3 ms·

Do you know that you are quoting the junk science that Clinton via the CDC asked Kellerman and Hemmenway to produce as a lead up to the 1993/94 Brady Bill and A

Do you know that you are quoting the junk science that Clinton via the CDC asked Kellerman and Hemmenway to produce as a lead up to the 1993/94 Brady Bill and Assault Weapon Ban? The same of power that lead the 1996 congress banning the CDC from promoting policy advocation. Among other issues such as full data never being released, the specific quote you have there was derived from police reports where someone was shot in their home. No other factors were considered like drug or spouse related, not if the home owner was shot by their gun, or any one of a number of other factors that would paint a better picture. Do you seriously think police reports where someone was shot no other questions asked is a good indicator for gun ownership in the USA?

scarface74 7y ago
Well, unfortunately, the CDC wasn't allowed to study the affects of guns for years and still may not be able to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Also incorrect. The CDC has been able to and has studied guns since that 1996 law. They have not been allowed to suggest policy changes. Interestingly when the ability to weaponize them went away, a lot less direction went into gun studies compared to the millions of dollars spent in the ramp up to 1993.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So if the CDC found asbestos causes cancer they can suggest policy changes but if they found guns kill people they can’t? Would you be okay if the CDC couldn’t suggest policy changes when it comes to nicotine? What’s the purpose of studying something if you can’t do anything with the results?
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      It prevents the CDC from being weaponized like it was by Clinton admin. Anyone pushing for policy is free to cite the CDC results of studies. As they have done. But if you notice, the narrative has been CDC isn’t allowed to study guns which is a lie. This was partially rolled back by an Obama EO (sorta, its complicated) and you know what ever CDC study since has found? No exact correlation to guns and crime. There have been some interesting results since 2013 like the fact that Assault Weapon Bans have not at all proven effective since less than 400 people have died per year in any recent time by rifles of all types let alone the subset of scary looking ones, that there are 500,000 to 3,000,000 successful defensive gun uses by citizens a year mostly where a shot isn’t needed compared to 10-15,000 homicides in the country of 330,000,000 are over 75% gang or drug related, and that rural areas of USA where the guns are have effectively the same homicide rates as rural Europe when you look at like for like causes of the violence. Specifically the CDC was barred from having tax payer money used to remove citizens civil rights. Last I checked there was no enumerated right to asbestos or nicotine.
      - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        In some ways the Dickey Amendment empowered them to push the false narrative of a strong relationship between guns and crime. Rather than having to put forward quality studies for their political purposes, they could just handwave at the legislation like it was a foregone conclusion.
        SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Yea, but the problem was Clinton used them as a weapon and it was pretty clear that administrations couldn't trusted to not do that again. It wasn't perfect, but you're talking millions of dollars that went into the 92/93/94 push. That's hard to come up with for narrative building when it's not tax payer money. Just look at the single source of gun control in the USA today, Michael Bloomberg, if he wasn't personally bankrolling it, things would look a lot different.

scarface74 7y ago

Well, unfortunately, the CDC wasn't allowed to study the affects of guns for years and still may not be able to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Also incorrect. The CDC has been able to and has studied guns since that 1996 law. They have not been allowed to suggest policy changes. Interestingly when the ability to weaponize them went away, a lot less direction went into gun studies compared to the millions of dollars spent in the ramp up to 1993.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So if the CDC found asbestos causes cancer they can suggest policy changes but if they found guns kill people they can’t? Would you be okay if the CDC couldn’t suggest policy changes when it comes to nicotine? What’s the purpose of studying something if you can’t do anything with the results?
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    It prevents the CDC from being weaponized like it was by Clinton admin. Anyone pushing for policy is free to cite the CDC results of studies. As they have done. But if you notice, the narrative has been CDC isn’t allowed to study guns which is a lie. This was partially rolled back by an Obama EO (sorta, its complicated) and you know what ever CDC study since has found? No exact correlation to guns and crime. There have been some interesting results since 2013 like the fact that Assault Weapon Bans have not at all proven effective since less than 400 people have died per year in any recent time by rifles of all types let alone the subset of scary looking ones, that there are 500,000 to 3,000,000 successful defensive gun uses by citizens a year mostly where a shot isn’t needed compared to 10-15,000 homicides in the country of 330,000,000 are over 75% gang or drug related, and that rural areas of USA where the guns are have effectively the same homicide rates as rural Europe when you look at like for like causes of the violence. Specifically the CDC was barred from having tax payer money used to remove citizens civil rights. Last I checked there was no enumerated right to asbestos or nicotine.
    - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
      In some ways the Dickey Amendment empowered them to push the false narrative of a strong relationship between guns and crime. Rather than having to put forward quality studies for their political purposes, they could just handwave at the legislation like it was a foregone conclusion.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Yea, but the problem was Clinton used them as a weapon and it was pretty clear that administrations couldn't trusted to not do that again. It wasn't perfect, but you're talking millions of dollars that went into the 92/93/94 push. That's hard to come up with for narrative building when it's not tax payer money. Just look at the single source of gun control in the USA today, Michael Bloomberg, if he wasn't personally bankrolling it, things would look a lot different.