U.S. Gun Death Rate Jumps 17 Percent Since 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller

In my industry, where for decades I ran R&D teams, I populated those teams with members holding opposing views/biases along with members from other disciplines have little subject knowledge and no stake in the outcome of a study. Each step of the research process required concensus to move ahead (in the rare case of deadlock there were procedures for resolving conflict, disclosing it, and more). While not complete in resolving bias, various disclosures, internal and external cross reviews, bias risk assessments, interative micro studies, measured pilot studies, and many more elements were used to insure study results reflected observation or experiment as much as possible. Everything was exposed in final reports. On thing, many studies may have resulted in policy action, but those were constantly eligible for challenge and review as newcknowledge accumulated or measures were obtained over time.
No study can completely be stated as immune to bias, however, it can be minimized.
But, ultimately, regardless of findings, policy and actions aren’t goverened by the numbers...there are human and more issues that require consideration. There is little doubt that if I drive a car I increase my chances of being in a fatal accident. I could stay home and never drive reducing that risk, but at what cost?
BTW, during the process it was part of my roll to continually insure concensus at each step of the process and when my teams delivered their reports, they were subjected to questioning by me if there was agreement at each step if there was concensus that nothing else could be done or on what else could be done.
This is a shortened version of how we did research and tried to eliminate bias. Several of the studies I participated resulted in what is now considered best practices or best fit frameworks of understanding (at the moment). No real scientist would hang their hat on their findings, but constantly welcomes criticsm, or anything that would open paths to new understandings.
I have yet to see anything approaching this from the left. The two national studies come closest, neighter resulting in findings supporting GCA narratives. There were a couple studies supporting gun rights advocates, but these are heavily (not nessisarily credibly) criticized by the LW because they are counter to the LW’s political objectives. Honest researchers criticizing such studies should have, rather than simply dismissing the baby with the bath water, engaged in amending the method of the studies and interatively continued the line of questioning.
BTW, I have mention cost in many posts. Some might think I am talking financial cost, but there are other types of cost. Complete gun control can happen at the expense of liberty, few have assessed that cost.

While a bit old, this article explores a bit of what I mean regarding cost in ethics terms. It was written after the release of the large 2003 report on gun violence. It is still relevant.

 

That is a dishonest characterization of my post...not unusual for you.

 

More diversion. You by passed me showing the VPC’s spin with their stats was flawed from the get go and Bloomberg funding of Harvard anti gun biased research, on to your usual tactics.

 

He likes to dead lock any honest discussions on firearms with useless comments.
1. Filling out forms, moot point, all States require the same forms.
2. Keeps saying States with Lax Gun Laws.
There are no States with Lax Gun Laws,
Since all States have the same basic requirements to buy a gun.
No anonymous sales, everyone must pass the same background check.
3. More gun control, never explaining what that means to your law abiding citizen.
4. Stating waiting periods have a substantial effect on Crime snd suicide.
5. Comprehensive licensing, I suppose as
New York City and Los Angeles, that says; unless you handle huge dums of cash as part if your normal duties or are a Celebrity, forget about Concealed Carry of firearms, and be prepared to spend over $ 2,000 for something that they convert from a Right to a Priveledge only given to a chosen few.

There is a distinct problem speaking to some forum members about gun control, why ? They do not see reason, or logic or truth except to repeat, we need stricter gun control.

So let us analyze this concept, in New York City, before you can look at a Gun in a Gun Store, you must have a license, common is a so called "Target Permit" allows you to purchase a handgun unlimited range visits and a sort of limited carry. ( grey area)
Includes blue N.Y.S. State Carry permit not valid within the 5 Boroughs, carry is allowed to and from an Authorised target Range.
( No strict enforcement by NYPD if you have a license and it is on you )
You must visit Police Headquarters in person to get the application, fill it out, better by a form expert, 24 / 7 Range membership, if you have a Lawyer or two as references.
Wait 6 Months, approved, go back to Headquarters, pick up your license, looks like an Official I.D. and purchase Order for one ( unspecified ) handgun, at one point no snubby guns were allowed on a target permit.
No Glocks either, Gun Control at work here.

You visit a Gun Store and show your credentials, your purchase order, and fill out the "It's only a form" for the Millionth time just to get a License to fill out "It's only a form"....
Then, you buy your Gun, and pay your money, cheaper because the gun store besides Police Officers has few Customers and you as a Gun Customer are a Gold member.

Next, you must go back to Headquarters with Your Gun to be inspected.
My first Gun on the License was a standard issue Police Service sidearm.

Inspection, the Detectives were nice, told me to follow the guide line for visiting LEOs carry the gun in a holster, transfer it to the box inside, as they did not want me to get robbed of my gun on the subway, criminals could see you with a gun box and snatch it.

So it was like that, a Carry permit takes a few weeks afte you get your Target permit, I had the barrel length restrictions for target permit amended, I had a Carry permit with a Service Revolver listed, limited duty, and wanted a snubby in the Target, was initially told no way.
I petitioned as I had a snubby in the carry, I needed one on the Target license to practice.
It was approved and the restriction rescinded.
As was the Glock restriction, then P.C. Ward had one on his civilian permit.

In short, by the time you have 3 to 5 handguns, need a gun safe, you are on a first name basis at Headquarters and on a list.

Is this the type of more Gun Control envisioned by the "It's only a form" proponents of more gun control for States with "Lax Gun Control" ????

Gun Control, "think of a boot stepping on a human face...."

 

Its a simple question. Are you against all gun death research?

 

I want a better system. Not a perfect system. If you can present the details of your system to reduce gun deaths I am happy to look at them. But vague suggestions are meaningless. What does "address the true problem" even mean specifically?

 

The Ministry of Love ( Police Headquarters) was the really frightening one. There were no windows in it at all.

Winston had never been inside the Ministry of Love, ( Police Headquarters at 1 Police Plaza ) nor within half a kilometre of it.

It was a place impossible to enter except on official business.

and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests.

Even the streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced
( Police Officers ) guards in black uniforms, armed with (Guns ) jointed truncheons.

 

I told you before, I won’t answer leading questions, participularly not Yes/no questions from someone not looking for honest debate, but playing with the objective of havin fun. I gave several posts indicating my qualified position...so you know what it is.

 

Ok Got it. Expect the same in return

 

I am against blind numbers of deaths caused by non law abiding criminals presented as legitimate gun owners gone rogue, when this is not true, those people could never legally purchase a gun having a long criminal record.

 

You stymie and dead lock all discussion of gun control with,
"We need more gun control"
"States with lax gun laws"
"Show me a State where prosecution and incarceration of Criminals works to reduce crime"......

 

I expect nothing straight up from you but games, diversion, bypassing elements of discussions where you have been shown wrong, and simple one line statements designed to irritate and inflame. You provide nothing of substance for debate.

 

Again its about you and me. That is all you have because when we actually discuss the issues you get crushed. LOL

 

You haven’t crushed anything. I haven’t seen straight up debate anyone. My previous statement stands and looking back at you history of posts, not all that difficult to substantiate. You don’t argue from conviction of principle but from a game of one-ups-man-ship where twisting meanings, word games, and your self sense of humor is your entertainment. You are generally absent in real discussion other than your hit and run signature ‘gun control saves lives’ and ‘gun control works’ assertions without anything to back it up, something noted by many others posting here. You have nothing to offer of value.

 

Then ignore me. All you want to talk about is you and me. This is pointless. Stick to the debate

 

I have been participating in the various debate, But, when you spew bs, evade, toss playground grenades I will persist in calling you on it. You have a rep, not a particularly good one, but what you have cultivated. It’s not about differences in opinion, but about tactics. There are a few GCAs here that make reasonable attempts, such as Reiver that I disagree with, but make reasone arguements and not just a regurgitation of bumper stickers substituted for logic. When faced with well reasoned positions you fold, evade, make simple contrarian statements, not well reasoned and supported counter arguements.

 

Fair enough.

When I say "the true problem" I refer to the why. When in 2016 we had 22,018 suicides and 12,979 murders with firearms the first thing I ask is why. I don't see the gun as the problem but the tool. People who murder others must have a lot of anger and frustration. People who choose to kill themselves must have a lot of demons. If we could take all the guns away it would have tremendous impact on the number of deaths but would not solve the actual problem. In my opinion it would only be a temporary solution. Angry people who what things that don't belong to them will find a way to keep taking those things. People with drug habits will continue to steal, with or without a gun, so they can get drugs. People will still kill themselves. We would still have angry, frustrated, demon ridden people wandering the streets. The problem would still exist.

So I see the real problem being all the angry, confused, drugged-up people who seem bent on hurting themselves or someone else. I don't know that I have the solution. I don't even know if I have any good ideas.

I know people smarter than I are already working on these things. I would start by putting more emphasis on curbing crime in the cities. This would help reduce the murder rate. Work on figuring how to get people out of poverty, drugs and gangs. Work on jobs, education, family and home life. It might be a tougher way to go than simply imposing gun control but if we could figure it out it would be a more permanent solution.

Same sort of thing with suicides. For a summary of my ideas on this:
Post #33: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-about-control-or-saving-lives.522948/page-2

Gun restrictions would be a temporary fix. So if we lose gun rights and later find ways to fix all the problems with murder and suicide, we will never regain those lost rights.

Maybe it is a simplistic, naive view but that's how I look at it.

 

Then ignore me. I am not going away. All you have are personal attacks. Quit derailing

 

You have sought to derail and disrupt more than most. In general, I post on topic, except when you decide to intervene or go off the deep end with extremely flawed logic or less than honest statements. You can always ignore the thorn in your FUN or report me. I can with stand a review of my posts, can you?

 

Ok, let me set you on the right path again.

I have been a sworn officer of the law for many years.
I am qualified to speak on this matter.
If you reduce guns to Police and few others, the impact on gun deaths would be insignificant, it wouldn't drop at all, why ? The people committing the murders are not law abiding citizens, so the murderers would still be armed and kill people.

This is why gun control is not a crime prevention measure, and reducing the amount of guns does not reduce crime or suicides...

It can be seen in Countries with few guns, high crime and suicides, I just lost my best friend to suicide, he was a retired Police Officer.

 

Again. It's not about you and me. Stop making this personal. Stick to the argument

 

Let's take drugs from your example. I think if we made meth completely legal it would result in many many more deaths and addiction. Making it illegal does not stop someone from becoming an addict but it makes it harder. It puts up barriers. Gun control will not stop all criminals from getting guns.....but it will stop some. A better system....not a perfect one

 

Pray tell exactly what barriers are in place when it comes to illicit narcotic substances? They are prohibited entirely, and yet they remain easily available to anyone that wishes to have access to them. Exactly where are these substances even acquired, that makes them available to the general public?

 

Gun control does not stop anyone from obtaining guns,
Why don't you understand ?

You keep arguing as if somehow, by repeating something enough times will make it come true or something.

I had to learn the hard way,
gun control is a fools errand.

 

why do you demand others follow what you ignore?