DogofWar1 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 the research at CDC and NIH has slowed as a result of banning certain agencies advocating rather than studying. but close enough eh? And cutting the exact amount from their budgets that they previously used to study the root causes of the public health issue of gun violence. The Congress made it very clear what rules the CDC had to follow if they didn't want to see more of their funding cut away; no more studies on the root causes of gun violence. Today, "studies" by the government involving guns are really more of counting the bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 the funding was directed to a need within the CDC, not cut. TBI is no laughing matter. There would probably be less bodies if ya quit disarming the opposition to murders. try it and then count the bodies. but if ya prefer a study,.... the FBI identifies education institutions and places of commerce the most likely to host a mass shooting....coincidentally most are unarmed there by policy. nothing to see here. or we could talk about how most people are killed before police arrive...even the killers themselves. but I'm sure that is immaterial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) Don't give me that eye-rolling garbage. They stripped it, then so graciously returned it to another area. That's called a "thinly veiled threat." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/ The roots of the research ban go back to 1996, when the NRA accused the public health agency of lobbying for gun control. That year, a Republican congressman stripped $2.6 million from the CDC budget, the exact amount spent on gun research the previous year. Soon the funding was restored, but designated elsewhere, and wording was inserted into the CDC’s appropriations bill that, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” The CDC interpreted this to mean it should avoid studying guns in any fashion. “It basically was a shot across the bow by Congress on the part of the NRA,” said Mark Rosenberg, who was director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention when the ban went into effect. “All federally funded research was shut down.” On the topic of disarming opposition to murders, the discussion on armed bystanders happened earlier today, and there are so many problems with the "Rambo" concept that were gone over. Don't try and dig it up again, unless you're also willing to compromise and say that CCPs must come with mandatory training on extreme stress situations. And that's not even getting into the logistical issues of a Rambo Samaritan. What if there are two Rambo Samaritans? Do they know that the other is a good guy? What if they shoot each other, or worse, miss and hit bystanders (before shooting each other)? What tips off the police that the Rambo Samaritan is a good guy, and not another active shooter? There would be less bodies if the pro-gun side would step aside and let reasonable gun laws be implemented. Try it, and count the bodies. _______________ Also, just in case someone just read the title of the WaPo article and went "huuuh, but it says the ban was lifted so how could the ban be in place still?" it is still in place thanks to Congressional activity. http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence In the immediate aftermath of the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee quietly rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the underlying causes of gun violence. Edited October 8, 2015 by DogofWar1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) I don't believe gun laws stop those that ignore them....sorry Nor do I believe proper security is provided for the disarmed. I don't mind bodies if they are the right ones add the rambos could go vanilla after 5-8 minutes of the 1st shot....while ya wait for the cavalry to count the bodies.....if they shoot each other it is a assumed risk.(just as shooting innocents is) Nothing against the police,but they are only human. Edited October 8, 2015 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 ..if they shoot each other it is a assumed risk.(just as shooting innocents is) Right, the "cost of doing business." The same reason we can't impose new gun laws, it's the cost of the doing business. I'm sure that's very comforting for all the victims of gun violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Right, the "cost of doing business." The same reason we can't impose new gun laws, it's the cost of the doing business. I'm sure that's very comforting for all the victims of gun violence. will your gun laws actually help or just feel good? Ya can guess my opinion of gun free schools and such.....but business goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) will your gun laws actually help or just feel good? Yes, they would help. They'd also feel good. And responsible gun owners, in exchange for some minor intrusions in their usual purchasing/storage processes, will get to be secure in the knowledge that they aren't going to be politically attacked all the time anymore. One compromise from abortion debate that maybe we could make: for each investigation into Planned Parenthood that occurs, the CDC gets to do one study into the root causes of gun violence. Anyone cool with that? We'll even let the GOP get a head start and won't bank the numerous states that have concluded investigations (finding nothing); we'll only count ongoing and future investigations towards the CDC's study total. Edited October 8, 2015 by DogofWar1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Yes, they would help. They'd also feel good. So convince me with a bit of detail rather than sugar cookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 So convince me with a bit of detail rather than sugar cookies. We could go back over the 12 pages here, and 7 more in the other thread, where people have put forth ideas, or I could spend an hour laying out all the potential laws that could be implemented, BUT seeing as we seem to be the only two in here, and you will ignore anything that even remotely resembles gun control, I'll save my efforts for another day, when people who are actually interested in finding solutions to national public health issues are in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 the research at CDC and NIH has slowed as a result of banning certain agencies advocating rather than studying. but close enough eh? Because the Republicans in Congress and the NRA have essentially said any study that ends up concluding guns are bad and is made public is advocating. the funding was directed to a need within the CDC, not cut. And understand why so many more Americans die from gun inflicted injuries in the US isn't a need?Reducing gun crime and deaths is meaningless? but if ya prefer a study,.... the FBI identifies education institutions and places of commerce the most likely to host a mass shooting....coincidentally most are unarmed there by policy. nothing to see here. I'm shocked. A crime largely committed by young people that requires a lot people be in one area tends to be committed where young people spend a lot of time and where lot's of people tend to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Are you also shocked there was not one armed security person at that area ? Sheep to the slaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Yes, they would help. They'd also feel good. And responsible gun owners, in exchange for some minor intrusions in their usual purchasing/storage processes, will get to be secure in the knowledge that they aren't going to be politically attacked all the time anymore. One compromise from abortion debate that maybe we could make: for each investigation into Planned Parenthood that occurs, the CDC gets to do one study into the root causes of gun violence. Anyone cool with that? We'll even let the GOP get a head start and won't bank the numerous states that have concluded investigations (finding nothing); we'll only count ongoing and future investigations towards the CDC's study total. Except, since 1934, all gun owners have done is comprise and they still get attacked. Are you also shocked there was not one armed security person at that area ? Sheep to the slaughter. Well considering that the student body voted to NOT arm campus police .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Except, since 1934, all gun owners have done is comprise and they still get attacked. Yeah, it's terrible how walking the streets of America while packing a concealed weapon is so repressed, today, compared to 1934. (Just out of curiosity, any particular reason why you cherry picked that particular year?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Anyone cool with that? I'm good with it as long as BOTH studies are carried out in a bipartisan manner. Otherwise, results of studies into BOTH SUBJECTS should be dismissed because they are obviously just meant to push an agenda. I need to put down the crack pipe if I think it is possible for todays society to study something and come up with a result without pushing some kind of predetermined agenda though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 I'm good with it as long as BOTH studies are carried out in a bipartisan manner. Otherwise, results of studies into BOTH SUBJECTS should be dismissed because they are obviously just meant to push an agenda. I need to put down the crack pipe if I think it is possible for todays society to study something and come up with a result without pushing some kind of predetermined agenda though. Why would a study have to be made in a bipartisan matter? Why should politics enter into it? Why not just a good scientific study with no ideologies lording over it? Methodology. Data collection. Statistical analysis. Get the lobbyists, politicians, and think tanks out of the research. They can argue over the results after if they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Why would a study have to be made in a bipartisan matter? Why should politics enter into it? Why not just a good scientific study with no ideologies lording over it? Methodology. Data collection. Statistical analysis. Get the lobbyists, politicians, and think tanks out of the research. They can argue over the results after if they want. Nobody trusts such things anymore. EVERYTHING has a political slant to it. Sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Except, since 1934, all gun owners have done is comprise and they still get attacked. Well considering that the student body voted to NOT arm campus police .... If there's any group in this country that hasn't had to do compromising on anything recently it is gun owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Nobody trusts such things anymore. EVERYTHING has a political slant to it. Sad Kind of like how if we didn't do anything after Sandy Hook, we probably weren't doing anything else during this generation on guns, after climate deniers rejected the consensus on climate change research consisting of over 10,000 peer reviewed studies on the grounds that there's a massive grant-fueled global warming conspiracy, we probably weren't going to be able to get any studies on anything without them being attacked as partisan. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeesburgSkinFan Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 If there's any group in this country that hasn't had to do compromising on anything recently it is gun owners. Tell that to gun owners living in Connecticut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Kind of like how if we didn't do anything after Sandy Hook, we probably weren't doing anything else during this generation on guns, after climate deniers rejected the consensus on climate change research consisting of over 10,000 peer reviewed studies on the grounds that there's a massive grant-fueled global warming conspiracy, we probably weren't going to be able to get any studies on anything without them being attacked as partisan. Some sad truth to it. It isn't that we don't do good research these days. We actually do a lot of excellent, pure, objective research. It's that people put their thumbs in their ears and start singing bad melodies while spewing lies. And then the one time out of 10,000 that the research is wrong or biased... they scream how everything is bunk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 will your gun laws actually help or just feel good? Who the hell knows. We aren't allowed to study the issue - and you oppose doing studies because you presume they are going to be biased. Perfectly circular logic to get to the result you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Tell that to gun owners living in Connecticut. Or California. Or New York. Or Maryland. Or Illinois. Or DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Except, since 1934, all gun owners have done is comp[romise] and they still get attacked. I laughed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 If we're talking about restrictions by state again, this chart probably should show up again, and NOT* because of the ranking, but because it is very informative as to what states have what laws. *okay, maybe a little bit And of course, state restrictions =/= federal restrictions. If you don't like a state's gun laws, you can just move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Who the hell knows. We aren't allowed to study the issue - and you oppose doing studies because you presume they are going to be biased. Perfectly circular logic to get to the result you want. Everyone knows that reality is biased. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts