Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

Firearms homicides are not a result of lack of training, though some accidental deaths may be.

True, but the fact that some accidental deaths may be the result of lack of training supports my point that it is a sensible requirement.

Would you advocate mandatory training and licensing for anyone who wanted, say, a Skil saw? A power lawnmower? An electric heater? A gas range? A bicycle, canoe, or a dog (39 people died from dog bites last year, most inflicted by their own dogs). How far would you go with this Nanny-statism?

The same argument is used against background checks. It is not intended to be a deterrent and does not infringe anyone’s right to self-defense, it merely temporarily limits one mode of self-defense in order to protect both that person and others.

Sorry, but a delay is an infringement. A person being threatened needs to be able to defend herself now, not a month later after completing a government-approved training course.

The argument that measures intended to reduce the risk of harm of use by legal gun owners does not prevent criminals from using guns is vacuous.

Well, you'll need to refute it by citing some contrary facts, not merely dismissing it as "vacuous." The facts are quite clear:

"A national survey of inmates of state prisons found that just 10% of youthful (age 18-40) male respondents who admitted to having a gun at the time of their arrest had obtained it from a gun store. The other 90% obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members."

Other "off-the-book" means include stealing them, purchasing through a "straw buyer," purchasing from corrupt dealers or other criminals.

http://theconversation.com/how-dangerou ... guns-52345

90% of criminals currently obtain their guns illegally. What makes you think they'll obey your new training/licensing law? Your proposal may reduce accidental deaths a bit, but if the concern is criminal use, it will be useless and likely counterproductive (because it would leave more victims defenseless).

Anti-government groups, "extremist" or not, and even militias are covered not only by the 2nd Amendment but by the 1st --- freedom of speech and thought and freedom of association and assembly.

Yes, they are, but this does not address the problem. Stockpiling of weapons is not “self-defense” unless they consider themselves enemies of the state who need to defend themselves from the state by armed force. (Note that this is not a matter of being labelled an enemy of the state, but of declaring oneself an enemy of the state). The use of armed force against the government is not covered under freedom of speech or association or assembly.

Yes it is, in some circumstances: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government . . . "

What has not happened does not determine what may happen. If you are concerned with the problem of terrorism then you should be concerned with the problem of domestic or homegrown terrorism, but perhaps you are not concerned because the crimes committed by terrorists is “miniscule”.

Even suspected terrorists are entitled to due process --- some probable cause to believe they have committed or are about to commit a crime. Mere possession of firearms, whether one or one hundred, does not constitute probable cause.

[Fooloso4]

GE Morton:

How far would you go with this Nanny-statism?

None of the items you mentioned are designed to injure or kill and typically are not used for that purpose with the possible exception of a dog. If a dog is to be used to injure or kill, then it should be required that both dog and owner be properly trained. I am in favor of the required built in safety features on Skil saws, lawn mowers, electric heaters, and gas ranges, as well as the requirement to wear a bike helmet or a flotation device in a canoe. Call it Nanny-statism if you like but the fact of the matter is that such measures have reduced accidental death and injury.

Sorry, but a delay is an infringement.

And yet you say you are in favor of background checks:

Expand the background check system to include all firearm sales, not just those from licensed dealers.

Your position is inconsistent. A background check takes time. It is a delay, and is, as you see it, an infringement. If you are in favor of background checks then you are in favor of at least one infringement of the right to own a gun. To then say you are opposed of training because it is a delay and therefore an infringement is to hold a self-contradictory position.

The argument that measures intended to reduce the risk of harm of use by legal gun owners does not prevent criminals from using guns is vacuous.

Well, you'll need to refute it by citing some contrary facts, not merely dismissing it as "vacuous."

A measure intended to reduce the risk of harm of use by legal gun owners has nothing to do with preventing criminals from using guns. They are two different issues.

What makes you think they'll obey your new training/licensing law?

Since it seems you keep contradicting yourself I had to go back a second time to confirm that it was you who said:

There are several additional things that could be done to keep firearms away from persons likely to abuse them:

Your question can be turned back on you. What makes you think that licensing laws will keep firearms away from persons likely to abuse them? Do you think that criminals do not abuse firearms because they use them for the intended purpose, to injure or kill?

Yes, they are, but this does not address the problem. Stockpiling of weapons is not “self-defense” unless they consider themselves enemies of the state who need to defend themselves from the state by armed force. (Note that this is not a matter of being labelled an enemy of the state, but of declaring oneself an enemy of the state). The use of armed force against the government is not covered under freedom of speech or association or assembly.

Yes it is, in some circumstances: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government . . . "

Yes it is what? Self-defense or are you claiming that the use of armed force is freedom of speech or association or assembly? Merely being of the opinion that the government is despotic is not legitimate grounds to attempt to overthrow it. Your quote from the Declaration of Independence stops short. The sentence continues:

... and to provide new Guards for their future security

A legitimate overthrow must be based on a) a history of evidence that the government’s design is to establish absolute despotism, b) that this represents the consent of people, and c) that the people then:

institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Yes, it is possible that such circumstances may someday arise, but those who see themselves as enemies of the state think that day is here or near. It is not a question of what circumstances may someday be but of what they are.

What has not happened does not determine what may happen. If you are concerned with the problem of terrorism then you should be concerned with the problem of domestic or homegrown terrorism, but perhaps you are not concerned because the crimes committed by terrorists is “miniscule”.

Even suspected terrorists are entitled to due process --- some probable cause to believe they have committed or are about to commit a crime. Mere possession of firearms, whether one or one hundred, does not constitute probable cause.

Once again you raise an unrelated issue. Whether or not anti-government groups stockpiling weapons is a problem does not hinge on due process. You dismiss the problem by claiming that the number of gun or other crimes committed by members of such groups is minuscule. The problem and what might be done about the problem are two different things. If one does not recognize that there is a problem then the question of what can be done about it does not arise. The fact that the law does not prohibit the stockpiling of guns and ammunition does not mean that doing so is not a problem. The fact that a suspect is protected by due process does not mean that stockpiling is not a problem.

The balance between public safety and individual rights is something we continually strive to equilibrate.

[Sy Borg]

Sorry, but a delay is an infringement.

And yet you say you are in favor of background checks:

Expand the background check system to include all firearm sales, not just those from licensed dealers.

Your position is inconsistent. A background check takes time. It is a delay, and is, as you see it, an infringement. If you are in favor of background checks then you are in favor of at least one infringement of the right to own a gun. To then say you are opposed of training because it is a delay and therefore an infringement is to hold a self-contradictory position.

Also, why should guns be afforded special privilege when one needs licensing and regulation to drive a car, forklift, crane or other equipment that poses a potential danger to the public?

[GE Morton]

Also, why should guns be afforded special privilege when one needs licensing and regulation to drive a car, forklift, crane or other equipment that poses a potential danger to the public?

You only need those licenses to operate those vehicles on public roadways. You don't need licenses to own them or to operate them on your own property. At least, that is the case in the US.

That issue was covered earlier in the thread.

[Sy Borg]

Also, why should guns be afforded special privilege when one needs licensing and regulation to drive a car, forklift, crane or other equipment that poses a potential danger to the public?

You only need those licenses to operate those vehicles on public roadways. You don't need licenses to own them or to operate them on your own property. At least, that is the case in the US.

That issue was covered earlier in the thread.

That's not an answer because guns can so easily extend beyond the bounds of the property and thus the issue was not dealt with. In terms of public safety it is illogical to treat guns differently to vehicles.

In fact, in the city it would be hard to fire a gun where the projectile remained within one's property.

In terms of public safety the US gun policies are a a huge and very public failure noted around the world. Do you think any nation would rush into loosening their firearms policies after seeing what amounted to a destructive social experiment in the US?

[GE Morton]

None of the items you mentioned are designed to injure or kill and typically are not used for that purpose with the possible exception of a dog.

Why does that matter? You now (in view of comment below) seem to be concerned with accidental, rather than intentional, shootings. If that is the concern then the typical or intended use is irrelevant. Accidents are, by definition, neither intentional nor typical. If the gun buyer must be trained and licensed to reduce accidental deaths, then so must buyers of anything else with dangerous potential --- if you wish to be consistent.

And yet you say you are in favor of background checks:

Expand the background check system to include all firearm sales, not just those from licensed dealers.

Your position is inconsistent. A background check takes time. It is a delay, and is, as you see it, an infringement. If you are in favor of background checks then you are in favor of at least one infringement of the right to own a gun.

In the US the background check system is instantaneous. It takes about 2 minutes in 92% of cases. For the rest the delay can run from a few more minutes to 3 days. If the dealer hasn't received an answer within 3 days he can complete the sale. 99% of inquiries are eventually approved --- which, BTW, tells you that few criminals are acquiring their weapons via that method (which we already knew through other evidence).

http://graphics.wsj.com/gun-check-explainer/

That system can be improved, and likely will be fairly soon.

A measure intended to reduce the risk of harm of use by legal gun owners has nothing to do with preventing criminals from using guns. They are two different issues.

Yes, they are. The topic of this thread, however, is "Gun Control and Mass Murder," i.e., criminal uses of firearms. The motivation and purported aim of all these proposed regulations is to reduce gun homicides. For the reasons mentioned your training/licensing proposal would have negligible effect on those, which you now seem to acknowledge.

Since it seems you keep contradicting yourself I had to go back a second time to confirm that it was you who said:

There are several additional things that could be done to keep firearms away from persons likely to abuse them:

Your question can be turned back on you. What makes you think that licensing laws will keep firearms away from persons likely to abuse them? Do you think that criminals do not abuse firearms because they use them for the intended purpose, to injure or kill?

I don't think licensing laws will keep firearms away from criminals. That was not one of the "things that could be done" that I mentioned. Where did you come up with that?

Yes, it is possible that such circumstances may someday arise, but those who see themselves as enemies of the state think that day is here or near. It is not a question of what circumstances may someday be but of what they are.

We don't deprive people of life, liberty, or property because of what they think. We prosecute them for what they do. You might consider the implications of your suggestion. If the government can forbid or restrict possession of arms because they could or might be used someday to attempt to overthrow the government, then the right of the people to overthrow a despotic government, which you seem to acknowledge ("Yes, it is possible that such circumstances may someday arise . . ."), is stillborn. Is it not?

Once again you raise an unrelated issue. Whether or not anti-government groups stockpiling weapons is a problem does not hinge on due process. You dismiss the problem by claiming that the number of gun or other crimes committed by members of such groups is minuscule.

You are denoting it as "a problem," but give no reason to so characterize it. Before you begin suggesting solutions to this "problem," you need to explain just why it is a problem, what makes it a problem. The low rates of crime by those groups is highly relevant to the question of whether or not there is any "problem."

[Fooloso4]

GE Morton:

Why does that matter? You now (in view of comment below) seem to be concerned with accidental, rather than intentional, shootings.

I am concerned with both. Now? I raised the issue of accidental posts in relation to training on the last page:

True, but the fact that some accidental deaths may be the result of lack of training supports my point that it is a sensible requirement.

You now ask about things such as Skil saws and “Nanny-statism” and I responded. It matters because a well designed Skil saw is intentionally designed to minimize injury, the same cannot be said of guns. The accidental death or injury caused by a Skil saw is usually limited to the user, the same cannot be said of guns.

In the US the background check system is instantaneous.

I wrongly assumed that when you said "things that could be done" you meant changes to what is already being done - the institution of an adequate background check. I wrongly assumed you realized that an instantaneous check system is inadequate.

If the dealer hasn't received an answer within 3 days he can complete the sale.

Which means that the purchase was not based on a background check.

That system can be improved, and likely will be fairly soon.

“Improved” is a nebulous term. Does it mean that process will be sped up so that no one has to wait? Or does it mean it will be slowed down in order to assure that it is more thorough going? It cannot be the latter, as you see it, because that would be an infringement.

The topic of this thread, however, is "Gun Control and Mass Murder," i.e., criminal uses of firearms.The motivation and purported aim of all these proposed regulations is to reduce gun homicides.

Not every or even most comments, including your own, are restricted to gun control and mass murder as a single topic. The question of rights and gun control measures is not limited to criminal use of guns or use in mass murders. I raised the need for training as a measure to reduce the risk of harm of use by legal gun owners. Your response that this does not prevent criminals from using guns is vacuous.

For the reasons mentioned your training/licensing proposal would have negligible effect on those, which you now seem to acknowledge.

The way I worded my statement made it clear that it referred to legal gun owners. If you think that the effect on criminal use is something that I only now acknowledge that is because you have not read or did not understand what I said.

I don't think licensing laws will keep firearms away from criminals. That was not one of the "things that could be done" that I mentioned.

That was exactly my point! The objection you made against training can be turned back against you. If you object to training laws because they do not keep firearms away from criminals, then you should also reject licencing laws for the same reason.

If the government can forbid or restrict possession of arms because they could or might be used someday to attempt to overthrow the government, then the right of the people to overthrow a despotic government, which you seem to acknowledge ("Yes, it is possible that such circumstances may someday arise . . ."), is stillborn. Is it not?

No group that stockpiles weapons that can legally be purchased can stand against the force and power of the United States government. You yourself are in favor of restricting the kinds of weapons that would have to be used if such groups would stand a chance. Again we see why technology makes a difference.

You are denoting it as "a problem," but give no reason to so characterize it.

I think you are being disingenuous. If anti-American extremist groups moved into your neighborhood with stockpiles of weapons you would not be concerned? You downplay the danger of homegrown terrorism while raising the specter of a government turned despotic despite all the checks and balances in place to prevent just such a thing. Very little would have to change for such a group to act, it could happen at any moment. A great deal would have to change for the government to become despotic, it remains a remote possibility.

[GE Morton]

That's not an answer because guns can so easily extend beyond the bounds of the property and thus the issue was not dealt with. In terms of public safety it is illogical to treat guns differently to vehicles.

Well, Greta --- and I've asked this of you before --- just how would you propose we "treat" guns to enhance public safety? I think we've established that the various measures suggested --- licensing, training, restrictions on weapon types, etc. --- even background checks, which I support --- would have little or no effect on criminal uses of firearms, which is where the greatest danger to public safety lies. Some of the proposals might have a small effect on the number of accidental firearms deaths, but that risk is fairly small already. Of the 11,000 gun homicides last year only 489 were accidental --- fewer than many other causes of accidental deaths, and far fewer than from auto crashes (33,000), falls (25,000) and from overdoses of prescription drugs (23,000). Given the number of firearms owned --- between 250 and 300 million --- that accidental death figure is pretty impressive.

https://listosaur.com/miscellaneous/top ... ed-states/

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... hs-n377131

In fact, in the city it would be hard to fire a gun where the projectile remained within one's property.

Not at all. Very few people are killed by "stray bullets." Nearly all the accidental firearms deaths other than hunting accidents (about 75/year) occur in the owner's home.

In terms of public safety the US gun policies are a a huge and very public failure noted around the world. Do you think any nation would rush into loosening their firearms policies after seeing what amounted to a destructive social experiment in the US?

Like you, those who attribute the US homicide rate to inadquate gun laws are parroting a fashionable shibboleth that has no basis in fact. Countries and US states which have passed more restrictive laws have seen no reductions in gun homicides. There is no correlation between gun laws or rates of gun ownership and gun homicides among US states. Idaho, which has high numbers of owners (57%) and few restrictions, has a homicide rate (~ 2 per 100,000) less than half the national average and comparable to those in Western Europe. Here is a more detailed correlation analysis:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 081237f7f8

I've even explained why those laws are ineffective --- because persons intent upon acquiring a firearm will ignore them, which abundant evidence shows they do. 90% of criminals acquire their weapons via means that are already illegal. Yet you continue to ride the gun control hobby horse. Like all hobby horses it will not get you an inch closer to what I assume is your goal, reducing the homicide rate. To do that, as I said, you need to start focusing on controlling the criminal, not his weapon.

[Sy Borg]

That's not an answer because guns can so easily extend beyond the bounds of the property and thus the issue was not dealt with. In terms of public safety it is illogical to treat guns differently to vehicles.

Well, Greta --- and I've asked this of you before --- just how would you propose we "treat" guns to enhance public safety? I think we've established that the various measures suggested --- licensing, training, restrictions on weapon types, etc. --- even background checks, which I support --- would have little or no effect on criminal uses of firearms, which is where the greatest danger to public safety lies ...

What it would do is reduce mass shootings in schools. Stronger regulation would also reduce accidental deaths, especially children. School mass murders, though, especially harm communities and erode morale. The impact of the tragedies resonate far beyond death statistics. I don't think most people much worry about crims shooting each other in gang wars as long as they stay away from innocents. At least do something to reduce the shooting of the young.

In fact, in the city it would be hard to fire a gun where the projectile remained within one's property.

Not at all. Very few people are killed by "stray bullets." Nearly all the accidental firearms deaths other than hunting accidents (about 75/year) occur in the owner's home.

Not the point - the impact of guns potentially reaches far beyond an urban property's bounds.

In terms of public safety the US gun policies are a a huge and very public failure noted around the world. Do you think any nation would rush into loosening their firearms policies after seeing what amounted to a destructive social experiment in the US?

Like you, those who attribute the US homicide rate to inadquate gun laws are parroting a fashionable shibboleth that has no basis in fact. Countries and US states which have passed more restrictive laws have seen no reductions in gun homicides.

Because surrounding states with looser laws undermine the effect of gun control laws. Australia's gun laws wouldn't work if one of its states was was loose as the US. You would not see a significant effect unless the regulation was nationwide, and Trump's wall wouldn't hurt in that regard either :lol:

Yet you continue to ride the gun control hobby horse.

Do you think this helps to bolster your argument? A few of us are merely pointing out some fairly obvious stuff - like guns are more dangerous than knives - but you appear to be in denial about them.

[Frost]

Guns are good for shooting at people that try to take away your rights and the government when it becomes tyrannical. That is all. Thank you.

[GE Morton]

What it would do is reduce mass shootings in schools.

Why do you think so? What evidence do you have for that belief? Which regs do you think would accomplish that? Banning AR-15s? I posted this chart before:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476 ... ypes-used/

Most mass shooters --- 2/3 --- used handguns, not rifles of any kind. Of the 90 mass shooting incidents since 1982, 9 have involved an AR-15-style weapon.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 339519002/

(Note that of the 13 incidents listed 4 do not qualify as mass shootings under the "official" definition, which specifies 4 or more people killed in one location).

You don't think that if someone planning a shooting couldn't get an AR-15 he would simply use another type of weapon?

Some States ban sales of rifles to anyone under 21. The Feds may do the same (the federal minimum age is currently 18). But look again at the AR-15 list. Only 3 of the 14 shooters were under 21 --- two were 20 and one 19. One of those, Tyler Peterson, was a sheriff's deputy; he would have been exempted from the age restriction. Another, Adam Lanza, used his mother's rifle. So the age limit would not have prevented that shooting either. Only Cruz would have been prevented from obtaining his weapon (and of course, had he not been able to buy one from a dealer he'd have sought one elsewhere, or settled for a different weapon).

Stronger regulation would also reduce accidental deaths, especially children.

"Children under age 12 die from gun accidents in the United States about once a week, on average."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 101568654/

I.e., about 52 per year. Far more kids die annually from many other accidental causes. Most states already have laws requiring firearms to be locked away in homes with kids. About half of such families ignore such laws. What other laws would you add they they could ignore?

A few of us are merely pointing out some fairly obvious stuff - like guns are more dangerous than knives - but you appear to be in denial about them.

No, I haven't denied that. I dismissed it, because it is not relevant to the question of whether gun restrictions are constitutional or effective.

[Frost]

I don't know when it stopped, but where I grew up in the U.S. I know in the late 70s the high school I went to had a rifle club. Kids kept their guns in their cars. No school shootings. Many kids starting using guns when they were around 12 or so.

Fast forward today with guns much more difficult to get a hold of and there are dramatically more school shootings. It's not the guns. In an era with increasing illegal gun restrictions, school shootings emerged. The extraordinarily high representation of children from fatherless homes and on psychiatric medication points more toward the issues we are dealing with. However, since American liberals love fatherless homes and controlling boys with psychiatric medication, they look to taking guns away from law-abiding citizens so that they cannot protect themselves.

I am also against banning any semi-automatic rifles or even fully automatic rifles from private ownership. In the U.S. along the Mexican border, militias that are protecting the boarder since the state and central governments are not doing their job could use these weapons to protect our states and country from illegal aliens. To ban these weapons is to dramatically reduce the effectiveness of militias which are an important constitutional protection that help to protect our country.

[Frost]

You don't think that if someone planning a shooting couldn't get an AR-15 he would simply use another type of weapon?

A lot of anti-gun people don't really know much about guns. They might want to see how devastating a pump-action shotgun could be in a classroom.

[ernestm]

. . . we are actually reaching the stage where the epidemic of gun violence is becoming mass lunacy, in the face of which, a few mass shootings (less than %1 of all gun deaths) is totally irrelevant.

Actually, the number of homicides in the US has been declining for the last 20 years or so. Over the same period the number of guns produced and sold increased significantly.

https://mises.org/wire/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

This is a very common misconception caused my NRA hate propaganda (specifically its 2nd-lead slogan, 'more guns, less crime'. Other issues on that aside:) HOMICIDES are falling, but all other forms of firearm casualty are rising, including VIOLENT INJURIES. It would be nice to know some more about the violent injuries, as they outnumber all other forms of firearm casualty combined, the NRA also blocked funding for the CDC to report anything more about them. As a consequence, it is definitely an error to claim what you are saying. But its not even possible to have an argument about what the truth is unless we can get more information.

[Fooloso4]

Both sides of the debate on gun control can cite studies and statistics to support their positions. No studies, however, have been able to definitively show a causal relation one way or the other. While it may seem reasonable to conclude that more and better studies are in order the NRA and pro-gun lawmakers cut funding to prevent the Center for Disease Control from studying such issues:

The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.
The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of “putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,” said Mr. Cox [the NRA’s chief lobbist], who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.
Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.
“It’s really simple with me,” Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.”
The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “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.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26 ... d=all&_r=0)

Clearly, as far as NRA based lawmakers are concerned, facts and evidence must take a backseat to political ideology. As part of a political agenda backed by the NRA, scientific research is to be twarted because facts and evidence are alleged to reflect a political agenda.

Do facts and evidence matter? In 2012 Jay Dickey co-authored an opinion piece in the Washington Post in which he said:

We were on opposite sides of the heated battle 16 years ago, but we are in strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners. The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence. (Washington Post, July 27, 2012)

Dickey changed his mind, but little else has changed:

... in fiscal 2014 through 2017, Former President Obama requested $10 million each year for CDC to use to study gun violence and prevention. The GOP-controlled House denied the request each time. (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/37 ... rch-debate)

Excuse the pun but we are shooting (and being shot at) in the dark while the NRA backed Republicans are doing everything they can to keep us in the dark.





It is a fact that we have a constitutional right to bear arms. It is also a fact that the right to bear arms is limited. It is also a fact that the