[
No, they DON'T know what the truth is. CDC has an anti-gun agenda, and their studies are skewed.
But morons who agree with the agenda eagerly swallow it.
You know, like you.
Really? Where's your proof that the CDC has an anti-gun agenda?
Keep in mind, this was in 1986 when Ronny Reagan appointed the head of the CDC.
Not that you'll accept any proof, but here it is:
Don't fund anti-gun junk science: Opposing view
"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. ... Now (smoking) is dirty, deadly and banned."
Those words uttered in 1994 by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, then head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control have epitomized a problem endemic to taxpayer-funded research on guns.
OUR VIEW: Gun research kept in the Dark Ages
And this is why since 1996, Congress has prevented the CDC from engaging in politically motivated junk science, requiring that researchers not "advocate or promote gun control."
Notice that the wording doesn't prevent legitimate medical research.
What it does do is keep the Rosenbergs of the world from using taxpayer-funded research as a shill to promote an anti-gun political agenda.
PJ Media » CDC Misrepresents Their Crime Data to Promote Gun Control
In a new report, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) attempted to link firearms with violence, especially against children. The authors wrote: Gun violence historically has been a problem in cities, and youths have been affected disproportionately.
The gun control formula equates guns with violence in the readers mind, thus the term gun violence.
CDC history lesson
The CDC has long supported gun control. Researcher David Kopel wrote about CDCs history of funding anti-gun research:
Finally, in 1996, Congress cut off gun control funding for the CDC mainly because the NRA demonstrated to legislators the CDC was buying political misinformation rather than science.
Since then, theyve attempted to reframe their agenda into gun safety. In the early 2000s, the CDC performed national gun ownership surveys. The surveys codebook had interviewers asking people if firearms in the home were loaded and locked. The assumption was that a loaded, ready firearm was dangerous.
But CDC fatal injury data show that right-to-carry (RTC) states where law-abiding civilians carry loaded handguns in public averaged 16.3% lower homicide rates than restrictive-carry states.
More interesting, CDC data show that between 2000 and 2007, black homicide rates averaged 24.9% less in RTC states. Considering that American gun control policy historically coincides with racist oppression, this data indicate modern gun control is a questionable policy.
CDC Lobbies for Anti-Gun Research Bucks | The Truth About Guns
In more than 50 years of research, no study has focused on firearm violence as a specific outcome of violence in media, according to a report from an ad-hoc committee trying to drum-up federal funding for the CDC (Centers for Disease Control). As a result, a direct relationship between violence in media and real-life firearm violence has not been established and will require additional research. Im no Nick Leghorn, but arent studies supposed to investigate the possibility of a link between variables before attempting to document and quantify it? In other words, is this an anti-gun agenda or what? polygon.coms report on the report upon which the ad hoc committee based their report leaves little doubt in that regard. That would be Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence with the intro asserting . . .
Firearm-Related Violence as a Public Health Issue
The complexity and frequency of firearm violence, combined with its impact on the health and safety of Americans, suggest that a public health approach should be incorporated into the strategies used to prevent future harm and injuries. The public health approach involves three elements: a focus on prevention, a focus on scientific methodology to identify risk and patterns, and multidisciplinary collaboration to address the problem. This approach has seen success in reducing tobacco use, unintentional poisonings, and motor vehicle fatalities.
If youre a hammer everything looks like a nail, especially if you make a living hammering nails with taxpayer money. This approachgun violence as a health epidemicis the latest ploy from civilian disarmament advocates to disarm civilians by placing public policy in the hands of health professionals.
Now go ahead -- screech "Nuh-UH!!" and stamp your feet like a small child. We both know you're going to.