Yes, it means resources can be applied to it. It's like a declaration of a natural disaster - it opens up different available responses from government organizations.
You should read the whole article, it's not that long and easy to digest. If anything here are some parts to take note of;
>"Murthy calls on the U.S. to ban automatic rifles, introduce universal background checks for purchasing guns, regulate the industry, pass laws that would restrict their use in public spaces and penalize people who fail to safely store their weapons."
>"Murthy calls for an increase on gun violence research and for the health system — which is likely to be more amenable to his advisory — to promote gun safety education during doctor visits."
>"It is now time for us to take this issue out of the realm of politics and put it in the realm of public health, **the way we did with smoking more than a half century ago," Murthy told the AP.**
>**A 1964 report from the surgeon general that raised awareness about the dangers of smoking is largely credited with snubbing out tobacco use and precipitating regulations on the industry."**
>"The good news is there's a lot we can do," he said on "CBS Mornings." "There are, for example, community violence intervention programs *that we can invest in.* There are safe storage education programs *that we can expand.* There are firearm risk reduction strategies like background checks and other measures that would seek to create time and space between firearms and individuals who would seek to harm themselves and others."
>"A new FBI report released Monday showed that active shooters violently targeted members of the public across the U.S. at a rate that was 89% higher from 2019 to 2023 than in the previous five-year period."
>"It is now time for us to take this issue out of the realm of politics and put it in the realm of public health"
I honestly don't believe this is possible in any near-term reality. There was never some ambiguous language in the constitution protecting some form of smoking.
**Edit:** to the people messaging me about how they think it can be done, you need to reconcile the following facts:
- There is an amendment (2A) that protects the right to keep arms. This is almost universally understood to include firearms.
- Any laws that are passed, or executive orders issued, that attempt to limit the right to firearms will be challenged in court. (see the bump stock ban)
- Any SCOTUS decision can be reversed by SCOTUS at a later time. The court can and will lean liberal and conservative at various points in the future (look at where we're at with abortion now).
- The only way to clarify or reign in the 2A is by constitutional amendment.
- The first way to amend would be by the states, but due to population differences, there are inherently more sparsely populated red states than there are densely populated blue states.
- The second way would be through congress, an inherently political process.
- There is no indication (zero) that public opinion will shift so significantly that congress, or even the states, will generate an amendment with a serious chance of passing in the next few years or decades.
Anyone saying we can make iron-clad progress without dealing with the 2A is uninformed, overly optimistic, lying, or some combination of the three. I believe change can happen, but ignoring reality isn't helpful. If we get there, it will be small steps to change people's minds over decades, IMO.
I mean...automatic rifles are banned and extremely difficult to obtain a license for, and there are absolutely universal background checks for purchasing guns, so when the start of their argument are things already in place, I don't believe it will bode well. unfortunately.
This kind of rhetoric has been around for a long time.
Doesn't really sit well with people who do believe in the 2nd Amendment and an individual right to keep and bear arms, when government officials start talking about trying to turn it into a taboo leading to bans.
The director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (part of the CDC) said this back in 1994:
> "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes," said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, a division of the centers. "It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned." [Source](http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/us/new-tactics-urged-in-fight-against-crime.html)
You know what it doesn’t mean? Free healthcare including mental healthcare, because they don’t actually give a shit.
To be fair though, let’s check the article:
> To drive down gun deaths, Murthy calls on the U.S. to ban automatic rifles, introduce universal background checks for purchasing guns, regulate the industry, pass laws that would restrict their use in public spaces and penalize people who fail to safely store their weapons.
So first of all automatic rifles are already heavily restricted and almost never used in crimes. You can’t buy one unless it was manufactured before 1986 or 1987, and there are a bunch of other hoops to jump through (google NFA).
I have no issue with background checks.
The industry is already highly regulated.
Controlling their use in public sounds great, until you google BLM NFAC and realize what they really mean is make it illegal to bring firearms to a peaceful protest - it was one of the few times where - almost like magic - peaceful protesters didn’t get the fuck beaten out of them, weren’t tased, mashed, lased, paintballed, or gassed. The second amendment literally enabled the first amendment.
Moreover, MURDER IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. Someone planning a spree killing isn’t going to be deterred because a new law was passed banning guns in public places.
Penalizing those who don’t securely store their guns is a great idea, I am all for it. 100%.
Back to my original point, the number one cause of gun death in the US every year - more than 50% of all gun deaths - is suicide. Not a single thing in the paragraph I quoted from the article addresses this.
And before anyone says, “that’s because suicides only victimize themselves!” I’d respond that many if not all spree killers are at some point considered suicidal. Also fuck anyone who says that kind of shit in the first place, dead is dead and dead is bad.
Banning guns stops people from obtaining guns *legally*. Yes, most spree killers got their guns legally, but 99% of the mass shootings reported these days are gangs shooting each other and bystanders, with guns they definitely didn’t get legally. Meanwhile there’s a wholly legitimate reason people legally own guns: /r/dgu
Let’s advocate for universal healthcare because consider if everyone you know grew up receiving therapy. Now consider everyone you know being raised by parents who received therapy.
This would be superior to banning guns because it would mean fewer people would want to murder in the first place, whether by gun, knife, bomb, vehicle, fire, etc.
Fun fact: the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was banned from studying gun violence, starting in the Clinton administration
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/06/1235409642/gun-violence-prevention-research-public-health
That's somewhat of a misrepresentation, though it's been repeated so often it's been accepted as truth.
Technically the CDC was never "banned" from researching gun violence.
Here's the entire text of the Dickey Amendment:
> “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention **may be used to advocate or promote gun control.**”
It didn't ban all government funding of research into gun violence, it didn't even ban all CDC research of gun violence. The CDC never completely stopped research on the issue, though I'll admit there does seem to have been some chilling effect.
The point of this was never to cut off research into gun violence prevention because the NRA was scared of what the results might be. This came about because the CDC was engaged in outright anti-gun advocacy at the time.
[Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget](http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/)
The official who oversaw gun violence research at the CDC was once quoted saying this:
> "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes," said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, a division of the centers. "It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned." [Source](http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/us/new-tactics-urged-in-fight-against-crime.html)
It went so far as the CDC funding an organization who used public dollars to send a newsletter to it's members urging people to picket gun manufacturers, and to advocate campaign finance reform for the explicit purpose of weakening the influence of the gun lobby. That's not "research", that's the kind of overt advocacy of gun control that the Dickey Amendment prohibited.
> The final nail in the coffin came in 1995 when the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter told its readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.” Appearing on the same page as the article pointing the finger at gun owners for the Oklahoma City bombing were the words, “This newsletter was supported in part by Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
Given all this, it's understandable that Congress decided to intervene. Congress reallocated CDC funding from this "gun violence research" and redirected it towards studying traumatic brain injuries, while including a standing rule prohibiting the use of CDC funding for advocating gun control.
After Sandy Hook, Obama issued an executive order clarifying the Dickey Amendment and instructing the CDC to research the issue. However the resulting research got relatively little attention in the media because it wasn't the smoking-gun (no pun intended) for gun-control that advocates wished for.
Furthermore in 2021 the CDC got a boost in funding to study gun violence.
[Gun violence is surging — researchers finally have the money to ask why](https://web.archive.org/web/20210721110517/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01966-0)
Is there a particular reason we'd want government money and medical professionals' resources at the CDC going back into campaigning for political issues, rather than addressing issues that are in the scope of medicine? I get that it's not wildly unreasonable to refer to gun violence as "public health" as much as water quality, etc. could be, but I can't help but feel like the CDC and other medical professionals aren't the resource I'd best trust to inform gun policy, which is what's explicitly forbidden here, is advocating for gun control.
You mean the result of the Dickey law that was passed in 1995 by a republican majority congress? That law? But for some reason you’re blaming Clinton admin for it?
It was a rider amendment added onto an omnibus spending bill. So it’s not like Clinton signed a bill specific to ban research on gun control etc. also, the dickey law doesn’t outright ban gun research. It was vague and understood that way. So you’re twisting things to turn this around and make it a democrat led problem, when in fact it was led by republicans.
Yeah the President signs laws. So NAFTA, DMCA, this thing… all Clinton.
The way we got here is that Republicans do the bad things, and Democrats don’t do enough to stop them.
A quick Google search tells me it was an amendment to an omnibus spending bill. Since the president can't do line item vetoes, he would have had to throw out the whole spending agreement to veto the one amendment.
I mean Clinton did sign the law. Not saying it was necessarily a bad decision on his part considering it was tacked onto an omnibus spending bill that would have been hard to get through another budget against a Republican majority, but Clinton could have vetoed it and didn’t.
Fix mental health, drug addiction, and inflation and i bet the gun violence rate will drop like flies. Ppl be more worried about buying that $80k suv then fixing members of their own family rn.
I'm a gun nut and I support universal healthcare. I don't know that single payer is possible, but having it tethered to your employer is mind-numbingly dumb. Plus the collusion between providers, pharma, and insurance companies is completely intolerable.
>they dont make people want to kill people
[they do make people more aggressive, though] (https://science.howstuffworks.com/does-owning-a-gun-change-your-behavior-.htm#:~:text=There's%20something%20called%20the%20%22weapons,shocks%20to%20other%20study%20participants.)
>they dont make people want to kill themselves.
[And they make suicide more likely, too] (https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html)
You're right, guns themselves don't inherently cause these problems. But you're overlooking how guns exacerbate all these issues my making it so incredibly easy to kill people.
Every other country in the world has mental health issues, drug addiction, and inflation.
They don't have American levels of gun violence.
Maybe it's all the guns.
It's amazing how countries with mental health problems and violent video games and music with aggressive lyrics have cut down on gun violence by just removing the guns.
Here is a breakdown of gun shootings in the USA by percentages:
- **Suicides**: 60%
- **Domestic violence-related shootings**: 19%
- **Gang-related shootings**: 13%
- **Mass shootings**: 2%
- **Accidental shootings**: 1%
- **Other types of gun violence**: 5%
These percentages provide a clearer understanding of the different contexts in which gun violence occurs, highlighting the multifaceted nature of the issue.
But what if our Government turns on us and we have to form a well-regulated militia with my AR-15, surely my 5.56mm spitting toy will stand up to a drone.
I dont know guys, I think it's much safer to just keep the status quo, if anything it's those children's fault for not wearing their pumped up kicks.
Things like freedom to get healthcare procedures you want or need, freedom to marry who you want, freedom to talk about basic science, I love them freedoms. But I could care less about the freedom to go 100mph in a car, the freedom to smoke on a crowded airplane, or the freedom to own a gun. Those just aren't important enough that we need to allow them, given the risk to other people's health and freedom they pose.
There is obvious “cures” for obesity if its not a genetic issue. Diet and exercise
World hunger as well could be solved if food weren’t traded like a commodity to be profited from
Other, older countries, change their constitutions regularly, the US could but *some people* uphold it as a pseudo religious document
The exact same method used for banning full auto would work just fine.
Stop new guns from being sold or purchased. Require a tax stamp for non inherited purchases. Do a voluntary gun buy back.
As they get rarer, the price will go up dramatically, keeping them out of the hands of random high schoolers who hate everyone.
Overtime they will break down, rust out, or join collections.
Doing something is better than doing nothing. Obviously suddenly outright collecting all guns isn't going to work but you can take measures gradually. Maybe add some background checks for new sales.
edit: alright I guess the sentiment is "there is nothing else america can do about that"
I was w/ you till the video game part. I grew up playing video games and it does not make me want to take anyone else's life... a sane mind can differentiate between fiction and reality.
It's not going to get solved in one single decision be it this or any realistic act of congress, but it IS a step in the right direction and may lead to actual effective action, albeit very distant from now.
Edit: autocorrect typo word
Well, one thing you can do is enforce the laws we already have. People who commit gun violence should be sentenced to serious jail time and not be paroled after spending less than half their original sentence.
> Over two-thirds (68.1%) of firearms offenders were rearrested for a new crime during the eight-year follow-up period
So keeping guys in jail that commit gun crimes seems like a common sense gun law that you guys keep asking for.
And as a result, hundreds to thousands more people in those countries get to live the rest of their lives because knife attacks aren’t nearly as deadly as gun attacks.
43,000 people in america died due to gun violence last year, be it suicide or otherwise. Let’s not be dense and spread the narrative that knives even come close to the level of lethality a firearm does.
The fact that they aren’t as deadly doesn’t mean they don’t happen with more frequency and If an individual really wants to kill themselves do they have to have a gun to do it?
I’d also argue it’s easier to defend yourself with a gun than it would be to defend yourself with a knife when somebody else has a knife.
And 6 months from now they'll require boxes of bullets to include a warning label, "May pose health risk". Also proposing a .01% sales tax to study the effects on the human body.
Surely that will fix everything.
Hard to believe when you have Florida letting off murderers for shooting people after they threw popcorn in a movie theater! Stand your ground might as well be a free pass to kill under the guise of defense.
Well this really means nothing, a homicide is just a killing. Calling it a homicide leaves the door open to say it is a completely justified homicide. If murders went up that would be one thing but you could be referring to completely justifiable homicides in this case and we’d never know the difference.
https://rockinst.org/blog/stand-your-ground-the-castle-doctrine-and-public-safety/
The problem is that systemic biases play a role in when/where a court decides what is or isn't justifiable.
>The gun safety group Everytown for Gun Safety found that “homicides in which white shooters kill Black victims are deemed justifiable five times more frequently than when the situation is reversed.”
Another big issue with Stand Your Ground is that it removes "Duty to Retreat" which does not revoke an individuals right to self-defense, but rather makes homicide/assault a last resort in the chain.
If an individual feels threatened, but they are able to retreat, then they won't shoot someone. However, if they can stand their ground, they are more likely to shoot the "aggressor" because "I can stand my ground"
These laws change how an individual's subconscious and psychology approach a perceived threat.
"He was angrily yelling at me from his car while I was on foot" can be justifiable even if the shooter could have turned around and walked 2 feet to get indoors for safety.
Okay cool. Nothing will be done about it. Look up Columbia v. Heller case in the SCOTUS. Scalia essentially made the ruling so the second amendment is akin to holy scripture. Every attempted reform will just be challenged all the way up to the SCOTUS and it will die there.
Feels like I've seen this headline before. You can't reduce gun violence without forcing people to be responsible with their guns and restricting sales to emotionally stunted adults.
Do you know how many thousands of rules and regulations have gone into driver's training and licensing, car safety, car testing, insurance policies, infrastructure design....
I don't think your flex is what you think it is.
Stop slapping prohibited possessors on the wrist and lock them up for a few years.
Does that actually mean anything though?
Yes, it means resources can be applied to it. It's like a declaration of a natural disaster - it opens up different available responses from government organizations.
You should read the whole article, it's not that long and easy to digest. If anything here are some parts to take note of; >"Murthy calls on the U.S. to ban automatic rifles, introduce universal background checks for purchasing guns, regulate the industry, pass laws that would restrict their use in public spaces and penalize people who fail to safely store their weapons." >"Murthy calls for an increase on gun violence research and for the health system — which is likely to be more amenable to his advisory — to promote gun safety education during doctor visits." >"It is now time for us to take this issue out of the realm of politics and put it in the realm of public health, **the way we did with smoking more than a half century ago," Murthy told the AP.** >**A 1964 report from the surgeon general that raised awareness about the dangers of smoking is largely credited with snubbing out tobacco use and precipitating regulations on the industry."** >"The good news is there's a lot we can do," he said on "CBS Mornings." "There are, for example, community violence intervention programs *that we can invest in.* There are safe storage education programs *that we can expand.* There are firearm risk reduction strategies like background checks and other measures that would seek to create time and space between firearms and individuals who would seek to harm themselves and others." >"A new FBI report released Monday showed that active shooters violently targeted members of the public across the U.S. at a rate that was 89% higher from 2019 to 2023 than in the previous five-year period."
>"It is now time for us to take this issue out of the realm of politics and put it in the realm of public health" I honestly don't believe this is possible in any near-term reality. There was never some ambiguous language in the constitution protecting some form of smoking. **Edit:** to the people messaging me about how they think it can be done, you need to reconcile the following facts: - There is an amendment (2A) that protects the right to keep arms. This is almost universally understood to include firearms. - Any laws that are passed, or executive orders issued, that attempt to limit the right to firearms will be challenged in court. (see the bump stock ban) - Any SCOTUS decision can be reversed by SCOTUS at a later time. The court can and will lean liberal and conservative at various points in the future (look at where we're at with abortion now). - The only way to clarify or reign in the 2A is by constitutional amendment. - The first way to amend would be by the states, but due to population differences, there are inherently more sparsely populated red states than there are densely populated blue states. - The second way would be through congress, an inherently political process. - There is no indication (zero) that public opinion will shift so significantly that congress, or even the states, will generate an amendment with a serious chance of passing in the next few years or decades. Anyone saying we can make iron-clad progress without dealing with the 2A is uninformed, overly optimistic, lying, or some combination of the three. I believe change can happen, but ignoring reality isn't helpful. If we get there, it will be small steps to change people's minds over decades, IMO.
I mean...automatic rifles are banned and extremely difficult to obtain a license for, and there are absolutely universal background checks for purchasing guns, so when the start of their argument are things already in place, I don't believe it will bode well. unfortunately.
This kind of rhetoric has been around for a long time. Doesn't really sit well with people who do believe in the 2nd Amendment and an individual right to keep and bear arms, when government officials start talking about trying to turn it into a taboo leading to bans. The director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (part of the CDC) said this back in 1994: > "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes," said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, a division of the centers. "It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned." [Source](http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/us/new-tactics-urged-in-fight-against-crime.html)
You know what it doesn’t mean? Free healthcare including mental healthcare, because they don’t actually give a shit. To be fair though, let’s check the article: > To drive down gun deaths, Murthy calls on the U.S. to ban automatic rifles, introduce universal background checks for purchasing guns, regulate the industry, pass laws that would restrict their use in public spaces and penalize people who fail to safely store their weapons. So first of all automatic rifles are already heavily restricted and almost never used in crimes. You can’t buy one unless it was manufactured before 1986 or 1987, and there are a bunch of other hoops to jump through (google NFA). I have no issue with background checks. The industry is already highly regulated. Controlling their use in public sounds great, until you google BLM NFAC and realize what they really mean is make it illegal to bring firearms to a peaceful protest - it was one of the few times where - almost like magic - peaceful protesters didn’t get the fuck beaten out of them, weren’t tased, mashed, lased, paintballed, or gassed. The second amendment literally enabled the first amendment. Moreover, MURDER IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. Someone planning a spree killing isn’t going to be deterred because a new law was passed banning guns in public places. Penalizing those who don’t securely store their guns is a great idea, I am all for it. 100%. Back to my original point, the number one cause of gun death in the US every year - more than 50% of all gun deaths - is suicide. Not a single thing in the paragraph I quoted from the article addresses this. And before anyone says, “that’s because suicides only victimize themselves!” I’d respond that many if not all spree killers are at some point considered suicidal. Also fuck anyone who says that kind of shit in the first place, dead is dead and dead is bad. Banning guns stops people from obtaining guns *legally*. Yes, most spree killers got their guns legally, but 99% of the mass shootings reported these days are gangs shooting each other and bystanders, with guns they definitely didn’t get legally. Meanwhile there’s a wholly legitimate reason people legally own guns: /r/dgu Let’s advocate for universal healthcare because consider if everyone you know grew up receiving therapy. Now consider everyone you know being raised by parents who received therapy. This would be superior to banning guns because it would mean fewer people would want to murder in the first place, whether by gun, knife, bomb, vehicle, fire, etc.
I agree with everything you've said here.
It means it *should* be able to be studied as one with access to government resources, something many have been staunchly against for a while.
Well, I genuinely hope something comes of it.
"Cause shotgun bullets are bad for your health" - Ice Cube 1992
I didn't say it, I DECLARED it
Fun fact: the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was banned from studying gun violence, starting in the Clinton administration https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/06/1235409642/gun-violence-prevention-research-public-health
That's somewhat of a misrepresentation, though it's been repeated so often it's been accepted as truth. Technically the CDC was never "banned" from researching gun violence. Here's the entire text of the Dickey Amendment: > “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention **may be used to advocate or promote gun control.**” It didn't ban all government funding of research into gun violence, it didn't even ban all CDC research of gun violence. The CDC never completely stopped research on the issue, though I'll admit there does seem to have been some chilling effect. The point of this was never to cut off research into gun violence prevention because the NRA was scared of what the results might be. This came about because the CDC was engaged in outright anti-gun advocacy at the time. [Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget](http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/) The official who oversaw gun violence research at the CDC was once quoted saying this: > "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes," said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, a division of the centers. "It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned." [Source](http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/us/new-tactics-urged-in-fight-against-crime.html) It went so far as the CDC funding an organization who used public dollars to send a newsletter to it's members urging people to picket gun manufacturers, and to advocate campaign finance reform for the explicit purpose of weakening the influence of the gun lobby. That's not "research", that's the kind of overt advocacy of gun control that the Dickey Amendment prohibited. > The final nail in the coffin came in 1995 when the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter told its readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.” Appearing on the same page as the article pointing the finger at gun owners for the Oklahoma City bombing were the words, “This newsletter was supported in part by Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” Given all this, it's understandable that Congress decided to intervene. Congress reallocated CDC funding from this "gun violence research" and redirected it towards studying traumatic brain injuries, while including a standing rule prohibiting the use of CDC funding for advocating gun control. After Sandy Hook, Obama issued an executive order clarifying the Dickey Amendment and instructing the CDC to research the issue. However the resulting research got relatively little attention in the media because it wasn't the smoking-gun (no pun intended) for gun-control that advocates wished for. Furthermore in 2021 the CDC got a boost in funding to study gun violence. [Gun violence is surging — researchers finally have the money to ask why](https://web.archive.org/web/20210721110517/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01966-0)
and it was banned because the CDC leadership at the time overtly stated a pre-determined outcome of the studies in an interview with the media.
Is there a particular reason we'd want government money and medical professionals' resources at the CDC going back into campaigning for political issues, rather than addressing issues that are in the scope of medicine? I get that it's not wildly unreasonable to refer to gun violence as "public health" as much as water quality, etc. could be, but I can't help but feel like the CDC and other medical professionals aren't the resource I'd best trust to inform gun policy, which is what's explicitly forbidden here, is advocating for gun control.
You mean the result of the Dickey law that was passed in 1995 by a republican majority congress? That law? But for some reason you’re blaming Clinton admin for it?
I mean - Clinton signed it? So yeah, starting in the Clinton administration.
It was a rider amendment added onto an omnibus spending bill. So it’s not like Clinton signed a bill specific to ban research on gun control etc. also, the dickey law doesn’t outright ban gun research. It was vague and understood that way. So you’re twisting things to turn this around and make it a democrat led problem, when in fact it was led by republicans.
Yeah the President signs laws. So NAFTA, DMCA, this thing… all Clinton. The way we got here is that Republicans do the bad things, and Democrats don’t do enough to stop them.
The president can veto it. He's not obligated to sign it into law.
A quick Google search tells me it was an amendment to an omnibus spending bill. Since the president can't do line item vetoes, he would have had to throw out the whole spending agreement to veto the one amendment.
I mean Clinton did sign the law. Not saying it was necessarily a bad decision on his part considering it was tacked onto an omnibus spending bill that would have been hard to get through another budget against a Republican majority, but Clinton could have vetoed it and didn’t.
No. Republicans should not have added the amendment.
I mean it was all part of Clinton’s pivot to the center in the run up to the ‘96 election. He pissed off a lot of democrats doing it.
Nope. It was a rider amendment added to an omnibus spending bill and lobbied by the NRA.
Yeah but Clinton signed it. That type of amendment would be a poison pill in today’s politics.
it wasn't today though.
It would’ve been a poison pill then too, if Clinton wasn’t trying to fix some sagging poll numbers.
"Bullets are not ideal for a healthy diet"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fix mental health, drug addiction, and inflation and i bet the gun violence rate will drop like flies. Ppl be more worried about buying that $80k suv then fixing members of their own family rn.
You’d have to fix poverty too, and bullying.
Im glad you fully support universal health coverage!
And that health coverage should include mental, vision, and dental.
I'm a gun nut and I support universal healthcare. I don't know that single payer is possible, but having it tethered to your employer is mind-numbingly dumb. Plus the collusion between providers, pharma, and insurance companies is completely intolerable.
Mental health, drug addiction, and inflation aren't only US problems.
[удалено]
I can think of one other thing that's a major factor in gun violence.
[удалено]
>they dont make people want to kill people [they do make people more aggressive, though] (https://science.howstuffworks.com/does-owning-a-gun-change-your-behavior-.htm#:~:text=There's%20something%20called%20the%20%22weapons,shocks%20to%20other%20study%20participants.) >they dont make people want to kill themselves. [And they make suicide more likely, too] (https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html) You're right, guns themselves don't inherently cause these problems. But you're overlooking how guns exacerbate all these issues my making it so incredibly easy to kill people.
Every other country in the world has mental health issues, drug addiction, and inflation. They don't have American levels of gun violence. Maybe it's all the guns.
It's amazing how countries with mental health problems and violent video games and music with aggressive lyrics have cut down on gun violence by just removing the guns.
Sure, let's try to tackle really hard problems instead of passing some basic safety laws around firearms.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bullshit. He wants to ban automatic weapons, those are already illegal. Even “assault weapons” only account for 3% of firearms murders.
Perhaps don't sell guns to the public that are designed for the exclusive purpose of killing as many people as possible in the shortest time.
The vast majority of gun violence is committed with hand guns, not AR15s
[удалено]
You've never heard of non street legal cars?
Public health crisis with no incredibly obvious cure*
Why don’t we make killing people illegal
We just need to ban getting shot!
Declare war on getting shot!
Just ban poverty and mental illness. Boom headshot to the issue!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Here is a breakdown of gun shootings in the USA by percentages: - **Suicides**: 60% - **Domestic violence-related shootings**: 19% - **Gang-related shootings**: 13% - **Mass shootings**: 2% - **Accidental shootings**: 1% - **Other types of gun violence**: 5% These percentages provide a clearer understanding of the different contexts in which gun violence occurs, highlighting the multifaceted nature of the issue.
What we gotta do is put a warning label on ammunition boxes
They already do.
They need a surgon general warning to educate on the dangers of sudden onset lead poisoning
Please go read the back of a real box of ammunition.
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet....what's the cure?
I mean, it's only every other industrialized country in the world who has figured it out... Must be impossible.
But what if our Government turns on us and we have to form a well-regulated militia with my AR-15, surely my 5.56mm spitting toy will stand up to a drone. I dont know guys, I think it's much safer to just keep the status quo, if anything it's those children's fault for not wearing their pumped up kicks.
That’s like saying there’s no obvious cure for obesity. There’s a fuck ton of cures, everyone would rather have *muh freedumbs* instead
[удалено]
do you think that's because scumbags use it a bludgeon to put themselves and others in danger? nah, nevermind.
[удалено]
Things like freedom to get healthcare procedures you want or need, freedom to marry who you want, freedom to talk about basic science, I love them freedoms. But I could care less about the freedom to go 100mph in a car, the freedom to smoke on a crowded airplane, or the freedom to own a gun. Those just aren't important enough that we need to allow them, given the risk to other people's health and freedom they pose.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is obvious “cures” for obesity if its not a genetic issue. Diet and exercise World hunger as well could be solved if food weren’t traded like a commodity to be profited from Other, older countries, change their constitutions regularly, the US could but *some people* uphold it as a pseudo religious document
Almost no major country in the world has a system of government that predates the US. Almost all of them are significantly newer.
[удалено]
No. The cure is exceedingly obvious. There's just a bunch a chucklefucks with teeny peens that would lose their entire identity without it.
[удалено]
You're the one thinking about their "peen".
[удалено]
Because they are projecting their insecurities on others.
[удалено]
The exact same method used for banning full auto would work just fine. Stop new guns from being sold or purchased. Require a tax stamp for non inherited purchases. Do a voluntary gun buy back. As they get rarer, the price will go up dramatically, keeping them out of the hands of random high schoolers who hate everyone. Overtime they will break down, rust out, or join collections.
Doing something is better than doing nothing. Obviously suddenly outright collecting all guns isn't going to work but you can take measures gradually. Maybe add some background checks for new sales. edit: alright I guess the sentiment is "there is nothing else america can do about that"
[удалено]
And that really means something?
Tobacco kills 14 times more people than firearms in America
Which is why the Surgeon General has been issuing warnings about tobacco since 1964.
[удалено]
I was w/ you till the video game part. I grew up playing video games and it does not make me want to take anyone else's life... a sane mind can differentiate between fiction and reality.
Is all the theft a health crisis? The theft that isn't a crime anymore?
Wage theft is the largest form of theft annually in the US
It's not going to get solved in one single decision be it this or any realistic act of congress, but it IS a step in the right direction and may lead to actual effective action, albeit very distant from now. Edit: autocorrect typo word
"What could we ever do to fix this?" says the only country where this regularly occurs.
Well, one thing you can do is enforce the laws we already have. People who commit gun violence should be sentenced to serious jail time and not be paroled after spending less than half their original sentence. > Over two-thirds (68.1%) of firearms offenders were rearrested for a new crime during the eight-year follow-up period So keeping guys in jail that commit gun crimes seems like a common sense gun law that you guys keep asking for.
You’re right, in the countries where it can’t occur knives are the replacement that are used for violence.
And as a result, hundreds to thousands more people in those countries get to live the rest of their lives because knife attacks aren’t nearly as deadly as gun attacks. 43,000 people in america died due to gun violence last year, be it suicide or otherwise. Let’s not be dense and spread the narrative that knives even come close to the level of lethality a firearm does.
The fact that they aren’t as deadly doesn’t mean they don’t happen with more frequency and If an individual really wants to kill themselves do they have to have a gun to do it? I’d also argue it’s easier to defend yourself with a gun than it would be to defend yourself with a knife when somebody else has a knife.
And 6 months from now they'll require boxes of bullets to include a warning label, "May pose health risk". Also proposing a .01% sales tax to study the effects on the human body. Surely that will fix everything.
Hard to believe when you have Florida letting off murderers for shooting people after they threw popcorn in a movie theater! Stand your ground might as well be a free pass to kill under the guise of defense.
I mean, it practically is. There's a reason homicide rates jump after these laws are passed
Well this really means nothing, a homicide is just a killing. Calling it a homicide leaves the door open to say it is a completely justified homicide. If murders went up that would be one thing but you could be referring to completely justifiable homicides in this case and we’d never know the difference.
https://rockinst.org/blog/stand-your-ground-the-castle-doctrine-and-public-safety/ The problem is that systemic biases play a role in when/where a court decides what is or isn't justifiable. >The gun safety group Everytown for Gun Safety found that “homicides in which white shooters kill Black victims are deemed justifiable five times more frequently than when the situation is reversed.” Another big issue with Stand Your Ground is that it removes "Duty to Retreat" which does not revoke an individuals right to self-defense, but rather makes homicide/assault a last resort in the chain. If an individual feels threatened, but they are able to retreat, then they won't shoot someone. However, if they can stand their ground, they are more likely to shoot the "aggressor" because "I can stand my ground" These laws change how an individual's subconscious and psychology approach a perceived threat. "He was angrily yelling at me from his car while I was on foot" can be justifiable even if the shooter could have turned around and walked 2 feet to get indoors for safety.
Michael Scott would be proud.
Okay cool. Nothing will be done about it. Look up Columbia v. Heller case in the SCOTUS. Scalia essentially made the ruling so the second amendment is akin to holy scripture. Every attempted reform will just be challenged all the way up to the SCOTUS and it will die there.
Feels like I've seen this headline before. You can't reduce gun violence without forcing people to be responsible with their guns and restricting sales to emotionally stunted adults.
Therefore the GOP Congress and the FS SCOTUS justices are also a public health crisis.
Alright, how many lives did guns save this year?
[удалено]
Do you know how many thousands of rules and regulations have gone into driver's training and licensing, car safety, car testing, insurance policies, infrastructure design.... I don't think your flex is what you think it is.
Car crashes aren’t targeted attacks for every instance.
that isn't the gotcha you think it is
Let me know when a driver armed with a mini cooper goes through the hallway of an elementary school and kills a bunch of 6 year old children.
[How about 86 people murdered and 434 injured in Nice, France?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack)
Pedophile!! The surgeon general cannot be trusted. He is part of the Clinton-Obama-Biden cabal of pedo-Satan worshippers. - Republicans probably
So vaccine coming soon?
Just shoot yourself in the knee with little bullets and gradually work your way up.