I note how the "pro-gun" disinformation fills the internet making it hard to find accurate information.
The best part is that policy has been crippled because money for public health studies can't fund anything which "might lead to gun control".
Well, the public who do those surveys have something to say about that:
No wonder you lot don't like facts."My colleagues and I were doing a study on playground injuries, because they were doing some remodeling projects here, and we wanted to see if that would change the playground injury rate," Sauaia said.
It''s bad enough having us tell you that you are more of a danger to yourselves without having the public health data out there to back us up.
Seriously, the problem with "pro-gun" arguments (bedsides not withstanding scrutiny) is that they aren't really helpful to your side.
We don't want your side wasting public money to investigate something that's irrelevant to rights. But nothing prevents you from doing it on your own. At least that would give you something to do...
ReplyDeleteYou betcha Pooch, this is a blog that discusses JURIES!!!!
ReplyDeleteIn dealing with simpletons who seem to rely on polls, studies, statistics, comedy shows, or comic book characters for their secondhand thoughts, it is difficult to take anything they say as being serious or worthy of consideration.
orlin sellers
A lawyer is a person who writes a 10,000-word document and calls it a “brief.”
(Franz Kafka)
Just as facts prove "supply side economics" to be a failure, so facts prove unlimited gun rights a failure. Of course I'm judging that 30,000 deaths by gun shot a year, constitutes a failure in policy.
ReplyDelete"The best part is that policy has been crippled because money for public health studies can't fund anything which "might lead to gun control"."
ReplyDeleteSo Congress voted to place these restrictions to prevent the government from funding research that ADVOCATES gun control. The reasoning being that there was a perceived bias in the research being published.
So how bad does this perception have to get for a majority in Congress to pass this type of legislation. And for the limitation not to be repealed?
Many learned have opposing views on this subject,
"Any time we restrict research, it is dangerous for public health and democracy," said Dr. David Satcher, who was director of the CDC in the mid-1990s when the issue came to a head. "It is sad when you really think about it. We are in an environment when children are dying and we are playing political games."
and
"It was mostly political junk science," retorts Dr. Miguel Faria Jr., a former professor of neurosurgery and editor of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. The CDC, he said, started from the premise "that guns were bad, had no benefits, that guns and bullets were pathogens that needed to be eradicated or at least severely restricted from the civilian population."
http://www.governing.com/news/state/mct-gun-violence-research-restricted-by-politics.html
And there is privately funded research, though much of it suffers from perceived bias such as the studies funded by Mr. Bloomberg. This appearance of bias makes it a challenge. For example John Lott's study was considered biased because it was funded by a grant from the Olin Corporation.
There is plenty of money coming from Bloomberg and Soros to fund gun control studies. Else why do we keep seeing them? Now if you cared enough about the issue you could put your money where your mouth is and donate to the cause- if you really believe there aren't enough new studies going on.
ReplyDelete