Thanks Tangible08 and Mobulis. That was my understanding.
I have never said any such thing. The point is that the statistics that you have cited are not scientifically formed. There is no objectivity; it’s just circumstantial data. There never has been a scientific study of the relationship between gun ownership and the causes of shootings. And as far as gun restrictions, first you must address the Constitutional question. You cannot justify violating the Constitution on the premise that it is in the interest of public safety or is popular among a vocal majority of the people.
The only primary function of the 2nd that has failed is the the Federal Government has been allowed to infringe on the Rights of the people by the Courts.
Therein lies the problem. Most Americans do not agree on what is sensible … about anything, let alone a polarizing issue like guns.
The 2020 elections will not be about guns.
Did you miss the word “promote” in that statement? The bill was aimed at the agenda of the left to increase control over the right of the people to own guns, not at conducting unbiased scientific research.
1 Like
You seem to be forgetting the internment camps.
This is just more hand waving. First of all, given your disdain for statistics it’s pretty obvious you don’t know how large bodies of scientific research is conducted…but if you feel like there should be more studies or better studies, then let’s have more or better studies. Seeing that gun groups don’t want such studies to get funded it’s pretty obvious they aren’t interested in the truth
I’ve already stated that the constitution can be amended. You keep bringing it up as if laws don’t change.
Now if you think keeping your guns is worth more people dying every year then just be straight forward about it.
Not a 2nd Amendment issue. But unconstitutional for sure.
There is a lot of support for more background checks and various measures but it doesn’t pass due to the power of the NRA
No, it essentially defunds research into gun violence.
Laws are relatively easy to change, but the Constitution limits the extent of change. If you want to change the law such that it violates the Constitution as written, you must first change the Constitution to fit your intentions. It is nothing but bluster to go on and on about changing the law when you know it cannot stand Constitutional muster.
Keeping my guns won’t cause anyone to die. That’s a first order straw man. If you want to lower the number of people who are killed with guns, you need to focus on the people who kill, because even if they have no gun, they are still inclined to kill.
ETA: Sorry about the format mix up there. All I did was quote your post with mine nested within and that’s the way it came out and I don’t see anything wrong to fix it.
So then apparently the intent of the proposed research was to promote gun control?
1 Like
The NRA is why we have the Federal NICS background check. Furthermore, the NRA advocates access to the NICS for transfer of firearms by individuals. (As do I.) But universal background checks as proposed by gun control advocates cannot work without universal gun registration and neither the vast majority of gun owners nor the NRA or any other gun advocacy group will ever concede to that.
And I have no idea what you mean by “various measures.”
Besides, it’s a red herring anyway. Universal background checks would not have prevented a single mass shooting in this country. Every gun used in these incidents was acquired legally under a NICS check or were obtained illegally in a manner that would circumvent any background check you could come up with.
You guys hype the 2nd as the only thing standing between freedom and govt tyranny. Well so far its FAILED!
That is not what failed. What failed is that people believed Roosevelt when he lied to them.
Read it. The NRA didn’t lobby for it. The CDC got caught playing games. The CDC can and has done research since then.
Your understanding is wrong.
I truly with the NRA was as powerful as you’ve been brainwashed to believe.
What mass shooting incident would “more” background checks have prevented? What do you mean by “more”?
No it doesn’t.
