Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

oralloy wrote:

homicide/suicide rates

Which is a nice way of ignoring accidental deaths, accidental injuries, and mass shootings.

oralloy, I've reread the McChrystal statement and he is talking about assault weapons. No mention of hunting rifles. That's only your wildly exaggerated interpretation.

And you and the NRA are losing this battle, and about time. Look at the number of states coming up with tighter regulation of guns. Look at the Feds.

More violent deaths in US than other wealthy nations, report shows
The Washington Post. Violent deaths: Police caution tape flutters in the wind near the scene of a fatal shooting in Washington, D.C. IMAGE 16 hr ago |By Keven Freking
share
0tweet
0emailGun violence was cited as a factor contributing to lower life expectancy. Americans have been dying at younger ages than people in most other wealthy countries.


WASHINGTON — The United States suffers far more violent deaths than any other wealthy nation, due in part to the widespread possession of firearms and the practice of storing them at home in a place that is often unlocked, according to a report released Wednesday by two of the nation's leading health research institutions.
Gun violence is just one of many factors contributing to lower U.S. life expectancy, but the finding took on urgency because the report comes less than a month after the shooting deaths of 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents. None of the 16 other countries included in the review came anywhere close to that ratio. Finland was closest to the U.S. ranking with slightly more than two violent deaths per 100,000 residents.

For many years, Americans have been dying at younger ages than people in almost all other wealthy countries. In addition to the impact of gun violence, Americans consume the most calories among peer countries and get involved in more accidents that involve alcohol. The U.S. also suffers higher rates of drug-related deaths, infant mortality and AIDS.

The result is that the life expectancy for men in the United States ranked the lowest among the 17 countries reviewed, at 75.6 years, while the life expectancy for U.S. women ranked second lowest at 80.7 years. The countries reviewed included Canada, Japan, Australia and much of Western Europe.

The nation's health disadvantages have economic consequences. They lead to higher costs for consumers and taxpayers as well as a workforce that remains less healthy than that of other high-income countries.

"With lives and dollars at stake, the United States cannot afford to ignore this problem," said the report from the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine.

In attempting to explain why Americans are so unhealthy, the researchers looked at three categories: the nation's health care system, harmful behaviors and social and economic conditions. Researchers noted that the U.S. has a large uninsured population compared to other countries with comparable economies, and more limited access to primary care. And although the income of Americans is higher on average than that of other wealthy countries, the United States also has a higher level of poverty, especially among children.

Researchers said American culture probably plays an important role in the life expectancy rates falling short of other wealthy countries.

"We have a culture in our country that, among many Americans, cherishes personal autonomy and wants to limit intrusion of government and other entities on our personal lives and also wants to encourage free enterprise and the success of business and industry. Some of those forces may act against the ability to achieve optimal health outcomes," said Dr. Steven H. Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, who served as chairman for the study panel.

The National Rifle Association did not immediately return calls seeking comment about the report, but in the past gun-rights advocates have fought any suggestion that firearms ownership has public health implications, and they have won cuts in the government's budget for such research.

More from MSN News:

NY Gov. Cuomo to propose assault weapon ban
Biden says Obama 'determined to take action' against gun violence


The researchers reviewed an array of studies over the years. They estimated that homicide and suicide together account for about a quarter of the years of life lost for U.S. men compared to those in those peer countries. Homicide, they noted, is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 15-24. The large majority of those homicides involve firearms.

The researchers said there is little evidence that violent acts occur more frequently in the United States than elsewhere. It's the lethality of those attacks that stands out.

"One behavior that probably explains the excess lethality of violence and unintentional injuries in the United States is the widespread possession of firearms and the common practice of storing them (often unlocked) at home. The statistics are dramatic," the report said.

For example, the United States has the highest rate of firearm ownership among peer countries — 89 civilian-owned firearms for every 100 Americans, and the U.S. is home to about 35 to 50 percent of the world's civilian-owned firearms, the report noted.

Woolf said that researchers had expected that homicide would be an important factor in explaining the health disadvantage that existed in younger adults in the U.S., particularly among young men.

"The size of the health disadvantage was pretty stunning. The fact that our risk of death from homicide is seven times higher and from shootings 20 times higher is pretty dramatic...

Sure I can, because there are indeed such facts. Comparisons of gun availability verses homicide/suicide rates across nations show that gun availability has little impact on either.

A ban on assault weapons is not unconstitutional.

Article One, Section Eight, 16th paragraph reads:

[Congress shall have the power]To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

See The United States versus Miller, 1939, in which the Court upheld the National Firearms Act (1934), noting that "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The clear inference is that the Court considers Congress to have the power to regulate firearms.

As usual, Oralloy is just making this **** up as he goes along.

A ban on assault weapons is not unconstitutional.

Damn MJ, you know less than firefly

McCrysthal is talking about military ammo, not regular civilian .22 ammo )

Military ammo has a heavier bullet (not wider, but longer), and a heavier charge, resulting in a muzzle velocity 2-3 times higher than the usual civilian ammo.

It's the rapid sustainable fire rate that can make assault-style weapons particularly fearsome (which actually would come under the original intent of 18th century founders, as Scalia seems to interpret it.)

the NRA's front is more fearsome than its reality. Most of the candidates they backed lost in the last elections. and a significant number of their members disagree with the leadership.

And it is highly doubtful that assault weapons bans will be declared unconstitutional (and they weill be only a small part of the final legislation). You're whistling in the wind, oralloy.

You've forgotten already that the House Democrats are backing off from any plans to ban assault weapons, and are going to focus only on magazine limits?

No one wants to disarm private citizens of self defense guns.

You can assume whatever you like about what i have or haven't heard of, but of course, as with your fantasies about what the constitutions does or does not permit, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

If the Court chooses to apply what you are pleased to describe as "sterner standards," you can come back to discuss that--until that time, you're just blowing smoke.

Don't trot out that feeble minded commerce clause bullshit again.

The only reference to the commerce clause was to affirm that the Feds had the right to interfere with Mr. Miller's transportation of his sawed-off shotgun across state lines.

I've already quoted the relevant passage in which the Court affirmed Congress' right to regulate firearms, the key passage upholding the National Firearms Act.

You really don't keep track of how the cases are reviewed very well at all.

And yes, as always, you just make this **** up.