s/o - Abortion-Free Gun Control Thread

[poppy]

 

 

National responses go nowhere because what is best for each state varies on the state.  If you live in a place where it takes hours to get police response you have a higher need for firearms.  You just do.

 

There is no good reason why you'd need to fight legislation to require trigger locks or "smart gun" technology for self defense, that I can think of, no matter where you live.

 

 

[Katy]

Oh goodness.  OBVIOUSLY the capital of the state is inside the same state.  The point about Colorado was the need for guns changes based on location, not arbitrary borders.  The constitution was designed as a republic to prevent mob rule of the majority AND to prevent mob rule of highly populated states over less populated states.  You live in an area where you don't need a gun.  Whoop di do, how wonderful for you!  Not everyone in this country is so privileged.  The constitution was designed to prevent people like you, who cannot possibly see that anyone else's circumstances are drastically different from their own, from allowing harm to come to those of us who do have different circumstances.  If people try to ban guns everywhere in this country the result will be civil war.  If you cannot accept that there really is a need for some people to have guns in this country, you are never going to change anything except stopping reasonable people from listening to you.

 

This is not about what is best for each freaking state. We have a NATIONAL crisis of epic proportions of people shooting others, both on accident and on purpose. It requires a national response because the problem is affecting the NATIONAL welfare, our NATIONAL psyche, our NATIONAL security. Nowhere did I say that the national response must include restricting all access to guns for self defense and hunting purposes. But you already know that.

 

That is not true.  Gun violence is DOWN.  It's media video coverage of violence that is up.  Media needs to terrify you to get you to watch so they get ratings and advertising revenue.  The truth is things are getting better all of the time.

 

So.... lets go back to the suggestions that Martha made in this thread.  Which ones of those would be a hardship for people who have more of a need for guns?  Which suggestions has anyone made, aside from the few comments about banning all civilian guns which most people on all sides agree is not desirable, would not be appropriate? 

 

I already made a list about this upthread.

[Murphy101]

This is not about what is best for each freaking state. We have a NATIONAL crisis of epic proportions of people shooting others, both on accident and on purpose. It requires a national response because the problem is affecting the NATIONAL welfare, our NATIONAL psyche, our NATIONAL security. Nowhere did I say that the national response must include restricting all access to guns for self defense and hunting purposes. But you already know that.

The detail you are failing to note is that we are not really united states in one nation. Yes, the paperwork says we are, but really, it's a very very fragile piece of paperwork and our nation is very polarized.

 

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Enforcing laws for all 50 states has more in common with the EU trying to bring all those European countries to agreement on something than with how each of those countries does things.

 

And to top it off, we lack the ability to enforce well. Heck. Just last night I read that because it has had reduced ranks causing higher individual burden from being under staffed and morale so low, investigators are questioning how well they can do just their job. Asking to police and enforce laws like France would be relevant if we were talking about Texas, which btw way is bigger than France and isn't even our biggest state. The literal amount of territory to cover is no small obstacle. Drumming up citizens willing to do so when they are already discouraged from this seemingly never ending war is also no easy feat.

 

And no, the United States might never grow up and give up state rights. It might stop being United States and instead be something else or maybe some different constitution will be made or I have no idea what all else could happen. But nations rise and fall and most don't last as long as our has so far, so it'd be hubris for me to presume ours can never crumble or even that it will outlast me.

 

I hope it last centuries more. Because I'm a fan of stability if nothing else, but there is no reasin I can see to presume it beyond wishful thinking. Which I'm not really against either.

[Laura Corin]

That's an after the fact solution.

 

What did Scotland do to change the culture of drinking and the hearts and minds of those who over drink?

The change in the law is changing habits. It's a recent change, so I can't yet say what the long term results will be. In the short term, pub takings are down, suggesting that people are drinking less or drinking at home.

[Katy]

That's an after the fact solution.

 

What did Scotland do to change the culture of drinking and the hearts and minds of those who over drink?

 

You cannot legislate morality.  You can change laws and make it impractical for people to break them by making the punishment so severe the crime is no longer worth it, but you can't change hearts and minds with a law, no matter the topic.

 

There is no good reason why you'd need to fight legislation to require trigger locks or "smart gun" technology for self defense, that I can think of, no matter where you live.

 

I'm not part of the NRA so I don't know their arguments, but if I had to guess I'd say that has more to do with being against regulation in general and increasing the cost of weapons than anything else.  They lost me when they were fighting against requiring safety switches on guns when I was a kid.

[poppy]

 

 

That is not true.  Gun violence is DOWN.  It's media video coverage of violence that is up.  Media needs to terrify you to get you to watch so they get ratings and advertising revenue.  The truth is things are getting better all of the time.

Mass shootings are up. 

[unsinkable]

You cannot legislate morality. You can change laws and make it impractical for people to break them by making the punishment so severe the crime is no longer worth it, but you can't change hearts and minds with a law, no matter the topic.

 

 

I'm not part of the NRA so I don't know their arguments, but if I had to guess I'd say that has more to do with being against regulation in general and increasing the cost of weapons than anything else. They lost me when they were fighting against requiring safety switches on guns when I was a kid.

I wasn't speaking of laws specifically.

[Laura Corin]

You cannot legislate morality. You can change laws and make it impractical for people to break them by making the punishment so severe the crime is no longer worth it, but you can't change hearts and minds with a law, no matter the topic

Isn't reducing the damage worthwhile in itself?

 

I actually don't agree that laws can't change minds. It might take a generation, but young Britons would find it strange not to wear seatbelts, for example. That wasn't the case in my youth. The law produces the habit that changes the minds. The next generation will think it bizarre that we ever accepted smoking inside public spaces.

[Katy]

Mass shootings are up. 

 

Only if you change the definition.  By a Mother Jones editor's count, there have only been 4 this year.  This is his op-ed in the NY Times on why the count is highly politicized and designed to terrify you.  I'd hardly call Mother Jones conservative.

[Amira]

Civil rights laws are an excellent example of legislation encouraging, mandating and enforcing morality.  I think we'd have gotten there in the end, but the laws help speed things up considerably. Laws can make a huge difference.

[poppy]

Only if you change the definition.  By a Mother Jones editor's count, there have only been 4 this year.  This is his op-ed in the NY Times on why the count is highly politicized and designed to terrify you.  I'd hardly call Mother Jones conservative.

 

"Only 4 this year."

Last mass shooting in Australia was 1996.

We're not Australia. But we can aim a little higher than "only 4 this year".

Edited December 4, 2015 by poppy

[Murphy101]

There was a time when I might have agreed you can't legislate morality, but now I don't.

 

In theory I agree that you can't but the reality is that you can. It's at the heart of most social agendas.

 

If you can force people to change how they are allowed to be, you might not change them, but their children will have been raised never knowing that it was once okay except to maybe read it in text books. Maybe.

 

For example, my 4 year old was shocked to see someone smoking inside their house last week. Which I thought was because he was young. But then my 14 said the same thing later without hearing about my 4 yr old. We were in the car going home and she said in a whisper so the other kids wouldn't hear, "Mom, Mr__ was smoking in the kitchen?! Can he do that? I thought smoking in a house was illegal or maybe only if their are kids in it?"

 

Though I don't allow smoking in my house and I've told my kids about how unhealthy it is and my mom did of cancer, I have never implied someone is going to jail or God knows what for smoking in their own home. But my younger ones have never seen a person smoking around kids or smoking in a house before. For all intents and purpose, the smoking bans in my state have created a moral imperative implication and expectation.

 

I think there would be less moral outrage over a man getting a prostitute behind a building than him smoking a cigarette in it.

 

And a huge reason for that is laws and saturating our environment with messages, however subtle, of condemnation of one and ignoring the other.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But why include 16 year olds? Was it below age 18 anywhere nationally? I don't think it best to just go grab a quote to support one's views.

 

I'm not making an argument about the drinking age. It's the law now and I follow it. I was trying to illustrate that 21 as the drinking age for all people in this country is dopey.

 

Funnily enough, the European nations we're saying have such great restrictive gun laws are largely blasé about alcohol consumption. Culturally views come into play once again.

 

We are also more dependent upon personal transportation than they are, which does make a difference.

 

I am guessing they included 16yos as they are in a cohort with 18yos.  A law that helps limit access to 18yos will have some trickle down effect on 16yos both regarding access and fatalities as 16yos tend to be in vehicles more often with other 16-18yos than 21yos.

 

I also added a link.  If you can;t take the time to read more than a quote then so be it.  It isn't like the data showing the benefits of a higher drinking age is that difficult to find.

[8circles]

If you use the example of different locations having different needs as a con for having federal regulations and then mention the Colorado Rockies compared to Denver.... Huh? That doesn't make sense. Unless you're advocating each county/city make their own regulations and not even the state level. I don't understand your point.

[Murphy101]

I can't think why any state would have an issue with a single suggestion that I made, but I'm open to enlightenment.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

That is not true.  Gun violence is DOWN.  It's media video coverage of violence that is up.  Media needs to terrify you to get you to watch so they get ratings and advertising revenue.  The truth is things are getting better all of the time.

 

We also still have over 10,000 gun related homicides per year.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Only if you change the definition.  By a Mother Jones editor's count, there have only been 4 this year.  This is his op-ed in the NY Times on why the count is highly politicized and designed to terrify you.  I'd hardly call Mother Jones conservative.

 

There has never been one accepted definition.

[Ausmumof3]

You cannot legislate morality. You can change laws and make it impractical for people to break them by making the punishment so severe the crime is no longer worth it, but you can't change hearts and minds with a law, no matter the topic.

 

 

I'm not part of the NRA so I don't know their arguments, but if I had to guess I'd say that has more to do with being against regulation in general and increasing the cost of weapons than anything else. They lost me when they were fighting against requiring safety switches on guns when I was a kid.

Australia has changed hearts and minds to some extent on drink driving with a combination approach of law and very successful advertising campaigns.

 

Advertising can definitely change peoples mindset on stuff. It has to be smart targeted advertising that presents it's message in a way that gets through to the audience.

 

Yes there will always be idiots. We had a fire in our state that killed 2 people last week. The next day someone thought it was a good idea to light a fire. But overall if you can get the majority to see that something is a bad idea you limit the impact the few still have.

 

Culture and mindset can definitely be changed. Smoking is another example.

 

You can't eliminate stupid people doing stupid things but you can definitely limit the impact they can have on others.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

There is no good reason why you'd need to fight legislation to require trigger locks or "smart gun" technology for self defense, that I can think of, no matter where you live.

 

Have you researched either of these technologies? I have and there is no way I would utilize either one with my self-defense weapon.

 

Smart guns have yet to be adopted by LEOs, it's an untested technology that I wouldn't want to depend on. Plus, smart guns ($1800+) are unaffordable for most people at this time.

 

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/people-like-idea-smart-guns-feasibility-safety-questions-loom/#disqus_thread

 

If the problem is securing loaded weapons, a simple safe will do the trick.

 

http://shop.opticsplanet.com/gunvault-microvault-portable-pistol-safe.html?_iv_code=UB-GF-GVMICROVAULT-MV500-STD&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=plusbox-beta&gclid=Cj0KEQiAkIWzBRDK1ayo-Yjt38wBEiQAi7NnP9ydXspFlg4QW-K0MX7bBW48qzCs452cYbf4eEyPIK4aAoso8P8HAQ

[Caroline]

Did you really just say "only four" mass shootings? Only four?

 

Listen to yourself. Like that's an acceptable number.

 

There have been FOUR mass shootings. Four mass shootings. One is too many. I cannot believe you said only four.

 

Only if you change the definition. By a Mother Jones editor's count, there have only been 4 this year. This is his op-ed in the NY Times on why the count is highly politicized and designed to terrify you. I'd hardly call Mother Jones conservative.

[Amira]

Have you researched either of these technologies? I have and there is no way I would utilize either one with my self-defense weapon.

 

Smart guns have yet to be adopted by LEOs, it's an untested technology that I wouldn't want to depend on. Plus, smart guns ($1800+) are unaffordable for most people at this time.

 

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/people-like-idea-smart-guns-feasibility-safety-questions-loom/#disqus_thread

 

If the problem is securing loaded weapons, a simple safe will do the trick.

 

http://shop.opticsplanet.com/gunvault-microvault-portable-pistol-safe.html?_iv_code=UB-GF-GVMICROVAULT-MV500-STD&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=plusbox-beta&gclid=Cj0KEQiAkIWzBRDK1ayo-Yjt38wBEiQAi7NnP9ydXspFlg4QW-K0MX7bBW48qzCs452cYbf4eEyPIK4aAoso8P8HAQ

 

So let's require that guns must be locked up.  If it is discovered that  a gun owner is not keeping them locked up when not in use, then there would be stiff penalties.  If they are used by someone else to commit a crime or to accidentally shoot someone, then the negligent owner can be held responsible. 

[Murphy101]

So let's require that guns must be locked up. If it is discovered that a gun owner is not keeping them locked up when not in use, then there would be stiff penalties. If they are used by someone else to commit a crime or to accidentally shoot someone, then the negligent owner can be held responsible.

You do comprehend that even very safely locked up guns can be stolen?

 

Otherwise, I agree. If a gun is not strapped to your body in a proper holster, it should be either locked in a safe at home or a gun case for transport.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

So let's require that guns must be locked up. If it is discovered that a gun owner is not keeping them locked up when not in use, then there would be stiff penalties. If they are used by someone else to commit a crime or to accidentally shoot someone, then the negligent owner can be held responsible.

Many states already have existing laws against leaving an unsecured weapon accessible to children.

[Amira]

You do comprehend that even very safely locked up guns can be stolen?

 

Otherwise, I agree. If a gun is not strapped to your body in a proper holster, it should be either locked in a safe at home or a gun case for transport.

 

I think it has been stated multiple times in these threads that increased regulation isn't about eliminating gun accidents and gun crimes, but reducing them. 

[Amira]

Many states already have existing laws against leaving an unsecured weapon accessible to children.

 

I know.  I still think it's worth taking that a step (or two or three) further.

[Murphy101]

I think it has been stated multiple times in these threads that increased regulation isn't about eliminating gun accidents and gun crimes, but reducing them.

Yeahhh. And?

 

Punishing people after the fact does not reduce what was done.

 

I don't think someone should be punished *just* bc their gun was stolen and used illegally.

 

I was clarifying that though I agree with the safety aspect, I would not with the punishment aspect.

 

We already have negligent homicide laws, conplicit in a crime laws and so forth and I'm fine with those be applied to situations where it is deemed appropriate.

[Sneezyone]

The detail you are failing to note is that we are not really united states in one nation. Yes, the paperwork says we are, but really, it's a very very fragile piece of paperwork and our nation is very polarized.

 

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Enforcing laws for all 50 states has more in common with the EU trying to bring all those European countries to agreement on something than with how each of those countries does things.

 

And to top it off, we lack the ability to enforce well. Heck. Just last night I read that because it has had reduced ranks causing higher individual burden from being under staffed and morale so low, investigators are questioning how well they can do just their job. Asking to police and enforce laws like France would be relevant if we were talking about Texas, which btw way is bigger than France and isn't even our biggest state. The literal amount of territory to cover is no small obstacle. Drumming up citizens willing to do so when they are already discouraged from this seemingly never ending war is also no easy feat.

 

And no, the United States might never grow up and give up state rights. It might stop being United States and instead be something else or maybe some different constitution will be made or I have no idea what all else could happen. But nations rise and fall and most don't last as long as our has so far, so it'd be hubris for me to presume ours can never crumble or even that it will outlast me.

 

I hope it last centuries more. Because I'm a fan of stability if nothing else, but there is no reasin I can see to presume it beyond wishful thinking. Which I'm not really against either.

 

This is ridiculous. We did have a war over this issue, ya know? It's been settled. Issues of national import-- commerce, defense, taxation, lands and resources, highways, etc. get national oversight. We are not living in separate countries, however much I appreciate that an ocean separates me from the mainland. The rights reserved to the states are those not expressly granted to the federal government (such as promoting the general welfare and assuring the nation's defense). In times like these, when our own lax regulatory systems are working to undermine the national defense, federal inaction is insupportable.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

We also still have over 10,000 gun related homicides per year.

 

She already said this is an acceptable societal cost for the right to bear any/all arms whenever the mood strikes.

[Amira]

Yeahhh. And?

 

Punishing people after the fact does not reduce what was done.

 

I don't think someone should be punished *just* bc their gun was stolen and used illegally.

 

I was clarifying that though I agree with the safety aspect, I would not with the punishment aspect.

 

We already have negligent homicide laws, conplicit in a crime laws and so forth and I'm fine with those be applied to situations where it is deemed appropriate.

 

I don't think the current laws we have regarding negligence go far enough right now because negligent gun owners rarely are charged. If you choose to own a gun, you choose accept some risk.

 

If your gun is locked up and you did everything right, then you're not negligent so you wouldn't be punished. Our courts are used to determining negligence.

[Ausmumof3]

I don't think the current laws we have regarding negligence go far enough right now because negligent gun owners rarely are charged. If you choose to own a gun, you choose accept some risk.

 

If your gun is locked up and you did everything right, then you're not negligent so you wouldn't be punished. Our courts are used to determining negligence.

Prevention is probably better than cure though. If Johnny just shot someone with dad's gun it isn't going to help much if Johnny's dad now goes to jail as well. Otherwise I pretty much agree.

[Murphy101]

This is ridiculous. We did have a war over this issue, ya know? It's been settled. Issues of national import-- commerce, defense, taxation, lands and resources, highways, etc. get national oversight. We are not living in separate countries, however much I appreciate that an ocean separates me from the mainland. The rights reserved to the states are those not expressly granted to the federal government (such as promoting the general welfare and assuring the nation's defense). In times like these, when our own lax regulatory systems are working to undermine the national defense, federal inaction is insupportable.

What is ridiculous?

 

Politics is never settled. Ever.

 

Are you seriously suggesting our country is unified in opinion and goals to the point that we can act as one nation to effect an agreed policy? Maybe in your state the polarization of our nation isn't as obvious.

 

Or are you seriously suggesting that unlike every nation in the history of man, the USA is so awesomely perfectly set up and everything is so well "settled" that it could never be divided or conquered?

 

I did not say we are living in separate countries.

 

I said we are not a united country in many ways that our paperwork is having a difficult time satisfying.

 

I said that enforcement on a federal level is much harder than people think. It's a lot easier for France, just as an example, to manage their people bc they are confined to a much smaller space and in many ways more nationally unified.

[Murphy101]

I don't think the current laws we have regarding negligence go far enough right now because negligent gun owners rarely are charged. If you choose to own a gun, you choose accept some risk.

 

If your gun is locked up and you did everything right, then you're not negligent so you wouldn't be punished. Our courts are used to determining negligence.

And what makes you think they would be charged with your new laws? The prosecution always has the choice to not prosecute. I am for using the laws we already have. I'm not sure what to do about them not being used tho.

[Amira]

Prevention is probably better than cure though. If Johnny just shot someone with dad's gun it isn't going to help much if Johnny's dad now goes to jail as well. Otherwise I pretty much agree.

 

I wonder what the penalties are in this case in countries where guns are required to be locked up. Because I agree that having the dad go to jail doesn't help much, but I think the dad bears significant responsibility, especially if Johnny is a child.

[Sneezyone]

What is ridiculous?

 

Politics is never settled. Ever.

 

Are you seriously suggesting our country is unified in opinion and goals to the point that we can act as one nation to effect an agreed policy? Maybe in your state the polarization of our nation isn't as obvious.

 

Or are you seriously suggesting that unlike every nation in the history of man, the USA is so awesomely perfectly set up and everything is so well "settled" that it could never be divided or conquered?

 

I did not say we are living in separate countries.

 

I said we are not a united country in many ways that our paperwork is having a difficult time satisfying.

 

I said that enforcement on a federal level is much harder than people think. It's a lot easier for France, just as an example, to manage their people bc they are confined to a much smaller space and in many ways more nationally unified.

 

Are we totally unified? No, but we do have a framework that we've agreed to live buy that does not suggest we throw up our hands and let the states operate a free-for-all of ineffective legislation WRT national problems. It's ridiculous to suggest that a new civil war is in order here when there are non-violent (irony) ways of addressing our problems. What you're suggesting is that we not use this process. That is, to me, ridiculous. These sorts of issues are exactly what our federal government is for.

[Amira]

And what makes you think they would be charged with your new laws? The prosecution always has the choice to not prosecute. I am for using the laws we already have. I'm not sure what to do about them not being used tho.

 

I obviously have no idea if they'd get used, but they'd be an option, or they could give the victim's family more to work with if they brought a wrongful death suit.  The new laws be better than what we already have because *everyone* would be required to lock up their guns, not just people in some states with children in the home.  The current laws aren't necessarily tied to that.

[Murphy101]

Are we totally unified? No, but we do have a framework that we've agreed to live buy that does not suggest we throw up our hands and let the states operate a free-for-all of ineffective legislation WRT national problems. It's ridiculous to suggest that a new civil war is in order here when there are non-violent (irony) ways of addressing our problems. What you're suggesting is that we not use this process. That is, to me, ridiculous. These sorts of issues are exactly what our federal government is for.

Actually I never suggested any such thing. Maybe you should re read what I wrote.

 

It was in direct response to the claim that America must eventually grow up and do away with state rights in favor of federal.

 

I simply was asserting that no, that is not the only way it can go and historical pattern of repetition suggests at some point that it might not.

 

It was a side topic. Not a call to civil war. That would be quite an expansion and extrapolation on what I wrote. And incorrect as well.

[Sneezyone]

Actually I never suggested any such thing. Maybe you should re read what I wrote.

 

It was in direct response to the claim that America must eventually grow up and do away with state rights in favor of federal.

 

I simply was asserting that no, that is not the only way it can go and historical pattern of repetition suggests at some point that it might not.

 

It was a side topic. Not a call to civil war. That would be quite an expansion and extrapolation on what I wrote. And incorrect as well.

 

Do away with states rights, no, but certainly it's time for America to grow up and recognize when a problem has grown beyond the boundaries and purview of individual states. We are there with guns and have been for some time.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Sneezyone

[Ausmumof3]

Penalty in Aus for an unsecured firearms go range from a good behaviour bond, community service order, fine to max of two years imprisonment. Generally speaking the more sever penalties would only be applied where there were other factors involved.

 

I have no idea if there is a separate law for negligence where they could be charged in case of a death. In most cases I imagine it would be difficult to prove that the firearm hadn't been correctly stored.

[Melissa in Australia]

If you have a  conviction from a gun offence - including an unsecured gun-  it is taken pretty seriously and you will not be able to hold a Government job, or get a passport,  for a period of years.  Of course you might not get a conviction depending on the circumstances.If you are a Non-Australian citizen and you get a Jail sentence of over a year for anything you get deported.

 

 

 

I would think  (but do not know) that if you r gun was left unsecured and someone was killed because of that you might have manslaughter charges brought against you .

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Is the ATF going to conduct home checks to insure compliance? How will they know which homes to enter? Will you have to register your firearms? What if you don't have minors in the home? If I have my firearm holstered instead of in a safe, will I be subject to frisking? How does this work?

[Ausmumof3]

Yes. The penalty is more in terms of the impact that a firearms related offence on your record has than the actual penalty.

[Murphy101]

Is the ATF going to conduct home checks to insure compliance? How will they know which homes to enter? Will you have to register your firearms? What if you don't have minors in the home? If I have my firearm holstered instead of in a safe, will I be subject to frisking? How does this work?

I would put forth that it's like seatbelt laws or drunk driving.

 

No one is watching you buckle up or what you drank at dinner, but if caught not following the law when in an accident or pulled over for a broken taillight, it adds to your crime.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Murphy101

[Guest]

Do away with states rights, no, but certainly it's time for America to grow up and recognize when a problem has grown beyond the boundaries and purview of individual states. We are there with guns and have been for some time.

It's ironic that you can't see what an obstacle it is to have 300,000 million people agree on the nature of the problem as well as the solution(s) when we have a few dozen discussing it here and no agreement is in sight.

[Sneezyone]

It's ironic that you can't see what an obstacle it is to have 300,000 million people agree on the nature of the problem as well as the solution(s) when we have a few dozen discussing it here and no agreement is in sight.

 

There's nothing ironic about it. In a republic, you don't need 300 million or 5 billion people to agree, just a majority of elected representatives (or a majority of voters). Our problem is that a MINORITY of voters and a crooked lobbying organization have bought off our Congress. The majority of Americans support one reform or another.

[TechWife]

I have a question that is a bit off topic, so feel free to ignore me. I don't think it's significant enough that it warrants another thread though. 

 

Is there a reputable source available that would point me to which members of congress accept campaign contributions from the NRA? I know that I could, technically, crawl through each of their disclosure statements, but I'm hoping someone that is reasonably trustworthy has already done that. The problem with a google search is determining whether or not the source (at least for the info I am seeing) is reputable. 

Edited December 5, 2015 by TechWife

[TechWife]

What's worse, Carol, is that there has been little demonstrable impact of most of those laws and regs on safety. That's one of the primary reasons people are fighting them federally - because they didn't work on a state level. Some are more effective or justifiable than others.

 

Le sigh.

 

That is because the data that is available and the research methods that have been used are not adequate to the task. It is not because the laws are ineffective, it's that there are problems determining whether or not they are effective. Insufficient evidence doesn't mean that there hasn't been an impact. 

 

From an independent task force to the CDC: 

 

"The Task Force's review of firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine whether the laws reviewed reduce (or increase) specific violent outcomes (Table). Much existing research suffers from problems with data, analytic methods, or both. Further high-quality research is required to establish the relationship between firearms laws and violent outcomes."

 

...

 

"In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes."

 

Why is there insufficient data? Because congress has denied funding for the collection of data. Why has congress denied funding? NRA campaign contributions is my guess. 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2015 by TechWife

[Sneezyone]

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2014This is for 2014 since it's the most recent full year of reporting. Click on the party links for a list of individual Congresspeople.

[justasque]

Only if you change the definition.  By a Mother Jones editor's count, there have only been 4 this year.  This is his op-ed in the NY Times on why the count is highly politicized and designed to terrify you.  I'd hardly call Mother Jones conservative.

 

From the article: "One thing we all need is better data. Since 1996, Congress and the gun lobby have prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting comprehensive research into gun violence. In the wake of the latest horror, and the confusion that followed, will that finally change?"

 

Perhaps this is something we could agree on?

Edited December 5, 2015 by justasque

[TechWife]

 

From the article: "One thing we all need is better data. Since 1996, Congress and the gun lobby have prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting comprehensive research into gun violence. In the wake of the latest horror, and the confusion that followed, will that finally change?"

 

Perhaps this is something we could agree on?

 

The NRA is opposed to data collection. 

[TechWife]

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2014This is for 2014 since it's the most recent full year of reporting. Click on the party links for a list of individual Congresspeople.

 

 

I saw that one when I did a search. Do you think they are a reputable source, then? They can be counted on for accuracy and objectivity (as much as those exist in journalism)?