Multiple fatalities, man arrested after shooting in Darwin - Sensationalist Headlines

Re read what I wrote and you might understand what im getting at. Banning guns lowers the saturation of fire arms in any given area, less guns means more difficulty acquiring one equals less people with them to go nuts with one. It doesn't take a genius to compare statistics on this kind of thing between here and other countries and come to the conclusion that guns not being easy to obtain = less crazy people with guns. more burglaries, car thefts, etc So you'd prefer that when someone comes to rob you, rather than having a knife or a bat they have a gun? Makes complete sense

Just as the pro-gun posters explain, more gun ownership doesn't necessarily correlate with more violent crime. But this correlation goes the other way too, more gun ownership doesn't correlate with less violent crime either.

I think that probably depends on how well background checks are designed and enforced, along with whether potential gun owners would store their firearm safely and responsibly. In the US one of the main sources of firearms for criminals is stealing legally owned weapons. So it's not much of a stretch to assume that in other countries a loosening of ownership rules would also lead to criminals being better armed.

I really hate this line of thinking. Why do you think anti gun folks want guns banned? It's not because they want to cook up an evil ploy to nab your guns, it's because they actually believe it will help. If any time is the "appropriate" time to bring up that angle, it's events like this. An individual responding to a tragedy politically isn't them using the tragedy for personal gain (usually), it's because they think their position will fix it.

Yeah, I don't know what kind of personal conflict of interests one would have regarding being supportive of strict gun control. There can be biases, sure, but there are no insidious, self-serving goals that anti-gun people are hiding from public view.

Just saying, the CDC and other organizations absolutely can do studies on gun violence and other problems related to firearms, they're just not allowed to make a conclusion that would be definitely "yes or no." Like the organization in question can't state "yeah our research says that we need a full scale disarmament of the US population." Despite this though, we haven't really seen any real gun control research since the Obama era, and even then the reason they're probably not going to do any research is because the CDC has been documented to be anti-gun. Guess the bias couldn't be eliminated in their research. [Guns are and should be] ... "dirty, deadly -- and banned" - Mark Rosenberg, former Overseer of gun violence research at the CDC

the dickey amendment was never repealed, all they did was codify trump's HHS secretary's interpritation, so yes they technically can research gun violence, they can't come to any conclusions using government funds.

Of course there shouldn't be censorship of the CDC, but considering they've had leadership officials publicly declare that "guns are a virus that must be eradicated..." color me surprised when a bias was presumed and as such legislation enacted to control it. I would feel the same way if they had some cowboy hick in charge declare that guns are literally above Jesus and tried to make conclusions. If a bias is present, I'd hope many would take any findings with a grain of salt.

You don't correct a bias by introducing another bias, that's not how it works.

one, one director, we haven't removed the heads of the ATF for expressing concern about tobacco, or the DEA for saying weed is the worst drug in the world while holding off on yet another rescheduling hearing Censoring the CDC shut down virtually all research into gun related deaths in this country because the dickey amendment was so overly broad and vague