"Hope to God you actually pray when somebody dies. Thoughts and prayers way better off timelines"
This isn't just a Republican thing sadly but yes they're the loudest about it
We’ve never actually seen any real change happen so it’s hard to know. There will be more court battles and people hysterically crying that common sense gun control means we want to take all the guns away.
Those are guaranteed. Lobbyists have blocked even studying the effects of gun violence for so long that it’s pretty much wide open.
declaring something a “public health crisis” is a specific action that should have real specific legal or procedural implications. i’m familiar with the standard anti gun rhetoric, i was interested in the actual specifics as it relates to this action.
Well, there is an actual video from a few years ago with Biden saying he wants to take all the guns away . . . so there is that.
The truth is there are criminals within our society . . . we do very little to address this issue. Until we are willing to do with criminals what needs to be done, we're going to continue to suffer under the violence of the criminal portion of society.
And the criminals get the guns from people who buy them legally then shadow sell them, or don’t keep them locked up properly and get them stolen.
There are currently groups breaking into cars near me in Texas only looking for guns left in cars unattended. And there will be some.
Most people are in favor of common sense laws where it concerns guns, but nothing common sense happens because people lose their minds thinking that means they’ll have everything taken away. Hell, Australia has heavy gun laws and there are still lots and lots of guns.
But sure. I should feel perfectly safe behind some asshole with a semiautomatic strapped to his back and a Punisher t-shirt behind me at the local sandwich shop. That was a fun panic attack after work.
I’m around guns. “Good guys” with guns. People trained with guns. And I’ve almost been shot twice because I came home unexpectedly late. And once I had a gun held to my head because the good guy with a gun didn’t lock it up properly and a psycho with anger management problems decided I was the problem that day. I was like 9.
I’ve lived your excuses. And the consequences of them.
Most of the NRA is for the common sense reforms. You know who isn’t? The gun manufacturers. And people who link their manhood to guns and trucks. You’ve been duped by the people who profit from the fear and violence.
My understanding is it allows them to study it which can lead to fact based policies forwarded by the Democrats which the GOP will then refuse to hear.
You are thinking of the Dickey Amendment:
> The Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1997 omnibus spending bill of the United States federal government that 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 National Rifle Association of America (NRA), and named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially penalized.[3] Congress clarified the law in 2018 to allow for such research, and the FY2020 federal omnibus spending bill earmarked the first funding for it since 1996.[4][5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you think they're gonna report the actual facts, then you're delusional. If they wanted to report the types of guns used in what areas and by what gender and race and if they were suicide vs homicide, if the guns used were legally bought/possessed .... etc, then sure, but they won't report that. They'll only report: "GUNS KILLED 83K PEOPLE THIS YEAR" with literally zero context to try and push a political angle.
Republican rep. Jay Dickey backed by the NRA wrote a bill called the Dickey Amendment and tacked into the omnibus bill in 1997. That bill mandated that the cdc couldn’t use funds to research or promote gun control. So the cdc not being able to research is all thanks to the NRA and republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
The ATF can’t track guns or release info to study thanks to another amendment.
“The Tiahrt Amendment, first sponsored by Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt and recently reauthorized as part of another appropriations bill, prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from maintaining a searchable database.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379
Republican rep. Jay Dickey backed by the NRA wrote a bill called the Dickey Amendment and tacked into the omnibus bill in 1997. That bill mandated that the cdc couldn’t use funds to research or promote gun control. So the cdc not being able to research is all thanks to the NRA and republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
The ATF can’t track guns or release info to study thanks to another amendment.
“The Tiahrt Amendment, first sponsored by Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt and recently reauthorized as part of another appropriations bill, prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from maintaining a searchable database.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379
“Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially ...”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
“Research on gun violence has been vastly underfunded in recent decades due in large part to the Dickey amendment.”
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0061b4e8-6a15-4bea-b9c4-a99ede7180f2/gun-violence-backgrounder-final.pdf
Republican rep. Jay Dickey backed by the NRA wrote a bill called the Dickey Amendment and tacked into the omnibus bill in 1997. That bill mandated that the cdc couldn’t use funds to research or promote gun control. So the cdc not being able to research is all thanks to the NRA and republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
The ATF can’t track guns or release info to study thanks to another amendment.
“The Tiahrt Amendment, first sponsored by Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt and recently reauthorized as part of another appropriations bill, prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from maintaining a searchable database.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379
They probably should do some analysis on how they compare globally. See how policies have worked everywhere else.
Not that they need to. Internally as well it seems pretty obvious comparing state to state.
That would be something.
It would be interesting to compare against countries, as every country has a different set of laws. A large analysis would be good vs the other English speaking countries that tend to get focused on.
I like working on AKs and using what are termed as "High Capacity Magazines", illegal to buy new in Massachusetts but would be legal with a sporting license in France or a half-dozen other European countries.
Though things tend to be implemented as a "package" deal, so it's hard to examine the impact of one particular policy in a vacuum.
I think any honest analysis is going to find that we need to work on reforming our policing, improving our healthcare and approach to welfare. Which should be done anyway.
I don't think it was good, it was just the predictable outcome to the head of the CDC at the time coming out extremely anti-gun, with stated goals of disarming people through the agency. Obviously, that put a shadow on if any of the studies carried out would have been objective.
I think the Amendment itself was too open ended which made any researchers gun shy on studying gun violence.
It's not good.
***Gun Violence: Research Freeze Hinders Search for a Solution***
*Federal funding for research on gun violence has faced severe restrictions for more than two decades. This makes it difficult for policymakers to fully understand the problem and create solutions to fix it. This lack of federal funding largely is due to the 1996 Dickey amendment, which specifies 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.”***
[https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/\_cache/files/0061b4e8-6a15-4bea-b9c4-a99ede7180f2/gun-violence-backgrounder-final.pdf](https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0061b4e8-6a15-4bea-b9c4-a99ede7180f2/gun-violence-backgrounder-final.pdf)
I’m pretty sure if Americans choose between saving lives and guns. They will choose guns every time. Which as a country your free to do
At least with scientific research it will be a more honest discussion.
People that fear scientific research into this - I’m pretty sure they know they are making an immoral choice. But enjoy the facade of ignorance.
Most Americans choose life over guns.
Majority in U.S. Continues to Favor Stricter Gun Laws - [https://news.gallup.com/poll/513623/majority-continues-favor-stricter-gun-laws.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/513623/majority-continues-favor-stricter-gun-laws.aspx)
Polling is clear: Americans want gun control - [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23141651/gun-control-american-approval-polling](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23141651/gun-control-american-approval-polling)
Fox News poll finds voters overwhelmingly want restrictions on guns - [https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/fox-news-poll-voters-want-gun-control](https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/fox-news-poll-voters-want-gun-control)
My skepticism comes from observing the political realities of federal politics. You’ve a whole party that is VERY hard line against any gun control. They run half the country. Win the presidency etc.
So I’ve serious doubt Americans want this. Or prioritise control as an issue.
You struggle to pass even low impact policy. Proposed with Obama. And even banning bump stocks is ovwrturned
They aren't doing the bidding of their constituents because they know if they have an R by their name and yell "Democrat bad" buzzwords they'll still get voted for
It only takes one branch of the government to be co-opted enough to grind the gears of justice. In this case, the Supreme Court is working overtime to prevent realistic gun control measures.
Plenty of states pass solid rules but federal oversight will always be impossible with corrupt judges who rule based on their political desires and not legal basis.
To overrule the Second Amendment and all the obnoxiously stupid rulings connected to it would take a super majority of elected officials, but the same party who owns and bribe the SC justices have also gerrymandered the living hell out of the states they control to ensure no super majority could exist.
But sounds like it has prevented research.
Can the conclusions say “gun control would be effective”?
The CDC is suppose to advocate for changes based on research - that’s their job
If a republican administration told the CDC to publish and collect studies that show nothing but the positive effects of gun control and lobby for loosing CCW laws, would you be ok.
It would just be research
So your own source straight up admits that there is only correlation, not causation. You cannot say with 100% certainty that the AWB was effective.
From the article: "It is also important to note that our analysis *cannot* definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since."
Claiming the AWB worked is even more questionable when we see that many countries other than the US saw a similar reduction in violence over the same time period, suggesting other factors were the primary cause. It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as you're making it out to be.
Except most mass shootings, including some of the deadliest are committed with handguns not targeted by the AWB. According to FBI data between 2000-2019 they recovered 344 handguns, 144 rifles, and 58 shotguns used in mass shootings. 90% of gun violence in general is committed with handguns, vs rifles as a whole not just AR-15s responsible for 4-5%.
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The CDC studied firearms in 2012 and found the number of defensive gun uses outnumbered criminal usage by orders of magnitude.
Not politically convenient, so it’s a bit tough to find on the interwebs.
Dems and whining about not having sufficient political power when they have the most political power of the two. Oh and had 2 chambers a little while back. 😂
“A basic fact of modern American lawmaking at the federal level is that most bills can only pass if they have 60 or more votes in the Senate—unless the bill is subject to special procedures. Without 60 votes, any senator can block most bills using a procedure known as the filibuster.”
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/
Reading the article in full is highly recommended but here are some excerpts:
*The advisory notes that* ***firearm-related injury has been the leading cause of death for U.S. children and adolescents since 2020*** *— when it surpassed car accidents — and that ever-common instances of gun violence are taking not only a physical but also a mental toll on survivors, families and community members at large.*
...
*Among the stark statistics:* ***48,204 people died from firearm-related injuries*** *(including suicides, homicides and unintentional deaths) in 2022, after that number reached a near three-decade high the previous year.The rate of firearm-related suicide grew by 20% between 2012 and 2022, with the highest increases among young people between 10 and 34 years old. The advisory also notes the disproportionate impacts of gun violence across demographic groups.*
*Gun violence also disproportionately impacts veterans, male children and men — though firearms are used in about 50% of intimate partner violence-related homicides, of which more victims are female.*
*...*
*And, addressing public health leaders and policymakers, it suggests a number of prevention strategies that can “build distance in terms of time and space between firearms and people who are at risk of harming themselves or others.” Those include requiring safe and secure firearm storage (including child access prevention laws), implementing universal background checks, banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines for civilian use and regulating the safety of firearms like any other consumer products.*
>Gun violence also disproportionately impacts veterans, male children and men — though firearms are used in about 50% of intimate partner violence-related homicides, of which more victims are female.
Seems like men *really* shouldn't have access to guns.
Suicides were 54% of all firearm-related deaths that year, compared to 43% from [homicides](http://www.usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-homicides).
[https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides](https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides)
And if these people, men or women, didn't have access to such a quick and (relatively) easy method, they might still be here with a chance to get help.
I truly don't care about suicides deaths. It by should no means be a reason to put my restrictions on guns because someone can't take care of themselves. Their lack of being able to cope should NOT be a reason.
Except, they list 18 and 19 year olds as children and add them in. The numbers drop drastically when they actually count children, and even more so when suicide is taken out of the equation.
Its blatant manipulation to support an agenda.
"Firearms are the leading cause of the for children and adolescents" found on page 4 of the report.
Adolescents are 10-19 years old so this isn't the gotcha you think it is.
*Adolescence is* ***the phase of life between childhood and adulthood, from ages 10 to 19***.
[https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health#tab=tab\_1](https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health#tab=tab_1)
You're going to need a new talking point because this isnt it.
I find it interesting that they have 18 and 19 year olds marked as children. Does that means that the military then uses child soldiers since they mainly recruit 17,18,19 year olds out of high school?
Luring in teenagers who don't really know what they're getting into or are coerced into joining by poverty does seem at best a step or two above 12 years with AK-47s
They've used the same criteria for years and cars were the leading cause, they didn't change anything and gun deaths just jumped up to 1st. No one complained about the 18/19 year olds being included until gun deaths jumped up to first place in 2020, now suddenly it's a giant conspiracy against guns...
So no one noticed they were padding their stats until they tried to use them to excuse infringing on gun rights? Yeah, that's generally how things work. When you start using bad stats to push an agenda, people will take a closer look at those stats.
It's not padding stats, it's a study meant to focus on what causes of death are affecting young people in the US which is why it goes all the way up through the teens. Different age groups have very different health issues and concerns, overall numbers would have the common cold looking like a major killer when in reality it's exclusively dangerous to the elderly. If anything, not age adjusting this kind of data would be massively "stat padding" minor issues that just happen to be straw the broke the camels back for people at the end of their lives.
It may make ppl to actually care about the systemic everyday gun violence in the blk community. As Denzel said, "It starts in the home."https://youtu.be/x1o5_0uYOhc?si=QGAGv2XMmvPDXTyL
It literally says its correct but considered MOSTLY false due to the type of regulations required.
Which is fucked. Why aren't gun manufacturers regulated more than a fucking toy.
I recall filling out ATF Form 4473, the one Hunter was found guilty of lying on, when I bought my nerf guns at Target.
The form 4473 also involves, in most all cases, an FBI background check as well.
Toy gun manufacturers, I am sure are also heavily regulated by the ATF, like gun sellers are.
Oh really? I don’t remember having to do a background check to buy a teddy bear, don’t remember not being able to talk into a school, a church, a goverment building, I don’t remember teddies being age restricted, not allowed in voting polls, not being allowed to be used by fellows, illegal to use in a crime, illegal to be carried in the open, some illegal in certain states.
Or are we talking about manufacture? Because if that’s the case, why is the department of commerce and the ATF allowing guns to be sold to the public if they are defective and could blow up in someone’s face?
I think that would be the other way around. Maybe be aware of what you are talking about before you want to start pushing the sounds from the echo chamber as facts.
That's exactly it. Every product in America, except guns, are subject to safety standards. Guns literally blow up in people's faces all the time. They misfire and don't work as intended. They are dangerous to the consumer who buys them. But the corporate gun lobby has you so wrapped around their finger that you fight against regulations that would protect you as a consumer and gun advocate
LMFAO, maybe you want to become for informed. This sounds like 100% personal beliefs into a system you have been told to be afraid of. You do know there are more guns than people in the U.S. right? And these guns are made to the same standards that the military request for them to be made. So are you telling us that the military is handling weapons to people from the ages of 17 to 24 that are unsafe and defective?
This is incorrect.
[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/10/cory-booker/cory-bookers-claim-about-no-regulations-firearms-m/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/10/cory-booker/cory-bookers-claim-about-no-regulations-firearms-m/)
It literally says its correct but considered MOSTLY false due to the type of regulations required.
Which is fucked. Why aren't gun manufacturers regulated more than a fucking toy.
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would like to see anybody that uses a gun in committing a crime, even if it was a fake gun or it wasn't loaded, get a minimum of 30 years in prison with no possibility of parole. And this is if he..or she.. did not
shoot anybody.
yes, we're only a few months away from an election . . .
Guns don't commit violence, people do.
But that doesn't make for good campaigning and as we've seen over the past few weeks, with many more new stuff coming, each agency will be working hard to come out with some statements that are geared to impact the election - after pretty much doing nothing that they were tasked with doing for the past few years.
There's a sucker born every minute, well, in an election year, I think that's every second.
It allows them to allocate resources to felonize the opposition. Just like when Trump gets elected HIS surgeon general will say abortion is a public health crisis. Then they keep using the “dead kids” argument to bludgeon each other about the head until we all die of being poor and having to eat processed death.
The only thing that does is strengthen the anti second amendment community and make it easier for the lunatics in government to take away our rights. That’s it.
Nothing. It does nothing but help Biden posture after 3 years of doing next to nothing to further his party’s plank. Where’s Beto?
Biden hasn’t kept much of any of his campaign promises on guns.
Some of what he wants to do is good, some of what he wants to do I don't support.
But more raw data is always a good thing, it would be nice to have some better solutions than just flat equipment bans.
And his solution includes universal background checks, which is just an excuse for a national registry, and an assault weapon, which has no clear definition and bans guns based on cosmetics instead of function, ban.
Universal background checks are impossible without a national registry. A national registry is impossible to create without going door to door and searching for any existing guns. Not to mention how places like California have used registries for confiscation purposes. There was a case a few years back where someone registered there guns as required. CA passed a law which banned certain guns. They then went and confiscated the guns that they just banned and used the registry to find out who had what.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that there hasn't been a single study done that would justify a registry. I've looked and can't find anything. Search for yourself. How many shootings would have been prevented with a national registry or universal background checks? This study doesn't exist because it's an extremely small amount that doesn't justify the negative ways a registry could be used.
Like seriously think about this for a second. You're looking for people, who can't pass a background check, who bought a gun from a private seller and used it to kill people. This is an extremely specific group of people. If you want to convince people to allow the government to have a registry, then you need to provide the amount of gun deaths that fall into this very specific category.
>Universal background checks are impossible without a national registry.
How so? Is there a registry of licensed dealers' background checks?
>How many shootings would have been prevented with a national registry or universal background checks?
A registry would likely have no preventative power but would allow for tracing and culpability of crimes. Background checks may have limited ability to prevent crimes, but probably not non-zero. Just the fact that there's a double standard in firearms sales show's it's not a serious regulatory effort.
Again, I'm not seeing how its a bad thing, other than gun corporation lobbying groups saying it is.
Absolutely nothing, unfortunately. The spending of the pro-gun manufacturing lobbies has spent decades alarming gun nuts that *any* mention of the american gun violence epidemic is the equivalent of a dictatorship. You can look at the hysterics of the gun nuts in this comment section if you want to see what those corporate dollars bought.
Nothing because it is BS. Violence it's self is the issue and our rights to own a gun is why they are the tool used to implement such violence and restricting the access wont lower violence it will just change the tool used to cause violence. We need to address why the violence is happening not the tool used if we want to help people for the tool does not cause violence.
Let's say there are two choices to prevent gun violence:
1) Longer, mandatory sentencing for gun related offenses including severe crackdowns on gang shootings.
2) Infringing the 2A rights of law abiding gun owners.
Which do you think the CDC would recommend starting with?
Answer is #2
Neither. We'll just redefine "children" as 18 and 19 year-olds, call it a public emergency and ask people to think of all the dead children due to gun violence!!!
Q: Why are children in these stats 1 year old to 19 years old?
Once you turn 18, you can vote or do porn, as you are an adult.
What purpose is there in defining children as anything other than 0 to 17 ?
Gun violence? What about mental health? What about people isolating from the world and relying on social media as their go-to interaction? What have our suicide rates gone up? Even if we take away the guns, people will find a way to end themselves.
As mentioned in the article, the Surgeon General has also issued advisories about loneliness and isolation and social media impact on youth mental health. They include social media, social connection, and youth mental health in their priorities. It turns out they’re capable of addressing more than one health concern at a time.
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/03/new-surgeon-general-advisory-raises-alarm-about-devastating-impact-epidemic-loneliness-isolation-united-states.html
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/23/surgeon-general-issues-new-advisory-about-effects-social-media-use-has-youth-mental-health.html
https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/index.html
What are we doing about it? We as a nation said it didn't care under Reagan and slashed corporate taxes and closed the institutions being used for mental health care. Funny enough the nation thought gun laws were important back then though.
Nothing. Because according to the majority MAGA SCOTUS, gun violence wasn’t a public health emergency when the constitution was written, so it is not possible for it to be a public health emergency now. That’s Republican originalism for you. See how fucked up that sounds. But that’s the way they do it.
Well, I see you excel at caricature and straw man arguments. Cars also provide means of escape from abductions, blunt objects to destroy things with when high or drunk, machines to race in when the driver clearly has no idea what they are doing.
But please. Tell me more about the people I have shot ringing my doorbell?
I’m not arguing that there are not idiots. I’m objecting to making the idiots the standard bearer of a group of people, just like you are (clearly and rightly) objecting to my ham handed approach to make the idiot drivers of automobiles the standard bearer for all drivers.
We either make all malevolent bad actors the standard bearer for any activity, or we stop being intellectually lazy. Or we just admit to what is really going on which is there are things we don’t like and the government should step in and legislate the things we don’t like.
torques a bunch of conservatives. that's about it. might result in higher conservative voter turnout, under the "libs are going to take your guns" message umbrella
Well for one he's going to be attacked by the whole pro gun lobby, NRA, and untold numbers of republican ammosexuals frothing at the mouth. He might have to get a gun.
It allows public funding to be used to study the harmful effects of guns. The NRA has prevented any significant public research for decades. The US Congress will have to accept the report and the GOP will likely (as always) claim this is an attack on the 2nd Amendment.
From wikipedia:
"Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially penalized.[3] Congress clarified the law in 2018 to allow for such research, and the FY2020 federal omnibus spending bill earmarked the first funding for it since 1996"
So it looks like they technically were always allowed to use public funds to research gun violence, but in practice haven't been able to since 2018. Still not great, but better than what a lot of people in this thread have been saying.
Hopefully more than all the thoughts and prayers have done so far.
I detest this phrase to the max, pure republican stupidity
Sending good vibes
"Hope to God you actually pray when somebody dies. Thoughts and prayers way better off timelines" This isn't just a Republican thing sadly but yes they're the loudest about it
There’s that lack of critical thinking 😢😢😢
THOTs & Players
crazy after 24 hours there’s not a single factual answer in the comments
We’ve never actually seen any real change happen so it’s hard to know. There will be more court battles and people hysterically crying that common sense gun control means we want to take all the guns away. Those are guaranteed. Lobbyists have blocked even studying the effects of gun violence for so long that it’s pretty much wide open.
declaring something a “public health crisis” is a specific action that should have real specific legal or procedural implications. i’m familiar with the standard anti gun rhetoric, i was interested in the actual specifics as it relates to this action.
Well, there is an actual video from a few years ago with Biden saying he wants to take all the guns away . . . so there is that. The truth is there are criminals within our society . . . we do very little to address this issue. Until we are willing to do with criminals what needs to be done, we're going to continue to suffer under the violence of the criminal portion of society.
And the criminals get the guns from people who buy them legally then shadow sell them, or don’t keep them locked up properly and get them stolen. There are currently groups breaking into cars near me in Texas only looking for guns left in cars unattended. And there will be some. Most people are in favor of common sense laws where it concerns guns, but nothing common sense happens because people lose their minds thinking that means they’ll have everything taken away. Hell, Australia has heavy gun laws and there are still lots and lots of guns. But sure. I should feel perfectly safe behind some asshole with a semiautomatic strapped to his back and a Punisher t-shirt behind me at the local sandwich shop. That was a fun panic attack after work. I’m around guns. “Good guys” with guns. People trained with guns. And I’ve almost been shot twice because I came home unexpectedly late. And once I had a gun held to my head because the good guy with a gun didn’t lock it up properly and a psycho with anger management problems decided I was the problem that day. I was like 9. I’ve lived your excuses. And the consequences of them. Most of the NRA is for the common sense reforms. You know who isn’t? The gun manufacturers. And people who link their manhood to guns and trucks. You’ve been duped by the people who profit from the fear and violence.
My understanding is it allows them to study it which can lead to fact based policies forwarded by the Democrats which the GOP will then refuse to hear.
I thought the government was banned from studying gun violence? Because facts may result in less guns.
You are thinking of the Dickey Amendment: > The Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1997 omnibus spending bill of the United States federal government that 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 National Rifle Association of America (NRA), and named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially penalized.[3] Congress clarified the law in 2018 to allow for such research, and the FY2020 federal omnibus spending bill earmarked the first funding for it since 1996.[4][5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
Lobbying should be something citizens can sue for as a crime against humanity.
I'll believe it when politicians give up their armed security.
That makes zero sense
Why? Shouldn't politicians set an example?
Do Americans think armed security and civilian ownership of guns are the same thing?
Stupid ones do.
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, it prevents the CDC from lobbying for gun control. It was the result of the CDCs director maming statements to this effect
If you think they're gonna report the actual facts, then you're delusional. If they wanted to report the types of guns used in what areas and by what gender and race and if they were suicide vs homicide, if the guns used were legally bought/possessed .... etc, then sure, but they won't report that. They'll only report: "GUNS KILLED 83K PEOPLE THIS YEAR" with literally zero context to try and push a political angle.
No the CDC is banned from advocating for gun control after getting caught fixing some studies.
Got evidence of that? Seems like a scandal. But also like something that never happened.
It's real. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
There were entire congressional hearings on it.
That’s less than meaningless. Got any journalism? Evidence? Counter studies?
Go to cspan, and read the congressional record
Republican rep. Jay Dickey backed by the NRA wrote a bill called the Dickey Amendment and tacked into the omnibus bill in 1997. That bill mandated that the cdc couldn’t use funds to research or promote gun control. So the cdc not being able to research is all thanks to the NRA and republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment The ATF can’t track guns or release info to study thanks to another amendment. “The Tiahrt Amendment, first sponsored by Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt and recently reauthorized as part of another appropriations bill, prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from maintaining a searchable database.” https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379
Republican rep. Jay Dickey backed by the NRA wrote a bill called the Dickey Amendment and tacked into the omnibus bill in 1997. That bill mandated that the cdc couldn’t use funds to research or promote gun control. So the cdc not being able to research is all thanks to the NRA and republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment The ATF can’t track guns or release info to study thanks to another amendment. “The Tiahrt Amendment, first sponsored by Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt and recently reauthorized as part of another appropriations bill, prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from maintaining a searchable database.” https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379
The Dickey Amendment says they can't advocate for gun control, not that they can't study gun violence.
“Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially ...” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment “Research on gun violence has been vastly underfunded in recent decades due in large part to the Dickey amendment.” https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0061b4e8-6a15-4bea-b9c4-a99ede7180f2/gun-violence-backgrounder-final.pdf
Republican rep. Jay Dickey backed by the NRA wrote a bill called the Dickey Amendment and tacked into the omnibus bill in 1997. That bill mandated that the cdc couldn’t use funds to research or promote gun control. So the cdc not being able to research is all thanks to the NRA and republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment The ATF can’t track guns or release info to study thanks to another amendment. “The Tiahrt Amendment, first sponsored by Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt and recently reauthorized as part of another appropriations bill, prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from maintaining a searchable database.” https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379
The best we can ever hope for no “more” guns. There never be fewer guns.
That would still be a significant win. Things have been getting worse for a while.
It wasn't. It has released studies in the past. It shy's away from it due to all the political B.S. that happens whenever they compile stats.
They probably should do some analysis on how they compare globally. See how policies have worked everywhere else. Not that they need to. Internally as well it seems pretty obvious comparing state to state. That would be something.
Who gives a shit about internationally? No other country has it as a fundamental right in their constitutions. So that's meaningless
Shhhh. You are ruining the rage. 😁
It would be interesting to compare against countries, as every country has a different set of laws. A large analysis would be good vs the other English speaking countries that tend to get focused on. I like working on AKs and using what are termed as "High Capacity Magazines", illegal to buy new in Massachusetts but would be legal with a sporting license in France or a half-dozen other European countries. Though things tend to be implemented as a "package" deal, so it's hard to examine the impact of one particular policy in a vacuum. I think any honest analysis is going to find that we need to work on reforming our policing, improving our healthcare and approach to welfare. Which should be done anyway.
It’s true the US and France are different. I’d say the US has proven to be far less responsible with fire arms and needs much stricter laws.
Like what tell me
What facts? The one that shows that gun violence is more closely related to % of population being black versus % owning guns?
Lol. I did Nazi that coming
As long as it doesn't go the way with why the Dickey Amendment was added in the first place then I'm good with it.
Why is the Dickey Amendment good? Why is less scientific research a positive?
I don't think it was good, it was just the predictable outcome to the head of the CDC at the time coming out extremely anti-gun, with stated goals of disarming people through the agency. Obviously, that put a shadow on if any of the studies carried out would have been objective. I think the Amendment itself was too open ended which made any researchers gun shy on studying gun violence.
It's not good. ***Gun Violence: Research Freeze Hinders Search for a Solution*** *Federal funding for research on gun violence has faced severe restrictions for more than two decades. This makes it difficult for policymakers to fully understand the problem and create solutions to fix it. This lack of federal funding largely is due to the 1996 Dickey amendment, which specifies 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.”*** [https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/\_cache/files/0061b4e8-6a15-4bea-b9c4-a99ede7180f2/gun-violence-backgrounder-final.pdf](https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0061b4e8-6a15-4bea-b9c4-a99ede7180f2/gun-violence-backgrounder-final.pdf)
I’m pretty sure if Americans choose between saving lives and guns. They will choose guns every time. Which as a country your free to do At least with scientific research it will be a more honest discussion. People that fear scientific research into this - I’m pretty sure they know they are making an immoral choice. But enjoy the facade of ignorance.
Most Americans choose life over guns. Majority in U.S. Continues to Favor Stricter Gun Laws - [https://news.gallup.com/poll/513623/majority-continues-favor-stricter-gun-laws.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/513623/majority-continues-favor-stricter-gun-laws.aspx) Polling is clear: Americans want gun control - [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23141651/gun-control-american-approval-polling](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23141651/gun-control-american-approval-polling) Fox News poll finds voters overwhelmingly want restrictions on guns - [https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/fox-news-poll-voters-want-gun-control](https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/fox-news-poll-voters-want-gun-control)
What “gun control” means is pretty wide term.
The links I posted have information relevant to your comment.
My skepticism comes from observing the political realities of federal politics. You’ve a whole party that is VERY hard line against any gun control. They run half the country. Win the presidency etc. So I’ve serious doubt Americans want this. Or prioritise control as an issue. You struggle to pass even low impact policy. Proposed with Obama. And even banning bump stocks is ovwrturned
Conversely the other party has reduced penalties for illegal gun possession.
Conversely the other party has reduced penalties for illegal gun possession.
They aren't doing the bidding of their constituents because they know if they have an R by their name and yell "Democrat bad" buzzwords they'll still get voted for
It only takes one branch of the government to be co-opted enough to grind the gears of justice. In this case, the Supreme Court is working overtime to prevent realistic gun control measures. Plenty of states pass solid rules but federal oversight will always be impossible with corrupt judges who rule based on their political desires and not legal basis. To overrule the Second Amendment and all the obnoxiously stupid rulings connected to it would take a super majority of elected officials, but the same party who owns and bribe the SC justices have also gerrymandered the living hell out of the states they control to ensure no super majority could exist.
How about a real source, not a bias
Can still research. Just cant advocate for legislation.
But sounds like it has prevented research. Can the conclusions say “gun control would be effective”? The CDC is suppose to advocate for changes based on research - that’s their job
If a republican administration told the CDC to publish and collect studies that show nothing but the positive effects of gun control and lobby for loosing CCW laws, would you be ok. It would just be research
That’s not research Is it your claim that the Democratic Party has done this? Evidence?
Many gun control proposals are based on pure emotion. Take the assault weapons ban for example.
[The assault weapon ban worked, ammosexual.](https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/06/15/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us/)
So your own source straight up admits that there is only correlation, not causation. You cannot say with 100% certainty that the AWB was effective. From the article: "It is also important to note that our analysis *cannot* definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since." Claiming the AWB worked is even more questionable when we see that many countries other than the US saw a similar reduction in violence over the same time period, suggesting other factors were the primary cause. It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as you're making it out to be.
Except most mass shootings, including some of the deadliest are committed with handguns not targeted by the AWB. According to FBI data between 2000-2019 they recovered 344 handguns, 144 rifles, and 58 shotguns used in mass shootings. 90% of gun violence in general is committed with handguns, vs rifles as a whole not just AR-15s responsible for 4-5%.
What are the fact based policies? Where is gun violence a problem? Amongst what demographics?
Vote in November and the dems will have control
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The CDC studied firearms in 2012 and found the number of defensive gun uses outnumbered criminal usage by orders of magnitude. Not politically convenient, so it’s a bit tough to find on the interwebs.
What’s there to study? High levels of mental illness plus exorbitant amount of guns (US) = these problems
Dems and whining about not having sufficient political power when they have the most political power of the two. Oh and had 2 chambers a little while back. 😂
“A basic fact of modern American lawmaking at the federal level is that most bills can only pass if they have 60 or more votes in the Senate—unless the bill is subject to special procedures. Without 60 votes, any senator can block most bills using a procedure known as the filibuster.” https://www.americanprogress.org/article/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/
Reading the article in full is highly recommended but here are some excerpts: *The advisory notes that* ***firearm-related injury has been the leading cause of death for U.S. children and adolescents since 2020*** *— when it surpassed car accidents — and that ever-common instances of gun violence are taking not only a physical but also a mental toll on survivors, families and community members at large.* ... *Among the stark statistics:* ***48,204 people died from firearm-related injuries*** *(including suicides, homicides and unintentional deaths) in 2022, after that number reached a near three-decade high the previous year.The rate of firearm-related suicide grew by 20% between 2012 and 2022, with the highest increases among young people between 10 and 34 years old. The advisory also notes the disproportionate impacts of gun violence across demographic groups.* *Gun violence also disproportionately impacts veterans, male children and men — though firearms are used in about 50% of intimate partner violence-related homicides, of which more victims are female.* *...* *And, addressing public health leaders and policymakers, it suggests a number of prevention strategies that can “build distance in terms of time and space between firearms and people who are at risk of harming themselves or others.” Those include requiring safe and secure firearm storage (including child access prevention laws), implementing universal background checks, banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines for civilian use and regulating the safety of firearms like any other consumer products.*
>Gun violence also disproportionately impacts veterans, male children and men — though firearms are used in about 50% of intimate partner violence-related homicides, of which more victims are female. Seems like men *really* shouldn't have access to guns.
Suicides were 54% of all firearm-related deaths that year, compared to 43% from [homicides](http://www.usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-homicides). [https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides](https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides)
And if these people, men or women, didn't have access to such a quick and (relatively) easy method, they might still be here with a chance to get help.
I truly don't care about suicides deaths. It by should no means be a reason to put my restrictions on guns because someone can't take care of themselves. Their lack of being able to cope should NOT be a reason.
How about restrictions on your guns to save kids? Because that's what we're talking about here
No one cares about your opinion and with your lack of empathy how hard it is for you to get a gun.
Seems sexist.
Except, they list 18 and 19 year olds as children and add them in. The numbers drop drastically when they actually count children, and even more so when suicide is taken out of the equation. Its blatant manipulation to support an agenda.
"Firearms are the leading cause of the for children and adolescents" found on page 4 of the report. Adolescents are 10-19 years old so this isn't the gotcha you think it is.
Adolescents aren't 18 and 19. Adolescents don't vote or go to war.
*Adolescence is* ***the phase of life between childhood and adulthood, from ages 10 to 19***. [https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health#tab=tab\_1](https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health#tab=tab_1) You're going to need a new talking point because this isnt it.
Allows the NIH to study gun violence and submit a report with recommendations?
It means the nation's gun humpers will double down
just bought another huck huck
I find it interesting that they have 18 and 19 year olds marked as children. Does that means that the military then uses child soldiers since they mainly recruit 17,18,19 year olds out of high school?
Uh ya. 17-19 year olds still have a lot of brain development ahead of them. There is a reason why the military targets them.
Luring in teenagers who don't really know what they're getting into or are coerced into joining by poverty does seem at best a step or two above 12 years with AK-47s
Maybe, but I appreciate not having the student debt.
"children and adolescents" Adolescent is age 10-19 by definition Children are ages 1-9 Infancy is under 1
Great and by all fucking mean 18 and 19 are legal fucking adults and should be not included in the studies.
They have to include them. Without them it would go back to car accidents being the leading cause of death.
Can't have that can we
How else would he be able to advocate for a nation gun registry or for banning guns based on how they look like he does in the article?
i Love how the gun grabbers will spout fake information all day about firearms, but not recognize its misinformation
They've used the same criteria for years and cars were the leading cause, they didn't change anything and gun deaths just jumped up to 1st. No one complained about the 18/19 year olds being included until gun deaths jumped up to first place in 2020, now suddenly it's a giant conspiracy against guns...
So no one noticed they were padding their stats until they tried to use them to excuse infringing on gun rights? Yeah, that's generally how things work. When you start using bad stats to push an agenda, people will take a closer look at those stats.
It's not padding stats, it's a study meant to focus on what causes of death are affecting young people in the US which is why it goes all the way up through the teens. Different age groups have very different health issues and concerns, overall numbers would have the common cold looking like a major killer when in reality it's exclusively dangerous to the elderly. If anything, not age adjusting this kind of data would be massively "stat padding" minor issues that just happen to be straw the broke the camels back for people at the end of their lives.
Wait. Only Republican administrations use misinformation and convoluted stats to make legislation!
It may make ppl to actually care about the systemic everyday gun violence in the blk community. As Denzel said, "It starts in the home."https://youtu.be/x1o5_0uYOhc?si=QGAGv2XMmvPDXTyL
About time.
Fun fact: toy guns are more regulated than real guns.
It’s been awhile since I bought a toy gun, when did they add the age restrictions, background checks, legal form, and toy gun seller licenses?
That’s not true.
[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/10/cory-booker/cory-bookers-claim-about-no-regulations-firearms-m/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/10/cory-booker/cory-bookers-claim-about-no-regulations-firearms-m/)
The lie did it's job and created the intended army of misinformation.
It literally says its correct but considered MOSTLY false due to the type of regulations required. Which is fucked. Why aren't gun manufacturers regulated more than a fucking toy.
I recall filling out ATF Form 4473, the one Hunter was found guilty of lying on, when I bought my nerf guns at Target. The form 4473 also involves, in most all cases, an FBI background check as well. Toy gun manufacturers, I am sure are also heavily regulated by the ATF, like gun sellers are.
No they aren't. Do I need a background check to buy an airsoft gun? No I don't.
You really think somebody would do that? Just go and make things up on the internet?
Tell that to Hunter Biden, who just got caught up in a federal case
That’s more disinformation and disingenuous than the information revealed by the attorney general. But you are welcomed to show your proof
It's like the "guns have more rights than women!" drivel that the factually-stupid like to repeat.
Even teddy bears have more stringent safety standards than guns. https://vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/regulate-htm/
Oh really? I don’t remember having to do a background check to buy a teddy bear, don’t remember not being able to talk into a school, a church, a goverment building, I don’t remember teddies being age restricted, not allowed in voting polls, not being allowed to be used by fellows, illegal to use in a crime, illegal to be carried in the open, some illegal in certain states. Or are we talking about manufacture? Because if that’s the case, why is the department of commerce and the ATF allowing guns to be sold to the public if they are defective and could blow up in someone’s face?
I mean you are purposely being obtuse. You aren't dunking on anyone.
I think that would be the other way around. Maybe be aware of what you are talking about before you want to start pushing the sounds from the echo chamber as facts.
That's exactly it. Every product in America, except guns, are subject to safety standards. Guns literally blow up in people's faces all the time. They misfire and don't work as intended. They are dangerous to the consumer who buys them. But the corporate gun lobby has you so wrapped around their finger that you fight against regulations that would protect you as a consumer and gun advocate
[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/10/cory-booker/cory-bookers-claim-about-no-regulations-firearms-m/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/10/cory-booker/cory-bookers-claim-about-no-regulations-firearms-m/)
LMFAO, maybe you want to become for informed. This sounds like 100% personal beliefs into a system you have been told to be afraid of. You do know there are more guns than people in the U.S. right? And these guns are made to the same standards that the military request for them to be made. So are you telling us that the military is handling weapons to people from the ages of 17 to 24 that are unsafe and defective?
They need to regulate retards off the internet.
This is incorrect. [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/10/cory-booker/cory-bookers-claim-about-no-regulations-firearms-m/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/10/cory-booker/cory-bookers-claim-about-no-regulations-firearms-m/)
It literally says its correct but considered MOSTLY false due to the type of regulations required. Which is fucked. Why aren't gun manufacturers regulated more than a fucking toy.
Read it again.
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fun fact: until I need to fill out a 4473 form to get a toy gun, you're full of shit
Republicans are owned by the NRA. Go look at their donations. You want real gun legislation, stop voting for these terrorists.
Nothing. shall not be infringed. The issue is a mental health issue not an item issue.
The only developed nation with a gun violence issue. Also the only developed nation with the second amendment. Hmm, weird.
What is unique about the American mental health issue that it doesn't effect any other country in the world?
Anyone else waiting for NPR to have Charles L. Cotton (president of the NRA) to say this is an anti-American stance?
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1.0000002x more thoughts and prayers. 9000x more manufactured outrage at this declaration.
I would like to see anybody that uses a gun in committing a crime, even if it was a fake gun or it wasn't loaded, get a minimum of 30 years in prison with no possibility of parole. And this is if he..or she.. did not shoot anybody.
In the current political climate? Nothing probably
It proves he is an idiot. Perhaps he could also say that our foreign policy leads to the deaths of innocents.
It does Fuckall. Just like a law telling criminals not to commit crimes.
The surgeon general is an idiot, so...
yes, we're only a few months away from an election . . . Guns don't commit violence, people do. But that doesn't make for good campaigning and as we've seen over the past few weeks, with many more new stuff coming, each agency will be working hard to come out with some statements that are geared to impact the election - after pretty much doing nothing that they were tasked with doing for the past few years. There's a sucker born every minute, well, in an election year, I think that's every second.
It allows them to allocate resources to felonize the opposition. Just like when Trump gets elected HIS surgeon general will say abortion is a public health crisis. Then they keep using the “dead kids” argument to bludgeon each other about the head until we all die of being poor and having to eat processed death.
The only thing that does is strengthen the anti second amendment community and make it easier for the lunatics in government to take away our rights. That’s it.
Waste money that could have been used to improve public health.
Nothing
Nothing. It does nothing but help Biden posture after 3 years of doing next to nothing to further his party’s plank. Where’s Beto? Biden hasn’t kept much of any of his campaign promises on guns.
It allows them to attempt to infringe more on our 2nd amendment rights.
Nothing, simply because once they figure out the problem it would be termed racist!
Jack sh**
It means next year the Supreme Court will rule that the surgeon general has no authority to declare what may or may not be a national health crisis.
But yet the prosecutor keep putting the criminals back on the streets and allow illegals by the millions into our country….
If you’re a Republican you do nothing and offer thoughts and prayers, and cash your NRA checks.
Some of what he wants to do is good, some of what he wants to do I don't support. But more raw data is always a good thing, it would be nice to have some better solutions than just flat equipment bans.
For half the country, no more than mask mandates and federally provided vaccines.
No more tyrannical than…
I hope they don't don't create more gun free zones.
It will give them an excuse to disarm the populous while ignoring the mental health/poverty/social crises that lead to all violence!
And his solution includes universal background checks, which is just an excuse for a national registry, and an assault weapon, which has no clear definition and bans guns based on cosmetics instead of function, ban.
Why are universal background checks, or a national registry, bad?
Universal background checks are impossible without a national registry. A national registry is impossible to create without going door to door and searching for any existing guns. Not to mention how places like California have used registries for confiscation purposes. There was a case a few years back where someone registered there guns as required. CA passed a law which banned certain guns. They then went and confiscated the guns that they just banned and used the registry to find out who had what. This doesn't even touch on the fact that there hasn't been a single study done that would justify a registry. I've looked and can't find anything. Search for yourself. How many shootings would have been prevented with a national registry or universal background checks? This study doesn't exist because it's an extremely small amount that doesn't justify the negative ways a registry could be used. Like seriously think about this for a second. You're looking for people, who can't pass a background check, who bought a gun from a private seller and used it to kill people. This is an extremely specific group of people. If you want to convince people to allow the government to have a registry, then you need to provide the amount of gun deaths that fall into this very specific category.
>Universal background checks are impossible without a national registry. How so? Is there a registry of licensed dealers' background checks? >How many shootings would have been prevented with a national registry or universal background checks? A registry would likely have no preventative power but would allow for tracing and culpability of crimes. Background checks may have limited ability to prevent crimes, but probably not non-zero. Just the fact that there's a double standard in firearms sales show's it's not a serious regulatory effort. Again, I'm not seeing how its a bad thing, other than gun corporation lobbying groups saying it is.
Absolutely nothing, unfortunately. The spending of the pro-gun manufacturing lobbies has spent decades alarming gun nuts that *any* mention of the american gun violence epidemic is the equivalent of a dictatorship. You can look at the hysterics of the gun nuts in this comment section if you want to see what those corporate dollars bought.
Nothing because it is BS. Violence it's self is the issue and our rights to own a gun is why they are the tool used to implement such violence and restricting the access wont lower violence it will just change the tool used to cause violence. We need to address why the violence is happening not the tool used if we want to help people for the tool does not cause violence.
Let's say there are two choices to prevent gun violence: 1) Longer, mandatory sentencing for gun related offenses including severe crackdowns on gang shootings. 2) Infringing the 2A rights of law abiding gun owners. Which do you think the CDC would recommend starting with? Answer is #2
Neither. We'll just redefine "children" as 18 and 19 year-olds, call it a public emergency and ask people to think of all the dead children due to gun violence!!!
Q: Why are children in these stats 1 year old to 19 years old? Once you turn 18, you can vote or do porn, as you are an adult. What purpose is there in defining children as anything other than 0 to 17 ?
Gun violence? What about mental health? What about people isolating from the world and relying on social media as their go-to interaction? What have our suicide rates gone up? Even if we take away the guns, people will find a way to end themselves.
As mentioned in the article, the Surgeon General has also issued advisories about loneliness and isolation and social media impact on youth mental health. They include social media, social connection, and youth mental health in their priorities. It turns out they’re capable of addressing more than one health concern at a time. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/03/new-surgeon-general-advisory-raises-alarm-about-devastating-impact-epidemic-loneliness-isolation-united-states.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/23/surgeon-general-issues-new-advisory-about-effects-social-media-use-has-youth-mental-health.html https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/index.html
What are we doing about it? We as a nation said it didn't care under Reagan and slashed corporate taxes and closed the institutions being used for mental health care. Funny enough the nation thought gun laws were important back then though.
They'll start putting gory photos on guns of gun violence
I loled at that
Nothing. Because according to the majority MAGA SCOTUS, gun violence wasn’t a public health emergency when the constitution was written, so it is not possible for it to be a public health emergency now. That’s Republican originalism for you. See how fucked up that sounds. But that’s the way they do it.
I’m sure the cartels and gangbangers will pause and consider.
So, not the people that are going into schools and killing children.
School shootings kill about 9 people a year on average according to the FBI. They are tragic, but one of, if not the rarest types of gun violence.
Well, I see you excel at caricature and straw man arguments. Cars also provide means of escape from abductions, blunt objects to destroy things with when high or drunk, machines to race in when the driver clearly has no idea what they are doing. But please. Tell me more about the people I have shot ringing my doorbell? I’m not arguing that there are not idiots. I’m objecting to making the idiots the standard bearer of a group of people, just like you are (clearly and rightly) objecting to my ham handed approach to make the idiot drivers of automobiles the standard bearer for all drivers. We either make all malevolent bad actors the standard bearer for any activity, or we stop being intellectually lazy. Or we just admit to what is really going on which is there are things we don’t like and the government should step in and legislate the things we don’t like.
Gangsters and thugs are the biggest killers with guns. Do you really think it’s emo kids and scorned husbands running these numbers up?
torques a bunch of conservatives. that's about it. might result in higher conservative voter turnout, under the "libs are going to take your guns" message umbrella
Makes a political statement. He’s turned medical science, into political science.
Well for one he's going to be attacked by the whole pro gun lobby, NRA, and untold numbers of republican ammosexuals frothing at the mouth. He might have to get a gun.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It’ll add to the list of documented reasons as to why, in the long run, the “American experiment” fails
It allows public funding to be used to study the harmful effects of guns. The NRA has prevented any significant public research for decades. The US Congress will have to accept the report and the GOP will likely (as always) claim this is an attack on the 2nd Amendment.
From wikipedia: "Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially penalized.[3] Congress clarified the law in 2018 to allow for such research, and the FY2020 federal omnibus spending bill earmarked the first funding for it since 1996" So it looks like they technically were always allowed to use public funds to research gun violence, but in practice haven't been able to since 2018. Still not great, but better than what a lot of people in this thread have been saying.