why the cdc was stopped from attacking gun ownership....

[Damaged Eagle]

And gun makers and sellers are some of the most regulated people in the country…one company, Springfield Arms, was notified that one pistol may…may have had a problem when the slide was released…..and they recalled all the guns…every last one…on the off chance it was a real problem…

So they do monitor themselves, and they are more regulated than food companies……...

They should be equally held to account for their marketing as their manufacturing.

You sell to a mass shooter, you go to prison. Done deal.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[2aguy]

And gun makers and sellers are some of the most regulated people in the country…one company, Springfield Arms, was notified that one pistol may…may have had a problem when the slide was released…..and they recalled all the guns…every last one…on the off chance it was a real problem…

So they do monitor themselves, and they are more regulated than food companies……...

They should be equally held to account for their marketing as their manufacturing.

You sell to a mass shooter, you go to prison. Done deal.

You sell a computer to a pedophile...you go to prison....

you sell a computer to an identity thief...you go to prison...

You sell a car to a drunk driver...you go to prison...

you sell a steak and someone chokes to death on it...you go to prison...

you sell a pool and a kid drowns in it...you go to jail....

Wow....this is fun......


You declare a public space a gun free zone......and people are murdered by a mass shooter with a gun........you go to prison......right?

 

[HenryBHough]

If long-term membership in The Democrat Party is finally given an official diagnosis as a mental illness what sort of diagnostic coding might be needed to quality for Medicaid payment?

For the comprehension impaired:

Note the use of the word "If". If you disagree with the premise then please refrain from trying to derail.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow....this is fun......


You declare a public space a gun free zone......and people are murdered by a mass shooter with a gun........you go to prison......right?

No, you gun nuts are the problem. When you make it easy for the two nuts yesterday to get guns, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Not the fact that we didn't have heavily armed retards at this school yesterday.

 

[2aguy]

Wow....this is fun......


You declare a public space a gun free zone......and people are murdered by a mass shooter with a gun........you go to prison......right?

No, you gun nuts are the problem. When you make it easy for the two nuts yesterday to get guns, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Not the fact that we didn't have heavily armed retards at this school yesterday.

California has all the gun control laws that you guys want…magazine limits…..assault weapon bans….limits on the type of hand guns you can have….background checks…..everything….and these people passed all of them….

Except one….

only the law abiding people obeyed the law on not bringing guns into gun free zones…..all of the people at that party obeyed the gun free zone laws……except for the mass shooters….they broke that law…….

And gun control worked like a charm…not one of those law abiding, normal people had a gun in the gun free zone……congratulations on the success of your law….

 

[Defiant1]

Wow....this is fun......


You declare a public space a gun free zone......and people are murdered by a mass shooter with a gun........you go to prison......right?

No, you gun nuts are the problem. When you make it easy for the two nuts yesterday to get guns, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Not the fact that we didn't have heavily armed retards at this school yesterday.

Please tell us your proposed law that would have prevented these two shooters from obtaining weapons.

 

[2aguy]

Wow....this is fun......


You declare a public space a gun free zone......and people are murdered by a mass shooter with a gun........you go to prison......right?

No, you gun nuts are the problem. When you make it easy for the two nuts yesterday to get guns, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Not the fact that we didn't have heavily armed retards at this school yesterday.

Please tell us your proposed law that would have prevented these two shooters from obtaining weapons.

And even more to the point…..name that law and tell us that the French don't already have it……and tell us how it worked to keep the criminals and terrorists in paris from getting guns...

 

[Defiant1]

Wow....this is fun......


You declare a public space a gun free zone......and people are murdered by a mass shooter with a gun........you go to prison......right?

No, you gun nuts are the problem. When you make it easy for the two nuts yesterday to get guns, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Not the fact that we didn't have heavily armed retards at this school yesterday.

Please tell us your proposed law that would have prevented these two shooters from obtaining weapons.

And even more to the point…..name that law and tell us that the French don't already have it……and tell us how it worked to keep the criminals and terrorists in paris from getting guns...

It doesn't matter how you ask the question, they never answer it.

 

[jc456]

View attachment 56043

I forgot that one. Going to the hospital could be considered a major health hazard under the problematic fallacy the CDC would use for guns also... We probably should ban playgrounds since kids get hurt on them all the time... Restaurants have a high incidence of choking hazards... Being Muslim has a high incidence of blowing up because of the types of vests they wear so we should do away with the religion of Islam... Oh! Did I forget to mention that everyone alive tends to end up dead so life itself should be considered a health hazard that we need to do away with..... That last one should keep the CDC in business collecting grants from taxes for a cure forever.

*****CHUCKLE*****

so basically everything can kill ya.

 

[jc456]

Wow....this is fun......


You declare a public space a gun free zone......and people are murdered by a mass shooter with a gun........you go to prison......right?

No, you gun nuts are the problem. When you make it easy for the two nuts yesterday to get guns, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Not the fact that we didn't have heavily armed retards at this school yesterday.

Please tell us your proposed law that would have prevented these two shooters from obtaining weapons.

And even more to the point…..name that law and tell us that the French don't already have it……and tell us how it worked to keep the criminals and terrorists in paris from getting guns...

It doesn't matter how you ask the question, they never answer it.

answering questions isn't in their manifesto.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Here is a piece by one of the people who testified against allowing the CDC to attack gun ownership with shoddy research and propaganda disguised as research....

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

This would be valid if they were for ANY STUDY AT ALL.

But since they are against studying it at all you have to consider that the CDC isnt the problem. Some people are against any study or guns period like the OP.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here is a piece by one of the people who testified against allowing the CDC to attack gun ownership with shoddy research and propaganda disguised as research....

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

Global warming "Science" operates the exact same way

 

[2aguy]

Here is a piece by one of the people who testified against allowing the CDC to attack gun ownership with shoddy research and propaganda disguised as research....

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

This would be valid if they were for ANY STUDY AT ALL.

But since they are against studying it at all you have to consider that the CDC isnt the problem. Some people are against any study or guns period like the OP.

Wrong…the Department of Justice and the FBI study guns all day long…….and they get funding for it too….

 

[Rotagilla]

Here is a piece by one of the people who testified against allowing the CDC to attack gun ownership with shoddy research and propaganda disguised as research....

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

art kellerman...marsha goldsmith...mark rosenberg...hmmmm members of the "tribe"?

 

[Rotagilla]

I know you don't want Kellerman to be real... but how about doing an ACTUAL gun study and record every gun death.

Every suicide. (19500)
Every accident (800)
Every murder (11,000)
Every justifiable homicide (200).


Yeah, Kellerman probably had it about right.

kellermans work is backed up by.....nothing..... except his agenda based allegations..consider it hyperpartisan fiction.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Here is a piece by one of the people who testified against allowing the CDC to attack gun ownership with shoddy research and propaganda disguised as research....

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

This would be valid if they were for ANY STUDY AT ALL.

But since they are against studying it at all you have to consider that the CDC isnt the problem. Some people are against any study or guns period like the OP.

Wrong…the Department of Justice and the FBI study guns all day long…….and they get funding for it too….

yeah but do they study gun violence? And if so, tell me the answer that I already know to this question:

Do you accept or reject their findings?

 

[Steven_R]

Here is the link to the 3 part history of how gun control activists have used health care advocacy to propagandize against gun ownership......

You mean 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries aren't a major health concern?

We ban products for a lot less.

"but, but, b ut... Founding Slave Rapists!!!!"

Physician mistakes kill about 400,000 a year. For every one killed by a gun, 12 die because of doctors and hospitals.

Should doctors be illegal?

Deaths by medical mistakes hit records

 

[ClosedCaption]

Here is the link to the 3 part history of how gun control activists have used health care advocacy to propagandize against gun ownership......

You mean 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries aren't a major health concern?

We ban products for a lot less.

"but, but, b ut... Founding Slave Rapists!!!!"

Physician mistakes kill about 400,000 a year. For every one killed by a gun, 12 die because of doctors and hospitals.

Should doctors be illegal?

Deaths by medical mistakes hit records

Right! And theres nothing we can do to prevent it!

 

[Steven_R]

We should get rid of doctors and hospitals because if it saves just one live, it's worth it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

We should get rid of doctors and hospitals because if it saves just one live, it's worth it.

And Traffic lights and warning labels!