Perspective from a gun owner

Ok, so it seems that I am the only one on this forum who is pro-gun. It also appears that I am the only one who knows anything about guns(if you think a .223 is a powerful round......you know nothing about guns.....period). So I am gonna try and write not only about guns, but why a ban wouldn't work in tUSA. This is gonna be from personal knowledge and I will not link up any articles. Feel free to check whatever you want out.

First off, this is the scary AR rifle:


This family of rifles was designed in the late '50's/early '60's by a man named Eugene Stoner and his company Armalite. Many people think "AR" stands for army rifle. It doesn't. It stands for Armalite Rifle. The first design was for a standard power cartridge to take the place of the M-14. The M-14 took a 7.62X51 NATO cartridge. The 7.62X51 NATO was designed to take the place of the 30.06 that was used in WWII's M-1A. The 7.62 NATO sacrificed a tad bit of power for reliability. The 7.62 NATO is a shorter case so it feeds more reliably than the 30.06 in a semi-automatic rifle. The AR-10 was never designed to be a full-auto rifle. That 7.62X51 NATO cartridge went on to be the most popular hunting round we have today. Civilians call it the .308.

During the acceptance phase of the AR-10, US generals wanted a less powerful round that did not recoil as much and would allow quicker followup shots. The debate of lethality came up, but it was considered negligible since as one general stated "kill one and you take him out of the fight, wound one and you take whomever gives him aid outta the fight". Stoner then went on to shrink the AR-10 and create the AR-15. The AR-15 fired a 5.56 NATO. This rifle was accepted and went on to be the M-16. At that very same time, Stoner made the rifle available for civilian use. This is not uncommon. Sharps rifles, 1873's, 1892's, 1903's, M-1A's.......pretty much every military rifle has been made for civilian use as long as that rifle wasn't fully automatic.

I'm gonna stop on weapons now and explain something. Yes we have the 2A and yes this is sacrosanct. Now does that mean I should be able to own any weapon I want??? Nope. All amendments have limitations. We have the 1A, but try and shout "fire" in a theater or "bomb" on a plane. Can't be done.

I am not sitting here trying to defend my right to own military weapons. I am sitting here defending my right to own civilian weapons. If you honestly think there is no difference between the AR-15 and the M-16, you're kidding yourself. You cannot compare a machine made of stamped, forged material to a machine made of cast and machined material. To try and use an AR-15 in the way an M-16 is used would lead to the disaster of the AR-15 operator.

Now you know the AR family of rifle has been around for 45+ years. The system has evolved over that time. It has become the most popular weapon of hunters because it is light, accurate, and one can modify it to suit personal tastes. Today we see these:

Ambush Arms 6.8(based on the AR-15, great hunting rifle, comes with a 5 shot mag, shoots a 6.8 only)

Remington R-15(based on the AR-15, another great hunting rifle, comes with 5 shot mag, available in 5.56 as well as 6.8 and 30AR)

DPMS panter(based on the AR-15, available in 5.56, 6.8, 30Blackout, and .458 SOCOM, any size mag is available)

Alexander Arms Grendel and Beowulf (based on the AR-15, best AR's money can buy. Grendel is a 6.5 and Beowulf is a short 50 cal, comes with 5 and 10 shot mags)

My AR-10(awesome hunting rifle, comes with 10 and 5 shot mags, available in .308, .260 and .338)

DPMS ORC(short, lightweight AR-10, comes in .243, .260, .308)

Remington R-25(based on AR-10, comes in .243, .260, .308)

That is just a short list of makers who have tailored their rifles to us, the hunting crowd.

Now, is the 5.56 NATO (.223 civilian) a powerful round??? I dunno let's see.
This is a chart from Hornady. They make the most powerful cartridges for use in these rifles and this is from that very round. This is civilian rounds, not military(note the energy from these rounds, that tells you how powerful they are):


This is the chart showing military ball ammo:


This is from the 6.5 Grendel(best round available for the small AR-15):


This is the chart for my .308:


This is the chart for a .270....one of the most popular hunting rounds:


This is the chart for my .300 Win Mag:


So compare those charts and those energies. Can you still tell me that the 5.56 or .223 is a high power round??? It is actually very weak in comparison to most other cartridges.

Gotta go, gonna finish later.

Ok, so we can easily see from the above charts that the 5.56 is not some uberdeadly round that people want you to believe. That general who used a velocity of 3000 ft/sec as a litmus test does not tell the whole truth. Pretty much every modern rifle round travels around 3000 ft/sec. You wanna talk deadly??? Try a .50 BMG.

From left to right: .50BMG, 300 Win Mag, .308, 7.69X39, 5.56, .22lr


These things can and do kill turn people into a cloud of red mist from over a 1 1/2 miles away. They have no practical hunting purpose.....and they are legal for anyone to buy.....and they would not fall under the ban!!!

Now people say this ban will make us safer. It is non-debatable that the FBI, the CDC, and the DOJ all said the last ban did nothing.

People say that firearms have no place in a civilized society. Folks, we do not now nor have we ever lived in a civilized society. Hell if we did live in a civilized society, we could own all the firearms and military equipment we want and there would be zero violence so the civilized society thing is just plain silly. In fact we can see the effects of gun bans in places like tUK and Australia. Violent crime across the board immediately climbed. Murders, rape, assaults, home invasions...........all increased.

Take just 5 min outta your time and see what criminals say about gun bans. They love them. In tUK criminals no longer even care if your home or not. They know you can't defend yourself so they will break in anyway.

What is the number one cause of murder in tUSA??? Answer is blunt force trauma. Hell even stabbing deaths outrank gun deaths. So all you who think you can defend yourself from a non-firearm weapon are dead wrong. The only way to defend yourself is with equal or preferably better weaponry.

Even if we do ban all weapons, it wouldn't matter. You have effectively taken our way of controlling things like drugs and human trafficking away by refusing to do anything to secure the borders. Firearms, like drugs and humans, would flow across the borders. By then it would be too late for you to decide that defending yourself is worth it.

We banned murder.....it didn't work
We banned guns in school......it didn't work
Chicago banned guns......it didn't work.

What is not debatable is that guns are at an all time high in tUSA while we are now at an all time low in crime.
What is not debatable is that all mass shootings, with the exception of Gabby Giffords, happened in gun free zones.
What is not debatable is that when an armed citizen is on the scene of a mass shooting, like the Oregon mall, the death toll never climbs above 2.5/incident.
What is not debatable is that countries like Brazil, who allow zero firearms for its citizens, has the highest gun violence(Mexico anyone).
What is not debatable is that bans do not stop mass shootings. Cumbria, which is in Wales, suffered a mad man back in 2010.
What is not debatable is that LEGAL gun owners commit less crimes than non-gun owners.
What is not debatable is that rifles account for <1% of all gun crime.
What is not debatable is that ILLEGAL guns account for over 95% of all gun crime.
What is not debatable is that almost all mass shooters have been under the influence of prescribed medication.

People say that media has no play in this. I do not put much stock in media, but:
Reagan's shooter was influenced by: Taxi Driver
The LA robbers were influenced by: Heat
Deltona massacre were inspired by: Wonderland
Most street thugs pay homage to Tony Montana: Scarface

That list could go on and on.

People say I am crazy for wanting to protect my rights. It is the 2nd Amendment for a reason. It is second in importance to only one other. Yeah, some say it is confusing:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What is confusing about that??? Is it the word militia??? What did the framers consider militia??? I have posted that many times and will not post again, but they clearly considered all citizens as part of the militia.

An armed citizenry has already deterred some foreign nations from attacking. We know what Hirohito's advisers said, we know what Stalin said....hell we even know what the NAZI party said about our armed populace.

That is only part of why the populace was to be armed. Original intent of our Founding Fathers was to have a very small standing army and to rely on armed citizens to protect the nation. The ability of the armed citizen to protect against its own government has severely diminished because of the massive size of our military.

People say an armed citizenry stands no chance against the might of our military.
Tell that to the Vietnamese. They had little in the way of a regular army, but the irregulars sure did help in our retreat.
Tell that to the Afgans. Armed citizens put up a good fight against the USSR and even forced retreat.

How it would play out here is any one's guess, but since an overwhelming part of the current military is against anti-gun measures(as well as most local law enforcement), it may not end up the way the Feds would like. Do not forget that we have the largest portion of actual combat tested citizens than any other time in our history.

This gun ban, along with things like NDAA, Patriot Act, AHCA, Free Speech Zones, the proposed bill to get rid of term limits, etc are just that old adage: A death by a thousand cuts.

When will the people wake up???

When they banned military looking rifles, I did not have one so I said nothing.
When they banned all semi-automatics, I did not have one so I said nothing.
When they banned all weapons, I did not have one so I said nothing.
When they banned free speech and the right to private property, there was no one left to defend me.

Call me tin foil hat crazy, but if I told you on 9/10/01 that two planes would take down the Twin Towers......what would you have called me???

Thank you for posting this! I'll be the first to admit my ignorance on the topic.

Bryant wrote:Thank you for posting this! I'll be the first to admit my ignorance on the topic.

I posted more since you responded.

I would like to clarify something:

I am not threatening any one on this board. I am not gonna go outta my way to harm someone who may or may not hold different political views. I believe in total freedom. I believe that my feelings on freedom have been voiced over and over again in all the versions of this forum and others. I am just saying that if one were to come, onto my property, to take that which is my right to have, I will defend myself accordingly. Nothing more and nothing less. I have no tolerance for those who would support the violent taking of said items. Especially when that individual expresses concern about his very own government becoming totalitarian, yet wants to take our effective means to fight that tyranny away. It makes no sense now nor will it ever make sense.

Gun owners, such as myself, are of no threat to any law abiding citizen. We never will be. We will however be very quick to stand beside you in any fight against the taking of any right. We will defend every right you have.......whether you really want that right or not.

I got one thing wrong. Blunt force trauma and stabbings combined outnumber gun murders. Not singularly.

So what do you think of Obama's proposals so? Am going to go out on a limb and say that at least one person here won't be in favour of the assault weapon ban or the capping of magazine clip size ( ), but the rest?

Miles1 wrote:So what do you think of Obama's proposals so? Am going to go out on a limb and say that at least one person here won't be in favour of the assault weapon ban or the capping of magazine clip size ( ), but the rest?

Eh...the main thing that bothers me is Obama's use of executive order.

Both Republicans and Dems have used executive order over the years and I'm not real crazy about it. Personally I feel executive orders ought to be limited to issues of national emergency (like 9/11, invasion or maybe hurricanes or stuff like that) where it is vital for the nation to move faster than congress can act. Furthermore I think Executive orders ought to be limited to something like maybe...90 days. After that, the issue must be taken up by Congress.

The reason is because we are supposed to have seperate but equal branches of govt. Executive orders, however threaten to give the President the power of a dictator.

Btw...I PROMISE on the Bible I'm not just saying this because Obama is president. I have said it when we've had GOP presidents too. Thats just too much power to be in a PResident's hands without limitations placed on it.

Miles1 wrote:So what do you think of Obama's proposals so? Am going to go out on a limb and say that at least one person here won't be in favour of the assault weapon ban or the capping of magazine clip size ( ), but the rest?

I, unlike some, am not too worried about the EO's. The President can only use an EO if it pertains to an existing law. Most of his orders make sense. The only one I kinda don't like is doctors asking me or my family if we have firearms in the house. It ain't none of his business. I will just envoke the 5th if ever asked though. While I don't have that much of a problem with the CDC conducting a study in firearms(why the CDC though....are firearms now a disease), I do want to know what type of peer review the study will have.

As far as the AWB and magazine limits(it is a magazine, not a clip. Clips are much different and aren't seen these days.....they were used to speed up the loading of a rifle with an internal, non-removable magazine). Neither would do a thing except punish innocent, responsible people. We shouldn't kid ourselves. This isn't about public safety. There are many more things that that are more dangerous to individuals, yet they are never discussed. So the public safety thing should just stay out of the discussion. People should just be honest with me and tell me that the firearms I have, locked in my safe, scare the shit outta them and they want them taken. Nothing more and nothing less. I'd have more respect for them.

Marconius wrote:While I don't have that much of a problem with the CDC conducting a study in firearms(why the CDC though....are firearms now a disease), I do want to know what type of peer review the study will have.

I'm guessing that the intention is to look at gun violence in terms of physiological impulses. If anything does go through a proper peer review, it will likely be published in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not sure what their in-house QAQC is, but I doubt it involves outside reviewers.

Dennis324 wrote:
Both Republicans and Dems have used executive order over the years and I'm not real crazy about it. Personally I feel executive orders ought to be limited to issues of national emergency (like 9/11, invasion or maybe hurricanes or stuff like that) where it is vital for the nation to move faster than congress can act. Furthermore I think Executive orders ought to be limited to something like maybe...90 days. After that, the issue must be taken up by Congress.

The reason is because we are supposed to have seperate but equal branches of govt. Executive orders, however threaten to give the President the power of a dictator.

Btw...I PROMISE on the Bible I'm not just saying this because Obama is president. I have said it when we've had GOP presidents too. Thats just too much power to be in a PResident's hands without limitations placed on it.

Well, apparently Obama has used executive orders less than any other president in the last 100 years, but the way the right are blowing up about it, you'd swear he just declared himself dictator for life. Saw this article and this article then explaining what executive orders really are, at least in this case. So, as far as I can see, one one side the hysteria is in a large part artificially manufactured by the anyone-but-obama brigade to stir up more FUD among the people who don't bother to think for themselves and prefer to have their opinions fed to them by the talking-head-of-the-moment on their media channel of choice. On the other side, this is "security by theatre" on the part of Obama, who, as he has to be seen to be doing something on the issue, is issuing a bunch of "orders" telling a whole bunch of people to do whatever it is they should have been doing anyway.

Miles1 wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:
Both Republicans and Dems have used executive order over the years and I'm not real crazy about it. Personally I feel executive orders ought to be limited to issues of national emergency (like 9/11, invasion or maybe hurricanes or stuff like that) where it is vital for the nation to move faster than congress can act. Furthermore I think Executive orders ought to be limited to something like maybe...90 days. After that, the issue must be taken up by Congress.

The reason is because we are supposed to have seperate but equal branches of govt. Executive orders, however threaten to give the President the power of a dictator.

Btw...I PROMISE on the Bible I'm not just saying this because Obama is president. I have said it when we've had GOP presidents too. Thats just too much power to be in a PResident's hands without limitations placed on it.

Well, apparently Obama has used executive orders less than any other president in the last 100 years, but the way the right are blowing up about it, you'd swear he just declared himself dictator for life. Saw this article and this article then explaining what executive orders really are, at least in this case. So, as far as I can see, one one side the hysteria is in a large part artificially manufactured by the anyone-but-obama brigade to stir up more FUD among the people who don't bother to think for themselves and prefer to have their opinions fed to them by the talking-head-of-the-moment on their media channel of choice. On the other side, this is "security by theatre" on the part of Obama, who, as he has to be seen to be doing something on the issue, is issuing a bunch of "orders" telling a whole bunch of people to do whatever it is they should have been doing anyway.

Security by theatre.......I like that. I must admit I've never heard it before and had to go to the link provided.

Miles1 wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:
Both Republicans and Dems have used executive order over the years and I'm not real crazy about it. Personally I feel executive orders ought to be limited to issues of national emergency (like 9/11, invasion or maybe hurricanes or stuff like that) where it is vital for the nation to move faster than congress can act. Furthermore I think Executive orders ought to be limited to something like maybe...90 days. After that, the issue must be taken up by Congress.

The reason is because we are supposed to have seperate but equal branches of govt. Executive orders, however threaten to give the President the power of a dictator.

Btw...I PROMISE on the Bible I'm not just saying this because Obama is president. I have said it when we've had GOP presidents too. Thats just too much power to be in a PResident's hands without limitations placed on it.

Well, apparently Obama has used executive orders less than any other president in the last 100 years, but the way the right are blowing up about it, you'd swear he just declared himself dictator for life. Saw this article and this article then explaining what executive orders really are, at least in this case. So, as far as I can see, one one side the hysteria is in a large part artificially manufactured by the anyone-but-obama brigade to stir up more FUD among the people who don't bother to think for themselves and prefer to have their opinions fed to them by the talking-head-of-the-moment on their media channel of choice. On the other side, this is "security by theatre" on the part of Obama, who, as he has to be seen to be doing something on the issue, is issuing a bunch of "orders" telling a whole bunch of people to do whatever it is they should have been doing anyway.

The hysteria in this case is coming from politicians who are being lobbied hard by the NRA. Also from people who blindly follow whatever the NRA tells them. (See why I got out of the NRA?).

Lest we forget, however, there's a ton of hysteria over issues such as abortion, the so-called war on women, gay rights, and any number of liberal actions. So this isnt one-sided by any means.

Imo, lobbiests are one of the worst sicknesses in our govt. That, combined with no term limits for Congress. And lobbiests are behind the scenes creating mass hysteria...and we, the People, are gullible enough to buy into it.

Miles1 wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:
Both Republicans and Dems have used executive order over the years and I'm not real crazy about it. Personally I feel executive orders ought to be limited to issues of national emergency (like 9/11, invasion or maybe hurricanes or stuff like that) where it is vital for the nation to move faster than congress can act. Furthermore I think Executive orders ought to be limited to something like maybe...90 days. After that, the issue must be taken up by Congress.

The reason is because we are supposed to have seperate but equal branches of govt. Executive orders, however threaten to give the President the power of a dictator.

Btw...I PROMISE on the Bible I'm not just saying this because Obama is president. I have said it when we've had GOP presidents too. Thats just too much power to be in a PResident's hands without limitations placed on it.

Well, apparently Obama has used executive orders less than any other president in the last 100 years, but the way the right are blowing up about it, you'd swear he just declared himself dictator for life. Saw this article and this article then explaining what executive orders really are, at least in this case. So, as far as I can see, one one side the hysteria is in a large part artificially manufactured by the anyone-but-obama brigade to stir up more FUD among the people who don't bother to think for themselves and prefer to have their opinions fed to them by the talking-head-of-the-moment on their media channel of choice. On the other side, this is "security by theatre" on the part of Obama, who, as he has to be seen to be doing something on the issue, is issuing a bunch of "orders" telling a whole bunch of people to do whatever it is they should have been doing anyway.

Wellb to be honest Miles, the anti-gunners have nothing but fear on their side in this issue. They are spoon feeding that fear along with a blatant disregard for the truth. I mean comeon, it would take all of 10 min for one to become a little more learned on firearms so that one could make decent arguments. Of course all we see is that AR-15's are too powerful(I've already addressed that.....with charts even). AR-15's have no sporting purpose.....like in the 45+ years they have been around, no models would ever be made in other calibers(more powerful ones to boot). They are a menace to society.....they are the most popular firearm in the most heavily armed country in the world.....there are millions of them here.....and they account for 1/2% of the gun crime. Ergonomic plastic pieces like a pistol grip and collapsible stock make it more dangerous.....that tells me that firearms are the only item in the world that cannot be "user friendly" and will not be allowed to be modernized.

Yep, lot's-o-fear rolling around on this topic. One can't even find .22lr rounds now-a-days. I told my buddy that Pres. Obama has got to be the best gun salesman in the history of the world. Firearm and ammo companies should owe him a part of the profits by now.

Now that's not to say that it is Pres. Obama's fault. Even though I disagree with him, I have to admit he's done a good job handling it. Prolly his best job so far. It really isn't him spreading the fear. It is the talking heads that call themselves media, yet have never really done a good job reporting during the last 20 years or so.

I find myself sitting back and watching the lies on both sides. My goal is to try and educate people on the topic. I do know a lot about firearms. Prolly more than those so called experts I've been seeing.

Marconius wrote:

Miles1 wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:
Both Republicans and Dems have used executive order over the years and I'm not real crazy about it. Personally I feel executive orders ought to be limited to issues of national emergency (like 9/11, invasion or maybe hurricanes or stuff like that) where it is vital for the nation to move faster than congress can act. Furthermore I think Executive orders ought to be limited to something like maybe...90 days. After that, the issue must be taken up by Congress.

The reason is because we are supposed to have seperate but equal branches of govt. Executive orders, however threaten to give the President the power of a dictator.

Btw...I PROMISE on the Bible I'm not just saying this because Obama is president. I have said it when we've had GOP presidents too. Thats just too much power to be in a PResident's hands without limitations placed on it.

Well, apparently Obama has used executive orders less than any other president in the last 100 years, but the way the right are blowing up about it, you'd swear he just declared himself dictator for life. Saw this article and this article then explaining what executive orders really are, at least in this case. So, as far as I can see, one one side the hysteria is in a large part artificially manufactured by the anyone-but-obama brigade to stir up more FUD among the people who don't bother to think for themselves and prefer to have their opinions fed to them by the talking-head-of-the-moment on their media channel of choice. On the other side, this is "security by theatre" on the part of Obama, who, as he has to be seen to be doing something on the issue, is issuing a bunch of "orders" telling a whole bunch of people to do whatever it is they should have been doing anyway.

Wellb to be honest Miles, the anti-gunners have nothing but fear on their side in this issue. They are spoon feeding that fear along with a blatant disregard for the truth. I mean comeon, it would take all of 10 min for one to become a little more learned on firearms so that one could make decent arguments. Of course all we see is that AR-15's are too powerful(I've already addressed that.....with charts even). AR-15's have no sporting purpose.....like in the 45+ years they have been around, no models would ever be made in other calibers(more powerful ones to boot). They are a menace to society.....they are the most popular firearm in the most heavily armed country in the world.....there are millions of them here.....and they account for 1/2% of the gun crime. Ergonomic plastic pieces like a pistol grip and collapsible stock make it more dangerous.....that tells me that firearms are the only item in the world that cannot be "user friendly" and will not be allowed to be modernized.

Yep, lot's-o-fear rolling around on this topic. One can't even find .22lr rounds now-a-days. I told my buddy that Pres. Obama has got to be the best gun salesman in the history of the world. Firearm and ammo companies should owe him a part of the profits by now.

Now that's not to say that it is Pres. Obama's fault. Even though I disagree with him, I have to admit he's done a good job handling it. Prolly his best job so far. It really isn't him spreading the fear. It is the talking heads that call themselves media, yet have never really done a good job reporting during the last 20 years or so.

I find myself sitting back and watching the lies on both sides. My goal is to try and educate people on the topic. I do know a lot about firearms. Prolly more than those so called experts I've been seeing.

It is sad how both sides of the debate seem to be operating in a panic.

Why is it what pistol grips and collapsible stocks are used to classify a rifle as an assault weapon? I know California's gun laws ban those, but could never understand why. Perhaps there is no reason, and its just one of those 'California' laws.

Because pistol grips and collapsible stocks make the rifle easier to use with correct posture. The pistol grip mimics nature hand positioning when squeezing the trigger. It also aids in carrying the rifle at a "ready" position(which is very beneficial to soldiers and hunters). The collapsible stock ensures proper length of pull. This allows all shooter to have a stock that fits the individual's arm length.

Do they make the rifle more effective??? No, but they do make the shooter more effective.

Flash hiders do much the same. They disperse the muzzle flash so that it doesn't effect the shooter's vision. It does not hide the flash from other onlookers. This means the shooter can have slightly quicker followup shots. This is very beneficial to hunters like me. I hunt lots of pig. All shots are taken on running game. Many times I need one or two followup shots.

Barrel shrouds are mostly cosmetic but can keep you from touching a hot barrel.

Bayonet lugs are only found on old post-war rifles like the SKS(AK47's father). Modern rifles don't have them.

Detachable box magazines were actually designed as a safety feature. Before the detachable box, one had to cycle through all the ammo in his rifle just to unload it(heaven forbid you need to clear the barrel due to a misfire). With the detachable box, one just has to remove the box then cycle one.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:While I don't have that much of a problem with the CDC conducting a study in firearms(why the CDC though....are firearms now a disease), I do want to know what type of peer review the study will have.

I'm guessing that the intention is to look at gun violence in terms of physiological impulses. If anything does go through a proper peer review, it will likely be published in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not sure what their in-house QAQC is, but I doubt it involves outside reviewers.

Part of the problem of the CDC (or anyone else) doing a study like this, or any study on gun violence, is that the NRA and their poodles in congress have been blocking them for years

Why does the CDC have anything to do with this issue at all? What disease is responsible for these individuals shooting up theaters or schools? If they want to make the case that these murderers are mentally ill, shouldnt the Dept of Mental Health be doing this study?

Miles1 wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:While I don't have that much of a problem with the CDC conducting a study in firearms(why the CDC though....are firearms now a disease), I do want to know what type of peer review the study will have.

I'm guessing that the intention is to look at gun violence in terms of physiological impulses. If anything does go through a proper peer review, it will likely be published in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not sure what their in-house QAQC is, but I doubt it involves outside reviewers.

Part of the problem of the CDC (or anyone else) doing a study like this, or any study on gun violence, is that the NRA and their poodles in congress have been blocking them for years

I have never quite understood the hatred towards the NRA. Why hate a group, that gets all its money from its members, is non-partisan, and whose only existance is dedicated to protecting a right??? We do not see the same level of hatred towards the ACLU. They both do the same exact thing. They just concentrate on protecting different amendments. The ACLU blocks many things that would percieveably hurt what they want to protect, yet I do not see the same level of hatred there. Interesting.

*edit* Let me take that back. We do see hatred towards the ACLU, but it is from the right. This plays into what I was talking about in another thread. Both sides have the same disrespect for different rights.

Dennis324 wrote:Why does the CDC have anything to do with this issue at all? What disease is responsible for these individuals shooting up theaters or schools? If they want to make the case that these murderers are mentally ill, shouldnt the Dept of Mental Health be doing this study?

I wonder if HHS has the resources or research background to perform this kind of project. Apparently the CDC used to perform this kind of work, however their findings angered the NRA, who in turn convinced the GOP administration to censer the scientists (not the first time the Bush admn. did that) and discontinue the program.

Marconius wrote:

Miles1 wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:While I don't have that much of a problem with the CDC conducting a study in firearms(why the CDC though....are firearms now a disease), I do want to know what type of peer review the study will have.

I'm guessing that the intention is to look at gun violence in terms of physiological impulses. If anything does go through a proper peer review, it will likely be published in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not sure what their in-house QAQC is, but I doubt it involves outside reviewers.

Part of the problem of the CDC (or anyone else) doing a study like this, or any study on gun violence, is that the NRA and their poodles in congress have been blocking them for years

I have never quite understood the hatred towards the NRA. Why hate a group, that gets all its money from its members, is non-partisan, and whose only existance is dedicated to protecting a right??? We do not see the same level of hatred towards the ACLU. They both do the same exact thing. They just concentrate on protecting different amendments. The ACLU blocks many things that would percieveably hurt what they want to protect, yet I do not see the same level of hatred there. Interesting.

*edit* Let me take that back. We do see hatred towards the ACLU, but it is from the right. This plays into what I was talking about in another thread. Both sides have the same disrespect for different rights.

The problem is that the NRA does everything it can to increase gun ownership and has systematically opposed any attempt to curb the owning/use of guns. I remember hearing about how they were supporting attempts to overturn state laws banning patrons from caring guns in bars.

Bryant wrote:
The problem is that the NRA does everything it can to increase gun ownership and has systematically opposed any attempt to curb the owning/use of guns. I remember hearing about how they were supporting attempts to overturn state laws banning patrons from caring guns in bars.

Many states already allow that. Louisiana allows both concealed and open carry almost anywhere. It isn't really as scary as one would think.

Without the increase in gun ownership, the 2nd wouldn't stand a chance.

My point still kinda stands though. ACLU does everything it can to further its cause and uses much the same tactics.