In the aftermath of the latest mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, House Republicans rebuffed a Democratic effort to effectively allow health researchers to study gun violence and make recommendations — suggesting they’re still a long way from considering any new gun-control restrictions.
The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday rejected, 19-32, an amendment from top Democratic appropriator Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) that would allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the underlying causes of gun violence.
The CDC hasn’t done any such research since 1996, when the National Rifle Association accused it of trying to use science to promote gun control. Congress threatened to totally defund the agency if the work continued, and appropriators ever since have included a prohibition on funding that kind of research with spending bills.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3e1SZohu2
Love me some anti intellectualism. How dare they use science to prove their point!
Doesn't need to "prove a point," I don't think. We have guns in this country and they aren't going away. What we don't have is concrete data about why gun violence occurs and what discernible symptoms suggest a group or individual meltdown. If we had better profiles, we might have better prevention.
Kockenstein monster Scott Walker signed a bill today to reduce the waiting time for handguns from 48 hours to nothing. wham, bam, thank you, ma'am.
Those profiles would not be what the Democratic Party would want unearthed, the stats would not be in favor of their voting block.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) shared details of a survey that found Chicago-based elementary kids were more afraid of getting shot than getting braces. -----you'd think some of the strictest gun control measures in the country would make this kids fell safer. www.heyjackass.com
“It’s striking to me that neither side — and they’ve both been in the majority since this provision was put in there — have seen fit to repeal it,” ------what's the excuse here?
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3e2ouJBnG
Perhaps, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. While there are a few Democrats who want to ban or heavily restrict guns, they are politically impotent... even within their own party. If you're suggesting a study would reveal minorities or poor people were more heavily involved in gun violence, it might offend some of the Dems base... but the value of such a study would be to anticipate Sandy Hooks and Auroras and Charlestons and OKCs... which is political gold these days, partisanship be damned.
Hey, jackass
Strict gun control in ONE CITY is useless because the rest of the country isn't equally controlled. Guns travel.
The gun used to shoot two cops in NYC a couple months ago originated in rural gun shop by some podunk inbreds in Georgia, a gun source by then well known to NYC cops.
But yes, strict gun control scares the out of Chicago kids, so kill the gun control, right? And give the teachers AND the kids all guns, so they feel safe and civilized in The Greatest Country In The Universe.
The high level of daily, esp weekend gang, shootings and murders in Chicago have nothing to do with (black) kids being scared. nah, couldn't be that. None of them have never heard gun shots all night, have not seen bodies lying in the street. It's the gun regs that scares kids to death, not guns and shooting.
It's amusing watching you constantly blame the gun and not the people using them. It is simple thinkers like you that are a huge part of the problem.
I don't really see such a study helping to anticipate mass shootings.
You're not very intelligent or insightful much less are you qualified in any way to make such a comment so that does not posit anything.
I first taught you about mutual exclusivity over a year ago. You still do not understand the concept. It's not all one or the other and nothing in between dumbass.
FKN HILARIOUS to see you parroting mindlessly the NRA/GOA/gun-industry-lobbyists' talking points, esp this "guns don't kill people". Have you no brains?
How would this study help anticipate mass shootings?
I'm well aware people use guns to kill people, why do you think I own so many?
What you refuse to address is what leads to all the killings and instead just blame the inanimate object. Fix the inner cities (education, opportunity, drugs) and you'll reduce killings dramatically. Or just keep blaming the gun.
Back to begging the question. You just make my point clearer.
In questions of scientific investigation, it's best to keep an open mind.
ANd he doubles down on the all or nothing take anyway.
I addressed admiral and you jumped in the convo and now the cat's got your tongue?
I'm curious how you think this study would help anticipate mass shootings as admiral alluded to. Share your thoughts, I've got an open mind.
You are begging the question and missing the point.
I am not versed in the particulars of gun statistics to make an informed opinion on the matter. That is the point of the issue: by banning study and data collection there is no way to make an informed opinion on such things.
I think shootings and other forms of gun violence should be studied at the very least. The obfuscation campaign of the NRA and their ilk is obvious.
I never brought up the study helping to anticipate mass shooting. If you don't have an answer than don't address comments made to someone else.
Here though is something I did direct towards you that you never addressed.
The only response from Republicans was made by Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who kept his comments brief and simply said Democrats didn’t seem to care about striking this provision when they were in power.
“It’s striking to me that neither side — and they’ve both been in the majority since this provision was put in there — have seen fit to repeal it,” the subcommittee chairman said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3e768Bdl1
Just because I don't answer the question the way you want it doesn't mean that it wasn't answered. We have talked in the past about the premise of a question being conditional and the central theme of a discussion. I addressed both in my response. If you still cannot keep up then I don't really care.
As for your throw away line partisan snark, so what? The much more ambitious efforts to require background checks on all sales and form a national statistic database that they tried to pass following Sandy Hook and Aurora was blocked too. The NRA beg line for that was 'how do you even know it will work?' So now that they are trying to use federal funding to study the issue, they should have thought of that before? Here you are parroting the same beg line on the nuanced issue.
Like I said the obfuscation campaign is obvious.
I never brought up the study helping to anticipate mass shooting. If you don't have an answer than don't address comments made to someone else.
Did you say the study would help anticipate mass shootings? No? Then shut the up and let the person who did answer my question.
You should get more mad when trying to give commands to people over the interwebs.
I just addressed the premise of your question, what that entails and the place it as in the discussion from the OP and in general.
You seem to have a learning disability. Sorry to see that.
Lots of industrialized countries have the same problems as USA, but only USA EXCELS as WORLD CHAMPION (in it class) in gun deaths.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
