As I stated above, the CDC was prohibiting from using tax dollars to advocate gun control, and rightfully so, given their unethical history. Many, many studies on “gun use, ownership, risks, etc.” exist.
Here’s one:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Read for comprehension: I would love for funding for some real studies on gun use, ownership, risks, etc. Correct me if I’m wrong, but seems like the NRA and extremist second amendmenters have lobbied very successfully to severely limit funding for such studies such as from the CDC. I don’t blame the lobbiests (well I do as they are rat bastard scum like most lobbiests) as much as the spineless beholden congress critters that are too afraid to get some actual data so both sides have an unbiased source.
I did not assert legislation that bans research. And if you want to try be factual, there was a funding cutback. Here ya go:
Guns are not a panacea, nor are they wonder weapons that always work as well as a Rambo fantasy without collateral damage. They can be useful for self defense but it ain’t a one size fits all solution. And, ya, knives are also pretty useful tools even if you don’t think so. My combat veteran father would also beg to differ with you as he has experience with both and never went anywhere on duty without the bayonet in his boot. As I wrote earlier, for the sake of my family, I won’t have a firearm in the house so there can’t be an accident. I don’t give a fuck what you do your home.
What about insurance for anything that happens while the firearm is registered to you? That’s no different than private automobile insurance, is it?
Chicken, the best you can do is a paper that is at least a decade old? It isn’t obviously dated but the cited data is from 2004 or earlier.
Out of 42 pages, the only reference to CDC is this footnote:
16.TaskForceonCommunityPreventitiveServs.,Ctrs.forDiseaseControl,First ReportsEvaluatingtheEffectivenessofStrategiesforPreventingViolence:FirearmsLaws, 52MORTALITY&MORBIDITYWKLY.REP.(RR‐14RECOMMENDATIONS&REP.)11,16 (2003), available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm. TheCDCisvehementlyanti‐gunandinterpreteditsresultstoshownotthatthe “moregunsequalmoredeath”mantraiserroneous,butonlythatthescoresofstudiesitreviewedwereinconclusivelydone.
If you actually read the CDCcite linked above, it reads pretty factual to me. No obvious smoking guns for unethical history.
Here are the first two paragraphs since you obviously haven’t read it or you might have tried to find something a little more damning of the CDC. You have something better on the unethical history that can’t be shot down in 5 minutes of internet research?
"Although firearms-related* injuries in the United States have declined since 1993, they remained the second leading cause of injury mortality in 2000, the most recent year for which complete data are available (1). Of 28,663 firearms-related deaths in 2000 — an average of 79 per day—16,586 (57.9%) were suicides, 10,801 (37.7%) were homicides, 776 (2.7%) were unintentional, and an additional 500 (1.7%) were legal interventions or of undetermined intent.
An estimated 24.3% of the 1,430,693 violent crimes (murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery) committed in the United States in 1999 were committed with a firearm (2). In the early 1990s, rates of firearms-related homicide, suicide, and unintentional death in the United States exceeded those of 25 other high-income nations (i.e., 1992 gross national product US $8,356 per capita) for which data are available (3). In 1994, the estimated lifetime medical cost of all firearms injuries in the United States was $2.3 billion (4). "
Try a little harder please.
You wanted a study, I gave you a study. What does inclusion of a reference to the CDC have to do with anything? Do you even read what you write yourself? You claimed there’s a ban on firearms research, but are unable or unwilling to cite a law. I provided the results of firearms research. There are many more online. This one took my five seconds to find. Are you familiar with Google? If so, perhaps you can use it to satisfy your desire “I would love for funding for some real studies on gun use, ownership, risks, etc.”
I never claimed a ban on firearms research. Please show where I did?
…
So you concede that there is not? Good. Have fun in Japan.
I have been accused several times in this thread of claiming a ban on firearms research. Put up or shut up? Where did I claim that?
The old “guns are a coward’s weapon” meme? We’re supposed to eschew guns and learn to be Batman instead? :smack:
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but seems like the NRA and extremist second amendmenters have lobbied very successfully to severely limit funding for such studies such as from the CDC.”
Yep, and only firearm owners that are compensating are real men. I wrote why I don’t want a firearm in my home. That doesn’t make me a numbnut commie bitch. YMMV
Oh, and here’s a link from today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/active-shooter-training-for-office-workers-used-to-be-about-hiding-not-anymore/2015/12/19/22c08a3e-a351-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html
Like most gun controllers, you make vague statements that appeal to emotion and lack of detailed knowledge.
The intent of the gun controllers, and you, is clearly to make the general public believe that the evil NRA has exerted influence to ban research on gun control, that would clearly prove your point, if only there were more tax dollars available.
Confusion is your strategy. It worked for years. Now, not so much.
Do you work for the Washington Post or something? I’m not buying a subscription. It’s bad enough I’m reading your BS for free.
Thanks for pointing out that I never called a ban. Over reach much and read in what you want to read in? Try something new that a person actually means what they write. The NRA has actually been very successful and limiting funding. I cited above. That is not to say that the NRA has banned research. Result may be effectively the same.
Again, please stop conflagrating me with extremist gun grabbers and I don’t have a GG membership card. Just 'cause I don’t drink your Kool-Aid it doesn’t mean I’m a gun grabber for fucks sake.
Be careful. He can karate chop you, poke you in the eye, and gut you like a deer. I’m not sure of the sequence, though.
There’s no amendment in the Constitution ensuring the right to drive a car will not be infringed upon. There is such an amendment concerning firearms. So yes, it’s different.
Depends on how you interpret the 2nd. But I will grant you that the declaration and the amendments don’t cover car insurance…
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
or this version ratified by the States at the time (just so I can’t be accused of cherry picking the punctuation)
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And whether you believe that “well regulated militia” means anything. Me, I think it does, since it *actually *appears as the dominant clause in the amendment. YMMV and in the US of A, we actually have a Supreme Court that interprets the law. There may or may not be judicial activism, but it’s part of the tri-parte balance that we have in this country. And if the Supremes ever change the interpretation, then I expect all law abiding Americans to support that interpretation even if they personally disagree with it.
Again, in this thread, I’m not seeing a lot of legal gun owners willing to step up and actually accept responsibility for their firearm until legal ownership passes to someone else. Totally understandable given that this has not been given a hard requirement previously. However, there is very little enforcement beyond your personal say so about being a responsible firearm owner. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
ChickenLegs: sayonara
We keep going around and around on the same point. Gun owners already accept responsibility for their weapons. I don’t know what more you expect.
IMHO the legal bar for “responsibility” is ridiculously low. IMHO gun owners generally don’t man up on their responsibility. If I can help change that, then I will. I don’t fault legal gun owners for being happy with the status quo. I just happen to fell the status quo is low, doesn’t cover the true costs, and I will pop the champagne if the situation changes.
Peace