[fravel]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

We'll never know to be sure as the CDC has never been allowed to properly study it.

Yes they are. What thy (weren't) allowed to do is conduct studies specifically for the sake of bolstering support for gun control. Obama lifted that restriction and a study was promptly conducted. The results weren't what anti-gun folks wanted so it was buried.

Besides, we don't even need a study, we can look at the numbers ourselves. Per the CDC, one has about a 0.004% chance of being involuntarily killed by a firearm (in the US). That's all homicides, mass murders, police shootings, accidental deaths, and self defense scenarios combined. It's not a significant threat.

[Yapakanichi]

Well the 1st amendment in this discussion is in relation to what information are you allowed to put out. I think I got that....

As I'm pro-gun, or I don't really care honestly. Don't own any. However...I think if you want to have one, well according to the 2nd amendment, you have that right regardless of who you are.

With this said, I'm a bit more interested to see the opposite side of the discussion on this. Like why are you so against it?

I think people could be barking up the wrong tree just to get attention.....but thats just me.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by fravel

Yes they are. What thy (weren't) allowed to do is conduct studies specifically for the sake of bolstering support for gun control. Obama lifted that restriction and a study was promptly conducted. The results weren't what anti-gun folks wanted so it was buried.

Besides, we don't even need a study, we can look at the numbers ourselves. Per the CDC, one has about a 0.004% chance of being involuntarily killed by a firearm (in the US). That's all homicides, mass murders, police shootings, accidental deaths, and self defense scenarios combined. It's not a significant threat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0c1e6f598bdf

[fravel]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0c1e6f598bdf

Yeah, I've seen that article too. You'll note I didn't make any claims that the study was favorable to the pro-gun side: I said it wasn't what the anti-gun folks wanted.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by fravel

Yeah, I've seen that article too. You'll note I didn't make any claims that the study was favorable to the pro-gun side: I said it wasn't what the anti-gun folks wanted.

So I guess the CDC has yet to do a thorough study on the issue?

[fravel]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

So I guess the CDC has yet to do a thorough study on the issue?

Correct, but that's an entirely different assertion from your original claim, now isn't it.

Again, 0.004%. What sort of information would you hope to glean from such a study?

[Faredo]

So I just personally viewed a 3d printed AR15 lower and watched it get installed onto a complete AR15. pretty impressive for a $350 printer. Maker said it took 12 hours to print.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by knowthebattle

Well the 1st amendment in this discussion is in relation to what information are you allowed to put out. I think I got that....

As I'm pro-gun, or I don't really care honestly. Don't own any. However...I think if you want to have one, well according to the 2nd amendment, you have that right regardless of who you are.

With this said, I'm a bit more interested to see the opposite side of the discussion on this. Like why are you so against it?

I think people could be barking up the wrong tree just to get attention.....but thats just me.

I am not on the other side, but have talk to enough people on the other side. Most people I talk to are scare of gun they do not like the fact you can simple kill someone by pointing a gun and pulling a trigger. After you get pass all of they other crap they through around what is wrong with guns this is the number one reason why no one should have guns. It is an evil device which they see as having no purpose on the face of the earth. What you find with most people who do not like guns, they never owned or used one, if they did they had bad experience or they know someone who was killed by a gun. Most all their hate is rooted in this and you have respect their fear of the unknown or bad outcome.

Then there are the people who believe if they see no need for something then you should also see it that way as well. These are the people who do no like cars, and other worldly convenience. These are the people who look at the world from their point of view and that is all that matters. Once I realize this where a person is coming from my standard response to them is once they are naked in the woods living off the land we can have a conversation. Sometimes I ask them if they would go on the show Naked and Afraid. the usual answer is no.

With that said, the few who I convinced to fire a gun who were afraid of guns I took them to a gun range, after shooting a gun most were very excited about it. One person was GF I had in high school, she was so anti-gun and anti-hunting so I convinced her to go hunting with me, at the time it was rabbit and bird hunting so we were mostly walking a field. I let her shoot the shotgun, I stood behind her so the 12 ga did not knock her on her ass. After shooting it a few time she wanted to go shooting all the time. She never got over her hate of hunting.

The interesting part of the GF, not that this should matter but I relate this to her half Puerto Rican Latin up bring, she use to say if you're going kill someone you have to do it up and personal with a knife. That scare me more than someone having a gun, she had temper about her and I could see her sticking you if you pissed her off enough.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by fravel

Correct, but that's an entirely different assertion from your original claim, now isn't it.

Again, 0.004%. What sort of information would you hope to glean from such a study?

Not at all. A comment was made that firearms are not a threat to public safety and we just made it clear that a thorough study has never been completed so we don't know to what degree they are a threat to public safety, what demographics, regions, etc are more susceptible to the threat, etc.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Not at all. A comment was made that firearms are not a threat to public safety and we just made it clear that a thorough study has never been completed so we don't know to what degree they are a threat to public safety, what demographics, regions, etc are more susceptible to the threat, etc.

Your original claim was that the CDC was not allowed to conduct studies. That is a different scenario than the CDC simply not having conducted the study.

For a third time, we can already demonstrate that firearms are not a significant threat to public safety. 0.004%. It's not even a matter of "to what degree".

I'd be on board with trying to identify what demographics, regions, etc are most at risk, but even then what does that accomplish? I can say with 100% confidence that the mere presence of a firearm isn't what makes those at-risk populations vulnerable. The likelihood of someone being a member of said groups will always correlate more strongly with other factors such as being low-income, poorly educated, growing up in single-parent households, lack of job opportunities, mental illness, etc. The effect of the presence (or lack thereof) of an inanimate object in the face of these factors is minuscule.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by fravel

Your original claim was that the CDC was not allowed to conduct studies. That is a different scenario than the CDC simply not having conducted the study.

Wear are going in circles here. A thorough study was never completed even though Obama opened the gates to do so. "researchers remain "afraid to even delve into that area of research because they're afraid of having their funding pulled,"

Originally Posted by fravel

For a third time, we can already demonstrate that firearms are not a significant threat to public safety. 0.004%. It's not even a matter of "to what degree".

Where are you getting this number from? For the third time...without proper data, we don't know the extent of the problem. Please provide a source for the number you quoted.

Originally Posted by fravel

I'd be on board with trying to identify what demographics, regions, etc are most at risk, but even then what does that accomplish? I can say with 100% confidence that the mere presence of a firearm isn't what makes those at-risk populations vulnerable. The likelihood of someone being a member of said groups will always correlate more strongly with other factors such as being low-income, poorly educated, growing up in single-parent households, lack of job opportunities, mental illness, etc. The effect of the presence (or lack thereof) of an inanimate object in the face of these factors is minuscule.

Of course it does....The presence of a firearm makes those at-risk populations more vulnerable to gun related violence even if it is slightly more then 0% where no guns are present.

In this American town, guns are required by law

[fravel]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Wear are going in circles here. A thorough study was never completed even though Obama opened the gates to do so. "researchers remain "afraid to even delve into that area of research because they're afraid of having their funding pulled,"

Translated: Researching this topic is only really important if someone will pay for it.

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Where are you getting this number from? For the third time...without proper data, we don't know the extent of the problem. Please provide a source for the number you quoted.

The source is the CDC. Per the National Vital Statistics Report (most recent available is 2016). See Table 6 on pg. 34-35. Accidental discharge of firearms accounted for 495 deaths. Assault (homicide) by discharge of a firearm = 14,415. They don't distinguish manner of death for "legal intervention", but for the sake of argument let's assume that all legal intervention deaths were also the result of a police officer discharging a firearm. That's another 549. Total = 15,459 involuntary deaths involving a firearm. Per google, the population of the US in 2016 was 323.4 million.

15,459/323,400,000 = 0.0000478, or 0.00478%

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Of course it does....The presence of a firearm makes those at-risk populations more vulnerable to gun related violence even if it is slightly more then 0% where no guns are present.

So you want to go through all this research, spending and legislation for a potential reduction of less than 1/2 of a hundredth of a percent.

And why the focus on gun-related violence? Shouldn't the concern just be violence in general? Do you believe that if firearms were removed from the equation that these at-risk populations would no longer be at-risk of violence?

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by fravel

Translated: Researching this topic is only really important if someone will pay for it.



The source is the CDC. Per the National Vital Statistics Report (most recent available is 2016). See Table 6 on pg. 34-35. Accidental discharge of firearms accounted for 495 deaths. Assault (homicide) by discharge of a firearm = 14,415. They don't distinguish manner of death for "legal intervention", but for the sake of argument let's assume that all legal intervention deaths were also the result of a police officer discharging a firearm. That's another 549. Total = 15,459 involuntary deaths involving a firearm. Per google, the population of the US in 2016 was 323.4 million.

15,459/323,400,000 = 0.0000478, or 0.00478%



So you want to go through all this research, spending and legislation for a potential reduction of less than 1/2 of a hundredth of a percent.

And why the focus on gun-related violence? Shouldn't the concern just be violence in general? Do you believe that if firearms were removed from the equation that these at-risk populations would no longer be at-risk of violence?

===========

The staggering amount of honest, well articulated, professional, and source backed data in this post is amazing. This was a real and honest point made with empirical evidence to back it up. I wish more discussions around hotly contested topics would include analysis such as this.

Props to you, my friend.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Not at all. A comment was made that firearms are not a threat to public safety and we just made it clear that a thorough study has never been completed so we don't know to what degree they are a threat to public safety, what demographics, regions, etc are more susceptible to the threat, etc.

The FBI puts together a ton of this information every year and keeps a nice log of all of the variables. They also do a really good job of explaining all of the limitations, definitions, how to use the data, etc. This is not a polished survey but it should have all of the information you seem to think isn't available. They don't have gun ownership demographics or legality of ownership for the crime but you can likely pull the demographics from another source fairly easily.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...-the-u.s.-2016

[JasonCSU]

Well, the creator of this 3D printed gun, Cody Wilson, believes his 1st Amendment rights are being violated due to censorship of the plans by the government. The main point of Net Neutrality is for all electronic data to be treated equal across the Internet. Most people are familiar with the data prioritizing and throttling aspect of Net Neutrality, but it goes beyond that.

The well publicized example of not having Net Neutrality was the case of Comcast charging Netflix to use data "fast lanes" for their streaming video because it uses more bandwidth than other data. If Netflix didn't pay, Comcast would throttle their data down which would affect video streams of Netflix customers. Netflix didn't want angry customers, so they paid up.

Some people may think, so what, this is how business and a free market should work. Ok then, what happens when Comcast decides to block all Netflix traffic and direct their customers to stream Comcast content only? You said it yourself:

This should be an eye opener... What other sites are being restricted? Who is overseeing this electronic book burning?

The big issue with electronic data being treated equal under Net Neutrality, is that data is not being censored by anyone. In theory, without Net Neutrality your ISP could block whatever sites they feel like, or censor your Google searches to return whatever results they would like you to see.

See the relevance now?

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

Well, the creator of this 3D printed gun, Cody Wilson, believes his 1st Amendment rights are being violated due to censorship of the plans by the government. The main point of Net Neutrality is for all electronic data to be treated equal across the Internet. Most people are familiar with the data prioritizing and throttling aspect of Net Neutrality, but it goes beyond that.

The well publicized example of not having Net Neutrality was the case of Comcast charging Netflix to use data "fast lanes" for their streaming video because it uses more bandwidth than other data. If Netflix didn't pay, Comcast would throttle their data down which would affect video streams of Netflix customers. Netflix didn't want angry customers, so they paid up.

Some people may think, so what, this is how business and a free market should work. Ok then, what happens when Comcast decides to block all Netflix traffic and direct their customers to stream Comcast content only? You said it yourself:



The big issue with electronic data being treated equal under Net Neutrality, is that data is not being censored by anyone. In theory, without Net Neutrality your ISP could block whatever sites they feel like, or censor your Google searches to return whatever results they would like you to see.

See the relevance now?

So just so I can fully understand your statement here?

Are you saying, that if my company spent billions of dollars building an infrastructure for something, say it was road, and that I wanted to charge a toll that was higher for large tractor trailer trucks that used up more of that resource in the costs of maintenance and upkeep from the added weight causing damage to the road than that of small economy cars, I should be banned from doing that by the government?

So because one of my customers is using much more of my service than another customer, I can't charge them more?

Does that really make sense to anyone at all?

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by fravel

Translated: Researching this topic is only really important if someone will pay for it.

The source is the CDC. Per the National Vital Statistics Report (most recent available is 2016). See Table 6 on pg. 34-35. Accidental discharge of firearms accounted for 495 deaths. Assault (homicide) by discharge of a firearm = 14,415. They don't distinguish manner of death for "legal intervention", but for the sake of argument let's assume that all legal intervention deaths were also the result of a police officer discharging a firearm. That's another 549. Total = 15,459 involuntary deaths involving a firearm. Per google, the population of the US in 2016 was 323.4 million.

15,459/323,400,000 = 0.0000478, or 0.00478%

The total population really doesn't enter into the calculation.

National Vital Statistics Report in 2017 states there was a total of 213,472 'injury deaths' (unnatural deaths) in 2015 of which 35,768 were firearm related. (Unintentional 489, Suicide 22,018, Homicide 12,979, Undetermined 282)

35,768/213,472 = 17%

[JamesWWIII]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

The total population really doesn't enter into the calculation.

National Vital Statistics Report in 2017 states there was a total of 214,008 'injury deaths' (unnatural deaths) in 2015 of which 35,768 were firearm related. (Unintentional, Suicide, Homicide, Undetermined)

35,768/214,008 = 17%

Great, now just subtract the suicides (presumably those people were going to kill themselves one way or another) from your cherry-picked data set and let us know what that number is.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

The total population really doesn't enter into the calculation.

National Vital Statistics Report in 2017 states there was a total of 213,472 'injury deaths' (unnatural deaths) in 2015 of which 35,768 were firearm related. (Unintentional 489, Suicide 22,018, Homicide 12,979, Undetermined 282)

35,768/213,472 = 17%

I feel like I am dumber after reading this post.

Anyone else feel like they are reading 'new math'?

[fravel]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

The total population really doesn't enter into the calculation.

Why wouldn't it? We're attempting to determine the likelihood of a random member of the US population being involuntarily killed in a manner which involves a firearm. The percentage of 'unnatural deaths' that can be attributed to firearms doesn't mean anything.

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

National Vital Statistics Report in 2017 states there was a total of 213,472 'injury deaths' (unnatural deaths) in 2015 of which 35,768 were firearm related. (Unintentional 489, Suicide 22,018, Homicide 12,979, Undetermined 282)

35,768/213,472 = 17%

Where are you getting numbers from 2017? According to the CDC Website the most recent available data, published July 26, 2018, is for 2016.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm

And like JamesWWIII noted, one must exclude suicides from this calculation. If one wants to kill themselves, lack of access to a firearm isn't going to stop them, nor can the claim be made that if someone else didn't have access to a gun (ie, someone with murderous intent) that the suicidal person would still be alive. Violence committed with a firearm by some other person did not end the life of the suicidal person, Thor own decisions did. Suicide is voluntary. Even if one did include those numbers, the rate is still only 0.011%.

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

So just so I can fully understand your statement here?

Are you saying, that if my company spent billions of dollars building an infrastructure for something, say it was road, and that I wanted to charge a toll that was higher for large tractor trailer trucks that used up more of that resource in the costs of maintenance and upkeep from the added weight causing damage to the road than that of small economy cars, I should be banned from doing that by the government?

So because one of my customers is using much more of my service than another customer, I can't charge them more?

Does that really make sense to anyone at all?

You either didn't read my post completely, or missed my point. I referenced the Comcast/Netflix example as that is what most people know of or heard of in regards to Net Neutrality. For this aspect of it, I can see pros and cons on both sides, but that wasn't the point I was getting to. My point was that many people don't even realize that Net Neutrality was also intended to protect against censorship of electronic data, and without it, an ISP can potentially block access to whichever sites they feel like. This is exactly what glennQNYC was concerned about in his post, and why Questofthetune mentioned Net Neutrality in his reply.