Yeah, really shitty. As anyone who has ever taken a hunter safety or firearms safety course is taught - see your target in your sights before you pull the trigger. Shooting at noises in the dark, shooting at noises through doors, shooting at noises in the bushes are all idiotic things to do.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Yeah, really shitty. As anyone who has ever taken a hunter safety or firearms safety course is taught - see your target in your sights before you pull the trigger. Shooting at noises in the dark, shooting at noises through doors, shooting at noises in the bushes are all idiotic things to do.
Agreed.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Yeah, really shitty. As anyone who has ever taken a hunter safety or firearms safety course is taught - see your target in your sights before you pull the trigger. Shooting at noises in the dark, shooting at noises through doors, shooting at noises in the bushes are all idiotic things to do.
Agreed even in your own house wouldn't you scream out " hey who is down there" But to kill your own kid damn i'm not sure but id rather not have a gun ...
Yeah, really shitty. As anyone who has ever taken a hunter safety or firearms safety course is taught - see your target in your sights before you pull the trigger. Shooting at noises in the dark, shooting at noises through doors, shooting at noises in the bushes are all idiotic things to do.
Agreed even in your own house wouldn't you scream out " hey who is down there" But to kill your own kid damn i'm not sure but id rather not have a gun ...
I agree. I can't imagine how fucked up that would be, and have no idea how I'd live with myself.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
the same media that is tirelessly advocating repeal of the 4th Amendment is the same media putting this story on the front burner. How many stories do you hear about people saving themselves from a robbery or rape because they had a LEGAL firearm on their person? never on MSNBC
Right. That's why liberals watch MSNBC and conservatives watch Fox. Confirmation bias. The data is out there for both sides to make their cases. Many crimes are thwarted by armed, law-abiding citizens every day. But many senseless deaths occur every day from the presence of firearms. You won't get a clear picture by watching MSNBC or Fox, or by reading NRA material or Coalition to Stop Gun Violence material. That's the problem with any issue of interest - finding trusted sources that provide a balanced analysis of data.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Right. That's why liberals watch MSNBC and conservatives watch Fox. Confirmation bias. The data is out there for both sides to make their cases. Many crimes are thwarted by armed, law-abiding citizens every day. But many senseless deaths occur every day from the presence of firearms. You won't get a clear picture by watching MSNBC or Fox, or by reading NRA material or Coalition to Stop Gun Violence material. That's the problem with any issue of interest - finding trusted sources that provide a balanced analysis of data.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
the same media that is tirelessly advocating repeal of the 4th Amendment is the same media putting this story on the front burner. How many stories do you hear about people saving themselves from a robbery or rape because they had a LEGAL firearm on their person? never on MSNBC
The 4th amendment??? Since when has anybody on either side (besides law enforcement) advocated for repeal of the 4th amendment? Did you mean 2nd?
Right. That's why liberals watch MSNBC and conservatives watch Fox. Confirmation bias. The data is out there for both sides to make their cases. Many crimes are thwarted by armed, law-abiding citizens every day. But many senseless deaths occur every day from the presence of firearms. You won't get a clear picture by watching MSNBC or Fox, or by reading NRA material or Coalition to Stop Gun Violence material. That's the problem with any issue of interest - finding trusted sources that provide a balanced analysis of data.
Like NIH or CDC? Oh thats right.....
Haha, well since I have no faith or trust in the federal government to provide me with accurate information, I'm skeptical of those sources, too. The feds always have an agenda, and frequently demonstrate incompetence, so it is probably wise to consider the source, even if it is "official".
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I d love an objective news station... Just the facts and then let me make my own opinion.
Yeah, that would be sweet. The closest I can think of are the bulletins the AP and Reuters put out. Those tend to just state the facts and have zero editorial content.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
the same media that is tirelessly advocating repeal of the 4th Amendment is the same media putting this story on the front burner. How many stories do you hear about people saving themselves from a robbery or rape because they had a LEGAL firearm on their person? never on MSNBC
The 4th amendment??? Since when has anybody on either side (besides law enforcement) advocated for repeal of the 4th amendment? Did you mean 2nd?
NSA and its champions are chipping away at the 4th for sure under the guise of "protecting us" from turrourists
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
the same media that is tirelessly advocating repeal of the 4th Amendment is the same media putting this story on the front burner. How many stories do you hear about people saving themselves from a robbery or rape because they had a LEGAL firearm on their person? never on MSNBC
More guns equals more unintentional deaths by guns.
The wonderful GOP in Wisconsin is trying to pass a bill making guns ok in schools for concealed carry holders. Look, you want to hunt, fine, heck I'd gladly take some venison from you. You want a handgun to protect you in your home cause you think isis is coming for you, ok i don't get it but whatever. You want to bring a gun into a school where my wife works and future children may attend? HELL FN NO! This may be the dumbest piece of legislation I've ever heard.
Alpine Valley 6/26/98, Alpine Valley 10/8/00, Champaign 4/23/03, Chicago 6/18/03, Alpine Valley 6/21/03, Grand Rapids 10/3/04
Chicago 5/16/06, Chicago 5/17/06, Grand Rapids 5/19/06
Milwaukee 6/29/06, Milwaukee 6/30/06, Lollapalooza 8/5/07
Eddie Solo Milwaukee 8/19/08, Toronto 8/21/09, Chicago 8/23/09
Chicago 8/24/09, Indianapolis 5/7/10, Ed Chicago 6/29/11, Alpine Valley 9/3/11 and 9/4/11, Wrigley 7/19/13, Moline 10/18/14, Milwaukee 10/20/14
the same media that is tirelessly advocating repeal of the 4th Amendment is the same media putting this story on the front burner. How many stories do you hear about people saving themselves from a robbery or rape because they had a LEGAL firearm on their person? never on MSNBC
More guns equals more unintentional deaths by guns.
the same media that is tirelessly advocating repeal of the 4th Amendment is the same media putting this story on the front burner. How many stories do you hear about people saving themselves from a robbery or rape because they had a LEGAL firearm on their person? never on MSNBC
More guns equals more unintentional deaths by guns.
the same media that is tirelessly advocating repeal of the 4th Amendment is the same media putting this story on the front burner. How many stories do you hear about people saving themselves from a robbery or rape because they had a LEGAL firearm on their person? never on MSNBC
More guns equals more unintentional deaths by guns.
the same media that is tirelessly advocating repeal of the 4th Amendment is the same media putting this story on the front burner. How many stories do you hear about people saving themselves from a robbery or rape because they had a LEGAL firearm on their person? never on MSNBC
More guns equals more unintentional deaths by guns.
A harvard study? No they never tend to have a liberal bias ova at Hahhvaad.
Maybe.
But they're infinitely more credible than the NRA and other offshoots.
Are you suggesting their data is misrepresented and misleading?
An institution such as this which relies heavilly on reputation for grants to conduct research would have to have insane leadership to allow political bias to enter it scientific community on peer reviewed published papers.
This illistrates a problem though, that ANY study of guns and the harm that comes is seen as the begining of confication or unconstitutional gun law/regulation reform.
I believe the words "well regulated" refer to well trained as intended in the 2nd.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
the same media that is tirelessly advocating repeal of the 4th Amendment is the same media putting this story on the front burner. How many stories do you hear about people saving themselves from a robbery or rape because they had a LEGAL firearm on their person? never on MSNBC
More guns equals more unintentional deaths by guns.
A harvard study? No they never tend to have a liberal bias ova at Hahhvaad.
Maybe.
But they're infinitely more credible than the NRA and other offshoots.
Are you suggesting their data is misrepresented and misleading?
An institution such as this which relies heavilly on reputation for grants to conduct research would have to have insane leadership to allow political bias to enter it scientific community on peer reviewed published papers.
This illistrates a problem though, that NY study of guns and the harm that comes is seen as the begining of confication or unconstitutional gun law/regulation reform.
I believe the words "well regulated" refer to well trained as intended in the 2nd.
Don't mistake me- I'm agree with what you're saying.
I only suggested that if indeed they were inherently 'liberal'... that attitude wouldn't be reflected in any study they administer.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
FOR those of us who argue in favor of gun safety laws, there are a few inconvenient facts.
We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.
Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes.
Move on to open-carry and conceal-carry laws: With some 13 million Americans now licensed to pack a concealed gun, many liberals expected gun battles to be erupting all around us. In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected). Liberals were closer to the truth, for the increase in carrying loaded guns does appear to have led to more aggravated assaults with guns, but the fears were overblown.
One of the puzzles of American politics is that most voters want gun regulation, but Congress resists. One poll found that 74 percent even of N.R.A. members favor universal background checks to acquire a gun. Likewise, the latest New York Times poll found that 62 percent of Americans approved of President Obama’s executive actions on guns this month.
So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.
And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.”
Yet this, too, must be said: Americans are absolutely right to be outraged at the toll of guns. Just since 1970, more Americans have died from guns than all the Americans who died in wars going back to the American Revolution (about 1.45 million vs. 1.4 million). That gun toll includes suicides, murders and accidents, and these days it amounts to 92 bodies a day.
We spend billions of dollars tackling terrorism, which killed 229 Americans worldwide from 2005 through 2014, according to the State Department. In the same 10 years, including suicides, some 310,000 Americans died from guns.
So of course we should try to reduce this carnage. But we need a new strategy, a public health approach that treats guns as we do cars — taking evidence-based steps to make them safer. That seems to be what President Obama is trying to do.
Research suggests that the most important practical step would be to keep guns away from high-risk individuals, such as criminals, those who abuse alcohol, or those who beat up their domestic partners. That means universal background checks before somebody acquires a gun. New Harvard research confirms a long-ago finding that 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. That’s crazy. Why empower criminals to arm themselves?
Some evidence supports steps that seem common sense. More than 10 percent of murders in the United States, for example, are by intimate partners. The riskiest moment is often after a violent breakup when a woman has won a restraining order against her ex. Prohibiting the subjects of those restraining orders from possessing a gun reduces these murders by 10 percent, one study found.
“If you can keep a gun from someone at that moment of threat, that is very important,” notes Daniel W. Webster, a gun safety expert at Johns Hopkins University who has pioneered research on keeping guns from high-risk individuals. Some public health approaches to reducing gun violence have nothing to do with guns. Researchers find that a nonprofit called Cure Violence, which works with gangs, curbs gun deaths. An initiative called Fast Track supports high-risk children and reduces delinquency and adult crime.
In short, let’s get smarter. Let’s make America’s gun battles less ideological and more driven by evidence of what works. If the left can drop the sanctimony, and the right can drop the obstructionism, if instead of wrestling with each other we can grapple with the evidence, we can save thousands of lives a year.
FOR those of us who argue in favor of gun safety laws, there are a few inconvenient facts.
We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.
Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes.
Move on to open-carry and conceal-carry laws: With some 13 million Americans now licensed to pack a concealed gun, many liberals expected gun battles to be erupting all around us. In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected). Liberals were closer to the truth, for the increase in carrying loaded guns does appear to have led to more aggravated assaults with guns, but the fears were overblown.
One of the puzzles of American politics is that most voters want gun regulation, but Congress resists. One poll found that 74 percent even of N.R.A. members favor universal background checks to acquire a gun. Likewise, the latest New York Times poll found that 62 percent of Americans approved of President Obama’s executive actions on guns this month.
So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.
And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.”
Yet this, too, must be said: Americans are absolutely right to be outraged at the toll of guns. Just since 1970, more Americans have died from guns than all the Americans who died in wars going back to the American Revolution (about 1.45 million vs. 1.4 million). That gun toll includes suicides, murders and accidents, and these days it amounts to 92 bodies a day.
We spend billions of dollars tackling terrorism, which killed 229 Americans worldwide from 2005 through 2014, according to the State Department. In the same 10 years, including suicides, some 310,000 Americans died from guns.
So of course we should try to reduce this carnage. But we need a new strategy, a public health approach that treats guns as we do cars — taking evidence-based steps to make them safer. That seems to be what President Obama is trying to do.
Research suggests that the most important practical step would be to keep guns away from high-risk individuals, such as criminals, those who abuse alcohol, or those who beat up their domestic partners. That means universal background checks before somebody acquires a gun. New Harvard research confirms a long-ago finding that 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. That’s crazy. Why empower criminals to arm themselves?
Some evidence supports steps that seem common sense. More than 10 percent of murders in the United States, for example, are by intimate partners. The riskiest moment is often after a violent breakup when a woman has won a restraining order against her ex. Prohibiting the subjects of those restraining orders from possessing a gun reduces these murders by 10 percent, one study found.
“If you can keep a gun from someone at that moment of threat, that is very important,” notes Daniel W. Webster, a gun safety expert at Johns Hopkins University who has pioneered research on keeping guns from high-risk individuals. Some public health approaches to reducing gun violence have nothing to do with guns. Researchers find that a nonprofit called Cure Violence, which works with gangs, curbs gun deaths. An initiative called Fast Track supports high-risk children and reduces delinquency and adult crime.
In short, let’s get smarter. Let’s make America’s gun battles less ideological and more driven by evidence of what works. If the left can drop the sanctimony, and the right can drop the obstructionism, if instead of wrestling with each other we can grapple with the evidence, we can save thousands of lives a year.
Congress simply has to allow funding of the research , which includes reporting requirements from the states to include police shootings.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
FOR those of us who argue in favor of gun safety laws, there are a few inconvenient facts.
We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.
Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes.
Move on to open-carry and conceal-carry laws: With some 13 million Americans now licensed to pack a concealed gun, many liberals expected gun battles to be erupting all around us. In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected). Liberals were closer to the truth, for the increase in carrying loaded guns does appear to have led to more aggravated assaults with guns, but the fears were overblown.
One of the puzzles of American politics is that most voters want gun regulation, but Congress resists. One poll found that 74 percent even of N.R.A. members favor universal background checks to acquire a gun. Likewise, the latest New York Times poll found that 62 percent of Americans approved of President Obama’s executive actions on guns this month.
So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.
And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.”
Yet this, too, must be said: Americans are absolutely right to be outraged at the toll of guns. Just since 1970, more Americans have died from guns than all the Americans who died in wars going back to the American Revolution (about 1.45 million vs. 1.4 million). That gun toll includes suicides, murders and accidents, and these days it amounts to 92 bodies a day.
We spend billions of dollars tackling terrorism, which killed 229 Americans worldwide from 2005 through 2014, according to the State Department. In the same 10 years, including suicides, some 310,000 Americans died from guns.
So of course we should try to reduce this carnage. But we need a new strategy, a public health approach that treats guns as we do cars — taking evidence-based steps to make them safer. That seems to be what President Obama is trying to do.
Research suggests that the most important practical step would be to keep guns away from high-risk individuals, such as criminals, those who abuse alcohol, or those who beat up their domestic partners. That means universal background checks before somebody acquires a gun. New Harvard research confirms a long-ago finding that 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. That’s crazy. Why empower criminals to arm themselves?
Some evidence supports steps that seem common sense. More than 10 percent of murders in the United States, for example, are by intimate partners. The riskiest moment is often after a violent breakup when a woman has won a restraining order against her ex. Prohibiting the subjects of those restraining orders from possessing a gun reduces these murders by 10 percent, one study found.
“If you can keep a gun from someone at that moment of threat, that is very important,” notes Daniel W. Webster, a gun safety expert at Johns Hopkins University who has pioneered research on keeping guns from high-risk individuals. Some public health approaches to reducing gun violence have nothing to do with guns. Researchers find that a nonprofit called Cure Violence, which works with gangs, curbs gun deaths. An initiative called Fast Track supports high-risk children and reduces delinquency and adult crime.
In short, let’s get smarter. Let’s make America’s gun battles less ideological and more driven by evidence of what works. If the left can drop the sanctimony, and the right can drop the obstructionism, if instead of wrestling with each other we can grapple with the evidence, we can save thousands of lives a year.
Comments
Man what a shame i feel for this person ...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/
Chicago 5/16/06, Chicago 5/17/06, Grand Rapids 5/19/06
Milwaukee 6/29/06, Milwaukee 6/30/06, Lollapalooza 8/5/07
Eddie Solo Milwaukee 8/19/08, Toronto 8/21/09, Chicago 8/23/09
Chicago 8/24/09, Indianapolis 5/7/10, Ed Chicago 6/29/11, Alpine Valley 9/3/11 and 9/4/11, Wrigley 7/19/13, Moline 10/18/14, Milwaukee 10/20/14
My position is I'm safer WO a gun. Would be even stronger if I had kiddies around.
... is the ratio of murders, suicides, and accidental deaths to one justifiable killing.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html
* 232,000 guns stolen every year.
But they're infinitely more credible than the NRA and other offshoots.
Are you suggesting their data is misrepresented and misleading?
This illistrates a problem though, that ANY study of guns and the harm that comes is seen as the begining of confication or unconstitutional gun law/regulation reform.
I believe the words "well regulated" refer to well trained as intended in the 2nd.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I only suggested that if indeed they were inherently 'liberal'... that attitude wouldn't be reflected in any study they administer.
How can we address a problem without understanding what it actually is and where it lies?.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Acknowledgement would be a massive first step.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/some-inconvenient-gun-facts-for-liberals.html?_r=0
Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals
FOR those of us who argue in favor of gun safety laws, there are a few inconvenient facts.
We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.
Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes.
Move on to open-carry and conceal-carry laws: With some 13 million Americans now licensed to pack a concealed gun, many liberals expected gun battles to be erupting all around us. In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected). Liberals were closer to the truth, for the increase in carrying loaded guns does appear to have led to more aggravated assaults with guns, but the fears were overblown.
One of the puzzles of American politics is that most voters want gun regulation, but Congress resists. One poll found that 74 percent even of N.R.A. members favor universal background checks to acquire a gun. Likewise, the latest New York Times poll found that 62 percent of Americans approved of President Obama’s executive actions on guns this month.
So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.
And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.”
Yet this, too, must be said: Americans are absolutely right to be outraged at the toll of guns. Just since 1970, more Americans have died from guns than all the Americans who died in wars going back to the American Revolution (about 1.45 million vs. 1.4 million). That gun toll includes suicides, murders and accidents, and these days it amounts to 92 bodies a day.
We spend billions of dollars tackling terrorism, which killed 229 Americans worldwide from 2005 through 2014, according to the State Department. In the same 10 years, including suicides, some 310,000 Americans died from guns.
So of course we should try to reduce this carnage. But we need a new strategy, a public health approach that treats guns as we do cars — taking evidence-based steps to make them safer. That seems to be what President Obama is trying to do.
Research suggests that the most important practical step would be to keep guns away from high-risk individuals, such as criminals, those who abuse alcohol, or those who beat up their domestic partners.
That means universal background checks before somebody acquires a gun. New Harvard research confirms a long-ago finding that 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. That’s crazy. Why empower criminals to arm themselves?
Some evidence supports steps that seem common sense. More than 10 percent of murders in the United States, for example, are by intimate partners. The riskiest moment is often after a violent breakup when a woman has won a restraining order against her ex. Prohibiting the subjects of those restraining orders from possessing a gun reduces these murders by 10 percent, one study found.
“If you can keep a gun from someone at that moment of threat, that is very important,” notes Daniel W. Webster, a gun safety expert at Johns Hopkins University who has pioneered research on keeping guns from high-risk individuals.
Some public health approaches to reducing gun violence have nothing to do with guns. Researchers find that a nonprofit called Cure Violence, which works with gangs, curbs gun deaths. An initiative called Fast Track supports high-risk children and reduces delinquency and adult crime.
In short, let’s get smarter. Let’s make America’s gun battles less ideological and more driven by evidence of what works. If the left can drop the sanctimony, and the right can drop the obstructionism, if instead of wrestling with each other we can grapple with the evidence, we can save thousands of lives a year.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com