding-gun-violence-research-at-the-cdc) toward gun control and cut the gun violence research budget at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Republicans argued that such research was actually political, and designed to restrict gun ownership. (The rule is called the Dickey Amendment, and it was the result of lobbying (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/) by the National Rifle Association.) In 2018 Congress lifted the de facto ban, but didn’t fund any research. Other sources of funding exist, but research in gun violence consistently gets less money and attention than any comparable cause of death (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514?appId=scweb). That was mostly intentional; if you censor the explanations, then violence becomes inexplicable—senseless, or “evil.” Politicians can shake their heads and deploy thoughts and prayers instead of policy. In some ways the science of gun violence hasn’t really advanced since the Macarena was at the top of the charts.


One thing it’d be good to know: How bad is the problem? In his Monday speech, the president went on to say that since the mass murder at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999, “one mass shooting has followed another, over and over again, decade after decade.” Yet even that simple matter of fact—whether they’ve become more frequent—is the source of debate. At least one researcher says (https://www.thecut.com/2014/06/mass-shootings-arent-on-the-rise.html) the overall rate has been steady for decades, as the president claims; other public health researchers assert (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research/) that the pace tripled in 2011, and that the first guy was overcounting by including targeted, multiple-victim homicides alongside the more randomized, mass-shooting horrors like Gilroy’s Garlic Festival or the El Paso-Juarez Walmart. The CDC doesn’t collect data on gun deaths in a way that’d make it easy to answer this question.


When the president says—as he did on Monday—“we must do a better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs,” the lack of research again dooms his ambition to failure. “We must reform our mental health laws,” the president said, and “we must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms.” But nobody’s completely sure what those warning signs are, except in broad strokes (https://www.wired.com/story/the-struggle-to-predictand-preventtoxic-masculinity/).

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

So...fess up the funds, Congress and Trump. Find the correlation, the reasons, the facts, and act accordingly. Pass reasonable, effective legislation that like seat belts, insurance, etc., will reduce gun deaths.

[Chris]

https://i.snipboard.io/BiJQAb.jpg

[Chris]

https://i.snipboard.io/DYIMAK.jpg

[Chris]

https://i.snipboard.io/Vy2AhF.jpg

[Chris]

https://i.snipboard.io/07bujV.jpg

[Chris]

https://i.snipboard.io/vVOblq.jpg

[Lummy]

So let's look the truth..

https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-reduce-gun-violence-ask-some-scientists/

Yeah, wired.com would know all about guns. And I suppose guns are responsible for climate change. No? You missed a bet there, pal.

[Peter1469]

Elsewhere on this forum is a linkless thread comparing "gun control" with "climate change". Nowhere does it actually delve into the science of either, rather there's some obscure criticisms of one group vs another.

So let's look the truth..

https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-reduce-gun-violence-ask-some-scientists/

This is where the science should come in. A straight-up restriction on gun ownership would work, yes, but that’s politically—constitutionally—untenable, at least as the current Supreme Court would have it. But other, more subtle options and interventions are out there. Work on reducing deaths in car crashes doesn’t demand banning all cars; requiring seat belts made a huge difference. So what’s the gun policy equivalent of a seat belt?


To answer that, you need data, hypotheses, experiments. And that’s a problem. Many basic statistics about gun violence stubbornly fail to exist. The science of how many, how often, and how bad hasn’t been done. The studies of what causes people to become violent and use firearms, of who those people are, of how to find them and stop them—they haven’t been done.


The deeper problem here is that in 1996 Congress made it illegal (https://www.wired.com/story/what-if-the-cdc-could-fund-gun-research/) to put federal money (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/433079-house-dems-renew-push-for-funding-gun-violence-research-at-the-cdc) toward gun control and cut the gun violence research budget at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Republicans argued that such research was actually political, and designed to restrict gun ownership. (The rule is called the Dickey Amendment, and it was the result of lobbying (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/) by the National Rifle Association.) In 2018 Congress lifted the de facto ban, but didn’t fund any research. Other sources of funding exist, but research in gun violence consistently gets less money and attention than any comparable cause of death (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514?appId=scweb). That was mostly intentional; if you censor the explanations, then violence becomes inexplicable—senseless, or “evil.” Politicians can shake their heads and deploy thoughts and prayers instead of policy. In some ways the science of gun violence hasn’t really advanced since the Macarena was at the top of the charts.


One thing it’d be good to know: How bad is the problem? In his Monday speech, the president went on to say that since the mass murder at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999, “one mass shooting has followed another, over and over again, decade after decade.” Yet even that simple matter of fact—whether they’ve become more frequent—is the source of debate. At least one researcher says (https://www.thecut.com/2014/06/mass-shootings-arent-on-the-rise.html) the overall rate has been steady for decades, as the president claims; other public health researchers assert (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research/) that the pace tripled in 2011, and that the first guy was overcounting by including targeted, multiple-victim homicides alongside the more randomized, mass-shooting horrors like Gilroy’s Garlic Festival or the El Paso-Juarez Walmart. The CDC doesn’t collect data on gun deaths in a way that’d make it easy to answer this question.


When the president says—as he did on Monday—“we must do a better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs,” the lack of research again dooms his ambition to failure. “We must reform our mental health laws,” the president said, and “we must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms.” But nobody’s completely sure what those warning signs are, except in broad strokes (https://www.wired.com/story/the-struggle-to-predictand-preventtoxic-masculinity/).

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

So...fess up the funds, Congress and Trump. Find the correlation, the reasons, the facts, and act accordingly. Pass reasonable, effective legislation that like seat belts, insurance, etc., will reduce gun deaths.
Any Supreme Court would not allow a ban of guns.

[Captdon]

Elsewhere on this forum is a linkless thread comparing "gun control" with "climate change". Nowhere does it actually delve into the science of either, rather there's some obscure criticisms of one group vs another.

So let's look the truth..

https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-reduce-gun-violence-ask-some-scientists/

This is where the science should come in. A straight-up restriction on gun ownership would work, yes, but that’s politically—constitutionally—untenable, at least as the current Supreme Court would have it. But other, more subtle options and interventions are out there. Work on reducing deaths in car crashes doesn’t demand banning all cars; requiring seat belts made a huge difference. So what’s the gun policy equivalent of a seat belt?


To answer that, you need data, hypotheses, experiments. And that’s a problem. Many basic statistics about gun violence stubbornly fail to exist. The science of how many, how often, and how bad hasn’t been done. The studies of what causes people to become violent and use firearms, of who those people are, of how to find them and stop them—they haven’t been done.


The deeper problem here is that in 1996 Congress made it illegal (https://www.wired.com/story/what-if-the-cdc-could-fund-gun-research/) to put federal money (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/433079-house-dems-renew-push-for-funding-gun-violence-research-at-the-cdc) toward gun control and cut the gun violence research budget at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Republicans argued that such research was actually political, and designed to restrict gun ownership. (The rule is called the Dickey Amendment, and it was the result of lobbying (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/) by the National Rifle Association.) In 2018 Congress lifted the de facto ban, but didn’t fund any research. Other sources of funding exist, but research in gun violence consistently gets less money and attention than any comparable cause of death (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514?appId=scweb). That was mostly intentional; if you censor the explanations, then violence becomes inexplicable—senseless, or “evil.” Politicians can shake their heads and deploy thoughts and prayers instead of policy. In some ways the science of gun violence hasn’t really advanced since the Macarena was at the top of the charts.


One thing it’d be good to know: How bad is the problem? In his Monday speech, the president went on to say that since the mass murder at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999, “one mass shooting has followed another, over and over again, decade after decade.” Yet even that simple matter of fact—whether they’ve become more frequent—is the source of debate. At least one researcher says (https://www.thecut.com/2014/06/mass-shootings-arent-on-the-rise.html) the overall rate has been steady for decades, as the president claims; other public health researchers assert (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research/) that the pace tripled in 2011, and that the first guy was overcounting by including targeted, multiple-victim homicides alongside the more randomized, mass-shooting horrors like Gilroy’s Garlic Festival or the El Paso-Juarez Walmart. The CDC doesn’t collect data on gun deaths in a way that’d make it easy to answer this question.


When the president says—as he did on Monday—“we must do a better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs,” the lack of research again dooms his ambition to failure. “We must reform our mental health laws,” the president said, and “we must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms.” But nobody’s completely sure what those warning signs are, except in broad strokes (https://www.wired.com/story/the-struggle-to-predictand-preventtoxic-masculinity/).

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

So...fess up the funds, Congress and Trump. Find the correlation, the reasons, the facts, and act accordingly. Pass reasonable, effective legislation that like seat belts, insurance, etc., will reduce gun deaths.

Bearing arms is a right. Driving a car isn't. Two sentences to toss your argument in the toilet.

[Rationalist]

Elsewhere on this forum is a linkless thread comparing "gun control" with "climate change". Nowhere does it actually delve into the science of either, rather there's some obscure criticisms of one group vs another.

So let's look the truth..

https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-reduce-gun-violence-ask-some-scientists/

This is where the science should come in. A straight-up restriction on gun ownership would work, yes, but that’s politically—constitutionally—untenable, at least as the current Supreme Court would have it. But other, more subtle options and interventions are out there. Work on reducing deaths in car crashes doesn’t demand banning all cars; requiring seat belts made a huge difference. So what’s the gun policy equivalent of a seat belt?


To answer that, you need data, hypotheses, experiments. And that’s a problem. Many basic statistics about gun violence stubbornly fail to exist. The science of how many, how often, and how bad hasn’t been done. The studies of what causes people to become violent and use firearms, of who those people are, of how to find them and stop them—they haven’t been done.


The deeper problem here is that in 1996 Congress made it illegal (https://www.wired.com/story/what-if-the-cdc-could-fund-gun-research/) to put federal money (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/433079-house-dems-renew-push-for-funding-gun-violence-research-at-the-cdc) toward gun control and cut the gun violence research budget at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Republicans argued that such research was actually political, and designed to restrict gun ownership. (The rule is called the Dickey Amendment, and it was the result of lobbying (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/) by the National Rifle Association.) In 2018 Congress lifted the de facto ban, but didn’t fund any research. Other sources of funding exist, but research in gun violence consistently gets less money and attention than any comparable cause of death (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514?appId=scweb). That was mostly intentional; if you censor the explanations, then violence becomes inexplicable—senseless, or “evil.” Politicians can shake their heads and deploy thoughts and prayers instead of policy. In some ways the science of gun violence hasn’t really advanced since the Macarena was at the top of the charts.


One thing it’d be good to know: How bad is the problem? In his Monday speech, the president went on to say that since the mass murder at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999, “one mass shooting has followed another, over and over again, decade after decade.” Yet even that simple matter of fact—whether they’ve become more frequent—is the source of debate. At least one researcher says (https://www.thecut.com/2014/06/mass-shootings-arent-on-the-rise.html) the overall rate has been steady for decades, as the president claims; other public health researchers assert (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research/) that the pace tripled in 2011, and that the first guy was overcounting by including targeted, multiple-victim homicides alongside the more randomized, mass-shooting horrors like Gilroy’s Garlic Festival or the El Paso-Juarez Walmart. The CDC doesn’t collect data on gun deaths in a way that’d make it easy to answer this question.


When the president says—as he did on Monday—“we must do a better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs,” the lack of research again dooms his ambition to failure. “We must reform our mental health laws,” the president said, and “we must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms.” But nobody’s completely sure what those warning signs are, except in broad strokes (https://www.wired.com/story/the-struggle-to-predictand-preventtoxic-masculinity/).

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

So...fess up the funds, Congress and Trump. Find the correlation, the reasons, the facts, and act accordingly. Pass reasonable, effective legislation that like seat belts, insurance, etc., will reduce gun deaths.
Putting federal money toward research in and of itself isn't a problem, whether we're talking about cancer or gun deaths. The problem with putting public money toward research in gun deaths and climate science is that both are highly politicized topics. Good luck finding an institution that is apolitical to handle either topic.

[Lummy]

Putting federal money toward research in and of itself isn't a problem, whether we're talking about cancer or gun deaths. The problem with putting public money toward research in gun deaths and climate science is that both are highly politicized topics. Good luck finding an institution that is apolitical to handle either topic.
They would as soon throw science out the window to advance their political agendas. Thank democrats for this perversion of professions.

[Cthulhu]

The graphs seem to suggest that increased firearm ownership deters crime.

[Agent Zero]

https://i.snipboard.io/DYIMAK.jpg

Ammoland?

Really?

[Peter1469]

Ammoland?

Really?
A great website.

[Tahuyaman]

A great website.
A geek tech site has more expertise on issues surrounding firearms, right?

[bulletbob]

Zero you will never understand . the climate changes naturally . at one time the artic had tropical plants in it .At one time the tropics were a frozen ball of ice.
If you want to reduce mans effect on the climate enough to have a impact then kill off 6.5 billion people . otherwise your not going to accomplish anything .you can spend 100 trillion in the usa on the nutbar green new deal . now get the rest of the world to spwnd a few hundred trillion say another 900 trillion or more and it might have a temporary inpact.

[bulletbob]

Now zero there are 275 million guns in America or more the army has about 4 million guns. Now zero are you going to go house to house and take guns from people who legally own them.well good luck with that and good luck finding cops willing to do it.
Most gun death are from a combination of suscide and thugs . most legal gun owners dont shoot people except in self defense.
Thugs do it for revenge and drugs dealers of course zero they will turn their guns in being lawabiding citizens

[donttread]

The graphs seem to suggest that increased firearm ownership deters crime.

If Chris had a couple more the point might get through. Even the FBI agrees.

[bulletbob]

If Chris had a couple more the point might get through. Even the FBI agrees.

yes its a fact that increased gun ownership reduces crime . why you ask zero well its simple enough even you can understand it . thugs dont really want to get shot they perfer unarmed citizens to rob rape and murder .


https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013

[Chris]

Ammoland?

Really?

Ad hom, really? I give you multiple studies all saying the same thing and you, who OP demands science, respond unscientifically.

[Agent Zero]

A great website.
lol...I'm sure it is for finding biased and dishonest "facts".

Here's a fact for you guys.

While the number of guns has gone up (which nobody disupted anyway, so all that "research" went poof!), the actual number of households owning guns has gone down, down, down and continues to.

As a result, we have a high concentration of guns in far fewer homes. In fact, half of all guns are owned by only 14% of gun owners, or 3% of our population.

https://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/03/01/656728ba-8a3f-4333-8d25-0dd0b8027f4b/thumbnail/620x620/c11f70d1f87975c9617b1745660ba4ee/6ke98-1.png#

One of the reasons is because very few people actually hunt anymore...

https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/03/01/29bcfb3e-193a-43ca-ae97-2aa76a00c294/thumbnail/620x620/b5231a3f0308a217b85432e50a7b5d51/eb1bc.png#


https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/gun-ownership-survey-harvard/

[Agent Zero]

yes its a fact that increased gun ownership reduces crime . why you ask zero well its simple enough even you can understand it . thugs dont really want to get shot they perfer unarmed citizens to rob rape and murder .


https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013

All of which I just debunked. Try collecting something else...say, fossils.

[bulletbob]

if zero could zero would do away with the bill of rights the Constitution and turn us into a liberal version of a communist nation.

our founding fathers not only wanted the people to be able to defend them self from overseas powers but from our own government if nut bars got in power.

what liberals can not understand is that the mass shootings are not the guns fault . they seem to be unable to understand the issue. its roots fall on mental illness the medias coverage , movies which are a liberal thing, video games that shoot hundreds poor upbringing its not one thing causing the problem but many. very few people are shot with rifles of any kind . far more people die from being beat to death or stabbings .

[bulletbob]

now the graph asked do you and your spouse hunt.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SELF DEFENSE.

it asked a loaded question also you and your spouse .
if your not married or you hunt but not your wife.
aslo more and more people are moving to the city where hunting is not allowed. . how many deer are shot in Chicago city limits each year.
also those who move to big citys are finding it harder and harder to find public hunting land close by or that is uncrouded more and more private land owners are refusing requests for big city hunters.
I know I did in wva . city boys need not even ask I dont want to have to spry paint the words cow on my livestock .I would allow locals to hunt depending on their reputation as responsible hunters.

[donttread]

All of which I just debunked. Try collecting something else...say, fossils.

I don't support the slam in the post but as for the general relationship between gun ownership and and violent crime could you give the number of the post where you debunked that? It's pretty well known that gun control seldom decreases violent crime. It's less well known that there are far more gun defenses than there are shootings and they are generally underestimated and poorly publicized by even the NRA. But anyone really wanting to understand what gun control does and does not do, from either side, should look at gun defenses.

[bulletbob]

iety (https://www.statista.com/markets/411/society/)›
Crime & Law Enforcement (https://www.statista.com/markets/411/topic/546/crime-law-enforcement/)›
Gun ownership in the U.S. 1972-2018

Premium

Percentage of households in the United States owning one or more firearms from 1972 to 2018






https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/how-many-guns-do-americans-own/

now as for gun owner ship its changed very little from the 70s to now about 43 % of households have a gun in them pretty well the same over the last few decades. plus the ammount of guns owned has increased

[Admiral Ackbar]

26971

[bulletbob]

r claim that 3 percent of Americans own all the gun . well if you include men women children and minors 3% would work out to about 9 million people.
of course the number would be less than 9 million when you account for age felons etc.

there are around 275 million or more guns in the usa if 3 percent owned them all that would be over 30 per person.
I run in gun circles and know not that many people have 30 guns many have family heirlooms old single barrel shot guns for hunting and rifles.
now if you look at the chart I posted its more like 29 percent of Americans own guns. not 3 percent. The 3 percent is a number that reflects that 3 percenrt have a lot of guns byt almost 30 percent of Americans own 1 gun mor more

plus zero the military has not got 200 million small arms our military is big but not that big its more like 4.4 million small arms this includes surplus guns in storage dating back decades of inactive use simple back up.


https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/

[Peter1469]

I was polled about gun ownership. I said no.

Your polls are useless.



lol...I'm sure it is for finding biased and dishonest "facts".

Here's a fact for you guys.

While the number of guns has gone up (which nobody disupted anyway, so all that "research" went poof!), the actual number of households owning guns has gone down, down, down and continues to.

As a result, we have a high concentration of guns in far fewer homes. In fact, half of all guns are owned by only 14% of gun owners, or 3% of our population.

https://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/03/01/656728ba-8a3f-4333-8d25-0dd0b8027f4b/thumbnail/620x620/c11f70d1f87975c9617b1745660ba4ee/6ke98-1.png#

One of the reasons is because very few people actually hunt anymore...

https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/03/01/29bcfb3e-193a-43ca-ae97-2aa76a00c294/thumbnail/620x620/b5231a3f0308a217b85432e50a7b5d51/eb1bc.png#


https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/gun-ownership-survey-harvard/

[Chris]

All of which I just debunked. Try collecting something else...say, fossils.

You debunked nothing. In fact you left out the most important component, gun violence has dropped while gun ownership has risen.

[Peter1469]

You debunked nothing. In fact you left out the most important component, gun violence has dropped while gun ownership has risen.

It is amusing to watch the "media" and the left go crazy and claim gun violence is up. Even mass shootings are down.

[Mister D]

WTF is the science of gun control?

[MisterVeritis]

This is where the science should come in. A straight-up restriction on gun ownership would work,
If you mean it would give the government an absolute monopoly on violence it would work.

What a stupid idea.

[MisterVeritis]

Any Supreme Court would not allow a ban of guns.
We will not allow it. It is worth a fight.

[MisterVeritis]

WTF is the science of gun control?
That? That is a phrase dullards use.

[Tahuyaman]

You debunked nothing. In fact you left out the most important component, gun violence has dropped while gun ownership has risen.
I don't know why some people can deny this demonstrable fact so easily.

[Tahuyaman]

Ammoland?

Really?


A great website.

I had never heard of it until today. I agree. Great website.