6 ms·

The NRA doesn't sell guns. pre-emptive edit in case someone finds some place where this isn't true: I mean generally. They are not a gun manufacturer or seller

The NRA doesn't sell guns. pre-emptive edit in case someone finds some place where this isn't true: I mean generally. They are not a gun manufacturer or seller generally.

komali2 10y ago
Furthermore, the NRA is pro-gun safety. I can't speak for the NRA, but myself and other members will be wearing orange on June 2nd. It's not like the NRA is going to run a "BUY MORE GUNS!" advertisement... it'll likely be something tasteful. Then again, I have been disappointed by the NRA's taste in the past.
- npunt 10y ago
  The NRA has lobbied to block federally funded scientific research on gun violence and safety[1], so I wouldn't say they're pro gun safety, at a macro level at least. [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-re...
  - wl 10y ago
    The Dickey Amendment only banned political advocacy, not research. The problem is that the CDC was producing research that was thinly veiled political advocacy.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      The purpose of CDC research on public health problems is largely to identify and support policy responses to those problems.
      - wl 10y ago
        Patrick O'Carroll, one of the major researchers involved with the CDC's efforts in question, infamously wrote that, "We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths." Doing research to support a predetermined conclusion is not good science. It was political advocacy wearing the mantle of science.
        kls 10y ago
        And that is a huge issue with people that don't understand science backing away from and outright rejecting science. That is the whole problem with "Science" today is once you inject advocacy in one little area and it is exposed people throw the baby out with the bath water. Take environmental sciences for example, the CRU and other leaks where scientist where exposed colluding with other scientist to blackball legitimate skeptics tainted the whole industry. Now we are seeing an wholesale rejection of environmental sciences and the gutting of the EPA. In a manner this is good, because there was obvious collusion and political advocacy and intent to stifle real science. On the other had, we also got a wholesale rejection by the voting majority which is now set to put clean energy back decades. I personally put the blame squarely on the scientist of the CRU and the NOAA pause buster scientists (they are a disgrace to the title). They cost us dearly by trying to advance their agenda. When you compromise the integrity of science the cost is just too great.
        dsfyu404ed 10y ago
        When the logging industry finds certain invasive species on land it owns it clear cuts, chips and burns a few square miles just to be on the safe side. I have no problem with science taking that approach. At least it keeps it fairly pure.
        croon 10y ago
        Do you feel the same about the science rejecting portion of the population?
        npunt 10y ago
        Science 'rejects' the behavior choices of individuals all the time. Should we ignore the obesity epidemic because it 'rejects' those suffering from it? Science isn't about making feel comfortable, it's about following the scientific method. It often presents ugly or inconvenient truths.
        10y ago
      - bmelton 10y ago
        For those who weren't paying attention during the time this occurred (you can hardly be faulted) -- this is perhaps the best summation of how I recall it. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/31/cdc-research-gun-owners-of-america-editorials-debates/2606751/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/31/cdc-researc...
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - wtbob 10y ago
    Only because it's impossible to trust the CDC to be professional in this regard.

The NRA doesn't sell guns. pre-emptive edit in case someone finds some place where this isn't true: I mean generally. They are not a gun manufacturer or seller generally.

komali2 10y ago

Furthermore, the NRA is pro-gun safety. I can't speak for the NRA, but myself and other members will be wearing orange on June 2nd. It's not like the NRA is going to run a "BUY MORE GUNS!" advertisement... it'll likely be something tasteful. Then again, I have been disappointed by the NRA's taste in the past.

npunt 10y ago
The NRA has lobbied to block federally funded scientific research on gun violence and safety[1], so I wouldn't say they're pro gun safety, at a macro level at least. [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-re...
- wl 10y ago
  The Dickey Amendment only banned political advocacy, not research. The problem is that the CDC was producing research that was thinly veiled political advocacy.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The purpose of CDC research on public health problems is largely to identify and support policy responses to those problems.
    - wl 10y ago
      Patrick O'Carroll, one of the major researchers involved with the CDC's efforts in question, infamously wrote that, "We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths." Doing research to support a predetermined conclusion is not good science. It was political advocacy wearing the mantle of science.
      - kls 10y ago
        And that is a huge issue with people that don't understand science backing away from and outright rejecting science. That is the whole problem with "Science" today is once you inject advocacy in one little area and it is exposed people throw the baby out with the bath water. Take environmental sciences for example, the CRU and other leaks where scientist where exposed colluding with other scientist to blackball legitimate skeptics tainted the whole industry. Now we are seeing an wholesale rejection of environmental sciences and the gutting of the EPA. In a manner this is good, because there was obvious collusion and political advocacy and intent to stifle real science. On the other had, we also got a wholesale rejection by the voting majority which is now set to put clean energy back decades. I personally put the blame squarely on the scientist of the CRU and the NOAA pause buster scientists (they are a disgrace to the title). They cost us dearly by trying to advance their agenda. When you compromise the integrity of science the cost is just too great.
        dsfyu404ed 10y ago
        When the logging industry finds certain invasive species on land it owns it clear cuts, chips and burns a few square miles just to be on the safe side. I have no problem with science taking that approach. At least it keeps it fairly pure.
        croon 10y ago
        Do you feel the same about the science rejecting portion of the population?
        npunt 10y ago
        Science 'rejects' the behavior choices of individuals all the time. Should we ignore the obesity epidemic because it 'rejects' those suffering from it? Science isn't about making feel comfortable, it's about following the scientific method. It often presents ugly or inconvenient truths.
        10y ago
    - bmelton 10y ago
      For those who weren't paying attention during the time this occurred (you can hardly be faulted) -- this is perhaps the best summation of how I recall it. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/31/cdc-research-gun-owners-of-america-editorials-debates/2606751/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/31/cdc-researc...
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- wtbob 10y ago
  Only because it's impossible to trust the CDC to be professional in this regard.