Allow the CDC to Study Gun Violence[W:101]

[notquiteright]

lets see-don't leave loaded firearms where a child can get it. now how much more studying does that require. The NRA was saying that back when I first joined-about 40+ years ago. what exactly qualifies as radical right when it comes to guns from the radical left

Funny thing, for all the NRA says a version of 'just say no' kids killing kids hasn't stopped has it? How about jail time for those who leave firearms unattended AND a kid shoots some one? The NRA is good at claiming only criminals use firearms to kill, how about making it a crime to enable a minor to kill others?

Now some more on what a study would do, and more work on preventing firearms... how about tripling the number of ATF agents that inspect FFL dealers? How about raising the chances of being audited to about 10%? How about allowing the ATF to revisit a dealer who has multiple infractions on an audit WITHOUT having to get a warrant? Maybe we could suspend FFLs if a conviction has been obtained and allow the appeal to go forward in a speedy manner? How about banning family members who worked at the store to not be able to take over a revoked store and start all over?

Radical right- (actually radical 2nd A supporter/ranter/foam flinger- there are degrees) a COMPLETE refusal to even discuss any firearm regulations with the claim it is either the cornerstone of individual liberty, or feel the 2nd A means NO regulation or restrictions are allowed- with or without a nod to 'criminals' or an ill defined mentally ill exclusion... oh and citing FDR is a most excellent indicator of radical 2nd A ranters.... eace

 

[notquiteright]

You want an honest discussion OK answer this. -Why do you want an organisation that was fraudulently producing false information back in business?

What organization is out of business???

 

[jaeger19]

Ok, let's be clear. The quote you referenced from me was made from the perspective of an individual that is rabidly opposed to gun control and that would likely influence their politician to the point of seeking sanctions against the CDC for allegedly violating the law.

I personally do not believe that any of the recommendations that you made would qualify as a form of gun control. With that said, how could you possibly link those recommendations to a study about gun violence and not open yourself up to the allegation that you are engaging in gun control propaganda?

Try to imagine the scenario. The CDC conducts a study on gun violence and then, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt, limits their recommendations on how to mitigate gun violence to JUST the list of proposals that you have made here. Do you honestly believe that every second amendment advocate, or more specifically the politicians that are strong proponents of the second amendment, would reach the same conclusion as you that those recommendations do not rise to the level of gun control advocacy?

Well first of all.. the minute the CDC says their are studying "gun violence".. their scientific objectivity is in question. The CDC does not study "knife violence".. in studying home accidents, or intentional stabbings".. they don't study "poison violence".. in intentional and unintentional poisonings.

And there is a reason.. because there is no such thing as "knife violence" or "poison violence". Nor are is there "gun violence".. humans commit violent acts.. not knives, poison, or firearms.

Tell me.. if the Pro life crowd lobbied and got the CDC to do a study on "the effects of intrauterine murder aka abortion"..... would you question the objectivity of that study? I sure as heck would and I bet you would to.

The CDC plays an important role in actual scientific research and going on irrational "witch hunts" to try to give the appearance of credibility to a political position is a disservice to the American public.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Allow the CDC to Study Gun Violence

I don't care about establishing my credibility as a firearms owner. I was merely correcting a misassumption on the part of TD who claimed that I did not own a gun. I do.

Like I said.. its hard to believe your credibility as a gun owner when you don;t know the firearm you own.

 

[jaeger19]

No pointing out the radical 2nd A can't hold an honest discussion. Again it isn't as if ALL 'gun' deaths can be stopped today, it is working toward ending those which could have been prevented. You know the ones- where a child shoots it's mother because she left a 45 in the back of her car where the kid could get it. A child shoots his/her playmate because they find a pistol on the headboard, and of course enforcing laws on the books such as the mentioned mommy and her 45.

THAT is what needs to be studies- and again if these studies are useless, why bar them??? Seems an act of fear... eace

Don't leave a loaded weapon where a child can get it. There.. how much research do you think we need in figuring that out?

Maybe we should divert millions of dollars to figuring out how to make a person not do stupid things... and away from silly research like studying how to cure cancer, how to reduce the effects or cure PTSD, or all the silly research into preventing alzheimers.

Nope.. lets study how to make people responsible. :doh

 

[MrT]

Well first of all.. the minute the CDC says their are studying "gun violence".. their scientific objectivity is in question. The CDC does not study "knife violence".. in studying home accidents, or intentional stabbings".. they don't study "poison violence".. in intentional and unintentional poisonings.

And there is a reason.. because there is no such thing as "knife violence" or "poison violence". Nor are is there "gun violence".. humans commit violent acts.. not knives, poison, or firearms.

Let me stop you right there. The CDC does study those various types of violence. They have a page devoted to Injury Prevention and Control.

The one type of violence that they are prevented, by law, from studying is Gun violence.

 

[jaeger19]

Funny thing, for all the NRA says a version of 'just say no' kids killing kids hasn't stopped has it? How about jail time for those who leave firearms unattended AND a kid shoots some one? The NRA is good at claiming only criminals use firearms to kill, how about making it a crime to enable a minor to kill others?

Now some more on what a study would do, and more work on preventing firearms... how about tripling the number of ATF agents that inspect FFL dealers? How about raising the chances of being audited to about 10%? How about allowing the ATF to revisit a dealer who has multiple infractions on an audit WITHOUT having to get a warrant? Maybe we could suspend FFLs if a conviction has been obtained and allow the appeal to go forward in a speedy manner? How about banning family members who worked at the store to not be able to take over a revoked store and start all over?

Radical right- (actually radical 2nd A supporter/ranter/foam flinger- there are degrees) a COMPLETE refusal to even discuss any firearm regulations with the claim it is either the cornerstone of individual liberty, or feel the 2nd A means NO regulation or restrictions are allowed- with or without a nod to 'criminals' or an ill defined mentally ill exclusion... oh and citing FDR is a most excellent indicator of radical 2nd A ranters.... eace

Actually the NRA's safety education from hunter education, to individual instruction has had a tremendous effect on decreasing firearm related injuries.

In fact.. the NRA has had this effect despite the roadblocks that anti gunners put in the way of educating the public on safety. For example .. in New York children going through hunter safety who are under a certain age aren;t allowed to actually LEARN safety with a real firearm. They have to learn with a toy.. even though in a few months when they reach the age to hunt.. they will be in the field with a real firearm.

There is no one that has a complete refusal to discuss firearm regulations. NO ONE in the NRA is stating that there should be no restrictions... no one in the NRA is claiming that a 6 year old should be able to go into a store and buy a glock. NO ONE is supporting the idea that convicted felons in prison should be allowed to purchase firearms.

That's is just your left wing propaganda speaking when their "reasonable gun restrictions" are proven to be anything but reasonable

 

[jaeger19]

Let me start you right there. The CDC does study those various types of violence. They have a page devoted to Injury Prevention and Control.

The one type of violence that they are prevented, by law, from studying is Gun violence.

Yes.. you should "start" me right there.

The cdc is NOT prevented from studying violence or injuries.. which includes violence committed with firearms, knives, bats, poisons etc

Its prevented from making a witch hunt on "gun violence" Which does not exist anymore than there is "knife violence".. bat violence or shoe violence.

 

[MrT]

Yes.. you should "stop" me right there.

The cdc is NOT prevented from studying violence or injuries.. which includes violence committed with firearms, knives, bats, poisons etc

Its prevented from making a witch hunt on "gun violence" Which does not exist anymore than there is "knife violence".. bat violence or shoe violence.

I already edited the post. I went ahead and adjusted your comment as well.

Now then, you are contradicting yourself. At first you said that CDC does not study "knife violence" and now you are saying that they do study the issue. And when they do, they make recommendations on how to properly mitigate or prevent those injuries - like placing child safety locks on drawers or putting them out of reach.

But therein lies the difference, if they made those same recommendations in regards to guns - keep your guns locked or put them out of reach of children for example - then, they are suddenly engaging in "gun control propaganda" and would be in violation of the law.

 

[jaeger19]

I already edited the post. I went ahead and adjusted your comment as well.

Now then, you are contradicting yourself. At first you said that CDC does not study "knife violence" and now you are saying that they do study the issue. And when they do, they make recommendations on how to properly mitigate or prevent those injuries - like placing child safety locks on drawers or putting them out of reach.

But therein lies the difference, if they made those same recommendations in regards to guns - keep your guns locked or put them out of reach of children for example - then, they are suddenly engaging in "gun control propaganda" and would be in violation of the law.

no.. they study violence and accidents. As they can do with those that involve guns.

Studying" gun violence" is an illogical and biased and unscientific position... since guns do not commit violence.. nor do knives or bats.

The NRA makes recommendations that firearms should be locked up and out of the reach of children.
The CDC can make those same recommendations..
Neither is accused of wanting gun control

 

[Ntharotep]

Maybe I'm a little slow but doesn't the CDC deal with...disease control?
Why would the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives not conduct this study?

Just curious, not against anyone doing the study.

 

[Lursa]

Not sure it would help. Personally I prefer they focus on disease and public health (which I dont particularly consider gun injuries/deaths but understand the extension). But anyone that doesnt like their findings would just fall back on critiizing the organization itself, based on their perceptions.

 

[MrT]

Maybe I'm a little slow but doesn't the CDC deal with...disease control?
Why would the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives not conduct this study?

Just curious, not against anyone doing the study.

The ATF is a law enforcement agency and while I don't see any reason why they couldn't or shouldn't study gun violence, they wouldn't be approaching the problem from the same perspective as the CDC, which is a public health and safety agency.

This post isn't exactly trying to make the argument that the CDC would be the absolute best at studying or making recommendations on how to mitigate gun violence, but I don't see the value in specifically preventing them from studying the problem.

 

[Crimefree]

What organization is out of business???

The organisation that was fraudulently producing false information, the CDC. You want it back fraudulently producing false information, why?


I thought that was obvious. Gun control advocates need a lot of dots.

 

[Crimefree]

The ATF is a law enforcement agency and while I don't see any reason why they couldn't or shouldn't study gun violence, they wouldn't be approaching the problem from the same perspective as the CDC, which is a public health and safety agency.

Violence is not public health and safety issue and the causes are all well known as social issues.

This post isn't exactly trying to make the argument that the CDC would be the absolute best at studying or making recommendations on how to mitigate gun violence, but I don't see the value in specifically preventing them from studying the problem.

Rubbish as a gun control advocate you simply want a source of credible lies to bolster false claims which is why the CDC was stopped from doing that. There can be no other reason you want a return to this. Under no circumstances was the CDC studying this subject. How can propaganda be called a STUDY? That is all the CDC produced PROPAGANDA, GUN CONTROL PROPAGANDA.

Why do you want the CDC to return to doing this?

 

[Crimefree]

Maybe I'm a little slow but doesn't the CDC deal with...disease control?
Why would the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives not conduct this study?

Just curious, not against anyone doing the study.

Even they are not equipped to deal with the issue that requires a false belief to justify. Guns do not cause crime so of what interest is this to to BATF?

That's our problem gun control has us jumping through hoops with it incessant repeated lies.

Somebody needs to tell these charlatans to buzz off instead of trying to humour and accommodate them

 

[Crimefree]

Not sure it would help. Personally I prefer they focus on disease and public health (which I dont particularly consider gun injuries/deaths but understand the extension). But anyone that doesnt like their findings would just fall back on critiizing the organization itself, based on their perceptions.

There are no perceptions about the fact the CDC illegally used public money to further the aims of gun control and produced false and misleading information under its masthead that was used to mislead and misinform the public using public funds.

Maybe you can find something the CDC did as worthy of public trust and funding. Congress did not and it did not make a mistake either. Do you think what the CDC did should go unpunished and be allowed to continue?

 

[notquiteright]

Don't leave a loaded weapon where a child can get it. There.. how much research do you think we need in figuring that out? Maybe we should divert millions of dollars to figuring out how to make a person not do stupid things... and away from silly research like studying how to cure cancer, how to reduce the effects or cure PTSD, or all the silly research into preventing alzheimers. Nope.. lets study how to make people responsible.

More rabid 2nd A deflection... how about putting some teeth into punishing those who leave a deadly weapon out for children to harm/kill others??? Does take any research for that and yet the NRA and radical right refuses to do that or even say when that law is on the books a person should be tried and punished to the extent the law allows- like in other 'gun' crimes they prattle on about.

What do you think about putting real enforcement teeth back into the ATF so shady FFL dealers at least pause a second before breaking the law- how about sending a few to prison for their MULTIPLE offenses. Why does the radical right want to allow so many law breakers to continue to funnel firearms into the hands of criminals???

it's about time to allow the ATF to do their duty, to find and end the conduit to big city criminals. To make FFL holders accountable for the weapons they seem to lose...

research would help identify the best methods for informing and punishing those who allow children to become murderers, to keep the FFL holders at least attempting to be honest...

The deflection over the cost is absurd- given the amount spent 'researching' crap in the DoD, it is just a drop in a huge bucket and just might open up a few new ways to help reduce firearm deaths... eace

 

[TurtleDude]

More rabid 2nd A deflection... how about putting some teeth into punishing those who leave a deadly weapon out for children to harm/kill others??? Does take any research for that and yet the NRA and radical right refuses to do that or even say when that law is on the books a person should be tried and punished to the extent the law allows- like in other 'gun' crimes they prattle on about.

What do you think about putting real enforcement teeth back into the ATF so shady FFL dealers at least pause a second before breaking the law- how about sending a few to prison for their MULTIPLE offenses. Why does the radical right want to allow so many law breakers to continue to funnel firearms into the hands of criminals???

it's about time to allow the ATF to do their duty, to find and end the conduit to big city criminals. To make FFL holders accountable for the weapons they seem to lose...

research would help identify the best methods for informing and punishing those who allow children to become murderers, to keep the FFL holders at least attempting to be honest...

The deflection over the cost is absurd- given the amount spent 'researching' crap in the DoD, it is just a drop in a huge bucket and just might open up a few new ways to help reduce firearm deaths... eace

The ATF shouldn't even exist.

 

[Crimefree]

More rabid 2nd A deflection... how about putting some teeth into punishing those who leave a deadly weapon out for children to harm/kill others??? Does take any research for that and yet the NRA and radical right refuses to do that or even say when that law is on the books a person should be tried and punished to the extent the law allows- like in other 'gun' crimes they prattle on about.

What do you think about putting real enforcement teeth back into the ATF so shady FFL dealers at least pause a second before breaking the law- how about sending a few to prison for their MULTIPLE offenses. Why does the radical right want to allow so many law breakers to continue to funnel firearms into the hands of criminals???

it's about time to allow the ATF to do their duty, to find and end the conduit to big city criminals. To make FFL holders accountable for the weapons they seem to lose...

research would help identify the best methods for informing and punishing those who allow children to become murderers, to keep the FFL holders at least attempting to be honest...

The deflection over the cost is absurd- given the amount spent 'researching' crap in the DoD, it is just a drop in a huge bucket and just might open up a few new ways to help reduce firearm deaths... eace

So what do you suggest as a way to teach people to be responsible as you claim to want to do. That claim is obviously as false as the rest of your emotional diatribe. Did you present the number of accidental firearm deaths? No because that would nave blown your emotional rant out of the water.

It's 500..600 per year. Would you like that as an approximate percentage so we can apportion the money spent on its importance. Something you deliberately failed to mention or consider. From about 200 million owners and about 300 million firearms lets see that is 0.0000003%

As for your claim it is "law breakers that funnel arms into the hands of criminals" is a reflection on your poor deductive ability.

Is it law breakers who funnel hundreds of tons of illegal substances into criminal hands?

Possibly the money could be better spent on study of the mental conditions that allow people to make such obviously incorrect statements and to actually believe they are true. What do you suppose causes that?

BTW given that people die every day from multiple causes the largest being over prescription and intake of medicine do you know how much is being spent on that. I'll bet you don't. That makes your "gun" desire an obsession.

Now you know the facts are you going to chance your incorrect ideas? No = obsession.

 

[Crimefree]

The ATF shouldn't even exist.

It's only reason for existence was to give 5000 redundant moonshine cops something to do rather than fire them. Hence Hughes amendment and ATF

NRA huh! what! oh! that sounds like a good idea no harm will be done and we can still shoot..... see how well that worked out.