Absurd Alhazred posted:

D&D Gunchat here please, thanks.

Nintendo Kid posted:

Reminder that the average American gun owner owns 4 guns, lmao

Nintendo Kid posted:

300 million privately owned guns.

Only 70 million, 71 million tops people own any guns.

The average gun owner is therfore a hoarder with 4 or more guns.

TheBuilder posted:

What is the best suppressor for a Remington 870?

TheBuilder posted:

What is the best suppressor for a Remington 870?

Sharkie posted:

Are there any good psychological studies examining why some people feel the compulsion to hoard guns?

CommieGIR posted:

Is this just gonna get closed like the last one after TFR spams personal photos for the NSA to track?

Sharkie posted:

Are there any good psychological studies examining why some people feel the compulsion to hoard guns?

Sharkie posted:

Are there any good psychological studies examining why some people feel the compulsion to hoard guns?

Badger of Basra posted:

Not in the US probably, what with the research ban.

LeJackal posted:

Better call up all the Federal agencies and let them know about the super-secret ban on any and all gun-related research then.

LeJackal posted:

Better call up all the Federal agencies and let them know about the super-secret ban on any and all gun-related research then.

quote:

The CDC had not touched firearm research since 1996 — when the NRA accused the agency of promoting gun control and Congress threatened to strip the agency’s funding. The CDC’s self-imposed ban dried up a powerful funding source and had a chilling effect felt far beyond the agency: Almost no one wanted to pay for gun violence studies, researchers say. Young academics were warned that joining the field was a good way to kill their careers. And the odd gun study that got published went through linguistic gymnastics to hide any connection to firearms.

The long stalemate continued until shortly after the December 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., when Obama announced several gun-control proposals, including reversing the CDC research ban. His higher-profile proposals – tightening firearm background checks, reinstating the assault weapons ban – were viewed as impossible to pass into law. Congress wouldn’t bite. But ending the CDC research ban? Done by executive order, it appeared to have the best shot, along with broad support from a scientific community upset that gun violence as a public health problem was being ignored.

“A lot of people thought it would make a big difference,” recalled Jeffrey Swanson, a Duke University psychiatry professor who studies gun violence and mental health.

But today the CDC still avoids gun-violence research, demonstrating what many see as the depth of its fear about returning to one of the country’s most divisive debates. The agency recently was asked by The Washington Post why it was still sitting on the sidelines of firearms studies. It declined to make an official available for an interview but responded with a statement noting it had commissioned an agenda of possible research goals but still lacked the dedicated funding to pursue it.

CommieGIR posted:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-two-years-ago/

spoon0042 posted:

glad you agree that onerous restrictions and taxes and guns and ammo technically wouldn't be a ban

LeJackal posted:

4 guns isn't a hoard. A deer rifle, varmint rifle and a duck shotgun is three right there. If you do turkey hunting then thats probably another shotgun, making 4.

Mavric posted:

Yes but of that many people how many are hunters, or do anything other than hoard them?

LeJackal posted:

Sounds less like a ban on all gun-related research and more like a budget restriction for a single agency which was lifted years ago.

quote:

But does the CDC research blame the public health issue of gun violence on the weapons themselves?

“The original concern from the National Rifle Association back in 1996, which Dr. Rivara mentioned, made that very implication,” says Zwillich. “The NRA complained to Congress that the CDC was using the results of its research to essentially advocate for gun control. They called it propaganda. And back at that time, Congress slashed the CDC’s funding by the exact amount that was used for gun-related public health research.”

Rivara and his team discovered that having a gun in the home is associated with a threefold increase in the risk of a homicide — they released this information in a series of peer-reviewed articles that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. The CDC both funded Rivara’s original research and stood by the findings.

But after Congress seemingly retaliated against the CDC for publishing Rivara’s findings, Zwillich says researchers with the agency have shied away from conducting gun research.

“There is other research that goes on at the CDC that does have to do with guns,” says Zwillich. “There is a National Violent Death Reporting System, which does record the causes of all violent deaths, including in domestic abuse, youth violence, and child abuse. If a gun is the cause, that’s recorded — it’s not like they ignore it entirely. But gun deaths and gun injuries as a public health issue, as Rivara said, are still basically anathema to CDC researchers and anyone who gets CDC funding, which is potentially millions of dollars.”

Many federally funded researchers are afraid how the interpretation of their data might be used — and used against them.

“Congressional prohibition, which was extended in this very vote that we’re talking about with that appropriations bill, prevents the CDC from advocating for any form of gun control,” says Zwillich. “Researchers are concerned that if they report the results of their data publicly and say, for instance, as Fred Rivara found in the ‘90s, that having a gun in the home makes you more likely to be injured than if you don’t have a gun in a home, then they’ll be accused by Congress of breaking the rules and advocating for gun control.”

LeJackal posted:

CommieGIR posted:

Yeah, just skip the part where they tried to defund the entire CDC over it.

Nintendo Kid posted:

That's a hoard dipshit.

CommieGIR posted:

Yeah, just skip the part where they tried to defund the entire CDC over it.

Lemming posted:

I don't understand, when I point my gun at someone and say "Could I please have all your money? Feel free to say no! No pressure!" and they give it to me out of their own free will, what's the problem? It's not stealing, just asking.

LeJackal posted:

Sounds less like a ban on all gun-related research and more like a budget restriction for a single agency which was lifted years ago.

LeJackal posted:

Its tiresome.

LeJackal posted:

4 items is a hoard?

Nintendo Kid posted:

Yes, 4 guns is a hoard you lead-huffin' loony. In most countries with sizable gun ownership, the average gun owner only owns 1 or 2. God only knows how much ammunition you have holed up because you swear you need 10000 rounds a week or some bullshit.

LeJackal posted:

4 items is a hoard? poo poo, I've got a hoard of forks and spoons then right there in my kitchen. HOLY poo poo, and a knife hoard in there too!

NNick posted:

How else are forks and spoons like guns? I love this analogy!

Sharkie posted:

Do you think the CDC wouldn't have to fight to keep from being defunded again if they had the temerity to question guns' status as a holy totem?

Nonsense posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdz1_I5EjxA&t=32s

This dad will be ready.

MariusLecter posted:

He's ready to shoot up a political rally. totes

LeJackal posted:

Check this out; the word hoard can be used to refer to any item. If 4 guns can be described as a horde, then 4 of anything could be described as a hoard.

DeusExMachinima posted:

Hey folks, just wanna say that Australian and UK style gun control will never happen in America d/w/i

Let's talk about the Defense Distributed Ghost Gunner CNC machine that manufactures an AR15 receiver out of an untraceable block of aircraft aluminum. Or how about people 3D printing 30-round magazines? That's pretty swag. Welcome to the 21st century bitches.

BTW background checks are poo poo and more power to anyone who dodges them. It's the government's job to prove you guilty when they have specific evidence you're plotting something--you know, a crime with an actual victim--not for you to have to prove your name isn't on a list because you bought something that scared Feinstein's feelings.