Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars
I don't think a potentially life saving study is a waste.
Healey’s letter points out that more than 33,000 people die from guns every year in the United States. Among the areas that need to be studied, she said, are the effectiveness of gun storage methods, intervention by health care professionals, and the psychology of gun violence.
The two attitudes are more similar than you think. Criminals' and chronically depressed people's lives don't seem to matter to you, anymore than drug addicts do to our governor. Don't be purposely dense. If the study can come out with the major causes of gun violence in the cities, ways to specifically target the causes and hopefully change them might lead to less people dying or being shot multiple times by guns.No, I don't sound like that at all.You sound like our governor, who says drug addicts may as well go ahead and die--they'll never be rehabilitated. Is that stance on gun studies Gary Johnson's stance, as well? Thugs' Lives Matter, TN. They weren't born thugs.What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars
What does drug addiction have to do with suicide and thugs?
What does their lives mattering have to do with their criminal actions?
We should be studying gun violence.
Healey, other AGs call for CDC study of gun violence - The Boston Globe
President Obama, Senator Edward J. Markey, and other Democrats have pushed for years to lift the restriction, saying it has effectively squelched almost all CDC research into firearm deaths and injuries.
The original sponsor of the amendment, Jay Dickey, a former Republican congressman from Arkansas, has also said he regrets the measure.
They were never stopped from studying gun violence...they just aren't allowed to be activists against the 2nd Amendment on the taxpayer dime...but nice lie.....
The PROBLEM is the CDC is not an honest broker, they were shut down because they were DISHONEST in the method and reason they did studies. There is NO REASON to believe they have changed.no, but do you think a lack of guns would heavily influence non-gun crime rates?victims of criminals? Are you fuckin kidding me right now? loland who are those people that are dying by guns? suicidal people and criminals.
Victims of criminals. Victims of accidents.
You think criminals are only ones shot?
The ONLY way gun control would work is if the the WORLD banned guns. Untill then, the crimianls will still have weapons. We have a HUGE black market for weaponry.
ATTENTION : Those people are not lawful gun owners.
This is why I called it a waste. Because that is EXACTLY what it is.
Then the studies would determine that. Gun control is effective however in some forms. Lots of felons have been caught with guns and arrested before killing someone.
The two attitudes are more similar than you think. Criminals' and chronically depressed people's lives don't seem to matter to you, anymore than drug addicts do to our governor. Don't be purposely dense. If the study can come out with the major causes of gun violence in the cities, ways to specifically target the causes and hopefully change them might lead to less people dying or being shot multiple times by guns.No, I don't sound like that at all.You sound like our governor, who says drug addicts may as well go ahead and die--they'll never be rehabilitated. Is that stance on gun studies Gary Johnson's stance, as well? Thugs' Lives Matter, TN. They weren't born thugs.What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars
What does drug addiction have to do with suicide and thugs?
What does their lives mattering have to do with their criminal actions?
I didn't even bother to read your blather this time. Of course you disapprove of a study that might actually get to some of the root causes of gun violence. Heaven forfend some of the root cause might be too many handy guns on the street. The CDC realizes 16,000 people a year losing their lives to guns (not suicide) is a health epidemic.
And they don't know what they are talking about.......typical government drones....
Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget
Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.
CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor.
In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”
And the truth.........
CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns
In the late ’80s and early ’90s, the CDC was openly biased in opposing gun rights. CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”
‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’
O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”
He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”
CDC leaders were not shy about their intentions of banning guns from the public. Sure enough, they acted on their desires.
In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC to the tune of $1.7 million, entitled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The leader author was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an epidemiologist, physician, and outspoken advocate of gun control.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.
Unreliable Gun Research
However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.
Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.
Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.
---------------
And this is a good point...
Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.
What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars
I don't think a potentially life saving study is a waste.
Healey’s letter points out that more than 33,000 people die from guns every year in the United States. Among the areas that need to be studied, she said, are the effectiveness of gun storage methods, intervention by health care professionals, and the psychology of gun violence.
And that is a lie.......
357,000,000 million guns in private hands in 2014.......
21,000 by gun suicide.
(19,974 non gun suicides)
gun murder in 2014 8,124
Accidental gun deaths, 586
So......that is all the research we need......and the CDC already counts bodies......
no, but do you think a lack of guns would heavily influence non-gun crime rates?victims of criminals? Are you fuckin kidding me right now? loland who are those people that are dying by guns? suicidal people and criminals.
Victims of criminals. Victims of accidents.
You think criminals are only ones shot?
The ONLY way gun control would work is if the the WORLD banned guns. Untill then, the crimianls will still have weapons. We have a HUGE black market for weaponry.
ATTENTION : Those people are not lawful gun owners.
This is why I called it a waste. Because that is EXACTLY what it is.
Then the studies would determine that. Gun control is effective however in some forms. Lots of felons have been caught with guns and arrested before killing someone.
You like to call a lot of things lies, when they aren't. Like the police chief in Chicago, whose cops actually did the hard work to confiscate illegal guns off the streets and figure out where they came from. When he said many of the handguns were coming from neighboring states with gun control loopholes, you said he was lying. Why would he lie, twit?The two attitudes are more similar than you think. Criminals' and chronically depressed people's lives don't seem to matter to you, anymore than drug addicts do to our governor. Don't be purposely dense. If the study can come out with the major causes of gun violence in the cities, ways to specifically target the causes and hopefully change them might lead to less people dying or being shot multiple times by guns.No, I don't sound like that at all.You sound like our governor, who says drug addicts may as well go ahead and die--they'll never be rehabilitated. Is that stance on gun studies Gary Johnson's stance, as well? Thugs' Lives Matter, TN. They weren't born thugs.What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars
What does drug addiction have to do with suicide and thugs?
What does their lives mattering have to do with their criminal actions?
Do you realize the CDC is already doing this, and can already do this....and that it is a lie that the CDC can't study gun violence?
no, but do you think a lack of guns would heavily influence non-gun crime rates?victims of criminals? Are you fuckin kidding me right now? lolVictims of criminals. Victims of accidents.
You think criminals are only ones shot?
The ONLY way gun control would work is if the the WORLD banned guns. Untill then, the crimianls will still have weapons. We have a HUGE black market for weaponry.
ATTENTION : Those people are not lawful gun owners.
This is why I called it a waste. Because that is EXACTLY what it is.
Then the studies would determine that. Gun control is effective however in some forms. Lots of felons have been caught with guns and arrested before killing someone.
Gun studies continued all through the 90s to today............look up gun research.........and you will find gun study after gun study....
The anti gun movement wants to use the CDC to make up numbers and to promote attacks on the gun industry....that is why they keep lying about the CDC not being able to do research...I just posted gun research they did last year..........it is a lie...and brain is the king of liars....
I didn't even bother to read your blather this time. Of course you disapprove of a study that might actually get to some of the root causes of gun violence. Heaven forfend some of the root cause might be too many handy guns on the street. The CDC realizes 16,000 people a year losing their lives to guns (not suicide) is a health epidemic.
And they don't know what they are talking about.......typical government drones....
Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget
Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.
CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor.
In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”
And the truth.........
CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns
In the late ’80s and early ’90s, the CDC was openly biased in opposing gun rights. CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”
‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’
O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”
He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”
CDC leaders were not shy about their intentions of banning guns from the public. Sure enough, they acted on their desires.
In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC to the tune of $1.7 million, entitled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The leader author was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an epidemiologist, physician, and outspoken advocate of gun control.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.
Unreliable Gun Research
However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.
Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.
Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.
---------------
And this is a good point...
Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.
You like to call a lot of things lies, when they aren't. Like the police chief in Chicago, whose cops actually did the hard work to confiscate illegal guns off the streets and figure out where they came from. When he said many of the handguns were coming from neighboring states with gun control loopholes, you said he was lying. Why would he lie, twit?The two attitudes are more similar than you think. Criminals' and chronically depressed people's lives don't seem to matter to you, anymore than drug addicts do to our governor. Don't be purposely dense. If the study can come out with the major causes of gun violence in the cities, ways to specifically target the causes and hopefully change them might lead to less people dying or being shot multiple times by guns.No, I don't sound like that at all.You sound like our governor, who says drug addicts may as well go ahead and die--they'll never be rehabilitated. Is that stance on gun studies Gary Johnson's stance, as well? Thugs' Lives Matter, TN. They weren't born thugs.What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars
What does drug addiction have to do with suicide and thugs?
What does their lives mattering have to do with their criminal actions?
Do you realize the CDC is already doing this, and can already do this....and that it is a lie that the CDC can't study gun violence?
You like to call a lot of things lies, when they aren't. Like the police chief in Chicago, whose cops actually did the hard work to confiscate illegal guns off the streets and figure out where they came from. When he said many of the handguns were coming from neighboring states with gun control loopholes, you said he was lying. Why would he lie, twit?The two attitudes are more similar than you think. Criminals' and chronically depressed people's lives don't seem to matter to you, anymore than drug addicts do to our governor. Don't be purposely dense. If the study can come out with the major causes of gun violence in the cities, ways to specifically target the causes and hopefully change them might lead to less people dying or being shot multiple times by guns.No, I don't sound like that at all.You sound like our governor, who says drug addicts may as well go ahead and die--they'll never be rehabilitated. Is that stance on gun studies Gary Johnson's stance, as well? Thugs' Lives Matter, TN. They weren't born thugs.What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars
What does drug addiction have to do with suicide and thugs?
What does their lives mattering have to do with their criminal actions?
Do you realize the CDC is already doing this, and can already do this....and that it is a lie that the CDC can't study gun violence?
no, but do you think a lack of guns would heavily influence non-gun crime rates?victims of criminals? Are you fuckin kidding me right now? lol
You think criminals are only ones shot?
The ONLY way gun control would work is if the the WORLD banned guns. Untill then, the crimianls will still have weapons. We have a HUGE black market for weaponry.
ATTENTION : Those people are not lawful gun owners.
This is why I called it a waste. Because that is EXACTLY what it is.
Then the studies would determine that. Gun control is effective however in some forms. Lots of felons have been caught with guns and arrested before killing someone.
Gun studies continued all through the 90s to today............look up gun research.........and you will find gun study after gun study....
The anti gun movement wants to use the CDC to make up numbers and to promote attacks on the gun industry....that is why they keep lying about the CDC not being able to do research...I just posted gun research they did last year..........it is a lie...and brain is the king of liars....
They are not CDC studies.
I didn't even bother to read your blather this time. Of course you disapprove of a study that might actually get to some of the root causes of gun violence. Heaven forfend some of the root cause might be too many handy guns on the street. The CDC realizes 16,000 people a year losing their lives to guns (not suicide) is a health epidemic.
And they don't know what they are talking about.......typical government drones....
Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget
Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.
CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor.
In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”
And the truth.........
CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns
In the late ’80s and early ’90s, the CDC was openly biased in opposing gun rights. CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”
‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’
O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”
He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”
CDC leaders were not shy about their intentions of banning guns from the public. Sure enough, they acted on their desires.
In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC to the tune of $1.7 million, entitled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The leader author was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an epidemiologist, physician, and outspoken advocate of gun control.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.
Unreliable Gun Research
However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.
Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.
Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.
---------------
And this is a good point...
Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.
Nope. You said he lied. Trump can get away with that shit, but you can't.You like to call a lot of things lies, when they aren't. Like the police chief in Chicago, whose cops actually did the hard work to confiscate illegal guns off the streets and figure out where they came from. When he said many of the handguns were coming from neighboring states with gun control loopholes, you said he was lying. Why would he lie, twit?The two attitudes are more similar than you think. Criminals' and chronically depressed people's lives don't seem to matter to you, anymore than drug addicts do to our governor. Don't be purposely dense. If the study can come out with the major causes of gun violence in the cities, ways to specifically target the causes and hopefully change them might lead to less people dying or being shot multiple times by guns.No, I don't sound like that at all.You sound like our governor, who says drug addicts may as well go ahead and die--they'll never be rehabilitated. Is that stance on gun studies Gary Johnson's stance, as well? Thugs' Lives Matter, TN. They weren't born thugs.
What does drug addiction have to do with suicide and thugs?
What does their lives mattering have to do with their criminal actions?
Do you realize the CDC is already doing this, and can already do this....and that it is a lie that the CDC can't study gun violence?
Nope.....I said it didn't matter because Chicago thugs are shooting each other at higher rates than the thugs in L.A. and New York.....and the thugs in those cities can drive just as easily to Arizona, gun friendly, and Vermont, gun friendly as thugs in Chicago can drive to Indiana and Missouri......so gun access isn't driving the murder rate....and normal people....don't have to drive out of state to get guns....and they aren't the ones shooting people....
again, thug culture is the problem...not guns....
You like to call a lot of things lies, when they aren't. Like the police chief in Chicago, whose cops actually did the hard work to confiscate illegal guns off the streets and figure out where they came from. When he said many of the handguns were coming from neighboring states with gun control loopholes, you said he was lying. Why would he lie, twit?The two attitudes are more similar than you think. Criminals' and chronically depressed people's lives don't seem to matter to you, anymore than drug addicts do to our governor. Don't be purposely dense. If the study can come out with the major causes of gun violence in the cities, ways to specifically target the causes and hopefully change them might lead to less people dying or being shot multiple times by guns.No, I don't sound like that at all.You sound like our governor, who says drug addicts may as well go ahead and die--they'll never be rehabilitated. Is that stance on gun studies Gary Johnson's stance, as well? Thugs' Lives Matter, TN. They weren't born thugs.What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars
What does drug addiction have to do with suicide and thugs?
What does their lives mattering have to do with their criminal actions?
Do you realize the CDC is already doing this, and can already do this....and that it is a lie that the CDC can't study gun violence?
Provide a link to this claim. Since I know you can not be honest I want proof. You said 16000 murders when there were just under 9000 so we know you don't know the truth and will say anything to support your ignorant position.Nope. You said he lied. Trump can get away with that shit, but you can't.You like to call a lot of things lies, when they aren't. Like the police chief in Chicago, whose cops actually did the hard work to confiscate illegal guns off the streets and figure out where they came from. When he said many of the handguns were coming from neighboring states with gun control loopholes, you said he was lying. Why would he lie, twit?The two attitudes are more similar than you think. Criminals' and chronically depressed people's lives don't seem to matter to you, anymore than drug addicts do to our governor. Don't be purposely dense. If the study can come out with the major causes of gun violence in the cities, ways to specifically target the causes and hopefully change them might lead to less people dying or being shot multiple times by guns.No, I don't sound like that at all.
What does drug addiction have to do with suicide and thugs?
What does their lives mattering have to do with their criminal actions?
Do you realize the CDC is already doing this, and can already do this....and that it is a lie that the CDC can't study gun violence?
Nope.....I said it didn't matter because Chicago thugs are shooting each other at higher rates than the thugs in L.A. and New York.....and the thugs in those cities can drive just as easily to Arizona, gun friendly, and Vermont, gun friendly as thugs in Chicago can drive to Indiana and Missouri......so gun access isn't driving the murder rate....and normal people....don't have to drive out of state to get guns....and they aren't the ones shooting people....
again, thug culture is the problem...not guns....
I didn't even bother to read your blather this time. Of course you disapprove of a study that might actually get to some of the root causes of gun violence. Heaven forfend some of the root cause might be too many handy guns on the street. The CDC realizes 16,000 people a year losing their lives to guns (not suicide) is a health epidemic.
And they don't know what they are talking about.......typical government drones....
Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget
Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.
CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor.
In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”
And the truth.........
CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns
In the late ’80s and early ’90s, the CDC was openly biased in opposing gun rights. CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”
‘It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.’
O’Carroll went on to deny he had said this, claiming he was misquoted. However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”
He went on to tell theWashington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”
CDC leaders were not shy about their intentions of banning guns from the public. Sure enough, they acted on their desires.
In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC to the tune of $1.7 million, entitled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The leader author was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an epidemiologist, physician, and outspoken advocate of gun control.
In the study, Kellerman concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. Major media outlets, such as the New York Times, still cite these statistics.
Unreliable Gun Research
However, the research was beyond flawed. For one, Kellermann used epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology. In effect, this means he was treating gun violence the same as, say, the spread of West Nile, or bird flu.
Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.
Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home.
---------------
And this is a good point...
Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime.
Here you go....part of the original post..........
Tell me....am I lying........?
Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget
Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.
CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor.
In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”
