“The most common reason that people have a gun is because they have it for home protection,” he says. “Unfortunately, the data indicates that having a gun is associated with both an increased risk of homicide, but even more importantly, an increased risk of suicide. We know that, for example, if there’s a gun in the home, the risk of suicide among adolescents and young adults increases tenfold.”

“[Specter] approached the Centers for Disease and Control and discussed the idea that this research was biased,” says Rivara. Congress “ended up cutting the CDC budget by the exact amount of money that was used to fund the gun research. They had first threatened to cut all of the funding for injury research at the CDC. They didn’t do that, but they ended up cutting it by the exact amount that was spent on gun research.”

And that wasn't all. “More importantly, however, was that they put a clause for the appropriations of the CDC that essentially blocked all gun research for the next two decades," Rivara says.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gun-owners-face-much-higher-murder-risks-researchers-said-then-the-nra-silenced-them/ar-AAaUFQx



i hear the snowball comin down the mountain......



but this is all OK right? because the 2nd ammendment says everyone should be armed to the teeth right?

“The most common reason that people have a gun is because they have it for home protection"

Guns don't kill people, SomeGuy kills people.

If someone accidentally shoots me through a couple of walls and it happens to cause real damage (like 90% of gunshots are non-fatal) then that's nothing more than shit luck and I just got my number called. It is much more likely that IMU's riced out hatchback comes careening out of control into my Mazda on the Bishop Ford than some 8 year old pulling off a miracle shot.

Suicide is a genetic thing. People destined to erase their own map are gonna find a way to do it, guns or no. [ See: Hemmingways ]

but this is all OK right? because the 2nd ammendment says everyone should be armed to the teeth right?

Calling bullshit on that right now. Maybe that's what people say, because we live in a horrible culture where unless your net worth is over $500m you have to justify everything you like with some bullshit utilitarian premise, but I can guarantee you the vast majority of Americans own guns because they just like guns. It's a hobby. Like fast cars or model trains or gerbils. Nobody actually believes they'll have to fight off a home invader (seriously who invades homes) they just like having a big fuckin' gun in the closet because to them that's cool.

I say more power to them. If it gets their kids killed, whatever. I care more about Carlos Rodon's elbow staying glued to his body more than I care about 10,000 kids combined. Its much more important to me that people here are allowed to enjoy and have hobbies.

For the record I've never shot a gun in my life and dont want to. Not my thing, doesn't mean its wrong and should be banned just 'cause its not my cup of tea. Maybe I'll have to learn to use one for the populist uprising, "ITS A MAGAZINE NOT A CLIP, AMERICA."

It's all right. Because the second amendment doesn't say that at all.

Does owning a car increase the odds of getting into a car wreck?

but if you read the amendment it clearly states all MILITARY personnel should have this right. the intent was the government cannont disarm the standing military just to keep them from carrying out a coup.

absolutely. thats why were making cars drive themselves. i have been preaching for years the moment we have that technology, we should make human driving illegal on public roads.

the nra preaches that the 2nd amendment is wide open and anyone should be able to own any gun.

but if you read the amendment it clearly states all MILITARY personnel should have this right. the intent was the government cannont disarm the standing military just to keep them from carrying out a coup.

I think that if you read Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago you'll understand that your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is incorrect. Seems those constitutional scholars have a different opinion on the law.

I'm pretty sure the intent of the founding fathers wasn't for pencil-dicked crackers to carry AK-47s to Walmart, when they buy Cheez Balls and bean dip.

I'm pretty sure the intent of the founding fathers wasn't for pencil-dicked crackers to carry AK-47s to Walmart, when they buy Cheez Balls and bean dip.

I'm pretty sure the intent of the founding fathers wasn't for pencil-dicked crackers to carry AK-47s to Walmart, when they buy Cheez Balls and bean dip.

I'm also pretty sure that the 2nd amendment does not provide such protection.

exactly. and people need to remember this law was written by the same people who owned SLAVES.

The way I read the second amendment, if it truly is about a militia, then they'd want citizens to have equal arms to the government.

]

my point is the NRA thinks it does, and they feel people should be able to open carry whatever they want in walmart or even court or wherever...

If we want to be precise, it's the due process law of the 14th amendment which grants individual protection under the 2nd amendment. Very much opposed by the people who owned SLAVES and more or less forced upon the southern states as a condition of readmission into congress IIRC. Look man, I'm no constitutional scholar here but if we're gonna trash the laws and the people who wrote them let's get the facts right.

lol, i hear that argument all the time. the 14th amendment is bullshit. it was written to make all men equal except those men who work for those guys who wrote the law

the fact is the constitution SHOULD be changed. we need to revise these amendments to read in modern english and have clear intent spelled out.

lol, i hear that argument all the time. the 14th amendment is bullshit. it was written to make all men equal except those men who work for those guys who wrote the law