• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it againist the 2nd amendment to study the effects of gun violence?

Unitedwestand13 said:
well according to the article i posted, congress has been denying the center for disease control and prevention the funding required for the specific research into gun violence.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with studying gun violence, it's perfectly constitutional. I have a problem with the CDC doing the study as they are not a criminologist group, the only weak connection with that study and gun violence is death, but then again if we are going to use death as the common denominator we might as well just allow actuaries to do the study.

The other thing is that the studies usually are not even close to complete before they are issued for either side to use them. Gun violence, like any violence is the end result of some root cause and anything that doesn't focus on the causes will not be very effective. One thing I will say that any good study should include what social problems were in effect during peak years, like race wars, poverty, civil unrest, black market issues like alcohol/drugs/illicit items, etc. Other things should be the nuclear family versus the broken household, or maybe if a foster system family was abusive, etc.

I guess, long story short. It's fine to study gun violence, but let's expand it and get to the nature, tactics, and origins of violence and get a head start on fixing it.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
don't you think that an issue like gun violence can be open to muti-pronged solutions?
Click to expand...

I don't think for a minute that "gun violence" is the real target of those studies
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, it's not.

Also, if research suggests that more gun control is necessary to curb violence, then I'm open to considering implementing more gun control. If it suggests that gun proliferation is necessary to curb violence, then I'm open to decreasing gun control. It's unfortunate that certain populations within the United States are opposed to government funding of research that could help better our society.
Click to expand...

Do you think that it takes $3M to know what their conclusions are going to be? Give me a 12 packs and $20 and I can tell you the same thing they will. What the left has not done is offer any proposals that are not directly aimed at goring the right's ox. Introduce a law saying that people give up their right voluntarily in exchange for receiving welfare benefits and it will pass with flying colors.....but nooooooooooooo we cannot point fingers at the poor because they are the democratic base when they account for a huge chunk of violent crimes in this country so we instead have to go after Luther because he likes to shoot a lot of 22 rounds at targets.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
don't you think that an issue like gun violence can be open to muti-pronged solutions?
Click to expand...

Lets make this simple, ok? The only reason you're interested in this research is to brain storm new ideas on how you can restrict gun rights. Why would anyone be interested in giving you that chance?
 
TurtleDude said:
its a sham created by anti gun doctors pretending that calling it a disease somehow elevates their partisan hackery to expertise.
Click to expand...

they are not targeting the guns, they are targeting the people holding the guns.

What we need, they say, is a public health approach to the problem, like the highway safety measures, product changes and driving laws that slashed deaths from car crashes decades ago, even as the number of vehicles on the road rose.

One example: Guardrails are now curved to the ground instead of having sharp metal ends that stick out and pose a hazard in a crash.

"People used to spear themselves and we blamed the drivers for that," said Dr. Garen Wintemute, an emergency medicine professor who directs the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.

It wasn't enough back then to curb deaths just by trying to make people better drivers, and it isn't enough now to tackle gun violence by focusing solely on the people doing the shooting, he and other doctors say.

They want a science-based, pragmatic approach based on the reality that we live in a society saturated with guns and need better ways of preventing harm from them.
Click to expand...

are you really so entrenched in your opposiition to gun control that you won't even consider allowing a scientific investigation into the matter?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
they are not targeting the guns, they are targeting the people holding the guns.



are you really so entrenched in your opposiition to gun control that you won't even consider allowing a scientific investigation into the matter?
Click to expand...

Fool me once-
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
A basic question:

Is it Unconstitional to propose a plan for increasing funding for researching the effects of gun Violence?

Is it against the principles of our founding document for scientists to conduct Studies and reasearch projects related to gun violence?

Research agenda set for curbing US gun violence - life - 05 June 2013 - New Scientist
Click to expand...

On its surface no its anti-2nd amendment.However why have the study if its not going to be used to push for more gun control?
 
Henrin said:
Lets make this simple, ok? The only reason you're interested in this research is to brain storm new ideas on how you can restrict gun rights. Why would anyone be interested in giving you that chance?
Click to expand...


Did i ever say in this Thread that i wanted the reasearch to be used to ban guns? I just find it odd that some people are afraid of even funding the research into issue of gun violence.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Did i ever say in this Thread that i wanted the reasearch to be used to ban guns? I just find it odd that some people are afraid of even funding the research into issue of gun violence.
Click to expand...

because we know what has been done with these studies in the past. we know what causes gun violence. its not a medical issue
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Did i ever say in this Thread that i wanted the reasearch to be used to ban guns? I just find it odd that some people are afraid of even funding the research into issue of gun violence.
Click to expand...
Then why would you want the research done? What would you want the results of that study to be used for?
 
TurtleDude said:
Fool me once-
Click to expand...

These are some of the issues that would be considered by a public health approach.


•• "Host" factors: What makes someone more likely to shoot, or someone more likely to be a victim. One recent study found firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to binge drink or to drink and drive, and other research has tied alcohol and gun violence. That suggests that people with driving under the influence convictions should be barred from buying a gun, Wintemute said.

• Product features: Which firearms are most dangerous and why. Manufacturers could be pressured to fix design defects that let guns go off accidentally, and to add technology that allows only the owner of the gun to fire it (many police officers and others are shot with their own weapons). Bans on assault weapons and multiple magazines that allow rapid and repeat firing are other possible steps.

• "Environmental" risk factors: What conditions allow or contribute to shootings. Gun shops must do background checks and refuse to sell firearms to people convicted of felonies or domestic violence misdemeanors, but those convicted of other violent misdemeanors can buy whatever they want. The rules also don't apply to private sales, which one study estimates as 40% of the market.
Click to expand...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
people dying after being struck by a bullet is not a health related issue?
Click to expand...
Nope. It's a sociological/criminological one, the gun, unlike a disease or health condition won't hurt you unless a person misuses it. This is not akin to getting a virus, bacterial infection, or other things beyond(for the most part) human control.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I just want the reasearch done to see if there is more to the cause of gun violence then we tend to believe.
Click to expand...

So what would you want the results of that study to be used for?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
These are some of the issues that would be considered by a public health approach.
Click to expand...

the product features prove its a sham

"bans on assault weapons" prove its the product of MORONS
 
jamesrage said:
So what would you want the results of that study to be used for?
Click to expand...

we have a poster who is well known to be anti gun supporting these studies and he wonders why we are suspicious

wow
 
jamesrage said:
All those things are gun control.
Click to expand...

Just becuase they relate to the issue of gun control does not mean we should bury our heads in the sand and ignore possible patterns.

give me a reason why you oppose the three issues related to public health.

other then your dogmatic opposition to the idea of gun control.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
we have a poster who is well known to be anti gun supporting these studies and he wonders why we are suspicious

wow
Click to expand...

The anti-2nd amendment crowd is not known for honesty.
 
jamesrage said:
The anti-2nd amendment crowd is not known for honesty.
Click to expand...

I have yet to meet an anti gunner who was not either dishonest or ignorant
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
don't you think that an issue like gun violence can be open to muti-pronged solutions?
Click to expand...
Not when the person who wants in on the decision is starting with the concept of bias confirmation. Which is really what the doctors who speak on anti-gun issues are doing, they are misusing their standing as a professional to present half the story as fact, and it's pretty transparent.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Just becuase they relate to the issue of gun control does not mean we should bury our heads in the sand and ignore possible patterns.

give me a reason why you oppose the three issues related to public health.

other then your dogmatic opposition to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Question: Do you support the government using force to prevent people from owning and carrying the types of firearms carried by our police and soldiers? If so, what is your justification for the initiation of such force?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom