CNN's One Day of "Gun Violence" Project

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by texas_ex2000, Jul 6, 2015.

  1. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/us/cnn-guns-project/24-hours.html

    Now let's compare CNN's "One Day of Gun Violence" map to per capita gun ownership.

    [​IMG]

    The 32,000 gun violence deaths reported in this CNN article and widely in other gun-control articles is one of those $0.70 to the dollar non-contextual stats. The majority of those gun related deaths are suicides (almost 2-1). Suicides are a bad thing, and we should certainly do what we can to reduce them, but to include them in a debate over "gun violence" is disingenuous. Suicides of all manners have been rising for the last 30 years. Gun related suicides have just been increasing in step at the same rate as the other suicide methods. Additionally, Japan, which has one of the highest suicide rates in the world also has effectively outlawed private ownership of guns. As it relates to the Federal "Assault Weapons" Ban of 1994, gun homicides were going down before 1994, they went down during the 10 year ban, and they went down after the law sunset.
     
  2. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I didn't see that stat although CNN did say "thousands of gun related deaths". Even with a 2:1 ratio of suicides to shooting deaths that would still put the figure at 10k. Removing suicides worldwide, is that higher or lower than other industrialized nations?

    I thought he CNN piece was well balanced, specifically the diversity of views in the "5 opinions" section at the top of the banner. I too believe there are sensible gun laws that could be in place. As someone pointed out in another thread, should Dylan Roof be able to go purchase a gun with a pending felony charge against him? We should all be able to agree the answer would be "no". Unfortunately, the mere mention of common sense gun laws brings a knee jerk reaction from the NRA card carrying crowd.

    Do I think gun laws are the only solution? Absolutely not but they have to be part of the solution.
     
  3. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Here's the 32k stat in the article:
    Interesting that in the 6 cited incidents in Texas, 3 were self-defense cases where victims fought off attackers. And a 4th was a police officer shooting an unarmed attacker going for his gun. I also bet the odds are better than 50/50 that the drive by in San Antonio was cartel related (not the general population). When considering Texas per capita gun ownership, total population, and large cities...well, you can make of it what you want.

    I'm an NRA card carrying member. The 2nd Amendment (after abortion) is probably my most conservative opinion. The "knee-jerk" reactions occur from the anti-gun side. The NRA wouldn't disagree with you on principle on individuals with pending felony charges being prohibited from buying a firearm. I certainly don't. It's the implementation and scope creep of those laws. As an example, veterans can be denied from purchasing a gun if the VA says they're mentally unfit. That doesn't sound unreasonable right? However, the VA blanket labels veterans who chose to not use their VA benefits as mentally unfit by putting them into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That classification has nothing to do with a psychiatrist's or any other doctor's diagnosis.

    And for a side that righteously associates itself with science..."knee jerk" reactions from anti-gunners are modus operandi. Let's outlaw military-style "assault weapons." Ok, what is an assault weapon? It has a pistol-grip, collapsible stock, it has a flash suppressor, etc. None of those have anything to do with assaulting a position or defending one's position from an assault, or effect the lethality of a gun or the ballistics of a round in flight. That's science. If I had to actually assault a position or defend myself from an attack in Iraq when I was in the military, I would have been woefully under armed with an AR-15 vs my issued M4.
     
  4. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Thanks. I'll readily admit that "knee jerk" reactions occur on both sides of any issue. The NRA has neutered nearly all common sense gun controls for decades though. I fully respect their position as the bastion of gun owners rights but they've also stood in the way of common sense legislation all based on the fear of the slippery slope.

    I tried but can't seem to find a link to get more information on this practice. Can you direct me to a link? That just sounds like a half-truth.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2015
  5. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    It's my understanding that he could not, but that the gun was given to him by his father. I think you can make a case that someone who buys a firearm and gives it to someone with the knowledge that the person has a pending felony charge (or ongoing mental or drug issues) should be criminally liable. But that slides more and more into what was alluded to before: who gets to decide who "should have known"... or what constitutes "mental or drug issues"?

    Most people are squarely on board with keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. It's the mechanics of achieving that goal that are up for debate.
     
  6. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The latest information is that Dylan did in fact purchase the handgun himself at a Charleston gun store. He may have passed a background check depending on which site you read. This would beg the question, how do we improve the background check processes?
     
  7. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    I tried but can't seem to find a link to get more information on this practice. Can you direct me to a link? That just sounds like a half-truth.[/QUOTE]
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/veterans-gun-rights-defense-bill_n_2230786.html
     
  8. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    That situation isn't the same as what you posted. These are cases where veterans have already been deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs thus a family member or magistrate is appointed to manage them on their behalf. That's quit a bit different scenario than "veterans who chose to not use their VA benefits". Are you saying that the VA is automatically deeming veterans "mentally incompetent" if they opt out of benefits? Could this be a bureaucratic hurdle that needs to be remedied? Again, common sense would say that "mentally incompetent" veterans shouldn't have access to guns. For example, soldiers suffering from serious bouts of PTSD shouldn't have firearms, wouldn't you agree? If the VA is using some blanket format for categorizing veterans as "mentally incompetent" then than should be addressed rather than prohibiting truly mentally challenged individuals from getting a gun, right?

    That article does point out that 127,000 veterans have been added to the national background check system since 1998. Of that only 185 have appealed to have their names removed.
     
  9. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Seattle, if a veteran decided to not use his benefits and stop dealing with the VA because he/she was sick and tired of them (I wonder why), the VA would appoint a fiduciary for them because in their view they are incompetent in handling their own financial affairs.

    VA: Why isn't Sgt. Pepper returning our call? How many letters have we sent him? Doesn't he know he needs to see our physical therapist? I guess he's going on NICBCS.

    Sgt. Pepper: (Opening a VA letter while watching the Dateline piece on the VA Deaths on his 4k TV in his Lake Travis house after cashing out his Twitter shares) Screw these guys.

    You bring up a good point though. Maybe this is a bureaucratic issue? Your instincts would be right as anything with the VA is hosed up. Unfortunately, the VA is hosing up someone's rights. How about we let the courts decide whether someone isn't competent? That's the due process in every state.

    Maybe, the SSA will say people are too old, and therefore, too incompetent to own a gun.
     
  10. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I have to laugh. My great grandfather was place in a rest home after developing Alzheimers. The trigger? He got lost on his way driving home and showed up at a previous house he'd owned demanding to be let in. The fact that he had one of these under the seat of car sealed the deal in putting him in the home. It was loaded and yes that is a double barreled shotgun pistol.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I can certainly understand why a vet would want to avoid the VA. How many say "thanks but no thanks" though? I'd think most would simply consider it akin to a 2nd insurer and leverage their primary insurance. For compensation, there aren't many turning it away although I could be wrong on that.

    Man...the VA has really gone downhill. I think the system is overburdened by decades of wars. Additionally, it was never setup to handle psychiatric issues. Walter Reed is a pretty good hospital. The other VA hospitals suck. Of course, when I was in the army I avoided any trips to the doctors or dentists so poor service from the VA is not a surprise. They'll never be able to compete with private health care for quality medical practitioners.
     
  12. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    People in the military who are stationed in locations that have developed healthcare systems frequently avoid military doctors for serious medical issues, and the government hospitals and doctors get sued (successfully) for malpractice all the time. If I had the sniffles and needed a prescription for antibiotics, I might go to a medical clinic on base. However, if I was seriously hurt and needed surgery, I'd go the University Medical Center in Mainz or the Westpfalz Klinikum in Kaiserslautern, both of which would be full of military personnel and their families. I wouldn't go anywhere near Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.
     

Share This Page