Strange that this thread should surface, I wasn't going to post to bring it to the top page, but I was just reading a "News & Analysis" piece in last week's Science (25 January), title: "Gun Control Agenda Is A Call to Duty for Scientists"
This piece recalls that Congress had successfully withdrawn funding studies by the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) and the NIH (National Institute for Health) in the 1990s. Congressman Jay Dickey had the CDC budget cut by $2.6M, the "precise amount of the research budget" for gun violence.
1996 legislation prohibited research that might "advocate or promote gun control." From that date to 2010 academic papers on gun violence fell 60%, and this lack of direct research support was compounded by legislation that restricted collection and access to gun related crime data by the Department of Justice. (The Tiahrt Amendments).
While there seems to be some debate in this thread about the research, it is important to note that research has been greatly impeded by Congress.
Chaz, face the facts... more guns make us more safer. If it weren't for all those qualified gun owners with guns at that shooting range it could have turned out as bad as Sandy Hook.
When a tragic shooting involving innocent children occurs at a school, the pro-gun response is ARM THE TEACHERS... ARMED GUARDS... IT HAPPENED BECAUSE IT WAS A GUN FREE ZONE.
When it happens at shooting range, with expert marksmen, it is tragic... with apparently no solution.
actually you've got it pretty much backwards, Chaz...
research supported by Govt funding does not reflect the bias of the particular political viewpoint, look at research in Climate, which has yielded results which are very much at odds with the current viewpoint of Congress, and is the result of many years of very good science preceding the current issues with the implication of that research.
research, by and large, is an activity most suited to support by the govt of a democratic nation, being an activity that is difficult to justify in the commercial sector simply because the results, the outcome of the research are difficult to predict. It can be seen as inefficient, but that is because it creates new knowledge, and that is its power, to understand something in a way quite different from what our "common sense" tells us.
just ignore the fact that al-kay-duh and the towel-ee-ban had a kill order out for him..Maybe this just proves no one is safe from those types,, anywhere.
Which is why we need more guns. Everyone should have one... cuz then the bad guys would be too scurd to attack anyone. Clearly they just needed MORE guns at that shooting range. How many more... 10x, 20x, 30x? Whatever it takes.
We can all just practice wild west shootouts and have armed check points to make sure the bad guys don't infiltrate our safe zones. Of course, we can't trust the gubermint to do it, so we will have to get qualified citizens... preferably the ones with the most eagles and flags on their trucks... maybe some truck nutz too, cuz those are funny.
But then we will have to have some sort of assurance that they are qualified and on our side. NO, I'm not suggesting background checks... THAT is outrageous and our founding fathers would not approve. I think a loudly professed trust in Jesus is sufficient.
If it means the closet or pickup of some redneck trash tossing jew-hating neanderthal then YES.
The interesting thing is that, along with the evisceration of the middle class in the US, the current spike (as in tripling or even quadrupling) in ammo prices is rendering shooting an elite sport.
Though not quite polo or cigarette speedboat racing, if this keeps up a lot of those hate mongers and embarrassments to the responsible shooting community will not be able to feed their aging pieces.
Let us know!