Reply With Quote
That's a strawman. That's why it's absurd.
We can't study gun violence as a public health issue bcause freedom?
That's absurd.
That's a strawman. That's why it's absurd.
It's not a strawman. Congress passed a law making it illegal for the CDC to study it.
It's not that he doesn't understand. It's that he hates the rights we have in this country.
It's a strawman to anything I've said.
You can study gun violence if you want. Go study it. There are many studies.
You haven't posted the stat that shows the majority of gun injuries are caused by 12% of the population. I wasn't talking about murders.
"Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...975_story.html
See nobody stopped them from studying.
Congress did stop the CDC from doing it.
90,000 or so non-lethal gunshot wounds per year seems like a public health issue to me. Not to you?
I guess its not a health concern to get upset over.
And we can just make up numbers. I guess you are not comfortable with NRA funded studies.
Just making things up is in vogue during this administration so its all good.
Compared to the one or two dozen people that die every year at the hands of terrorists or MS-13, sure seems like it to me.
If the millions of people cared so much then we should have 10s of millions of volunteers at big brother and other youth programs across the country. We don't though. They are sitting on their ass trying restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.
So no money should be spent at all unless millions of people organize and demand it through direct public action.
That's a weird concept of government.
Don't we elect representatives to make those decisions for us?
And don't representatives carry the concerns of their cons uents, even if they don't number in the millions, just because it seems like a good idea?
Just because things are the way the are is not a sufficient reason for keeping them that way.
The people can change their minds, and so can their reps. That why we keep talking about it.
Yes, and it's easy change minds when people keep lying about things. That's why we lie and call it common sense gun control when studies like the one I linked highlight how that is a bunch of bull .
We got that covered.
Its a National Emergency that involves building a wall.
somewhere...
If they want to storm the streets saying gun owners have blood on their hands. If they want to take away rights people died for then perhaps they should get off their lazy ass and volunteer. 50% of homicides come from basically 6.5% of population. Go volunteer and influence a life. Seems like an effective strategy.
Look, I don't think taxing ammo is such a great idea either, but the notion that gun owners deserve a free ride for the social costs imposed by owning and using guns is inequitable on its face.
And you also got...
I'm a data analyst and I was pretty appalled with the author's conclusion that the gun control "policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence"--not because of any personal stance on gun control, but because she really mangles the data interpretation. I completely agree we need more research and data, but this article is a terrible example of it.
For example, "not enough data on the effect of the Australian buyback program" does NOT equal "buyback programs are ineffective". There's likely little more data on her proposed "narrowly tailored interventions", so using her logic, why bother? And while a "practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the [magazine] limit meaningless", how much gun crime is committed by "practiced" shooters?
Moreover, when embarking on any kind of research project, the first thing you should do is look at what existing research says. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-a... is a good summary showing the difficulty of drawing a straight line between gun laws and gun deaths. That doesn't mean you do away with all gun laws.
I would rather the CDC carry on a multiyear study compared to one 3 month foray.
Still thought it was interesting.
Nah, let's conflate statistics and pretend like suicides should be included so it sounds worse. Let's implement ineffective restrictive bull so we can say we did something. Let's storm streets. Let's disparage others. Let's beg big gov to take away our rights.
There should absolutely be thorough studies on how many suicides are carried out via a gun and where said gun was obtained.
Just like we keep track of suicides via overdoses of specific drugs.
And for the record I dont think the ammo thing is sound either. Not everywhere in the country anyways.
If you are concerned about taxes then perhaps focus on something isn't tied to our American rights. Perhaps stop giving tax dollars to illegals. Perhaps don't import legal immigrants that have a high likelihood of being dependent on welfare. This tax is an hetical to our cons ution. Period.
Actually, the Cons ution gives the government the power to lay taxes.
That's one of the reasons we have it in the first place.
Are you familiar with the Articles of Confederation and why that didn't work?
the primary concern here is gun violence. the proposal is not the fundamental building block of some tax reform initiative. thats like saying cigarette taxes are all about finding new tax revenue. its only part of the equation.
lol take any opportunity to ramble about illegal immigrants even though it's completely off topic. illegal immigrants are ineligible for federal welfare programs. food stamps, medicaid, social security, assistance for needy families, healthcare subsidies. you really think the few things they do get like emergency medical care are bankrupting us?Perhaps stop giving tax dollars to illegals. Perhaps don't import legal immigrants that have a high likelihood of being dependent on welfare.
the cons ution does not say that guns need to be tax free. the cons ution gives congress the authority to lay and collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce.This tax is an hetical to our cons ution. Period.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions