• #10
    I'm not for the government researching anything because the government is biased. However, I'm fine with a private non-partisan group researching this. It is worthwhile to have proof one way or the other of what works to make our society safer. Warning liberals, it most likely would be proven that gun ownership does indeed make society safer.
  • #41
    What happens (or should happen) is that multiple groups will do separate studies.

    "Warning liberals, it most likely would be proven that gun ownership does indeed make society safer."

    If that was true, then why is the NRA opposing it?? Must be low confidence.
  • #71
    The "Gun Violence" and "Homicide" statistics used by the anti-gun lobby also include all justifiable, and accidental, shootings and deaths incurred Legally, by law enforcement personnel in the line of duty. If the anti gun "spin doctors" subtracted the "justifiable homicides" and "accidental" gun related injuries incurred, legally, in the line of duty, by law enforcement, or in legal "justifiable" self defense by civilians, the actual "illegal gun violence" statistics would be dramatically lower.
    But then these real facts would not be of useful service to the anti gun "male bovine fecal matter slinging" agenda. Figures don't lie, but liars manipulate figures.
  • #77
    Indeed, private research has been conducted:
    All credible research shows that guns are used (by private citizens) ten-times more often (at least) to save innocent life, than they are to murder someone. Moreover, Millions of times every year armed private citizens employ firearms to thwart crime – without ever firing a single shot in most cases. And when they do actually fire their weapons, they are more successful in stopping the criminal – with far fewer collateral casualties – than all the police put together.

    "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of self-Defense with a Gun" by Dr. Gary Kleck, Ph. D – Criminologist

    "The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9(3):249-287 " by Dr. Gary Kleck, Ph. D – Criminologist

    “Why do people support gun control?” Journal of Criminal Justice 37(5) " by Dr. Gary Kleck, Ph. D – Criminologist

    “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott, Ph. D.
  • #4
    Nope, the government already wastes enough money on useless things.

    More guns in the hands of citizens = less crime, more freedom, more safety, more independence, more people protecting themselves instead of being scared children expecting someone else to protect them.

    It was banned in the first place, by a bi-partisan effort, as it was only being manipulated by anti-American/Anti-gun extremists who want to disarm citizens for no good ends, who selectively hired "researchers" who developed skewed "studies" that were proven time and again to be contrived and false.
  • #27
    @DARSB there is also evidence that when the average person attempts to meet with an intruder with a weapon, the weapon is quickly turned upon them and they are killed where they probably wouldn't have been if they hadn't been armed. this goes for knives, guns and even a baseball bat.
  • #28
    "More guns in the hands of citizens = less crime..."

    What sort of crime do you mean exactly?? Because the rate of violent crime in America doesn't follow your logic of 'more guns, less crime'. Observe...
    "Yep, there’s basically no correlation between gun control laws and violent crime. The top five most violent states per capita, as well as seven of of the top ten most violent states, have lax gun laws. However, the five least violent states have weak laws as well, with eight of the bottom ten states placing poorly on the Brady Campaign’s scorecard.

    Strict gun control states are similarly scattered all over the place. California, number one on the Brady scorecard, is number 13 for violent crime, and other states with strong gun laws such as Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, and Illinois are at numbers 6, 9, 10, and 11 for violent crime, respectively. At the same time, several other states with strong gun laws such as Hawaii, Connecticut, and Rhode Island are quite low on violent crime, clocking in at numbers 39, 41, and 45, respectively."

    But you have to remember this is violent crime in general. Gun crime rates would be more better except we can't get any definitive data. I would of thought that 'Gun Rights' advocates would be in favor of more research, given that there may be a chance could actually support their cause. But the fact that the NRA and most (if not all) GR's oppose it shows there is little confidence. What exactly do they have to hide??
  • #30
    @DARSB High percent of the time I not only agree with you, but look forward to reading your "quips". With that said, ownership of any weapon (other than guns) can increase that "likelihood of homicide and suicide in the home."'s in the home!
    Heck, ownership of a marriage license in the home can increase the "likelihood of homicide and suicide in the home."
  • #34
    @stepped_in_it In my experience owning Marriage License is closely correlated with lawn mowing, couch sleeping, and being nice to my brother-in-law (failing at #3 leads to #2).
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    Sure..... Why not spend a few billion on research that proves nothing other than what the researcher wanted to prove when he started? Isn't that what all our Government sponsored research programs do? Global Warming comes to mind.
  • #20
    Few billion?? Where did you get that figure?? And even if it did cost that much, a few TRILLION was spent on two fruitless wars. So why not try something that may save lives?? You're extremely arrogant to suggest that research is a waste of time and is always biased.

    It's obvious you ignore evidence you don't like e.g. Global Warming. Let me ask you something, who benefits from G.W. being fact?? No one of course. Because everyone will suffer. But who stands to lose from G.W. being fact?? Now there is a much more interesting answer...
  • #21

    I know it's hard to type while frothing at the mouth but if you take a deep breath and have a few sips of Kool Aid you MIGHT come out with a message that's at least legible... I'm not holding out for much more than that.
  • #26
    Politix Diplomat
    Thanks for your comments everyone. Please be mindful of posting ad hominem remarks/attacks in your posts.

    - FenceSitter
  • #31
    @Sharpshooter There is nothing wrong with my English. There may or may not be some minor grammar or spelling errors but so what?? It's definitely readable. Frothing at the mouth?? Now where did you get the silly idea that I'm enraged?? What's happening here is that made some valid points that have clearly got your underwear in a knot. You can't find any way to counter me directly, so you try to save face by changing the subject...
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    "In 1996, Congress barred research by the CDC that might "advocate or promote gun control." In 2003, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was banned from providing researchers with data on gun injuries and deaths. And in 2012, the National Institutes of Health was barred from funding gun research."
    HMMM....1996 = Both houses had Repub majorities >>> 2003 Both houses had Repub majorities >>> 2012 Congress repubs Senate Democrat
    "progressive liberals" ?? Are we having dreams or knightmares there?
  • #16
    Obama can overturn these legislative bans, the president can not.

    What? Now he thinks he's Andrew Jackson out killing Indians?
  • #17
    @DerivePI Only Congress and the Courts can overturn legislation. I understood the ban on firearms research was by executive order, was it not?
  • #37
    @DerivePI "! Do you believe the executive should be able to overturn previous legislative actions?"
    Don't you? Romney said one of his first actions as President was going to be the repeal of Obamacare.
    Translation for Dummies: it's ok if I agree with it.
  • #39
    Well, if congress passed the law in 1996, this one rests squarely on Clinton's shoulders. I agree that the ban should be overturned. Research with this kind of limitation is useless.
  • #46
    @Fishbone345 - Its important that we try to hold on to our tenuous grasp of freedom. When Romney said that, the very question you bring up came to mind. In Obamacare, there are executive powers asigned that allow the HHS secretary (executive branch) to excuse people from certain Obamacare provisions.
  • R Load more replies

  • #97
    who trusts gov to do any study and come up with real facts? they like to add a little here take a little there depending out what outcome they want. kind of like the fox guarding the hen house. enough was shown with the way f&f was handled and what else it was trying to be used for.
  • #67
    First of all, censorship is ALWAYS evil. Second of all, why censor research unless you KNOW there's an ugly fact that you don't want discovered?
  • #107
    Obviously, because the so-called "researchers" (really just liberal political hacks) demonstrated they were actively engaged in perverting science in order to promote their blatantly anti-American personal political agenda - to the extent that Congress toke notice of their egregious abuse of federal authority, and felt compelled to shut down the clandestine operations.
  • #130
    @bambi33 You sound like a North Korean press release: "The peace loving people of the NRA condemn the imperialist warmongering aggression of the liberal capitalist lapdog scientists."
  • #66
    "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
    - Adolf Hitler
  • #72
    This is a false quote. The Weimar Republic had gun control laws in effect years before Hitler came to power. The key thing about the Nazi reign is that they controlled EVERYTHING, like what Santorum, Bachmann etc. want to do to America with their fellow Dominionists. They also want to ban research on "unbiblical" things. They want a totalitarian theocracy. Remember, without this similar religious adoration of all things Hitler, he would not have had the power to enslave a nation.
  • #83
    Indeed, it seems dozens of heavily armed homicidal lunatics , criminals, and jihadists, have repeatedly demonstrated the obvious truth of your statement. Yet, the liberal Democrats close their eyes, ears, and minds - and deny it. Their irrational behavior reveals they are pursuing a secret agenda - which is glaringly obvious to all who are capable of rational thought.
  • #43
    Yes, let the truth speak for itself which ever way it may fall.
    Also as the article points out there's no scientific consensus so what are we doing rushing to bans?
    Let's let the research speak first instead of doing something "just to do something". No solution is still better than a solution that does nothing but wastes or even backfires.
  • #15
    I really don't care if he does or doesn't I just don't want one penny of my tax money to fund this research. If the medical, scientific, research or crazy individuals or groups wanting to make a point feel as though they need this information the setup their own means of gathering, analyzing and disseminating this information. Something to consider against the funding of your favorite social program and why they always fall short.
  • #32
    gee... what do you plan on doing with all your tax money, spend it invading other do nothing small countries and dumping billions of dollars into them just for fun and the profit of a few conservative peckerheads?
  • #47
    @dances-weebles Well I see you placed a great deal of effort in that response. I have always advocated deep military cuts, never supported the past couple of wars we waged particularly to Iraq which did absolutely nothing to our nation. I was only thinking we could pay some bills that all. But by all means, please continue to toss out your emotional, flawed and not so well thought out assumption responses.
  • #53
    @Buzzfriendly then i appologise for jumping to conclusions. i was ass-uming that you were speaking just like most of the mental midgets on here. can we also cut down on the corporate welfare while we're at it?
  • #124
    @dances-weebles Apology accepted. Sure we can cut the corporate welfare. Oil and gas are profitable no reason for handouts there. Numerous holes in tax code should be fixed, eliminate funding to countries like Israel and Pakistan, close military bases outside the US and move those folks to our borders. I see no reason why a combination of tax code corrections and spending cuts can't put us on track. We are all in this debt boat together so the pain needs to be shared by us all. Picking and choosing who feels that pain causes gridlock and we all suffer from that so might as well suffer in a manner that has some benefits.
  • #125
    @Buzzfriendly i do believe that those who can better shoulder the load should be more than excited to do so, however. yeah... everyone should feel it, but those who are more enured to the pain should take more of it, don't you think?

    look at it this way. if upper middle income could afford for me to live in a wonderful 3 million dollar condominium apartment in the perfect global location, to be able to travel when and where i like (except possibly to mars) take cruises, eat anywhere and anything i like and have a wonderful wine cellar, and yet i had 200 million dollars sitting in bank accounts in foreign countries and in investments, why shouldn't i be shouldn't i be willing to relinquish everything down to the upper middle income level. i'd still be able to have everything that i could ever want (except for that trip to mars...(but then again, one would think that i should try try to clean out this planet before i start thinking about moving to another, right?)

    what i'm trying to say is that there is no way on earth that the über wealthy shouldn't be more than willing to fix the problem... after all, they are the ones who have had the largest hand in creating it, i believe.
  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    actually, it was banned in the first place by the force of the first republican dominated house in 40 years and a republican senate. bipartisan by bleeding hemorrhoids.
  • #5
    This sounds like the tobacco companies, suppress reearch and then deny any research exists and maintain that no action should be taken in ignorance...

    I don't care what principles people follow in their private lives, but when it comes to governing, we should insist on adherence to accepted science as espoused by the National Academy or some other equally rational group.

    That means doing the research on any relevant topic without regard to anything but obtaining objective results in accordance with the scientific method.
  • #36
    Couldn't of put it better myself. I was once arguing with a nut that believed it was impossible to tell if Gun Control would work, simply because there was no research to support this claim. No wonder he/she supported the NRA so much...
  • #153
    He SHOULD but he WON'T. Here's why: assaultweaponsbanof2013 dot blogspot dot com Gun Research by the US Department of Justice DOES NOT support the current hysteria being spread by the Administration, and gun-grabbing apparatchiks like Senators Feinstein & Schumer, Mayor Mike "the Nanny" Bloomberg and the immensely wealthy entremanure George Soros. They KNOW they cannot force the US Department of Justice to COOK THE BOOKS in favor of statistics that would falsely present a "firearms violence epidemic" as they are trying to fabricate based on isolated mass shootings by psychotic lone gunmen. So the research will STAY BANNED.
  • #152
    NRA fearing gun research? ROTFLMAO. All of the current firearms research conducted by the US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics disclose that the Administration, the Media, private anti-2nd Amendment Agitators like Billionaire Mayor and FAUX-Republican Mike Bloom, and George Soros to be LIARS. Just the "Impacts of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994", Publication No. NCJ-173405, discloses that:

    1) "The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims"

    2) "...the banned guns are used in only a small fraction of gun crimes..."

    3) "..the weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes..."

    4) "...the fact that the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country...."

    Go to assaultweaponsbanof2013 dot blogspot dot com to read the ACTUAL REPORT, in "living color" yourself. Download it free if you like. This and other research by Professor Gary Kleck, PhD, of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University, disprove the myths the anti-gunners are trying to get the American People to swallow blindly. Professor Kleck has done A LOT of work for the US Department of Justice, and is a regular contributor to major sociology journals.
    His works, both by Aldine de Gruyer Publishing, New York, would be banned and burned by anti-gunners everywhere if it weren't for the 1st Amendment. See also:
    "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control", Gary Kleck, PhD (1997) and "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America", Gary Kleck, PhD (1991). The reason the research is banned is because it would show what a bunch of LIARS we have in the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government, as well as ENTREMANURES like George Soros (and I didn't mean to say entrepreneurs, but entremanures! lol).
  • #151
    Yes, he SHOULD overturn the Ban on Firearms research. The only reason it is banned now is not due to financial considerations, but due to the fact FIREARMS AND CRIME RESEARCH conducted by the US Department of Justice's, Bureau of Justice Statistics, DO NOT SUPPORT THE MISINFORMATION CIRCULATED BY THE ANTI-GUN LOBBY. See the Reports THEMSELVES, in "living color" at the web site assaultweaponsbanof2013 dot blogspot dot com. He, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and George Soros CANNOT force the US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics to COOK THEIR BOOKS, so THE BAN ON RESEARCH MUST REMAIN IN PLACE! Wake up, America. You are being lied to and the honorable men and women of the US Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics are being underutilized!
  • #126
    I don't have a problem with research, I have a problem with data bases. That governance rogue predators, or foreign predators can use to hunt down owners. Like the old Soviet strategy of collecting such lists from their target countries.

    But, until people stop pretending all guns are made to kill and that rogue predators couldn't kill if they didn't have the "magic death wands". Why trust in incomprehension to make decisions.
  • R Load more comments...