Home | About | Donate

It’s Time to Stop Arguing Whether Gun Laws Work

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/19/its-time-stop-arguing-whether-gun-laws-work

1 Like

If I’m not mistaken, there is a law preventing the CDC from studying, or even tabulating firearm injuries and/or deaths. This is absolutely insane. The military sends doctors to cities, where such things are commonplace (gun injuries), so they can get first-hand experience in dealing with bullet wounds. A common sense approach to the control of GUN OWNERS would be a great first step, if any of our cowardly legislators would grow a collective spine. If they made it as hard to get a gun as they make it to vote, such steps would be easy.

1 Like

Everyone plays to data that supports their cause! Want to save more lives? Lets ban the automobile!

1 Like

Murder and suicide are both illegal. They have been since the beginning. Even before the firearms. Yet it still happens. Gun control will only control the law abiding citizen. Criminals will do what they want no matter what laws are in the book. Its really not that hard to see. If you dont want guns, fine, dont get them. But dont propose or support ideas that will do nothing but limit law abiding citizens. Ill take my chances to have the right to stop anyone who attempts to harm me or my family!

I would think that a physician would recognize the error in creating a sum based on state laws that are similar in name only. I can tell that the author did little to compare the meanings of the various types of state laws mentioned (“universal background checks”, etc) as they apply to one state or another. If he did, then he would recognize just how murky his comparisons are.

Perhaps a “per capita” rate of firearms ownership would be a more credible metric to use for comparisons, as it adequately reflects the cultural norms of a given state that would ultimately dictate what laws are proposed and passed. In such a case, he would see that there is a very weak relationship between that and the rate of firearms-related injuries, especially amongst children.

Why stop at guns? If we would just forfeit all of our freedoms, we could save even more lives. We can each have our own little prison cell to live out our entire lives.

Be careful what you wish for.

1 Like

Nope, the law says the CDC can study firearms as much as they like, so long as they do so in a scientific manner, They are specifically banned from creating gun control propaganda because back in the 90’s, that’s exactly what they were doing.

This law was passed when one of the senior CDC directors bragged before Congress that they were looking to make firearms ‘dirty, dangerous and banned’ before even starting on any studies.

The CDC has participated in several very good, peer reviewed studies, including the most recent one ordered by President Obama.

However you won’t have heard of them because they don’t support the gun control narrative. In fact the conclusions backed the NRA’s assertions almost point for point.

1 Like

I can refute this ‘study’ in one word… “Vermont”

The state of Vermont has never had state gun laws. Yet they have been the safest state in the US by any measure for the last 100 years or so.

Ah, FREE-DUMB!!! Interesting how those with gun-fetish ONLY care about protecting their GUNS–but, ALL other civil rights 7 human rights are of NO INTEREST to them. Fact is, with rights come RESPONSIBILITIES. The majority of gun-owners SUPPORT Universal background checks, red flag laws (that keep domestic violence batters & those with mental illness from having guns) & limits on bullet magazines (are having 50 to 100 bullets REALLY necessary for :“self-defense”?) & banning “accessories” like bump stocks & silencers (aka: suppressors) are REASONABLE requirements for gun-ownerships. Even Supreme COurt Justice Antonin Scalaia who wrote the opinon in the “Heller” case that AFFIRMED individual gun-ownership rights said in that opinion that “this does NOT mean no regulation or limits on these rights”. NO right is totallty “unlimited”: our Free Speech rights do NOT mean threatening someone with violence or shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre to create chaos & injuries. Overdue to stop the inane gun-fetish paranoia and have sensible people–gun-owners & not–FINALLY create the reasonable requirements that would LESSEN the carnage.

BS. You’re just repeating NRA propaganda. Guess you didn’t get the memo on how that organization is actually working for Gun MANUIFACTURERS (as well as, lining lobbyists pockets like Wayne Lapierre with his $2,000 Italian suits). We need to study gun violence SCIENTIICALLY–which means the CDC and other reputable organizations–NOT LOBBYISTS for Gun_Manufacturers who’s ONLY aim is PROFITS.

REASONABLE in your book, but not mine. LIBS love to try and impose there will on everyone else. Keep on dreaming in LaLa Land LIBBY!

BS. You’re just repeating NRA propaganda.

Read the Dickey Amendment. There was no ban on research, just on political advocacy using government money. Mark Rosenberg, the head of the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) at the time, admitted as much in a 2016 article in The Atlantic: The CDC Could Do More in Gun Research.

We need to study gun violence SCIENTIICALLY–which means the CDC and other reputable organizations

If you want the research done properly you don’t want the CDC doing it. The reason for the Dickey Amendment was the poor quality and consistent bias of the studies funded by CDC NCIPC.

Rosenberg made his bias clear in a 1994 article by William Raspberry in the Washington Post: SICK PEOPLE WITH GUNS.