• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

joesixpack said:
So the murder rate went up proportionately? No. By all measures the homicide RATE has continued to drop in spite of liberalization of gun laws, in spite of the end of the assault weapons ban, and in spite of all the high profile crimes.

The crime/murder rate changes independently of the rate of gun ownership in the US. Please address that issue before you condemn the nation for our "failed" gun culture, as it seems that our crime rate continues to decline through this putative failure.
Click to expand...

The UKs murder rate rises and falls as well as the USA. The difference in the two murder rates is that the USA's is much higher and involves far more shooting. Shooting results in more deaths than knife wounds as this meta study of hospital admissions around the world shows

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/02/24/knives-00006/

So even though the crime rate rises and falls independently of the number of guns, there is a causal link between the guns and the number of deaths. More Americans get shot and more die than in the UK where guns are rare and hard to get hold of for criminals and the public do not carry guns or consider them as suitable for defence against each other. The UK recognises that only certain people are properly suitable and responsible to have guns. The USA has a system where many many unsuitable people have been able to get a gun.

That is why US gun culture is a fail compared to the UK.
 
I wonder if part of the problem isn't the entire way the US government operates. It occurs to me that it would be impossible for a New Zealand court to conclude, as the USSS has, that the 2nd Amendment applies to personal protection.

It seems that there's a key distinction in the powers of the judiciary in the US, which probably is caused because they don't have parliamentary supremacy.

In a Constitutional Monarchy, a core principal is Parliamentary Supremacy. Parliament can pass any law, on any subject it wishes. There is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, because any new law effectively acts to amend the constitution. The Judiciary's only authority is the the application of legislation to a specific circumstance. Where the law is vague that means they get some space to interpret, but where the law is more specific they have less options.

In the US, by contrast, the Judiciary clearly has some degree of power to determine the scope of legislation in a broader way, independent of how the law is actually written.

If we take the 2nd Amendment, as written, it explicitly relates to maintaining a militia for the purpose of protecting the state. Under Parliamentary Supremacy a court cannot interpret that as applying to self-defense by an individual. This would be unconstitutional, as it would be defying the supremacy of parliament.

In the US system, the very opposite occurs. A court can expand the application of the law outside the constraints of its specific wording. More importantly, once that expanded meaning is established, parliament (Congress) cannot pass a new law that conflicts with the expanded meaning.
 
Nessie said:
I am now being ignored by two gun owners on the forum. They just cannot accept how their attitudes are easily held up to ridicule and criticism. They like to dish it out, but cannot take it. They hate the fact that the USA is soundly trounced by other countries in terms of a responsible attitude to guns and their use.
Click to expand...

Too many gun owners have an emotional connection to their guns. Their guns are more important than the lives of others.
 
gumboot said:
I wonder if part of the problem isn't the entire way the US government operates. It occurs to me that it would be impossible for a New Zealand court to conclude, as the USSS has, that the 2nd Amendment applies to personal protection.

It seems that there's a key distinction in the powers of the judiciary in the US, which probably is caused because they don't have parliamentary supremacy.

In a Constitutional Monarchy, a core principal is Parliamentary Supremacy. Parliament can pass any law, on any subject it wishes. There is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, because any new law effectively acts to amend the constitution. The Judiciary's only authority is the the application of legislation to a specific circumstance. Where the law is vague that means they get some space to interpret, but where the law is more specific they have less options.

In the US, by contrast, the Judiciary clearly has some degree of power to determine the scope of legislation in a broader way, independent of how the law is actually written.

If we take the 2nd Amendment, as written, it explicitly relates to maintaining a militia for the purpose of protecting the state. Under Parliamentary Supremacy a court cannot interpret that as applying to self-defense by an individual. This would be unconstitutional, as it would be defying the supremacy of parliament.

In the US system, the very opposite occurs. A court can expand the application of the law outside the constraints of its specific wording. More importantly, once that expanded meaning is established, parliament (Congress) cannot pass a new law that conflicts with the expanded meaning.
Click to expand...

bolding mine:


That's not exactly true as congress enacts laws all the time that "might" be outside the guidelines of the constitution. It's up to the populace to challenge these laws in court so as to allow the Judicial Branch of govt to interpret if said law is truly unconstitutional.
 
Nessie said:
The UKs murder rate rises and falls as well as the USA. The difference in the two murder rates is that the USA's is much higher and involves far more shooting. Shooting results in more deaths than knife wounds as this meta study of hospital admissions around the world shows

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/02/24/knives-00006/

So even though the crime rate rises and falls independently of the number of guns, there is a causal link between the guns and the number of deaths. More Americans get shot and more die than in the UK where guns are rare and hard to get hold of for criminals and the public do not carry guns or consider them as suitable for defence against each other. The UK recognises that only certain people are properly suitable and responsible to have guns. The USA has a system where many many unsuitable people have been able to get a gun.

That is why US gun culture is a fail compared to the UK.
Click to expand...

Gun nuts in the USA are so crazy and powerful that they've defunded scientific research of firearm injuries and death.
 
Gun nuts, crazy...blah blah blah, this is such a tired, fallacious form of argument. appeal to emotion..... try harder
 
StankApe said:
lol, perhaps we should start a new CT thread based on you claim?
Click to expand...

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's not even a conspiracy. This really happened, and it's not something the NRA or politicians are hiding.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...gress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html

In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year.
 
Governments shouldn't be funding research designed to undermine it's existing constitution.

Would you approve of the govt funding research to determine ways in which we can lower freedom of the press?
 
StankApe said:
Governments shouldn't be funding research designed to undermine it's existing constitution.

Would you approve of the govt funding research to determine ways in which we can lower freedom of the press?
Click to expand...

The link I posted earlier in the thread (salon.com, not slate) mentioned that it is more than that.

It was is prohibiting funding for research into gun safety. Not into how to remove freedoms. The governmental organisation tasked with researching causes of death and morbidity is unable to research one major cause of death and morbidity.

Dickey’s clause, which remains in effect today, has had a chilling effect on all scientific research into gun safety, as gun rights advocates view “advocacy” as any research that notices that guns are dangerous. Stephen Teret, who co-directs the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told Salon: “They sent a message and the message was heard loud and clear. People [at the CDC], then and now, know that if they start going down that road, their budget is going to be vulnerable. And the way public agencies work, they know how this works and they’re not going to stick their necks out.”
Click to expand...


jimbob said:
Of course there is a problem with doing research into the effectiveness of gun control measures...

Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “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.”
Click to expand...

Daniel Vice of the Brady Center told Salon that the stymieing of research at the CDC “is just one part of a broad campaign of secrecy to keep information from the public about how dangerous guns are.” He noted that the ATF used to release lots of gun crime data to the public, including a list of problem gun dealers providing firearms to criminals (almost 60 percent of firearms at crime scenes were traced back to just one percent of gun dealers, he said). But beginning in 2003, an amendment introduced by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Republican from Kansas, prevents the ATF from releasing all kinds of gun data. It’s been added as a rider to every spending bill since.
Click to expand...

As a non American, I find this attitude towards finding the truth really disturbing.
Click to expand...
 
Dcdrac said:
This is frankly insane.....

They have been promoting this sort of legislation for real???
Click to expand...

It appears to me that it was designed to keep physicians from denying treatment due to firearms ownership. (similar to the laws designed to make ant-abortion pharmacists sell birth control (specifically the "day after pill").

But, yeah, the NRA is looking out for the interests of only gun owners. Being that they are a gun lobby. Just as the AMA looks out for ONLY medical providers and the insurance lobby looks out for ONLY insurance companies.

Their interests aren't for the public at large. That's not what lobbying groups are designed for. Whatever your pet "cause" is, I'm sure you wish they were as diligent and effective as the NRA.
 
Kestrel said:
The NRA sponsored Privacy of Firearms Owners Act that was eventually passed by the Florida legislature is another oddity. Would any other country try to limit what physicians could say to their patients about firearms?
Click to expand...

So much for increased mental health care. If Adam Lanza was referred to a health care professional in Florida (and several other states), he couldn't even be questioned about his access to guns. This was a NRA sponsored bill. This organisation truly has blood on its hands.
 
lionking said:
So much for increased mental health care. If Adam Lanza was referred to a health care professional in Florida (and several other states), he couldn't even be questioned about his access to guns. This was a NRA sponsored bill. This organisation truly has blood on its hands.
Click to expand...

Except, he wasn't referred to a professional in Florida, so your hypothetical attribution of guilt falls flat..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom