You still didn’t explain why you think this is a good law, and why we shouldn’t apply its approach to automobiles. I also thoroughly replied to your evidence that research is going on and why it’s inadequate. I feel like you’re not holding up your end of this conversation.
@wysinwyg also did a good job replying with links you should have already read and have a response to.
How so? As per the Washington Post article, the CDC got a black eye because it tried to push an agenda. The current law doesn’t preclude it from doing research, in fact it does still do research as I have pointed out. The CDC, like any other agency, is beholden to Congress, and some people are wary about the CDC producing biased research. And the CDC is gun shy (pun intended) because they screwed up in the past, so they aren’t pushing the issue. But at the same time, the Democrats have controlled congress for 4 years during Obamas administration and still didn’t get the support needed (or did they try then, I don’t know.)
And again, there is NOTHING stopping the dozens of other agencies from doing research. Which they do.
Personally I would be fine with them doing more, as long as they approach it from neutral view point.
I can retract half of it. I guess op-eds are more about presenting a point of view, not a fair assessment of a topic. Though he is using old evidence to support his current opinion.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:63, topic:81075”]Well, I’m not accusing them of being racist. I’m accusing them of playing up the fears of racist whites to promote gun sales.
That’s like the third time I’ve stated this. Can you acknowledge what I’m actually arguing instead of putting words in my mouth, please?
[/quote]
I have acknowledged this.
I can’t stand Nugent. Frankly I disagree with the way the NRA goes about in some of its statements and criticisms. One reason I like Colin Noir so much is how spot on he is in his commentary most of the time.
I am afraid I am unfamiliar with “the words and deeds” you are referring to. Again, while your opinion that “playing up the fears of racist whites to promote gun sales.” is certainly PLAUSIBLE, it does seem based more on speculation than on evidence. I mean, I don’t know of any advertising or anything really playing up on this concept. If it is indeed being inferred, it is so subtle no one can see it, in which case, how can it be affecting anyone?
The oil lobby primarily gets it funding the oil companies. A majority of the NRA comes from PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. So, again, I feel the backroom conspiracy that the NRA is all about selling guns and not rights is based on bias and speculation. I concede there is back scratching going on, but the org is mostly about rights, not sales.
I agree with that paragraph. I just disagree with the the additional stuff addressed above.
I don’t agree with the agenda the CDC took in the 90s. I don’t think they should be approaching it from a “we have a conclusion, lets find the evidence for it.”
I think we should give them a second chance. Though I am not quite sure why the CDC would be involved in gun violence, it seems to me the FBI and Justice Dept would have the infrastructure in place to handle that. I do think them looking into ways to curb accidents is worthwhile. Educational campaigns for use and proper storage would be a good use of resources.
I can think of a few hit harder than you or me…
But we all suffer when police are free to murder in the streets. This shit needs to end!!!
Bullshit.
You should RTFA that @wysinwyg posted above:
In 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues, “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home,” which presented the results of research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide... [OH NOES!!! THE BIAS! IT STINGS MINE EYES!!!] ...[The author, Kellerman] went on to positions at Emory University, and he currently holds the Paul O’Neill Alcoa Chair in Policy Analysis at the RAND Corporation.Totes sounds like a guy who'd write a report to suit his personal biases [insert eyeroll GIF].
The American Medical Association’s statement on the matter:
Research on the prevention of firearm-related injury, supported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and coordinated within CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), has come under attack from Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee initially rejected Rep. Dickey's attempt to eliminate the $2.6 million dedicated to CDC firearm-injury research. However, Mr. Dickey prevailed in the full Appropriations Committee. The Dickey amendment would transfer the $2.6 million to regional health education centers. This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA. The NRA has taken the position that firearm-related injury research at the CDC amounts to 'antigun' political advocacy and has also attacked the quality of this research. However, research proposals submitted to CDC are subject to a peer review process that follows standard practices...
But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are probably biased, too, right? Ludicrous.
Also ludicrous–this entire statement:
This is about 2 miles from my house. Irrelevant, but…in any event, it seems like the gun freaks did not think this through. Did the legislature or the police union require/create any sort of protocol/procedures for dealing with people that might be legally carrying a firearm in a car (or wherever) in a police encounter? So…the police are legally justified in killing a person who is legally carrying a gun. America, 2016.
I always think of these things in the frame of one of my favorite TV shows…Justified. Raylan Givens says in a season 1 episode “I don’t pull my firearm unless its to kill, that’s its purpose right? to kill.” One of the main things that Elmore Leonard wrote into the character and show was that anytime Givens pulled he was JUSTIFIED in shooting and killing the “bad guy”. Its the main theme of the show “I was Justified” which is why his character never chose to pull lightly.
I wish reality was the same in this case. I wish officers understood the potential ramifications of the ultimate action that takes place on pulling your weapon from its holster.
Someone can victim-blame/shame all they want with “Look how he is dressed” “Why did he reach for anything” “Why didn’t he listen to the officer”. Ultimately it is on the officer. He pulled his weapon. He couldn’t have given clear instructions. He pulled the trigger.
I know full well I have completely different opinions about guns than you, but I thought I might add a point that was germane to a specific part of the conversation without extending it beyond the scope of that point. Selfish of me.
It’s a myth.
Back on topic - for some insight on the issue - from my black friend who carries:
“This is why I’m not going to bring up a CCW if a cop stops me.”
He also has illegal tint. Reduces the “driving while black” reason for pulling someone over.
Sadly, it likely protects the officer from prosecution because the system is set up to accept his “I thought he was going for a gun” statement on its face. The fact that the victim actually had a gun, regardless of whether he was going for it or not, is all a district attorney needs to convince a grand jury that there’s too much doubt to bring an indictment.
This reminds me of the Levar Jones shooting except there isn’t clear footage of the actual shooting and the victim did have a firearm on his person. It’s stupid and unjust that those circumstances will likely lead to the officer being cleared of any wrongdoing.
There is: It even bears Strange Fruit.
I wasn’t commenting on the content of your comment. I was commenting on the (irrelevant) content of other commenters’ comments.
One reason is that in most first-world countries “he had a gun!” (real or imagined) is far less likely scenario, so there’s a higher bar for resorting to deadly violence.
I have to admit I’m more than a little irritated at the comments of Mister44 and others who have chosen to focus on the issue of guns instead of the topic at hand which is that it seems that the police are able to kill Black people with impunity and no real recourse for the victims.
I’ve hit ‘Cancel’ instead of “Submit” twice now, because anything I say in response will probably not be very civil.
That was meant kindly.
How anyone could choose to have the same old debate about gun control after listening to this mother being consoled by her four-year-old daughter… I just can’t even. And I don’t know what it’s going to take to stop this regular ritual of murder.
discussing technicalities like the dry subject of weapon statistics is easier - it skips the unpleasant topic of actual human beings needlessly killed
No, he was shot because he was black.
So when are people going to acknowledge that part of the problem is that skittish toddler-men are completely unqualified to be policemen?
Police are supposed to be brave and put their lives on the line to serve the public. They’re supposed to defuse (something that people in ERs and Mental Health Facilities do all the time) rather than escalate.
They’re NOT supposed to be skittish cowards that go straight for the kill the moment they’re uncomfortable.
We have some excellent people in the force, and these worthless turds are ruining things for everyone.
