3 ms·

Another thing we don’t have is reliable, long-term data on where the guns that are actually used in crimes come from. One of the ways we legislate gun use is th

Another thing we don’t have is reliable, long-term data on where the guns that are actually used in crimes come from. One of the ways we legislate gun use is through registration programs and systems that limit who can buy a gun legally. But if we don’t know whether guns used in crimes are purchased legally, illegally, or purchased legally and then sold or given illegally to a third party, we have no idea how to craft those laws or even if they make any difference at all. I consider this a huge problem. How can you have a well-regulated militia if you don't know who is in it? How do we know any of our gun laws have any effect at all?

sc68cal 14y ago
Because Republicans and the Gun Lobby have systematically shut down any attempt to collect and study any data about guns. Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/ http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
- MrMember 14y ago
  The CDC isn't allowed to conduct research into gun violence because they didn't even try to hide the fact that they were horribly biased. Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research': "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it is dirty, deadly, and banned." He had no interest in conducting unbiased research, he wanted to treat gun ownership like a disease, and did everything in his power to try and 'eradicate' it.
  - sc68cal 14y ago
    >The CDC isn't allowed to conduct research into gun violence because they didn't even try to hide the fact that they were horribly biased. So just because the numbers didn't reach the conclusion that you agree with, they are automatically biased? >Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research': An out of context quote - and an ad hominem attack? As far as I can tell, your strategy at this point is to try and muddy the water. Meanwhile, here are some useful numbers to contemplate. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fa...
  - meepmorp 14y ago
    Citation needed. Also, assuming that account is accurate, that's no reason for a legislative ban on such research - it's a reason to remove that person from a position of influencing the course and outcomes of said research. Unless you're of the opinion that considering firearms as dangerous is in and of itself an indication of bias, in which case you're beyond reason.
jandrewrogers 14y ago
The militia is defined in US law by the Militia Act of 1792 and exists today with only minor modifications to the original (see: Title 10 Section 311 of the US Code). Every able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and less than 45 years of age who is not a member of the regular military is a member of the militia per US law. There is no requirement that you own a weapon in the definition. The government knows my age so, as a male US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 years, I am presumptively a member of the militia.
- gnosis 14y ago
  Very nice. But, as is common with laws, the devil's in the details. First, you say, "Every able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and less than 45 years of age who is not a member of the regular military is a member of the militia per US law." Curiously, you left out one conspicuous qualifier: white. Here's the relevant text of the law[1]: That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. Many conservatives would no doubt be pleased that only white men could be armed by this law, and perhaps that's one of the reasons they're trying to bring the nation back to 1792. Also, note that according to the above-quoted text of the law, you're not automatically part of the militia, but have to be explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" and that only "within twelve months after the passing of this Act" -- meaning in 1793 at the latest. That's because this is effectively a conscription act[2], enacted with the specific and limited purpose of defending the nation "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".[1][2] It's quite debatable whether such a situation has existed at any time since World War 2, and certainly not now. Furthermore, it's clearly not intended that these so-called "militias" use guns to defend themselves against each other, much less against the US government (as some vocal American gun advocates would have it). Also, according to the Militia Act of 1792: this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer. So, from the text of the law, it can be argued that you wouldn't be considered a part of the militia until you're explictly enrolled, and that this enrollment wouldn't even last past the year 1794. Here's another important part of the Act: That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder So, the exlicit intent of the Act was that the "arms" militia members were entitled to were muskets and rifles of the kind made up to 1794. The act also mentions arming militia members with "a sword or hanger, and espontoon". In summary, according to the text and intent of the law, to be in the militia you'd have to be a white man who has been explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" by 1793 at the latest, your enrollment wouldn't last past 1794, and the intended arms for militiamen would be muskets and rifles, swords, hangers, and espontoons of the kind made up to 1794. [1] - http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

sc68cal 14y ago

Because Republicans and the Gun Lobby have systematically shut down any attempt to collect and study any data about guns. Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/ http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

MrMember 14y ago
The CDC isn't allowed to conduct research into gun violence because they didn't even try to hide the fact that they were horribly biased. Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research': "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it is dirty, deadly, and banned." He had no interest in conducting unbiased research, he wanted to treat gun ownership like a disease, and did everything in his power to try and 'eradicate' it.
- sc68cal 14y ago
  >The CDC isn't allowed to conduct research into gun violence because they didn't even try to hide the fact that they were horribly biased. So just because the numbers didn't reach the conclusion that you agree with, they are automatically biased? >Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research': An out of context quote - and an ad hominem attack? As far as I can tell, your strategy at this point is to try and muddy the water. Meanwhile, here are some useful numbers to contemplate. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fa...
- meepmorp 14y ago
  Citation needed. Also, assuming that account is accurate, that's no reason for a legislative ban on such research - it's a reason to remove that person from a position of influencing the course and outcomes of said research. Unless you're of the opinion that considering firearms as dangerous is in and of itself an indication of bias, in which case you're beyond reason.

jandrewrogers 14y ago

The militia is defined in US law by the Militia Act of 1792 and exists today with only minor modifications to the original (see: Title 10 Section 311 of the US Code). Every able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and less than 45 years of age who is not a member of the regular military is a member of the militia per US law. There is no requirement that you own a weapon in the definition. The government knows my age so, as a male US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 years, I am presumptively a member of the militia.

gnosis 14y ago
Very nice. But, as is common with laws, the devil's in the details. First, you say, "Every able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and less than 45 years of age who is not a member of the regular military is a member of the militia per US law." Curiously, you left out one conspicuous qualifier: white. Here's the relevant text of the law[1]: That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. Many conservatives would no doubt be pleased that only white men could be armed by this law, and perhaps that's one of the reasons they're trying to bring the nation back to 1792. Also, note that according to the above-quoted text of the law, you're not automatically part of the militia, but have to be explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" and that only "within twelve months after the passing of this Act" -- meaning in 1793 at the latest. That's because this is effectively a conscription act[2], enacted with the specific and limited purpose of defending the nation "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".[1][2] It's quite debatable whether such a situation has existed at any time since World War 2, and certainly not now. Furthermore, it's clearly not intended that these so-called "militias" use guns to defend themselves against each other, much less against the US government (as some vocal American gun advocates would have it). Also, according to the Militia Act of 1792: this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer. So, from the text of the law, it can be argued that you wouldn't be considered a part of the militia until you're explictly enrolled, and that this enrollment wouldn't even last past the year 1794. Here's another important part of the Act: That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder So, the exlicit intent of the Act was that the "arms" militia members were entitled to were muskets and rifles of the kind made up to 1794. The act also mentions arming militia members with "a sword or hanger, and espontoon". In summary, according to the text and intent of the law, to be in the militia you'd have to be a white man who has been explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" by 1793 at the latest, your enrollment wouldn't last past 1794, and the intended arms for militiamen would be muskets and rifles, swords, hangers, and espontoons of the kind made up to 1794. [1] - http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792