AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais.
On June 2, Obama gave a provactive argument for common sense gun laws. He compared the issue of gun violence to auto fatality rates. Though direct action was taken to lower car-related deaths, such as seatbelt laws and required air bags, no studies are even allowed to be conducted on gun violence.
“Why don’t we treat this like everything else we use? We used to have really bad auto fatality rates. The auto fatality rates have actually dropped, precipitously, drastically, since I was a kid. Why is that? We decided to have seatbelt laws. We decided to have manufacturers put air bags in place. We decided to crack down on drunk driving and texting. We decided to redesign roads so that they were less likely to have a car bank. We studied what is causing these fatalities using science and data and evidence, and then we slowly treated it like the public health problem that it was.
We are not allowed to use any of that when it comes to guns because when you propose anything it is suggested that we are trying to wipe away gun rights and promote tyranny and martial law. Do you know that Congress will not allow the Center of Disease Control to study gun violence? They are not allowed to study it because the notion is that by studying it, the same way we do with traffic accidents, somehow that is going to lead to everyone’s guns being confiscated. If you buy a car and want to get a license—first of all you have to get a license, people have to know you know how to drive—you don’t have to do any of that in respect to buying a gun.”
[…]
Obama also notes that those put on airplane watch-lists are still free to purchase weapons. “Because of the National Rifle Association, I can not prohibit those people from buying a gun.”
Full Story and video at Out.
Just cuz’ we don’t have a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing our right to own a car and drive it.
To be fair, there’s not much left interesting to study about guns. There is already a massive pile of data that all says one thing: Owning a gun is dangerous. People who have guns in the house are more likely to die by accident or suicide. People with guns in the house are more likely to die of domestic violence incidents. I’m not sure about stranger homicide. Would have to look that up.
Guns are no protection and are a danger. This is not something that needs more study. It is known. What is needed is policies to be set using this very certain and highly statistically significant data.
You mean to say that, after studying traffic accidents, the CDC didn’t confiscate everyone’s driving licenses? Weird!
They’re wasting energy and resources on avoiding reality by pretending it doesn’t exist because there’s no study to prove it. Because… I don’t know why. I just don’t.
That has to be so unbelievably frustrating. I feel sorry for all the people who are out there trying to enact change.
And they’re wasting even more time pretending that the studies that prove it don’t exist.
A few examples, hopefully not so many that the spam filter will object:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302042?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054955
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24302479
I could keep going indefinitely.
Just look at the language itself of the Dickey Amendment:
Why, pray tell, must they not be used to advocate gun control? If in the course of research it is determined (as it has) that guns increase injury and death, why exactly should the funds allocated to injury prevention and control (!) not be used to do exactly that?
I’m currently involved in a slow-mo Facebook argument with someone who tries to draw an analogy between the persistence of illegal drugs (in spite of their illegality), and the uselessness of gun control laws (because the criminal will ignore them, anyway).
I told her that this would look a whole lot less like a False Equivalence if something like heroin were more of an area-of-effect threat, potentially overdosing or addicting dozens of people with one easy push of the plunger. She came back with something asinine about how the Paris shooting could have been curtailed if only the populace had been armed….
--
Oh for feck’s sake. There were multiple attackers in multiple locations, all wearing explosive kit. If you mange to shoot one, he would probably blow up. If you missed, try ducking a return stream of semi-automatic fire (plus, hope you didn’t shoot someone else with the miss).
There is about one mass shooting a day in the States. In France? I don’t have any numbers at hand, but it’s rather certainly two orders of magnitude lower, and probably in the single-digits per year. There are frequently no mass shootings in the UK on a yearly basis, they are incredibly rare.
Jay Dickey (of Dickey Amendment fame) reversed his position several years ago and now supports research:
And recently, Over 100 medical groups urge Congress to fund CDC research on gun violence: “Congress asked to lift 1996 amendment on bill that effectively banned Centers for Disease Control from researching guns as a ‘serious public health threat’.”
I always like to point out the changes made to the auto industry whenever an ammosexual brings up ‘cars kill more people per year than guns’ argument.
Also, I think guns might be ‘winning’ now. =(
Which is ridiculous. We should study it.
That’s the way it should be.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
9th amendment, and to a lesser extent the 10th amendment. Also, SCOTUS has ruled that driving is a constitutionally protected right. It was part of a larger decision where they stated the general principle that any government granted “allowance” or “privilege” must not be granted arbitrarily, and must not be revoked arbitrarily, and there must be due process. SCOTUS case: Bell v Burson.
EnlightenmentLiberal @ 11
Is freedom of movement protected by the U.S, Constitution? If so, how can it be restricted without due process for someone who is deemed by the government to pose a significant risk for other people’s life and limb but the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted?
SCOTUS has ruled that travel is a constitutionally protected right. For example, see Bell v Burson, where SCOTUS rules that the right to personally drive a car on public roads is a constitutionally protected right. (Driving can still be licensed. It’s a licensed right.) Due process applies to any attempt by the government to deny granting that right, and any attempt to revoke the license after being granted.
That’s the whole point. It shouldn’t be restricted -- at least not without due process, and IMAO, to prevent someone from being a passenger on a commercial airplane, that due process should at least take the form of a criminal trial.
Practically speaking, if someone is suspected of terrorist activity, then give them extra screening at the airport. Being subject to extra screening is less onerous than being prevented from flying outright, and therefore the due process burdens on the government to justify it are less, and therefore they might be able to get away with less due process than a full criminal trial. IMO.