aley, other AGs demand CDC study on gun violence

[Brain357]

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.

 

[Brain357]

Last four surgeons general call on CDC to resume gun violence studies

 

[blastoff]

Sounds good. Maybe they'll come up with an answer for why thousands of blacks kill other blacks on the streets each year and be able to figure out a way to help stem the tide and save future lives.

 

[TNHarley]

What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars

 

[Brain357]

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.

 

[TNHarley]

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 who are those people that are dying by guns? suicidal people and criminals.

 

[TNHarley]

If we deducted the results from like 6 or 7 cities, we wouldn't even have any significant amount of gun violence. Just suicide.

 

[Brain357]

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 who are those people that are dying by guns? suicidal people and criminals.

Victims of criminals. Victims of accidents.

 

[TNHarley]

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 who are those people that are dying by guns? suicidal people and criminals.

Victims of criminals. Victims of accidents.

victims of criminals? Are you fuckin kidding me right now? lol

 

[Brain357]

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 who are those people that are dying by guns? suicidal people and criminals.

Victims of criminals. Victims of accidents.

victims of criminals? Are you fuckin kidding me right now? lol

You think criminals are only ones shot?

 

[OldLady]

What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars

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.

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

I think I can save the Government millions of dollars. Gun violence is caused when a Human Being pulls a trigger. Hope that helps.

 

[TNHarley]

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 who are those people that are dying by guns? suicidal people and criminals.

Victims of criminals. Victims of accidents.

victims of criminals? Are you fuckin kidding me right now? lol

You think criminals are only ones shot?

no, but do you think a lack of guns would heavily influence non-gun crime rates?
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.

 

[TNHarley]

What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars

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.

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?

 

[Brain357]

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 who are those people that are dying by guns? suicidal people and criminals.

Victims of criminals. Victims of accidents.

victims of criminals? Are you fuckin kidding me right now? lol

You think criminals are only ones shot?

no, but do you think a lack of guns would heavily influence non-gun crime rates?
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.

 

[2aguy]

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.....

 

[2aguy]

Last four surgeons general call on CDC to resume gun violence studies

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.

 

[2aguy]

and who are those people that are dying by guns? suicidal people and criminals.

Victims of criminals. Victims of accidents.

victims of criminals? Are you fuckin kidding me right now? lol

You think criminals are only ones shot?

no, but do you think a lack of guns would heavily influence non-gun crime rates?
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.

And then released within days....and then they kill people...

The CDC has no place studying a law enforcement issue........

and the solution to gun violence is already available...

1) if you get caught committing a crime with a gun, you get arrested.

2) if you get caught in possession of a gun as a convicted felon, you get arrested.

There...all the research you need.......

guns are not diseases.......guns are a law enforcement issue...

 

[OldLady]

What are they going to study? suicidal people and thugs? Sounds like a waste of time/tax payer dollars

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.

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?

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.

 

[PredFan]

Last four surgeons general call on CDC to resume gun violence studies

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.

Another idiotic thread killed.