A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Sparko]

I'm actually not basing it on any stories whatsoever. I am basing it on my knowledge of what can be done with databases. A national gun registry provides a mechanism to search for and flag any number of different characteristics that can be potential red flags for a problem (e.g., association of a gun with someone with a new diagnosis of a mental illness, or a new crime committed, or a large, concentrated collection of guns). This has nothing to do with "stories." It has to do with tracking data and using "big data" for analysis purposes. It also plugs another hole in background checks - when the background changes AFTER the acquisition. It can also be a mechanism for supporting future gun research efforts.

My position about the background checks is likewise based on internal understanding. We apparently have collectively determined that background checks should be done, but current law has them being done for only about 78% of gun acquisitions. That makes no sense to me - we should either do them or not do them. Since doing them is the only way to determined if someone attempting to acquire a gun has a criminal record or a mental diagnosis, etc., doing them appears to be the prudent approach.



My only other proposition has been that we need to fund research so we can make decisions about "what to do" with data to support it. Your description, here, simply doesn't apply to me. Yes, I am seeing the violence. Yes, I am feeling helpless - but I have no idea what we should be doing that will actually curb the violence, so I am advocating for us to put some dollars behind researching the issue. Yes, it is frustrating that the gun lobby has successfully squelched doing that kind of information gathering. That's about the only place where I am "wringing my hands," (though I'm not sure I've ever actually felt/done that either.

You REASON for needing a national database is what we are discussing, not how databases work or their potential uses.

Except for the Las Vegas guy, not one of the shooters had a large collection of guns. Your database would not have alerted anyone of a potential shooting situation.

We already have extensive background checks and many states also register guns. It hasn't helped in any of these cases. You are spinning your wheels and jumping to conclusions based on no knowledge of law enforcement or guns, merely "what can be done with databases"

[Jedidiah]

I'm actually not basing it on any stories whatsoever. I am basing it on my knowledge of what can be done with databases. A national gun registry provides a mechanism to search for and flag any number of different characteristics that can be potential red flags for a problem (e.g., association of a gun with someone with a new diagnosis of a mental illness, or a new crime committed, or a large, concentrated collection of guns). This has nothing to do with "stories." It has to do with tracking data and using "big data" for analysis purposes. It also plugs another hole in background checks - when the background changes AFTER the acquisition. It can also be a mechanism for supporting future gun research efforts.

Most of us are aware of the fact that there are many uses a data base can be put to. Not all of these are desirable.

My only other proposition has been that we need to fund research so we can make decisions about "what to do" with data to support it. Your description, here, simply doesn't apply to me. Yes, I am seeing the violence. Yes, I am feeling helpless - but I have no idea what we should be doing that will actually curb the violence, so I am advocating for us to put some dollars behind researching the issue. Yes, it is frustrating that the gun lobby has successfully squelched doing that kind of information gathering. That's about the only place where I am "wringing my hands," (though I'm not sure I've ever actually felt/done that either.

You keep going on about studies. Have you mentioned the $10 million dollar CDC study funded by Obama in 2013. This CDC study does not seem to agree with your prejudices. According to more than one anti gun control sources it reveals exactly the opposite of what gun grabbers want. I have not read the study (Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence) and do not intend to. I did find a 124 page PDF on the issue, but it seemed to be mostly a discussion of what the study was go look at - 124 pages is too much for me since I could not find any results. The study is available for about $30 bucks. Can you enlighten me on what this study reveals?

A CNS New article the results included:

The study’s findings include:

Gun-use is the safest of studied “self-protective strategies,”
Suicide accounts for most firearm deaths,
Felons who use guns very seldom obtain their guns by stealing them, and
There is no evidence that gun restrictions reduce gun violence.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-b...rime-deterrent


Gun and Ammo listed these as results of the study:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:

http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/...ires-on-obama/

As far as a cursory look went, it seemed that the main result of this $10 million dollar study was that more study was needed.

[Cow Poke]

I'm actually not basing it on any stories whatsoever. I am basing it on my knowledge of what can be done with databases. A national gun registry provides a mechanism to search for and flag any number of different characteristics that can be potential red flags for a problem (e.g., association of a gun with someone with a new diagnosis of a mental illness, or a new crime committed, or a large, concentrated collection of guns)...

So, you're obviously familiar with gigo. How bout nino? Nothing in, nothing out...

The FBI's background-check system is missing millions of records of criminal convictions, mental illness diagnoses and other flags that would keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands, a gap that contributed to the shooting deaths of 26 people in a Texas church this week.

Experts who study the data say government agencies responsible for maintaining such records have long failed to forward them into federal databases used for gun background checks — systemic breakdowns that have lingered for decades as officials decided they were too costly and time-consuming to fix.

As the shooting at a Texas church on Sunday showed, what the FBI doesn't know can get people killed. In that case, the gunman had been convicted at a court-martial of charges stemming from a domestic violence case. Officials say the Air Force never notified the FBI of his conviction, so when he purchased weapons at a retail store, he cleared the background check.

[carpedm9587]

You REASON for needing a national database is what we are discussing, not how databases work or their potential uses.

Except for the Las Vegas guy, not one of the shooters had a large collection of guns. Your database would not have alerted anyone of a potential shooting situation.

We already have extensive background checks and many states also register guns. It hasn't helped in any of these cases. You are spinning your wheels and jumping to conclusions based on no knowledge of law enforcement or guns, merely "what can be done with databases"

My reason for wanting a national database is because it provides information that can be used in a number of ways, without depriving anyone of a gun or changing any controlling laws. I see it justified as an information source for studying the gun problem, and to plug an obvious hole in the background check process: that a change in circumstance after the background check is complete is not trapped (i.e., a conviction, a mental diagnosis, etc.), so there is no mechanism for raising flags to that kind of change in circumstance.

I havenot said anything about it changing the statistics, ending the carnage, or eliminating the risk. You seem to be adding all of that to my statement. I have merely given examples of some of the ways the data could be used to raise flags, and it could also be used to conduct research.

[carpedm9587]

Most of us are aware of the fact that there are many uses a data base can be put to. Not all of these are desirable.

I have never encountered a situation where "knowing more" is undesirable.

You keep going on about studies. Have you mentioned the $10 million dollar CDC study funded by Obama in 2013. This CDC study does not seem to agree with your prejudices. According to more than one anti gun control sources it reveals exactly the opposite of what gun grabbers want. I have not read the study (Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence) and do not intend to. I did find a 124 page PDF on the issue, but it seemed to be mostly a discussion of what the study was go look at - 124 pages is too much for me since I could not find any results. The study is available for about $30 bucks. Can you enlighten me on what this study reveals?

I am not aware of this study, so thatnks for making me aware. I will look into it. I am also not a gun grabber - not having at any time advocated for takin anyone's gun.

A CNS New article the results included:

The study’s findings include:

Gun-use is the safest of studied “self-protective strategies,”
Suicide accounts for most firearm deaths,
Felons who use guns very seldom obtain their guns by stealing them, and
There is no evidence that gun restrictions reduce gun violence.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-b...rime-deterrent


Gun and Ammo listed these as results of the study:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:

http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/...ires-on-obama/

As far as a cursory look went, it seemed that the main result of this $10 million dollar study was that more study was needed.

I'll see if I can get it and review it. Probably not this week.

[Cow Poke]

I have never encountered a situation where "knowing more" is undesirable.

You haven't had teenage daughters talking about their ... um.... monthly.....

[carpedm9587]

So, you're obviously familiar with gigo. How bout nino? Nothing in, nothing out...

The FBI's background-check system is missing millions of records of criminal convictions, mental illness diagnoses and other flags that would keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands, a gap that contributed to the shooting deaths of 26 people in a Texas church this week.

Experts who study the data say government agencies responsible for maintaining such records have long failed to forward them into federal databases used for gun background checks — systemic breakdowns that have lingered for decades as officials decided they were too costly and time-consuming to fix.

As the shooting at a Texas church on Sunday showed, what the FBI doesn't know can get people killed. In that case, the gunman had been convicted at a court-martial of charges stemming from a domestic violence case. Officials say the Air Force never notified the FBI of his conviction, so when he purchased weapons at a retail store, he cleared the background check.

As with many things, if something is not well funded and supported, it's not going to be well done. That's whay I said we need to universalize and properly fund background checks - not only so they are complete, but also so that waiting periods can be reduced. The other reason for waiting periods is to give people time to "cool off" if they are buying the gun in a momenty of rage - but since we have no data (that I have seen) that this has any effect, I don't advocate for or against that approach.

You know - when someone doesn't like the answer the information might give them - the first step they take is to shut down the information flow. When someone says, "no - we won't permit that to be studied," I have to wonder just what it is they are afraid of.

[Charles]

You haven't had teenage daughters talking about their ... um.... monthly.....

If knowing more is knowing more about how to handle the sitation then I see no problem in knowing more.

[Cow Poke]

If knowing more is knowing more about how to handle the sitation then I see no problem in knowing more.

That's why God gave me a wife, and them a mother.

[Charles]

That's why God gave me a wife, and them a mother.

But they could all be suffering from that thing at the same time. That's why God gave them you.

[Sparko]

My reason for wanting a national database is because it provides information that can be used in a number of ways, without depriving anyone of a gun or changing any controlling laws. I see it justified as an information source for studying the gun problem, and to plug an obvious hole in the background check process: that a change in circumstance after the background check is complete is not trapped (i.e., a conviction, a mental diagnosis, etc.), so there is no mechanism for raising flags to that kind of change in circumstance.

I havenot said anything about it changing the statistics, ending the carnage, or eliminating the risk. You seem to be adding all of that to my statement. I have merely given examples of some of the ways the data could be used to raise flags, and it could also be used to conduct research.

Everyone here can see that you are indeed doing what you are accusing others of doing: Jumping to conclusions based on rumors, news articles and fear. But I am done repeating myself so I will let you have the last word.

[Cow Poke]

As with many things, if something is not well funded and supported, it's not going to be well done.

What "funding" would cause people to do the jobs they are already tasked with doing? How is it a 'lack of funding' that "Experts who study the data say government agencies responsible for maintaining such records have long failed to forward them into federal databases used for gun background checks". Even in that article, it cites "systemic breakdowns that have lingered for decades as officials decided they were too costly and time-consuming to fix".

[Charles]

Everyone here can see that you are indeed doing what you are accusing others of doing: Jumping to conclusions based on rumors, news articles and fear. But I am done repeating myself so I will let you have the last word.

That is actually not what he is doing and he has explained himself so many times that I think you are being very unfair with those accusations. It rather seems you want him to say what he is not actually saying. I guess if you read it again, you might start to see it differently.

[Sparko]

That is actually not what he is doing and he has explained himself so many times that I think you are being very unfair with those accusations. It rather seems you want him to say what he is not actually saying. I guess if you read it again, you might start to see it differently.

Dear peanut gallery. I did not ask you for your input, nor was I addressing you. Please do not comment on my posts to other people. Thank you.

[carpedm9587]

Everyone here can see that you are indeed doing what you are accusing others of doing: Jumping to conclusions based on rumors, news articles and fear. But I am done repeating myself so I will let you have the last word.

Then everyone can draw whatever conclusions they wish...