thewhitrbbit wrote:
The problem is that it would sentence others to die. While you don't often see it on the national news, there are thousands of guns used in self defense in America against attackers who don't always attack with guns. (I'm thinking of several stories involving knives.) These people were attacked in their home, and had to defend themselves before police could arrive. There is another aspect, that cannot be measured. In many states, citizens can obtain a permit to carry. Data shows these citizens are extremely law abiding. What no survey can show, is how many criminals think twice because of the possibility of someone being armed.
Research I've looked for doesn't back that up. This page discusses several beliefs about the use of firearms for defense and what research has determined:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.htmlQuote:
Sadly, I am seeing more and more about gun control and less and less about mental health. I feel we will make no meaningful reforms on the mental health issue.
Sadly, I am seeing people trying to make mental illness the issue even though mentally ill people are, by a pretty wide margin, significantly more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. A very small number of mentally ill people become killers. Guns are one of the leading murder weapons in the US.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8Also, can we talk about how the NRA has acted directly against the CDC to prevent it from doing research into firearm usage and deaths caused by firearms?
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nra ... n_science/Quote:
As the tragic shooting in Colorado last week has reignited the debate over guns, one key public policy question — does gun control save lives? — is almost impossible to answer thanks to a dearth of research on the subject. That lack of research is no accident. It’s the product of a concerted campaign by the gun lobby and its allies on Capitol Hill to stymie and even explicitly outlaw scientific research into gun violence in what critics charge is an attempt to deceive the public about the dangers of guns.
Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “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.”
David Satcher, the then-director of the CDC, wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post in November of 1995 warning that the NRA’s “shotgun assault” on the CDC was dangerous both for public health and for our democracy:
What ought to be of wider concern, is the second argument advanced by the NRA — that firearms research funded by the CDC is so biased against gun ownership that all such funding ought to cease. Here is a prescription for inaction on a major cause of death and disability. Here is a charge that not only casts doubt on the ability of scientists to conduct research involving controversial issues but also raises basic questions about the ability, fundamental to any democracy, to have honest, searching public discussions of such issues.
Dickey’s clause, which remains in effect today, has had a chilling effect on all scientific research into gun safety, as gun rights advocates view “advocacy” as any research that notices that guns are dangerous. Stephen Teret, who co-directs the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told Salon: “They sent a message and the message was heard loud and clear. People [at the CDC], then and now, know that if they start going down that road, their budget is going to be vulnerable. And the way public agencies work, they know how this works and they’re not going to stick their necks out.”
There is more to the article at the link.
I am not surprised that pro-gun advocates are alarmed that the conversation this time is focusing on guns and gun violence. That is the last thing they want. It seems they'd much rather blame violence on TV, movies, videogames, and mental illness to prevent any kind of measure taken to control the distribution and use of firearms. What bothers me is seeing people on this forum advocate against mentally ill people as potential threats that must be isolated and controlled, despite the fact that mental illness is not a predictor for violence.
23 Dec 2012, 9:04 pm
