NYT: Guns and Opioids are American Scourges

[deleted480308]

I own guns, I hunt.......there is no need in our society for anyone to own a assault style weapon or high capacity magazine....Personal freedoms/ 2nd amendment blah blah blah....you would be singing a different tune if your childs head was blown up like a cantaloupe from one of these killers

No, I wouldn’t

And “assault style”? Please, if you are going to pitch yourself as the “look, y’all I’m one of you and even I want to ban your stuff” then take the time to learn how to speak properly using real terms. Speaking of using real terms, “high capacity” is a subjective cliche. Spell out what you want.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

the AR-15 ban is one of MANY proposed ideas as we've discussed earlier.

some of them are common sense. universal background checks? removing the dickey amendment? c'mon

I know very few gun advocates who are against universal background checks. You'll run into a problem though with gifting/inheritance and so on. For example, I have officially only bought a single gun. Yet between my father and grandfather, I actually am in possession of something like 10-12 firearms (shotguns, bolt action rifles, revolvers, black powder rifles - nothing semi-automatic other than those shotguns so nothing particularly worrisome). What would you do about that? I mean, I know you want to jail/heavily fine people but there will be an awful lot of honest mistakes.

My concern with letting public money pay for research is that, as we all know, you can basically do funny statistics or just flat out lie to get whatever results you want. Think about how many medical trials show something and follow up trials overturn it. Think about all the problems caused by Wakefield. That was one ****ty trial of 12 people but its influence is massive.

SPF has, as you might expect, a number of threads about this and some what I think are good and reasonable ideas did come up.

First, you've got to improve school security. Pretty much every other mandated gun-free zone has pretty heavy security (airports, courthouses, Federal buildings) which is why they aren't targets of mass shootings. I don't think mandating that teachers carry is a wise idea, but improving physical security and increasing armed officers would help and are easy enough to do.

Second, I would have no problem with a temporary gun hold - kinda like a restraining order but that let's the police take your guns while they investigate you. Put a fairly low time frame on how long they can keep them without criminal charges (say 30-45 days). Wouldn't stop everyone, but would stop some.

 

[deleted480308]

I know very few gun advocates who are against universal background checks. You'll run into a problem though with gifting/inheritance and so on. For example, I have officially only bought a single gun. Yet between my father and grandfather, I actually am in possession of something like 10-12 firearms (shotguns, bolt action rifles, revolvers, black powder rifles - nothing semi-automatic other than those shotguns so nothing particularly worrisome). What would you do about that? I mean, I know you want to jail/heavily fine people but there will be an awful lot of honest mistakes.

My concern with letting public money pay for research is that, as we all know, you can basically do funny statistics or just flat out lie to get whatever results you want. Think about how many medical trials show something and follow up trials overturn it. Think about all the problems caused by Wakefield. That was one ****ty trial of 12 people but its influence is massive.

SPF has, as you might expect, a number of threads about this and some what I think are good and reasonable ideas did come up.

First, you've got to improve school security. Pretty much every other mandated gun-free zone has pretty heavy security (airports, courthouses, Federal buildings) which is why they aren't targets of mass shootings. I don't think mandating that teachers carry is a wise idea, but improving physical security and increasing armed officers would help and are easy enough to do.

Second, I would have no problem with a temporary gun hold - kinda like a restraining order but that let's the police take your guns while they investigate you. Put a fairly low time frame on how long they can keep them without criminal charges (say 30-45 days). Wouldn't stop everyone, but would stop some.

Take my firearms for a month without charges presented in court or a mental health diagnosis/evaluation.

Hard pass

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Take my firearms for a month without charges presented in court or a mental health diagnosis/evaluation.

Hard pass

Yeah I'm not selling this to you. Just like I'm not selling it to the "ban all guns" on the other side.

 

[lonelobo]

No, I wouldn’t

And “assault style”? Please, if you are going to pitch yourself as the “look, y’all I’m one of you and even I want to ban your stuff” then take the time to learn how to speak properly using real terms. Speaking of using real terms, “high capacity” is a subjective cliche. Spell out what you want.

Auto or semi auto weapons(assault) holding more than 10 rounds( high capacity magazine)

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Auto or semi auto weapons(assault) holding more than 10 rounds( high capacity magazine)

So this is an assault rifle?

 

[emd123]

So this is an assault rifle?

I'm sure you'd have no problem "assaulting" someone with this, if you wanted to. I'm equally sure they wouldn't send you a thank you for not using a rifle that's more scary looking.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I'm sure you'd have no problem "assaulting" someone with this, if you wanted to. I'm equally sure they wouldn't send you a thank you for not using a rifle that's more scary looking.

.... OK

My point is that this (not mine but I used to have that same model) meets the apparent criteria someone else listed as an assault rifle but a gun like this hasn't been used in a mass shooting since the UT bell tower guy.

 

[deleted480308]

Auto or semi auto weapons(assault) holding more than 10 rounds( high capacity magazine)

Are you unaware that a semiautomatic rifle is not an assault rifle or are you intentionally misusing the term?

And 10rd max? A huge portion of pistols would violate your definition of “high capacity”

 

[Ducttape]

I have seen heads blown apart by non assault rifles. I have seen handgun wounds that have mangled hands to the point of being unrecognizable. (I have also seen at least 3 testicles obliterated by gunshots. but im not sure why I posted this tidbit). its not pretty. the lethality of non assault rifles is amazing. magnify that by 60 fold...

fyi ill list a few more of the websites that clearly state "the NRA suppresses data collection". that is the exact search I used, and I didn't include the 3 listed above. its not just a few "liberal" ones, although one can argue about the liberalness of some of these websites.

slate.com
Bloomberg.com
businessinsider.com
abcnews.go.com
prwatch.com
ammoland.com
medium.com
nraila.org (specifically related to NSA trying to obtain data collection on gun ownership)
huffingtonpost
redding.com
nbcnews.com



sb, handguns are not as commonly used for high volume kills because the accuracy and fire rate are, essentially, inversely proportional. the range of handguns is also a lot less than a high powered rifle, meaning that there is probably a greater chance that a survivor might be able to escape. and yes, semiautomatic and assault are 2 separate terms, but he did say "assault style", not "assault".. and everyone is aware that the problem is with high rate of fire.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

sb, handguns are not as commonly used for high volume kills because the accuracy and fire rate are, essentially, inversely proportional. the range of handguns is also a lot less than a high powered rifle, meaning that there is probably a greater chance that a survivor might be able to escape. and yes, semiautomatic and assault are 2 separate terms, but he did say "assault style", not "assault".. and everyone is aware that the problem is with high rate of fire.

I mean, kinda? 3rd and 6th most deadly shootings in our history were with pistols. Of the top 20 deadliest (of which there are actually 24 due to equal numbers killed), 1/3rd were with handguns

 

[deleted480308]

I have seen heads blown apart by non assault rifles. I have seen handgun wounds that have mangled hands to the point of being unrecognizable. (I have also seen at least 3 testicles obliterated by gunshots. but im not sure why I posted this tidbit). its not pretty. the lethality of non assault rifles is amazing. magnify that by 60 fold...

fyi ill list a few more of the websites that clearly state "the NRA suppresses data collection". that is the exact search I used, and I didn't include the 3 listed above. its not just a few "liberal" ones, although one can argue about the liberalness of some of these websites.

slate.com
Bloomberg.com
businessinsider.com
abcnews.go.com
prwatch.com
ammoland.com
medium.com
nraila.org (specifically related to NSA trying to obtain data collection on gun ownership)
huffingtonpost
redding.com
nbcnews.com



sb, handguns are not as commonly used for high volume kills because the accuracy and fire rate are, essentially, inversely proportional. the range of handguns is also a lot less than a high powered rifle, meaning that there is probably a greater chance that a survivor might be able to escape. and yes, semiautomatic and assault are 2 separate terms, but he did say "assault style", not "assault".. and everyone is aware that the problem is with high rate of fire.

The ability to fire with accuracy at a faster rate than with a handgun due to decreased recoil or muzzle raise is not a problem....it is a feature, an advantage, and one of the reasons that normal citizens should not be stopped from owning them

 

[hyperalgesia]

I have seen heads blown apart by non assault rifles. I have seen handgun wounds that have mangled hands to the point of being unrecognizable. (I have also seen at least 3 testicles obliterated by gunshots. but im not sure why I posted this tidbit). its not pretty. the lethality of non assault rifles is amazing. magnify that by 60 fold...

fyi ill list a few more of the websites that clearly state "the NRA suppresses data collection". that is the exact search I used, and I didn't include the 3 listed above. its not just a few "liberal" ones, although one can argue about the liberalness of some of these websites.

slate.com
Bloomberg.com
businessinsider.com
abcnews.go.com
prwatch.com
ammoland.com
medium.com
nraila.org (specifically related to NSA trying to obtain data collection on gun ownership)
huffingtonpost
redding.com
nbcnews.com

This point is completely taken. The NRA is a powerful lobbying group that has successfully executed its agenda to prevent govt involvement, including govt research, in gun restriction. No argument whatsoever. It makes sense because the NRA believes, as did the Founding Fathers, that guns should be available for people to protect themselves FROM the government.

It was a different time but this is firmly ingrained in American culture, not necessarily just the NRA. The thing is, even though the threat from the govt may seem remote and ridiculous now, it's hard to see what will happen in the future.

What if Donald Trump really WAS Hitler, for example? And what if he took the other side and wanted to collect everyone's guns, especially liberals? And then he told everyone they had to surrender their property because Ivanka wanted to use it for sweatshops? I mean, I'm just saying, some time in the distant future when Americans are only allowed to have one squirt gun...

 

[Doctodd]

I have seen heads blown apart by non assault rifles. I have seen handgun wounds that have mangled hands to the point of being unrecognizable. (I have also seen at least 3 testicles obliterated by gunshots. but im not sure why I posted this tidbit). its not pretty. the lethality of non assault rifles is amazing. magnify that by 60 fold...

fyi ill list a few more of the websites that clearly state "the NRA suppresses data collection". that is the exact search I used, and I didn't include the 3 listed above. its not just a few "liberal" ones, although one can argue about the liberalness of some of these websites.

slate.com
Bloomberg.com
businessinsider.com
abcnews.go.com
prwatch.com
ammoland.com
medium.com
nraila.org (specifically related to NSA trying to obtain data collection on gun ownership)
huffingtonpost
redding.com
nbcnews.com



sb, handguns are not as commonly used for high volume kills because the accuracy and fire rate are, essentially, inversely proportional. the range of handguns is also a lot less than a high powered rifle, meaning that there is probably a greater chance that a survivor might be able to escape. and yes, semiautomatic and assault are 2 separate terms, but he did say "assault style", not "assault".. and everyone is aware that the problem is with high rate of fire.

With all these liberal organization’s and all the money behind them, it baffles the mind that there’s no research showing what they want? Even paid-for research! They could pay any university or any scientist or any statistician a huge amount of money to make the research that they want, but it doesn’t exist. Why is that? They have a live test tube in Chicago that they could research. Why don’t they use Chicago?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

This point is completely taken. The NRA is a powerful lobbying group that has successfully executed its agenda to prevent govt involvement, including govt research, in gun restriction. No argument whatsoever. It makes sense because the NRA believes, as did the Founding Fathers, that guns should be available for people to protect themselves FROM the government.

It was a different time but this is firmly ingrained in American culture, not necessarily just the NRA. The thing is, even though the threat from the govt may seem remote and ridiculous now, it's hard to see what will happen in the future.

What if Donald Trump really WAS Hitler, for example? And what if he took the other side and wanted to collect everyone's guns, especially liberals? And then he told everyone they had to surrender their property because Ivanka wanted to use it for sweatshops? I mean, I'm just saying, some time in the distant future when Americans are only allowed to have one squirt gun...

Or FDR...

 

[lonelobo]

Are you unaware that a semiautomatic rifle is not an assault rifle or are you intentionally misusing the term?

many consider semi auto "assault weapons)

And 10rd max? A huge portion of pistols would violate your definition of “high capacity”

yep

 

[deleted480308]

Many consider semi automatic “assault weapons”

yep

Many people consider the world flat too, but they are idiots who don’t get to spout their opinion to anyone who knows anything as though they are part of the community that knows something on the topic

Ban all pistol capacity over 10? For real?

You may actually own guns and maybe you even hunt, but you don’t know enough about this topic to pitch yourself as the voice of reason from within the gun community

 

[Ducttape]

With all these liberal organization’s and all the money behind them, it baffles the mind that there’s no research showing what they want? Even paid-for research! They could pay any university or any scientist or any statistician a huge amount of money to make the research that they want, but it doesn’t exist. Why is that? They have a live test tube in Chicago that they could research. Why don’t they use Chicago?

because the data itself is being squelched by the NRA.

if you cant get the data regardless of how much money you throw at it, you will not get the data. say what you want about liberals, but honest scientists are not going to forge data that the NRA would be able to shoot holes through. pun intended.

to hyper's point:
the people and organizations that have the power to stand up to Trump and feds are not and will never be the individual gun owner. we are deceived in to thinking that each one of us can stand up to the government. think Ruby Ridge, Waco. how successful were they? in one instance, they got so desperate that they committed mass suicide.

the states and local militias, police departments. Congress. that's who should and could stand up to Feds. and that's what certain states are doing right now.

(of course, the way that Trump is running the Feds at the moment, we don't have to worry about Feds taking over)

 

[lonelobo]

Many people consider the world flat too, but they are idiots who don’t get to spout their opinion to anyone who knows anything as though they are part of the community that knows something on the topic

Ban all pistol capacity over 10? For real?

You may actually own guns and maybe you even hunt, but you don’t know enough about this topic to pitch yourself as the voice of reason from within the gun community

Assault weapon - Wikipedia

sorry didn't know a med student was the authority on guns and no I Don't claim to be the voice of reason in gun community.

My view point is in the majority in this country, now why don't you get back to surfing the web for the latest NRA talking points

 

[lonelobo]

QU Poll Release Detail

Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:

• 67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons;
• 83 - 14 percent for a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. It is too easy to buy a gun in the U.S. today, American voters say 67 - 3 percent. If more people carried guns, the U.S. would be less safe, voters say 59 - 33 percent. Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence, voters say 75 - 17 percent.

 

[Ducttape]

I mean, kinda? 3rd and 6th most deadly shootings in our history were with pistols. Of the top 20 deadliest (of which there are actually 24 due to equal numbers killed), 1/3rd were with handguns

2 of the top 10 killings were handguns.

oh by the way, one was with a semi-automatic walther and glock, the other was with 2 semi-automatic berettas.

 

[Doctodd]

because the data itself is being squelched by the NRA.

if you cant get the data regardless of how much money you throw at it, you will not get the data. say what you want about liberals, but honest scientists are not going to forge data that the NRA would be able to shoot holes through. pun intended.

to hyper's point:
the people and organizations that have the power to stand up to Trump and feds are not and will never be the individual gun owner. we are deceived in to thinking that each one of us can stand up to the government. think Ruby Ridge, Waco. how successful were they? in one instance, they got so desperate that they committed mass suicide.

the states and local militias, police departments. Congress. that's who should and could stand up to Feds. and that's what certain states are doing right now.

(of course, the way that Trump is running the Feds at the moment, we don't have to worry about Feds taking over)

Really? So the NRA is violating freedom of speech? I would think liberal media/CNN would be the scientist’s mouthpiece. They can basically say anything they want without liability. Or maybe there is no data to silence? Or more likely, as Chicago proves, the data shows the opposite.....banning guns doesn’t work. I’d prefer we ban violent video games and violent movies where violence and brutality are glamourized.

 

[deleted480308]

Assault weapon - Wikipedia

sorry didn't know a med student was the authority on guns and no I Don't claim to be the voice of reason in gun community.

My view point is in the majority in this country, now why don't you get back to surfing the web for the latest NRA talking points

Please don't use wikipedia as a excuse for not knowing the words you are using. And pointing out that I'm a med student doesn't embarrass me, I'm the one using the word correctly

And you were claiming to be the stereotyped "reasonable one", you came in attempted to validate yourself as a member of the gun community with statements that you own guns and that you hunt. You were trying to establish that you weren't some crazed "other" who didn't understand guns. Then you attempted to use your assumed place on the side of the gun community to say that clearly it was time to ban "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines".

When you did this you really exposed that you don't know much about firearms at all. You aren't proposing modest or "common sense" restrictions. And when questioned about it, you doubled down

 

[lonelobo]

Please don't use wikipedia as a excuse for not knowing the words you are using. And pointing out that I'm a med student doesn't embarrass me, I'm the one using the word correctly

And you were claiming to be the stereotyped "reasonable one", you came in attempted to validate yourself as a member of the gun community with statements that you own guns and that you hunt. You were trying to establish that you weren't some crazed "other" who didn't understand guns. Then you attempted to use your assumed place on the side of the gun community to say that clearly it was time to ban "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines".

When you did this you really exposed that you don't know much about firearms at all. You aren't proposing modest or "common sense" restrictions. And when questioned about it, you doubled down

Talk about flat earther- please give me the " definition" of an assault weapon since the majority of the country agree with me. My pointing out you as a med student is meant to encourage to you to do something useful like study. Not
have silly arguments with practicing physicians like me.

 

[deleted480308]

Talk about flat earther- please give me the " definition" of an assault weapon since the majority of the country agree with me. My pointing out you as a med student is meant to encourage to you to do something useful like study. Not
have silly arguments with practicing physicians like me.

http://www.virginia1774.org/DIA-ST-HB-07-03-74.pdf

page 105 (sorry for the typo)

 

[Ducttape]

Page 106 shows 3 pics of an AK-47.

Doesn’t read like a definition....

 

[deleted480308]

Page 106 shows 3 pics of an AK-47.

Doesn’t read like a definition....

my bad on the typo.....105

 

[hyperalgesia]

the people and organizations that have the power to stand up to Trump and feds are not and will never be the individual gun owner. we are deceived in to thinking that each one of us can stand up to the government. think Ruby Ridge, Waco. how successful were they? in one instance, they got so desperate that they committed mass suicide.

the states and local militias, police departments. Congress. that's who should and could stand up to Feds. and that's what certain states are doing right now.

(of course, the way that Trump is running the Feds at the moment, we don't have to worry about Feds taking over)

I'm not so sure about that. Certainly true for one fringe cult at a time. But what about a mass uprising? Why did the Nazis disarm Jews if guns were not a threat to the regime?

If you take firepower away from the people, you are placing all your trust in institutions, including cops. Are you comfortable completely leaving everything in the hands of the feds and cops forever? This freedom will NEVER be restored, even after the country becomes a corrupt hell hole.

Nazi gun control theory - Wikipedia

"Few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s.[1] The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws.[7] When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[4]:672 The laws were tightened in other ways. Nazi laws disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens.[4]:670,676"

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

2 of the top 10 killings were handguns.

oh by the way, one was with a semi-automatic walther and glock, the other was with 2 semi-automatic berettas.

And?

 

[lobelsteve]

And?

Good thing I've got a Springfield and S&W.

 

[emd123]

.... OK

My point is that this (not mine but I used to have that same model) meets the apparent criteria someone else listed as an assault rifle but a gun like this hasn't been used in a mass shooting since the UT bell tower guy.

Your point is correct. The ar-15's are black and look scary. In reality, that's the only difference. And people can use the rifle you showed to "assault" people as much as any other weapon. But still, everyone wants to ban the AR-15's, when the reality of a perp using an AR 15 is not much different than the Columbine lunatics, who filled backpacks full of pistols and ammo for reloading, and still managed to kill 15 people, while fighting off an armed security guard who fired shots (and didn't hide). Plus, the great, great, majority of gun deaths are from pistols, not rifles, let alone AR-15's which are only one sub-type.

That being said, there have to be some controls, and the line has to be drawn somewhere, as to what's banned or not. I think the majority of people agree with that, and the majority don't want all guns banned, nor do they want all types of arms, weaponry, grenades, and rocket launchers, legalized. The reality of it is, this insanity needs to stop, because if lunatics keep shooting up schools and concerts, some things are likely to get banned, whether it's constitutional, whether anyone likes it, or it has any measurable effect, or not.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Your point is correct. The ar-15's are black and look scary. In reality, that's the only difference. And people can use the rifle you showed to "assault" people as much as any other weapon. But still, everyone wants to ban the AR-15's, when the reality of a perp using an AR 15 is not much different than the Columbine lunatics, who filled backpacks full of pistols and ammo for reloading, and still managed to kill 15 people, while fighting off an armed security guard who fired shots (and didn't hide). Plus, the great, great, majority of gun deaths are from pistols, not rifles, let alone AR-15's which are only one sub-type.

That being said, there have to be some controls, and the line has to be drawn somewhere, as to what's banned or not. I think the majority of people agree with that, and the majority don't want all guns banned, nor do they want all types of arms, weaponry, grenades, and rocket launchers, legalized. The reality of it is, this insanity needs to stop, because if lunatics keep shooting up schools and concerts, some things are likely to get banned, whether it's constitutional, whether anyone likes it, or it has any measurable effect, or not.

Yep, the old "don't just stand there, do something!"

Hence my statements earlier in the thread:

First, you've got to improve school security. Pretty much every other mandated gun-free zone has pretty heavy security (airports, courthouses, Federal buildings) which is why they aren't targets of mass shootings. I don't think mandating that teachers carry is a wise idea, but improving physical security and increasing armed officers would help and are easy enough to do.

Second, I would have no problem with a temporary gun hold - kinda like a restraining order but that let's the police take your guns while they investigate you. Put a fairly low time frame on how long they can keep them without criminal charges (say 30-45 days). Wouldn't stop everyone, but would stop some.

 

[emd123]

Yep, the old "don't just stand there, do something!"

Exactly. Responses need to be rational, not emotional. Unfortunately, it's human nature to be emotional 90% of the time, and only rational 10% of the time.

First, you've got to improve school security. Pretty much every other mandated gun-free zone has pretty heavy security (airports, courthouses, Federal buildings) which is why they aren't targets of mass shootings.

Agree. The lawyers and politicians sure as hell have found the funding to make it so they don't have to worry, haven't they? They've made damn sure their courthouses and events are gunned up to the nines, with metal detectors at all doors. I haven't seen them proposing to take all the guns and metal detectors away from their security guards and cops, have you?

But we haven't beefed up security at schools. Parkland school, 3000 kids, and only one security guard without proper training?

Not adequate. Some small towns don't even have 3,000 people. Schools this big probably need multiple armed guards, and if they can't get people with what it takes to at least try to take down a shooter, which is exactly what they're there for, then maybe we need to spring for the extra money to put actual police officers in there (costs at least double).

Also, notice that nobody ever shoots up a gun show. Isn't that an aberration?
How can that be? These events likely have the highest gun to person ratio on the planet, yet, "Surprise, surprise," no one chooses a gun show for their final act of cowardice.

Hmm...

I don't think mandating that teachers carry is a wise idea, but improving physical security and increasing armed officers would help and are easy enough to do.

Literally no one, thinks mandating teachers carry is a wise idea. I don't recall anyone proposing to mandate teachers carry. There was a proposal to give the option for a portion of licensed teachers to carry, like the air marshal program after 911 where pilots where given the option to carry, if licensed. As far as I know, that program is still in place. I haven't hear of too many airplane hijackings in America, since 9/11. Have you? Texas has already quietly moved forward on allowing some teachers to carry, long before the Parkland school shooting. This system is quietly already in place. And surprise, surprise, again! I haven't heard of too many mass-school shootings in Texas lately.

 

[lonelobo]

The CDC Can't Fund Gun Research. What if that Changed?