The US government can't even use money to research why mass murders happen.

[Stevicus]

Any study performed correctly will produce some results by eliminating or highlighting areas to work on, what gain is there in not allowing a study just because gun violence is used to focus it.

That wouldn't be the reason. How many "government studies" do we actually need anyway? If you've heard of the "Golden Fleece Award," you might see things differently. I recall that there was once a study to find out why prisoners want to escape from prison. Need I say more?

Mental illness is a large grouping and any results just studying mental illness will fail. Focusing on a specific illness or a specific violence allows for better results. Any logical person understands this.

Sure, any "logical person" with too much blind faith in the system would agree with that, but those of us who see things as they actually are would not agree.

 

[Enoch07]

They could tell us things that we don't already know. You are still asking a trick question. You can't expect anyone to come up with examples of things we don't know yet.

Why do you think that the CDC would not be able to ever give us any new information on gun ownership in the future?

Well you must have some idea?

Because the CDC's expertise is in disease/viruses. Unless rem oil is driving people insane, the CDC seems like a poor choice to go to.

Would you ask the Army to look into cancer research? Me thinks not.

 

[leibowde84]

Well you must have some idea?

Because the CDC's expertise is in disease/viruses. Unless rem oil is driving people insane, the CDC seems like a poor choice to go to.

Would you ask the Army to look into cancer research? Me thinks not.

The CDC specializes in protecting the American people from health, safety and security threats. They are the perfect organization for this. What agency would you prefer?

 

[bobhikes]

That wouldn't be the reason. How many "government studies" do we actually need anyway? If you've heard of the "Golden Fleece Award," you might see things differently. I recall that there was once a study to find out why prisoners want to escape from prison. Need I say more?



Sure, any "logical person" with too much blind faith in the system would agree with that, but those of us who see things as they actually are would not agree.

A logical person that realizes if one study can produce results to save 10 innocent lives a year, for me even 1 child a year, it is worth all the bad studies. We and congress have the ability to shut down any bad studies and I am trying to save innocent lives from wrongful violence not finding out why prisoners want to escape which the cdc can legally do but they can't get funding to find out how to protect innocent victims from gun violence.

I guess you have to have faith in God to avoid gun violence.

 

[YmirGF]

Its called the Dickey Amendment. It prevents the CDC from using money on research that could advocate or promote gun control.

Write or Call your congressmen to appeal the amendment. See John Oliver below.

So, why didn't the Obama administration repeal this legislation when he had the power to do so? He had full control over all three branches of government for two years after his election in 2008. Did Democrats do anything to try to repeal this silly law?

 

[leibowde84]

So, why didn't the Obama administration repeal this legislation when he had the power to do so? He had full control over all three branches of government for two years after his election in 2008. Did Democrats do anything to try to repeal this silly law?

They certainly should have. What's your point though? Are you saying that if Obama didn't try to repeal it, it must be a good law?

 

[YmirGF]

They certainly should have. What's your point though? Are you saying that if Obama didn't try to repeal it, it must be a good law?

Calm yourself, friend. Did you not see my final words, "this silly law"?
And no, my question was more along the lines of if the Democrats did nothing about it for the last 8 years why would anyone expect the Republicans to do something about it? Riddle me that and I'll give you a nice cookie.

 

[Stevicus]

A logical person that realizes if one study can produce results to save 10 innocent lives a year, for me even 1 child a year, it is worth all the bad studies. We and congress have the ability to shut down any bad studies and I am trying to save innocent lives from wrongful violence not finding out why prisoners want to escape which the cdc can legally do but they can't get funding to find out how to protect innocent victims from gun violence.

I guess you have to have faith in God to avoid gun violence.

Okay, I understand that you want to protect innocent lives from gun violence, and as a logical person, I agree that saving innocent lives is a worthwhile and laudable goal.

But the question still remains whether another "study" on gun violence (and it's not like it's the first time anyone has made such a proposal) can give us any more enlightenment or information on how to prevent it. Honestly, it really shouldn't be that difficult to figure these things out. We've also had tons of studies about violence, criminality, mental illness, etc., but perhaps it takes a different kind of "logic" to actually apply what we've learned in order to achieve any practical and productive results.

In order to protect innocent lives, action is required, not talk.

 

[bobhikes]

So, why didn't the Obama administration repeal this legislation when he had the power to do so? He had full control over all three branches of government for two years after his election in 2008. Did Democrats do anything to try to repeal this silly law?

The NRA is good at campaigning, Help us be better at it, call or write your congressman
From Wikipedia attempts to overturn Dickey,
In 2013, President Barack Obama directed the CDC to research gun violence. The CDC responded by funding a research project in 2013[8] and conducting their own study in 2015.[9] That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."[3] In October 2015, 110 members of Congress, all of whom were Democrats, signed a letter calling on Congress to reject the amendment.[10] In December 2015, despite Nancy Pelosi's efforts to have the Dickey amendment removed from the spending bill for the following year, Congress passed this bill with the amendment still in it.[11]

 

[bobhikes]

Okay, I understand that you want to protect innocent lives from gun violence, and as a logical person, I agree that saving innocent lives is a worthwhile and laudable goal.

But the question still remains whether another "study" on gun violence (and it's not like it's the first time anyone has made such a proposal) can give us any more enlightenment or information on how to prevent it. Honestly, it really shouldn't be that difficult to figure these things out. We've also had tons of studies about violence, criminality, mental illness, etc., but perhaps it takes a different kind of "logic" to actually apply what we've learned in order to achieve any practical and productive results.

In order to protect innocent lives, action is required, not talk.

Collecting data is action and not talk. Calling or Writing your congressman is action not talk.

 

[YmirGF]

The NRA is good at campaigning, Help us be better at it, call or write your congressman
From Wikipedia attempts to overturn Dickey,
In 2013, President Barack Obama directed the CDC to research gun violence. The CDC responded by funding a research project in 2013[8] and conducting their own study in 2015.[9] That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."[3] In October 2015, 110 members of Congress, all of whom were Democrats, signed a letter calling on Congress to reject the amendment.[10] In December 2015, despite Nancy Pelosi's efforts to have the Dickey amendment removed from the spending bill for the following year, Congress passed this bill with the amendment still in it.[11]

Better late than never, eh?

 

[leibowde84]

Calm yourself, friend. Did you not see my final words, "this silly law"?
And no, my question was more along the lines of if the Democrats did nothing about it for the last 8 years why would anyone expect the Republicans to do something about it? Riddle me that and I'll give you a nice cookie.

I think that is beyond the point, which is to repeal the law. Regardless of who is in power right now, they should work to strike it.

 

[YmirGF]

I think that is beyond the point, which is to repeal the law. Regardless of who is in power right now, they should work to strike it.

I agree, but the Dems are a little late to the party. They had full power to change this for two years and did nothing. Expecting the Republican controlled congress to get behind this is a bit more than a reach.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree, but the Dems are a little late to the party. They had full power to change this for two years and did nothing. Expecting the Republican controlled congress to get behind this is a bit more than a reach.

Nevertheless, it is the right thing to do. I have yet to hear even an attempted argument for why this law should stay in place.

 

[YmirGF]

Nevertheless, it is the right thing to do. I have yet to hear even an attempted argument for why this law should stay in place.

Lack of political will would probably be the best answer.

 

[leibowde84]

Lack of political will would probably be the best answer.

That's more of an excuse than actual reasoning, though.

 

[YmirGF]

That's more of an excuse than actual reasoning, though.

My guess is that lawmakers have different hierarchies of needs they feel require addressing. This just doesn't make it far enough up the ladder. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure, any "logical person" with too much blind faith in the system would agree with that, but those of us who see things as they actually are would not agree.

Science studies things. And often enough, it discovers what we think is true is totally not true, it reveals to us things we hadn't considered before, and sometimes it doesn't give us much. But what doesn't make since is leaving these unstudied areas unstudied.

Because the CDC's expertise is in disease/viruses. Unless rem oil is driving people insane, the CDC seems like a poor choice to go to.

They deal with public health. They even have a half joke/half serious page on what to do in the event of a zombie apocalypse, while even though impossible to happen, it's suggestions and recommendations for being prepared are good general guidelines for disaster preparedness.

 

[Enoch07]

The CDC specializes in protecting the American people from health, safety and security threats. They are the perfect organization for this. What agency would you prefer?

You still haven't answered my question.

 

[Enoch07]

They deal with public health. They even have a half joke/half serious page on what to do in the event of a zombie apocalypse, while even though impossible to happen, it's suggestions and recommendations for being prepared are good general guidelines for disaster preparedness.

Ok, bullets are bad for your with health. I didn't need the CDC to tell me that. What kind of answers are you looking for that could they possible supply?