CDC and Firearms

CDC and Firearms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> CDC and Firearms (12/16/2015 10:53:08 AM)
The Center For Disease Control (CDC) was created to combat many health problems in our nation by using science. To find ways to counter these programs through research, cures, and processes. This organization has lead the charge in removing many deadly illnesses not just in The States, but abroad into other nations. It has helped reduce the potential destruction and injury of Americans through information campaigns, public speeches and media coverage. It employs many very intelligent and educated individuals whom wish to help humanity. Well worth the dollars spent on the organization! Yet, the CDC does not speak out against the gun culture in the nation. In a time when the nation experiences a mass shooting every day (and bigger acts every few weeks); this organization has been totally silent. If cars were causing massive pile-ups across the nation; the CDC would be investigating each one to find the causes and what to do about it. If some new diseased was found; they would be putting a team of researchers together to analysis the hell out of it, and find solution(s) to combat it (particularly if it was weaponized). Yet, when it comes to firearms; this organization is totally silent. Why? The CDC is afraid its funding would be cut, if it performed such research. That the Gun Industry controls so many people in Congress, that with an order; could reduce the CDC's funding. This funding, goes into thousands of different areas that have shown improvements (in some cases, fixes to problems). Therefore, the CDC is 'controlled' by an organization that exists well outside the US Government and taxpayers (whom foot the CDC's budget). Imagine if solar panels were really dangerous to humans; but the CDC could not research it on the fear that the 'Green Lobby' and the Solar Power Industry had members of Congress in their back pocket (which they probably do....). Would conservatives be all 'ape shit' over this? Of course they would (given their current view on green energy)! I would be mad that the CDC was not performing research. To figure out how to best use the technology with minimal/no exposure to humans. Funny how not one conservative whom is pro-2nd amendment (that would be the corrupted version of the 2nd) can do the same with firearms and the CDC, isn't it? Source of information this thread is based upon.

CreativeDominant -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/16/2015 11:45:19 AM)
A prolific communicator(the head of the CDC), it's hard to think of a health topic Frieden hasn't discussed in his six years on the job --except the second-biggest killer of young people in the United States. That one he's been quite silent on. The above is from your source, Joether. It made me curious as to what the FIRST leading cause of death is amongst young people (not really...I already knew from previous discussions). NHTSA reports that distracted driving is the number one killer of American teens. Sixteen percent of all drivers younger than 20 involved in fatal crashes were reported to have been distracted while driving. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) reports that a texting driver is twenty-three times more likely to get into a crash than a non-texting driver. http://www.adcouncil.org/News-Events/Press-Releases/National-Highway-Traffic-Safety-Administration-Joins-the-State-Attorneys-General-and-Ad-Council-to-Unveil-New-Public-Service-Advertising-Campaign-to-Urge-Young-Adult-Drivers-to-Stop-the-Texts-and-Stop-the-Wrecks So, Joether...if your concern is REALLY with life and death, go after the number one killer. Unless your real concern is with going after a RIGHT because the subject in question is not to your liking or use. I mean, you can't go after cars and cell phones canyon? Because you use those...need those...like those. Yet, there is no right to own a car or a cellphone enumerated in the Constitution.

joether -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/16/2015 12:07:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant A prolific communicator(the head of the CDC), it's hard to think of a health topic Frieden hasn't discussed in his six years on the job --except the second-biggest killer of young people in the United States. That one he's been quite silent on. The above is from your source, Joether. It made me curious as to what the FIRST leading cause of death is amongst young people (not really...I already knew from previous discussions). NHTSA reports that distracted driving is the number one killer of American teens. Sixteen percent of all drivers younger than 20 involved in fatal crashes were reported to have been distracted while driving. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) reports that a texting driver is twenty-three times more likely to get into a crash than a non-texting driver. http://www.adcouncil.org/News-Events/Press-Releases/National-Highway-Traffic-Safety-Administration-Joins-the-State-Attorneys-General-and-Ad-Council-to-Unveil-New-Public-Service-Advertising-Campaign-to-Urge-Young-Adult-Drivers-to-Stop-the-Texts-and-Stop-the-Wrecks So, Joether...if your concern is REALLY with life and death, go after the number one killer. Unless your real concern is with going after a RIGHT because the subject in question is not to your liking or use. I mean, you can't go after cars and cell phones canyon? Because you use those...need those...like those. Yet, there is no right to own a car or a cellphone enumerated in the Constitution. We as a nation are currently going after the number one killer..... Currently there exists a huge number of organizations and people (myself included) whom would like tighter driver laws across the nation. Not just for younger, but older drivers on the roads. There is a pile of evidence that shows 'texting while driving' greatly diminish's reaction time due to road hazards. Or by texting, the individual becomes a road hazard. Placing stiff penalties and teaching that in driver's ed classes has shown to reduce the behavior. That's why laws are passed: To increase good behaviors and reduce/remove bad ones. It's still going to happen, but hopefully, at a much lower level. Many towns, counties, and even states, have passed laws against this behavior. Likewise, I'm all for better and tougher laws towards drunk drivers. For redoing interactions and highways that create problems to allow a better flow of traffic. Those 'clover leaf on/off ramps to high ways have shown to increase accidents and reduce flows of traffic. Yet, when highways on/off ramps are restructured, those accidents diminish and traffic flow improves (especially during rush hour traffic). These are things the CDC has been working on. The auto manufacturers and auto dealers can support these concepts. Since it means more people buying cars in the future. Gasoline sellers are in favor of these laws, as it means more people buying their product. Medical doctors and those in the ER support these laws, as it reduces injuries and deaths. Whole swaths of common US Citizens can get behind these laws, because it makes the roads safer. And they are safer thanks to scientific research. Something, the CDC can not perform were in concerns the firearm culture in America. When I text someone, I am not driving. When I'm driving, I rarely have the phone to my ear. When I have, I will tell the person (whom knows I'm driving) "Hold On". I'll put the phone down, handle the situation (i.e. intersection) and resume driving. When someone wants to talk politics and possible laws to prevent that action/behavior; I'm perfectly fine in having that discussion. If more of the population wants the CDC to investigate solutions to 'talking on cellphones' I'm in favor of it. So lets talk about the issue of why the CDC is so afraid of performing research on firearms....(you know, the topic you wish to avoid where and however possible)

Termyn8or -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/16/2015 12:31:54 PM)
FR You seem to forget that Obama ordered the CDC to study it a few years ago and was totally embarrassed by the results. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/16/obama_gun_control_executive_orders_call_for_cdc_gun_violence_research_17.html http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/ 1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” 2. Defensive uses of guns are common: “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” 3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining: “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.” 4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results: “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” 5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime: “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).” 6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.” 7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.” And there is the bottom line, if you don't think people should have guns then you should not have one. IS THAT CORRECT ? Or are you like the rest who just want to take away everyone ELSES guns ? Under the bottom line, I DO think people should have guns, so I and most people I know have guns. Now I want to see you without guns come and take them away. No, you intend to send the police to do it. BECAUSE THEY CAN BECAUSE THEY HAVE GUNS. Enough of this stupidity and I care not what they do in other countries. What's more, I want all anti gun (hoplophobe) people to have to live in the inner city. It is easy to tell people to give up their only form of real protection when you live in an ivory tower in a gated community and have a private police force (WITH GUNS) and a super advanced alarm system on the house and the cops response time is ten seconds. Fucking move to Detroit or Chicago and see how you like it. And to those who want to use the other hoplophobe mantra to get federal laws by saying that the guns used in crimes are bought from surrounding areas and brought in to Chicago, tell me them why those surrounding areas are not crime ridden like Chicago. BECAUSE PEOPLE THERE HAVE GUNS. T^T

Lucylastic -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/16/2015 12:37:02 PM)
LMAQO

BamaD -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/16/2015 2:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether The Center For Disease Control (CDC) was created to combat many health problems in our nation by using science. To find ways to counter these programs through research, cures, and processes. This organization has lead the charge in removing many deadly illnesses not just in The States, but abroad into other nations. It has helped reduce the potential destruction and injury of Americans through information campaigns, public speeches and media coverage. It employs many very intelligent and educated individuals whom wish to help humanity. Well worth the dollars spent on the organization! Yet, the CDC does not speak out against the gun culture in the nation. In a time when the nation experiences a mass shooting every day (and bigger acts every few weeks); this organization has been totally silent. If cars were causing massive pile-ups across the nation; the CDC would be investigating each one to find the causes and what to do about it. If some new diseased was found; they would be putting a team of researchers together to analysis the hell out of it, and find solution(s) to combat it (particularly if it was weaponized). Yet, when it comes to firearms; this organization is totally silent. Why? The CDC is afraid its funding would be cut, if it performed such research. That the Gun Industry controls so many people in Congress, that with an order; could reduce the CDC's funding. This funding, goes into thousands of different areas that have shown improvements (in some cases, fixes to problems). Therefore, the CDC is 'controlled' by an organization that exists well outside the US Government and taxpayers (whom foot the CDC's budget). Imagine if solar panels were really dangerous to humans; but the CDC could not research it on the fear that the 'Green Lobby' and the Solar Power Industry had members of Congress in their back pocket (which they probably do....). Would conservatives be all 'ape shit' over this? Of course they would (given their current view on green energy)! I would be mad that the CDC was not performing research. To figure out how to best use the technology with minimal/no exposure to humans. Funny how not one conservative whom is pro-2nd amendment (that would be the corrupted version of the 2nd) can do the same with firearms and the CDC, isn't it? Source of information this thread is based upon. Define "young people" from my vantage point (65) you could well qualify (by age) or a child (by reasoning ability) The CDC has studied this. Once they came up with results that you would like, unfortunately it turned out that they had misrepresented their data to get your results.

bounty44 -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/16/2015 4:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Yet, the CDC does not speak out against the gun culture in the nation. In a time when the nation experiences a mass shooting every day (and bigger acts every few weeks); this organization has been totally silent. If cars were causing massive pile-ups across the nation; the CDC would be investigating each one to find the causes and what to do about it. If some new diseased was found; they would be putting a team of researchers together to analysis the hell out of it, and find solution(s) to combat it (particularly if it was weaponized). Yet, when it comes to firearms; this organization is totally silent. Why? The CDC is afraid its funding would be cut, if it performed such research. That the Gun Industry controls so many people in Congress, that with an order; could reduce the CDC's funding. This funding, goes into thousands of different areas that have shown improvements (in some cases, fixes to problems). Therefore, the CDC is 'controlled' by an organization that exists well outside the US Government and taxpayers (whom foot the CDC's budget). perhaps comrade because it falls outside the defined mission parameters of the cdc, quoted below, with the relevant parts highlighted for you: quote: CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same. so, sorry, its pretty much that simple. oh and, quote: ORIGINAL: joether and taxpayers (whom foot the CDC's budget). it's "WHO foot the CDC's budget" not whom. remember we've had that chat before?? quote: ORIGINAL: joether Imagine if solar panels were really dangerous to humans; but the CDC could not research it on the fear that the 'Green Lobby' and the Solar Power Industry had members of Congress in their back pocket (which they probably do....). Would conservatives be all 'ape shit' over this? Of course they would (given their current view on green energy)! I would be mad that the CDC was not performing research. To figure out how to best use the technology with minimal/no exposure to humans. if solar panels caused, or were suspected to cause disease, then it would be under the cdc's purview, regardless of the "green lobby" and they would be rightly doing their job by investigating. by contrast, there is no "gun lobby" pressuring congress to stop the cdc from "investigating guns"---except in your delusions of the republicans/tea party. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Funny how not one conservative whom is its "funny how not one conservative WHO is" not "whom"...maybe someday you'll get it.

KenDckey -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/16/2015 4:54:36 PM)
I have had a weapon stolen from me and ussed in the commission of a crime in Cali. I immediately reported the theift within 2 hours of it having gone missing. I also reported the suspect (my grandson age 25). The county Sheriff never could prove he took it. The cali local PD asked me (following the trial) that I could have my weapon back (a shotgun). But someone had cut the barrel off and shortened the stock. I would only get back the receiver group. I had to personally go there to get it. I told them to destroy it. I only presume that is what occurred. The could have put a new barrel and stock on it and kept it for all I know. Ownership of a weapon is not a disease. It is a choice. I suspect that the majority of mass shootings occur with people with mental disorders (we have the background check for that), terrorists (the FBI looks for them and when found DOJ prosecutes them), and criminals (back to our policing forces and justice departments). Some mental disorders are transitory (crimes of passion, etc.). That is why we have varying degrees of murder on the books. I seriously doubt that the lesser degrees of murder could be discovered until the act is over and it would make little difference as to the type of weapon used. You hear of cell phone/texting distractions a lot, and I agree that is an issue, but we have a tendency to forget that there are other distractions while driving. Other people (i.e. screaming kids in the back seat, etc), adjustment of the radio or enviornental controls, that hot person walking down the street, the cute deer on the side of the road, etc all create distractions and factor into the stats. Tragedies, regardless of cause are a pitty. Some want to select the tragedy and try to make villians out of everyone who neatly fits in the box, not of the root cause, but by association. Hell if humans are the root cause of all the ills of earth, then potentially we should eliminate the cause. Instead, there are those that just want to pick on objects that do nothing until someone abuses their intended purpose.

CreativeDominant -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/16/2015 5:00:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant A prolific communicator(the head of the CDC), it's hard to think of a health topic Frieden hasn't discussed in his six years on the job --except the second-biggest killer of young people in the United States. That one he's been quite silent on. The above is from your source, Joether. It made me curious as to what the FIRST leading cause of death is amongst young people (not really...I already knew from previous discussions). NHTSA reports that distracted driving is the number one killer of American teens. Sixteen percent of all drivers younger than 20 involved in fatal crashes were reported to have been distracted while driving. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) reports that a texting driver is twenty-three times more likely to get into a crash than a non-texting driver. http://www.adcouncil.org/News-Events/Press-Releases/National-Highway-Traffic-Safety-Administration-Joins-the-State-Attorneys-General-and-Ad-Council-to-Unveil-New-Public-Service-Advertising-Campaign-to-Urge-Young-Adult-Drivers-to-Stop-the-Texts-and-Stop-the-Wrecks So, Joether...if your concern is REALLY with life and death, go after the number one killer. Unless your real concern is with going after a RIGHT because the subject in question is not to your liking or use. I mean, you can't go after cars and cell phones canyon? Because you use those...need those...like those. Yet, there is no right to own a car or a cellphone enumerated in the Constitution. We as a nation are currently going after the number one killer..... Currently there exists a huge number of organizations and people (myself included) whom would like tighter driver laws across the nation. Not just for younger, but older drivers on the roads. There is a pile of evidence that shows 'texting while driving' greatly diminish's reaction time due to road hazards. Or by texting, the individual becomes a road hazard. Placing stiff penalties and teaching that in driver's ed classes has shown to reduce the behavior. That's why laws are passed: To increase good behaviors and reduce/remove bad ones. It's still going to happen, but hopefully, at a much lower level. Many towns, counties, and even states, have passed laws against this behavior. Likewise, I'm all for better and tougher laws towards drunk drivers. For redoing interactions and highways that create problems to allow a better flow of traffic. Those 'clover leaf on/off ramps to high ways have shown to increase accidents and reduce flows of traffic. Yet, when highways on/off ramps are restructured, those accidents diminish and traffic flow improves (especially during rush hour traffic). These are things the CDC has been working on. The auto manufacturers and auto dealers can support these concepts. Since it means more people buying cars in the future. Gasoline sellers are in favor of these laws, as it means more people buying their product. Medical doctors and those in the ER support these laws, as it reduces injuries and deaths. Whole swaths of common US Citizens can get behind these laws, because it makes the roads safer. And they are safer thanks to scientific research. Something, the CDC can not perform were in concerns the firearm culture in America. When I text someone, I am not driving. When I'm driving, I rarely have the phone to my ear. When I have, I will tell the person (whom knows I'm driving) "Hold On". I'll put the phone down, handle the situation (i.e. intersection) and resume driving. When someone wants to talk politics and possible laws to prevent that action/behavior; I'm perfectly fine in having that discussion. If more of the population wants the CDC to investigate solutions to 'talking on cellphones' I'm in favor of it. So lets talk about the issue of why the CDC is so afraid of performing research on firearms....(you know, the topic you wish to avoid where and however possible) I'm not avoiding it, Joether...I'm hoping to draw you into spouting off in an even more arrogant fashion. Which you did. First...as to the CDC...as Bama and others have pointed out to you before, the CDC HAS done research. Oftentimes, their research showed results you wouldn't like. Often, their research that showed results you did like was tainted by politics...'banning true assault rifles will reduce homicides'. (paraphrasing). Well...duhhh! Second...your arrogance. For all your talk of tighter laws regarding behavior...making it illegal to text while driving, making it illegal to drink and drive...how much good have those laws done? In the case of drunk driving, there's been some good done. In the case of texting while driving, especially among young people? Not so much...automobile still claim more young lives and cause more injuries than firearms do. Yet...even given that, what do your laws that you speak of above address? The behavior of the individual responsible for handling that machinery safely. Because you AND others know that is where the fault lies. With the individual...not the tool. But...let it come to guns and all of a sudden, it is the tool's fault. Bigger magazines are at fault. "Assault-style" rifles...though still SEMI-automatic...are at fault. Ban ALL weapons! Why? How did the individual using that tool suddenly NOT become responsible for his behavior? You can bluster all you want, Joether...but until you can tell me why one tool...the gun...is more responsible for death and injury among young people than the 2-tool combination of cell phones and automobiles, all it comes across as is this: "I use cell phones and automobiles. I like them. I control them, they don't control me. Therefore, I am responsible for how they are used. However, I don't use firearms. I don't like them and here's why: I KNOW that once I have my hand on a gun, the gun takes over. I'm no longer in control. The gun finds a target, scopes it in, loads itself, tells my brain to pull the trigger. Therefore, I am NOT responsible...the gun did it. We have no choice...ban bad behavior for irresponsible automobile and cell phone users and ban weapons because their behavior is bad."

ifmaz -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/16/2015 8:15:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether ... Yet, the CDC does not speak out against the gun culture in the nation. In a time when the nation experiences a mass shooting every day (and bigger acts every few weeks); this organization has been totally silent. If cars were causing massive pile-ups across the nation; the CDC would be investigating each one to find the causes and what to do about it. If some new diseased was found; they would be putting a team of researchers together to analysis the hell out of it, and find solution(s) to combat it (particularly if it was weaponized). Yet, when it comes to firearms; this organization is totally silent. I think you're putting too much faith in the CDC as there are many diseases (AIDS and cancer to name two) that have no cure, regardless of the CDC's crack investigative scientists. Also, misuse of the semi-colon and a little excessive on the commas but at least you haven't misused 'whom' yet. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Why? The CDC is afraid its funding would be cut, if it performed such research. That the Gun Industry controls so many people in Congress, that with an order; could reduce the CDC's funding. This funding, goes into thousands of different areas that have shown improvements (in some cases, fixes to problems). Therefore, the CDC is 'controlled' by an organization that exists well outside the US Government and taxpayers (whom foot the CDC's budget). You have a bit of a logic leap here. If the CDC was indeed 'controlled' by the Gun Industry (lets just call it the NRA), wouldn't the CDC be a propaganda machine for the NRA and not remain silent on firearm issues? Also, additional misuse of semi-colons and our first misuse of 'whom'. Here's a quick tip: if the sentence reads better as 'he', use 'who'; if it reads better as 'him', use 'whom'. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Imagine if solar panels were really dangerous to humans; but the CDC could not research it on the fear that the 'Green Lobby' and the Solar Power Industry had members of Congress in their back pocket (which they probably do....). Would conservatives be all 'ape shit' over this? Of course they would (given their current view on green energy)! I would be mad that the CDC was not performing research. To figure out how to best use the technology with minimal/no exposure to humans. I'm not sure solar panels would fall under the CDC's jurisdiction, I'd think that would be more of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission thing. The CDC really has no place in determining which technology can or cannot be used. It'd be extremely disturbing for them to do so; imagine if the CDC had blocked the iPhone from market while they researched some component in the iPhone. Also, you may want to omit subjective words and phrases like "ape shit". If one was to constantly degrade your chosen political party in every post you would write off their views and tune them out. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Funny how not one conservative whom is pro-2nd amendment (that would be the corrupted version of the 2nd) can do the same with firearms and the CDC, isn't it? Before we tackle "not one conservative", let us discuss "that would be the corrupted version of the 2nd". How did you arrive at this conclusion, especially after Heller, which affirmed the right to bear arms as an individual right? You may want to refrain from subjective comments, especially those already proven incorrect. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Source of information this thread is based upon. It might be wiser to point to an objective source of information. I do appreciate an actual cite and not a cop-out "go look it up" response, however.

Lucylastic -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 2:43:10 AM)
WASHINGTON -- In the wake of a school shooting in Oregon this fall, it briefly appeared that Congress was willing to reconsider its two-decade ban on the use of taxpayer dollars to research the health impact of gun violence. There was nothing particularly different about the moment, sad as that may be. The death toll was high, with nine people murdered at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. But school shootings have happened with regularity for years. And even in the wake of worse instances of gun violence, there were no serious efforts to undo the ban that prevents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting gun-related research. What was different this fall was that gun control advocates prioritized reversing the research ban (perhaps recognizing that their other objectives were futile). Moreover, presidential candidates as ideologically asymmetrical as Hillary Clinton and Ben Carson said it was time to reconsider it. But perhaps most symbolically, the original author of the ban, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), called on lawmakers to undo it. “I have regrets,” he told The Huffington Post in October. Alas, others didn’t. On 1 a.m. on Wednesday, congressional leaders unveiled the text of a year-end spending bill that will fund the government through 2017. And on page 936 of the document is the very language that Dickey helped craft in 1996 that has remained law ever since: “None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” Reached by phone, Dickey said he wasn’t surprised by that provision. Gun policy, after all, is so emotional as to be effectively untouchable, even for something as mundane as research. “I don’t think you can remove [that language] because of the politics,” Dickey said. “I just don’t think it is going to happen. And there is no reason to go and do something that would be futile.” Dickey says he never imagined his amendment’s impact would drift this far. Back in 1996, he introduced legislation stripping the $2.6 million that the CDC spent on studying firearms the prior year and appropriated it for other items. Attached to it was the very language that remains intact in the spending bill unveiled Wednesday morning. The goal, as Dickey put it then, was to stop the agency from using money to “raise emotional sympathy” around gun violence, not put a full clamp on gun-specific research. But the CDC was spooked and interpreted the language as a full prohibition. In the years that followed, congressional Republicans resisted efforts to roll back the amendment. Occasionally, they expanded it. In 2011, lawmakers applied the Dickey language to research by the National Institutes of Health. “A gun is not a disease,” the-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said four years later, explaining the policy. Through it all, gun control advocates argued that there is an etymological loophole: If agencies interpreted the amendment literally, they’d only be prohibited from using money for advocacy, not for research. And following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, President Barack Obama instructed agencies to do just that. The NIH followed his lead. The CDC has not. Dickey said he would like the CDC to go forward with research even with his amendment in place, partly because he doesn’t foresee a day when conservatives will allow the amendment to be undone. “The harm to our society is getting so great and so predictable that we have got to try something,” he said. “And trying to fund the science at whatever level would be a step forward.” But even if the CDC interpreted the Dickey amendment literally, the amount of money it could use for gun-related research would be severely limited unless Congress decides to write the agency a bigger check. “The issue is too serious not to consider it,” Dickey said. “We must consider it. And if we go and spend 8-10 years on the research and it doesn’t produce anything, then that is something we can put aside. It will be like that old story of Thomas Edison, who said ‘Today is a great day. We now have 855 ways to light that don’t work.’”

joether -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 3:05:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or You seem to forget that Obama ordered the CDC to study it a few years ago and was totally embarrassed by the results. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/16/obama_gun_control_executive_orders_call_for_cdc_gun_violence_research_17.html Read carefully: "But while the CDC will have the freedom to resume work on that topic, it's still unclear whether it will have the funding to do so." Did I not state from the outset that the CDC has not entered into research due to justifiable fear of their funding being cut by Congress? quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/ This document did not come from the CDC, but the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council of the National Academies. Here is An Example of a CDC Publication. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or 1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” Sounds great, doesnt it? Did you read the following from the same section: "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals"? And what comes IMMEDIATELY AFTER your #1 quote: "Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings." How about that next paragraph after that #1 quote? "Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use" Yeah, that #1 statements sounds great....UNTIL....you examine the information in CONTEXT to the report. Something your not used to doing. The majority of those 'defensive uses'? Performed by LAW ENFORCEMENT. Why would Law Enforcement have access to firearms? Oh forgot, they are part of "A Well Regulated Militia....". quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or 2. Defensive uses of guns are common: “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” From the actual document, immediately after that statement: "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys." The "...3 million..." number was the highest of all 19 surveys to give numbers. Not the lowest, nor the median. Funny how conservatives use this number and not the average? Since that would place it well below 1 million.... Better to fudge the evidence, right? Its like like there would be an researchers CHECKING the data? Like the Center for Disease Control, right? quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or 3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining: “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.” Yeah, mass shootings are in decline? That's why we've experienced more mass shootings than days on the calender for the past three years now, right? Evidently 'facts' and 'reality' are not a concern from pro-gun folks. Unfortunately, science tends to find fact from the myth. If you have no problem with science examing information and testing ideas; why the material? Don't you wish to be proven right by science? But lets look at document, right? "Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States." That's right, all those 'Honest and Law Abiding' gun owners, whose gun made it easier to end their lives, rather than protect them from evil doers. Now, I suffer from Depression. I know clearly the temptation to kill one's self with a firearm. Its the easiest of all methods out there. Its quick, painless, and easy. When used, a firearm holds a 90% success chance (unlike all other methods that are much lower in success). I've talked one person down from that state. You have no idea how tough that was to accomplish. That is why I'm in favor of firearms being removed from someone whom is a threat to themselves or others due to mental and/or emotional problems. This many be a temporary issue or permanent depending on a judge's decision. "More than two-thirds of victims murdered by a spouse or ex-spouse died as a result of a gunshot wound." Yes, that quote ALSO comes from the same section as your quote. Your source tries to cherry pick things to push a political agenda. It knew you would never example where the information originates, nor study the information within in the proper context. That it appears across the spectrum of 'conservative news media' suggests your not alone in being ignorant of accurate and correct information with regards to a serious topic. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or 4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results: “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” Was it the report that could not state it, or the author of the conservative propaganda not able to find information conveniently to push their agenda? Given the report's information, I'm going to go with the conservative propagandist. This 'quote' comes from page 44 of the report; quite an interesting read. It assumes you have read the pages before hand (which you did not). To help you understand what is wrong (the premise of the quote your author is stating): A ) "Analysis of unintentional gun fatalities in 50 states revealed positive associations between the number of guns and the number of fatalities" B ) "Other studies found that gun restrictions had no net impact on major violence and crime" These are examples in which material seems out of order and even crossing the other's territory of knowledge. This is....WHY....scientific research is performed. To understand, test, and make conclusions based on EVIDENCE which pieces of information is true or not. "Background checks are intended to curtail gun sales to prohibited persons, such as felons, the severely mentally ill, domestic violence perpetrators, and minors. But prohibited individuals may obtain firearms without background checks through unlicensed sellers at gun shows and private sales or through straw purchases.32 Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources" Current systems and laws are not working the way society intends for them to operate. The system failed due to problems individual and 'across the board'. Which is why we study were the problems exist and figure out ways to correct them. Everyone on the side of obeying the law, wants to keep criminals from obtaining firearms. But finding the breaches in law and regulation, can we correct the problems. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or 5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime: “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).” So rather than the local level, we make it state or nation wide. And place a greater 'bounty' on those arms turned in that are more likely to be used in homicides and suicides. But that will not stop the problem, given that manufactures produce more arms than are being removed in these local 'buy back' programs. Maybe what has to be done is examine how we can slow the flow of arms into the open system from the source rather than the end user. This could take many forms. Again, something that needs some serious researching to determine. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or 6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.” Notice that "..." between 'criminals' and 'According'? That implies there is something missing. Now what could be missing? Oh....THIS: "It is, however, unclear whether prisoners are willing to admit to gun thefts in government-conducted surveys." Funny how that little line really changes things? Now why didn't your pro-gun author leave that sentence within the quoted paragraph? Gosh, like they were trying to push a political agenda, right? The nerve of them! quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or 7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.” For a document that is 68 pages (not including the appendix section), your author could only find seven things to pick apart. What? Was there a time crunch to get the 'info' to the marketplace? I covered this little 'nugget' above. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or And there is the bottom line, if you don't think people should have guns then you should not have one. IS THAT CORRECT ? Or are you like the rest who just want to take away everyone ELSES guns ? Ok, the topic of this thread relates to the CDC and firearms, not 'do you believe in unicorns or beholders'. Try to stay to the topic in the future, ok? I feel the CDC should be given funding to not only research the major problems with firearms in our society, but the many sub-sectional or 'moments of interest' that exist all over. To help the nation fully separate the facts from the pro-gun industry bullshit pushed by conservative media on a 24/7 basis. That the facts are based on evidence that can be re-tested (i.e. peer reviewed). That we fully review all the firearm laws in effect and determine which ones really do work, and which ones do not. Of the ones that do not work, determine why they do not work and if a better solution can be created. Or if the law is just so broken that its not work salvaging. And that we keep the NRA and its minions out of that discussion on the grounds that they are KNOWN to lie about facts and figures (like this piece your presenting...). quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Under the bottom line, I DO think people should have guns, so I and most people I know have guns. I never stated I was against the 2nd amendment being ban. I just want its uncorrupted state to be made the law of the land once more. You want a gun? Protected under the 2nd amendment? Your joining a well regulated militia! You'll have a commanding officer whom is accountable to civilian government. From the local government on up to the Governor of the state (and even the President). You'll be following rules and regulations like everyone else. You'll be expected to maintain a healthy body with yearly check ups and mental/emotional health screenings. Just like we do with the local police! Don't want all that responsibility and duty? Then you don't need the protection of the 2nd amendment for your arms. We know more about the human body and mind in 2015-2016 then the Founding Fathers did when they wrote the 2nd amendment. Do you know how they handled 'thugs with guns'? With the militia. Did they give guns to mentally/emotionally unstable individuals? HELL NO! Do we do that today? FUCK YEAH (helps sell more guns)! Did they have mass shootings as often as we do? No of course not; they were sensible with firearms! Would they ave written the 2nd amendment knowing things today? Hard to say.... quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Now I want to see you without guns come and take them away. Not really hard to do. I don't even have to show up at your door. In fact, you'll be handing them over at the police station if this nation decided to restrict/ban firearms. You are an 'honest and law abiding' citizen, are you not? If such laws were pass restricting/banning your specific arms, you would turn them over (after a legal discussion in the courses), correct? Or would you resist (assuming the legal discussion was concluded)? For those that do not, there are other ways of 'encouraging' compliance with the law that has nothing remotely to do with 'breaking down the door and invading' someone's house. Its rather sad that your not away of the many creative ways the government can extract things from US Citizens. Just follow all the people with student loan problems.... quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or No, you intend to send the police to do it. BECAUSE THEY CAN BECAUSE THEY HAVE GUNS. This is a silly fantasy of the gun culture. It makes for a great start to a TV drama like "24" or "Homeland". But as with all things in TV dramas, reality and written script are two different things. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Enough of this stupidity and I care not what they do in other countries. Where does this piece come from? We are talking about firearms and the Center For Disease Control in the United States of America. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or What's more, I want all anti gun (hoplophobe) people to have to live in the inner city. I've lived in Boston, MA. Is that enough 'city' for you? How about my time in Miami, FL or New Your City? What is your point? Oh, you dont have one, your just babbling because you have nothing to discussion that is relevant to the topic... quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or It is easy to tell people to give up their only form of real protection when you live in an ivory tower in a gated community and have a private police force (WITH GUNS) and a super advanced alarm system on the house and the cops response time is ten seconds. OK, this is not even remotely based on reality.... If firearms are your only form of 'real protection', then try this....LOCK YOUR DOORS! GET A DOG! HAVE A BIG FENCE! Place a sign that says "Landmines". What protection do you have against the flu? Since your many more times likely to get that nasty biological problem then confronted by one or more individuals hell bent on fucking with you. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Fucking move to Detroit or Chicago and see how you like it. Detroit and Chicago have some very nice people. A shame what is happening at the government level in Detroit. A good city with a lot of good history. But like all cities, they have their good times and bad. Right now, its a bad time for old Detroit. But this has NOTHING to do with the topic.... quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or And to those who want to use the other hoplophobe mantra to get federal laws by saying that the guns used in crimes are bought from surrounding areas and brought in to Chicago, tell me them why those surrounding areas are not crime ridden like Chicago. They are crime ridden. That you do not wish to look at the facts and figures is your problem. But we should help the CDC research this too.... quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or BECAUSE PEOPLE THERE HAVE GUNS. People in Chicago have guns too. Why does law enforcement find guns that originated more often from from states with very loose firearm laws, then tight ones? When we keep track of arms and whom is selling what to whom, things do not fall between the cracks to the criminal underworld as much. Or maybe you could point out to me all those atomic bombs in the hands of various gangs? Its been interesting Termyn8or. Just like old times....

Staleek -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 3:10:24 AM)
My personal view on guns is thus: Any nation which claims to be civilized would not require its citizens to be armed to the teeth. Guns are generally desired by ultra-conservative individuals who, more than any other demographic, are motivated by fear above anything else. That said, the CDC can't really do anything helpful on this matter. They're medical scientists and epidemiologists, not experts in society or firearms. It'd be like asking CERN physicists to speculate on the composition of a volcano, or it would be like asking an evolutionary biologist his opinion on relativity. They simply aren't qualified for this. The NIH however might be able to add something useful.

joether -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 3:12:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether The Center For Disease Control (CDC) was created to combat many health problems in our nation by using science. To find ways to counter these programs through research, cures, and processes. This organization has lead the charge in removing many deadly illnesses not just in The States, but abroad into other nations. It has helped reduce the potential destruction and injury of Americans through information campaigns, public speeches and media coverage. It employs many very intelligent and educated individuals whom wish to help humanity. Well worth the dollars spent on the organization! Yet, the CDC does not speak out against the gun culture in the nation. In a time when the nation experiences a mass shooting every day (and bigger acts every few weeks); this organization has been totally silent. If cars were causing massive pile-ups across the nation; the CDC would be investigating each one to find the causes and what to do about it. If some new diseased was found; they would be putting a team of researchers together to analysis the hell out of it, and find solution(s) to combat it (particularly if it was weaponized). Yet, when it comes to firearms; this organization is totally silent. Why? The CDC is afraid its funding would be cut, if it performed such research. That the Gun Industry controls so many people in Congress, that with an order; could reduce the CDC's funding. This funding, goes into thousands of different areas that have shown improvements (in some cases, fixes to problems). Therefore, the CDC is 'controlled' by an organization that exists well outside the US Government and taxpayers (whom foot the CDC's budget). Imagine if solar panels were really dangerous to humans; but the CDC could not research it on the fear that the 'Green Lobby' and the Solar Power Industry had members of Congress in their back pocket (which they probably do....). Would conservatives be all 'ape shit' over this? Of course they would (given their current view on green energy)! I would be mad that the CDC was not performing research. To figure out how to best use the technology with minimal/no exposure to humans. Funny how not one conservative whom is pro-2nd amendment (that would be the corrupted version of the 2nd) can do the same with firearms and the CDC, isn't it? Source of information this thread is based upon. Define "young people" from my vantage point (65) you could well qualify (by age) or a child (by reasoning ability) The CDC has studied this. Once they came up with results that you would like, unfortunately it turned out that they had misrepresented their data to get your results. Then you...REALLY....do not understand the topic of discussion! The CDC's purpose is not to be involved in the politics of America, but the science. They are not one and the same. The purpose is not just to go over previous studies, but to examine all information in all manners to develop as in-depth an understanding to the problems and possible solutions. Your afraid (like many pro-gun folks) of the unknown. Hence why you feel the need to have a firearm. Your afraid of what the CDC might find and suggest to the nation. Why can't you state that?

Termyn8or -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 3:56:03 AM)
So you are quoting from a study that you claimed does not exist. T^T

joether -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 4:06:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: joether ... Yet, the CDC does not speak out against the gun culture in the nation. In a time when the nation experiences a mass shooting every day (and bigger acts every few weeks); this organization has been totally silent. If cars were causing massive pile-ups across the nation; the CDC would be investigating each one to find the causes and what to do about it. If some new diseased was found; they would be putting a team of researchers together to analysis the hell out of it, and find solution(s) to combat it (particularly if it was weaponized). Yet, when it comes to firearms; this organization is totally silent. I think you're putting too much faith in the CDC as there are many diseases (AIDS and cancer to name two) that have no cure, regardless of the CDC's crack investigative scientists. I'm not putting any faith in to the CDC. They use science the same as I do. To objectively look at information, test hypnothesis, look at evidence collected from experiments and tried to base conclusions on the findings. Then, they send it out for peer review. The CDC has help bring the nation (not to mention the rest of the world) forward in the understanding of the problem with AIDS. If we had left AIDS up to 'faith' and 'belief', most likely we would be butchering all the gay people in the nation by now. Since we keep 'faith' based people in line, that has not happened. Instead, we have gain quite a bit of insight into the nature of the condition. Through tests and experiments, have made quite a number of discoveries and treatments. Back in the 1960's, being told you had cancer was a death sentence in medicine. In 2015, there are many ways of dealing with cancer. There are many Americans whom have benefited from the CDC's efforts on cancer research. Yes, you need a miracle cure that comes from belief, right? Tell me, in the last two hundred years, how many illnesses has Christianity solved for America? How many medical problems has the religion help to alliviate? Yes there are Christians whom are medical doctors. They use medical scientist to help treat the injured, the sick, the young, the old, and the vulnerable. But they keep the two concepts separate. Unless your name is 'Ben Carson' and confuse 'neurosurgery' with 'national politics'. quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Also, misuse of the semi-colon and a little excessive on the commas but at least you haven't misused 'whom' yet. What does this have to do with the topic? Don't like how I write without an editor? Then pay for me to have one, and it'll never happen again! quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: joether Why? The CDC is afraid its funding would be cut, if it performed such research. That the Gun Industry controls so many people in Congress, that with an order; could reduce the CDC's funding. This funding, goes into thousands of different areas that have shown improvements (in some cases, fixes to problems). Therefore, the CDC is 'controlled' by an organization that exists well outside the US Government and taxpayers (whom foot the CDC's budget). You have a bit of a logic leap here. If the CDC was indeed 'controlled' by the Gun Industry (lets just call it the NRA), wouldn't the CDC be a propaganda machine for the NRA and not remain silent on firearm issues? Your not understanding the nature of control here. That much is obvious. The CDC's funding is per Congress. Right now, the majority party is the Republican Party. How many Republicans have either stated they like the NRA or will get down on their knees and kiss their shoes? ALL OF THEM. So it is not to hard to understand the CDC's dilemma of researching firearms in America given conditions. quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Also, additional misuse of semi-colons and our first misuse of 'whom'. Here's a quick tip: if the sentence reads better as 'he', use 'who'; if it reads better as 'him', use 'whom'. Here's a quick tip: Try to approach this thread from a scientific point of view rather than a belief system. You'll understand it so much deeper. In fact, you might even understand the problems facing the nation as a result of the gun culture running out of control. Or are you one of those people whom are HAPPY to attend funerals? quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: joether Imagine if solar panels were really dangerous to humans; but the CDC could not research it on the fear that the 'Green Lobby' and the Solar Power Industry had members of Congress in their back pocket (which they probably do....). Would conservatives be all 'ape shit' over this? Of course they would (given their current view on green energy)! I would be mad that the CDC was not performing research. To figure out how to best use the technology with minimal/no exposure to humans. I'm not sure solar panels would fall under the CDC's jurisdiction, I'd think that would be more of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission thing. The CDC really has no place in determining which technology can or cannot be used. It'd be extremely disturbing for them to do so; imagine if the CDC had blocked the iPhone from market while they researched some component in the iPhone. If it posed a health problem, it would fall under the CDC's jurisdiction. It can make recommendations to all sections of government on their findings. Its up to those government groups to take the information and use it correctly or just ignore it and see what happens. The CDC did once investigate whether cellphones could cause health problems in humans. After the research was concluded, cellphones were developed using better materials, better processes, and less chance of health problems. We as consumers gained from this research. Or are you not aware there are a lot of cellphones and smartphones in use these days? If the CDC found a health problem in one of Apple's products; I think Apple would examine the findings carefully. I think their lawyers would advise them not to release the product until things are corrected and made safe for the public. quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Also, you may want to omit subjective words and phrases like "ape shit". If one was to constantly degrade your chosen political party in every post you would write off their views and tune them out. Do you have any idea how long I've been on this forum? Do you have any idea how many conservatives resorted to the sort of attacks your attacking me on? If what you stated was true, then explain why so many of the regular conservatives are on here? Or on any of the threads I have started or posted? Maybe you have not yet understood the nature of the forum; It has something to do with politics and religion. Before slamming me on English concepts; how about you learn said English concepts first? Specifically: Nature of the Topic for Discussion. You would quickly realize that liberals, moderates and conservatives each hold positions on a huge variety of concepts and ideas within the nation. 'Firearms' seems to be one of the more popular topics. Maybe the CDC should research why that is..... quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: joether Funny how not one conservative whom is pro-2nd amendment (that would be the corrupted version of the 2nd) can do the same with firearms and the CDC, isn't it? Before we tackle "not one conservative", let us discuss "that would be the corrupted version of the 2nd". How did you arrive at this conclusion, especially after Heller, which affirmed the right to bear arms as an individual right? I've stated it time and again on this forum. Just look it up. I'm not going to state it here, because it is off topic. The conservatives on here will all try to tell you that my views are 'hogwash' and 'not correct'. You can believe them, or you can look up what I stated. Let's see how good your research skills are, eh? quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz You may want to refrain from subjective comments, especially those already proven incorrect. That guns dont kill people, but people kill people? Is that why we arm US Army soldiers with 'people' rather than 'assault rifles'? Kind of hard to carry some of those 300 lb Americans into battle. Usually a soldier favors mobility over lugging around a heavy person (or are they called 'fluffy'?). That's why we give them assault rifles. They are lighter and kill/maim more bad guys. Ever try killing someone with one of these 'people' the pro gun types says kills people? After one or two swings, I'm just DONE and ready for the union required break! But boy, can I mow people down with firearms....(or does ARMA 3 lie?). You can try to silence me. Just take a number and get in line with all the other conservatives that have tried to stop the evidence, facts, and truth from being known on this and other topics. Your as afraid as BamaD on what the CDC could find if it was allowed to research the gun culture in the nation. Your deathly afraid of your myths being destroyed due to scientific study and experiments. I'm perfectly 'OK' with gun control measures being tested. Just as long as we test all the gun myths from the NRA and other organizations/people. quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: joether Source of information this thread is based upon. It might be wiser to point to an objective source of information. I do appreciate an actual cite and not a cop-out "go look it up" response, however. I do appreciate $10,000,000 for my hour of work. Think I'll get it from all you conservatives? CNN is an objective source of good information. But I forget, unless information comes from the "Ministry of Tru----er-----FOX News", its not true. In other words, unless the conservative 'bent' has been added to information you read, it can not be 'truthful' and 'accurate', right? Because when organizations come into existence to explain what FOX New's (and other right wing organizations) state and didn't state due to political agendas; you have to wonder why journalists are not breaking down the doors at FOX News and other conservative media outlets for jobs..... Nice thing with "go look it up", is that it teaches you to research things. Research things unlocks additional amounts of information. More and more information, allows a greater understanding of concepts, people, places, and events. Of course learning to think critically of this information helps on an even greater level. After that it comes down to 'how honest is the person with that information'. So here is the question: What do I have to gain (politically, financial, etc.) of the CDC examining all aspects of the firearms culture in the nation?

joether -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 4:08:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or So you are quoting from a study that you claimed does not exist. T^T No, I'm quoting from a study that does exist. That from the IOM. Your author stated the IOM study come from the CDC. This, as I pointed out, was not true. So it begs the question: Why is the entire conservative media machine stating the IOM's study comes from the CDC when it doesn't in reality? Conservatives love conspiracies; yet are totally ignorant on this one? Why is that?

bounty44 -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 4:12:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek Any nation which claims to be civilized would not require its citizens to be armed to the teeth. Guns are generally desired by ultra-conservative individuals who, more than any other demographic, are motivated by fear above anything else. this is the personal equivalent to saying that any nation that has military forces is "motivated by fear above anything else"----as opposed to by protection in a hostile world. that's not "fear", that's prudence.

bounty44 -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 4:16:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz ...our first misuse of 'whom'. Here's a quick tip: if the sentence reads better as 'he', use 'who'; if it reads better as 'him', use 'whom'. I like that as a technique.... I keep using the "who" is a subject and "whom" is an object criteria, but the "he" and "him" illustrates that nicely...

lovmuffin -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 4:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I never stated I was against the 2nd amendment being ban. I just want its uncorrupted state to be made the law of the land once more. You want a gun? Protected under the 2nd amendment? Your joining a well regulated militia! You'll have a commanding officer whom is accountable to civilian government. From the local government on up to the Governor of the state (and even the President). You'll be following rules and regulations like everyone else. You'll be expected to maintain a healthy body with yearly check ups and mental/emotional health screenings. Just like we do with the local police! Don't want all that responsibility and duty? Then you don't need the protection of the 2nd amendment for your arms. Really Birdbrain ??? You're regurgitating this nonsensical bullshit yet again ??? quote: ORIGINAL: Not really hard to do. I don't even have to show up at your door. In fact, you'll be handing them over at the police station if this nation decided to restrict/ban firearms. You are an 'honest and law abiding' citizen, are you not? If such laws were pass restricting/banning your specific arms, you would turn them over (after a legal discussion in the courses), correct? Yeah right Birdbrain, we'll all be running our asses off down to the station to turn 'em in. ROFLMFAO. Maybe they can melt them down and make a penguin statue out of the molten steel. quote: ORIGINAL: OK, this is not even remotely based on reality.... If firearms are your only form of 'real protection', then try this....LOCK YOUR DOORS! GET A DOG! HAVE A BIG FENCE! Place a sign that says "Landmines". We could try those things, and they are all good ideas but if they fail, and in the unlikely event you need a gun, there is no substitute. quote: ORIGINAL: When we keep track of arms and whom is selling what to whom, ....... One use of the word " whom" is correct and one is not. I'll bet ya can't guess which is which......or is that witch ?????

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125