• Jay Dickey - The Congressman Who Restricted Gun Violence Research - Has Regrets
    10 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON -- Looking back, nearly 20 years later, Jay Dickey is apologetic. He is gone from Congress, giving him space to reflect on his namesake amendment that, to this day, continues to define the rigid politics of gun policy. When he helped pass a restriction of federal funding for gun violence research in 1996, the goal wasn't to be so suffocating, he insisted. But the measure was just that, dampening federal research for years and discouraging researchers from entering the field. Now, as mass shootings pile up, including last week's killing of nine at a community college in Oregon, Dickey admitted to carrying a sense of responsibility for progress not made. "I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time," Dickey, an Arkansas Republican, told the Huffington Post in an interview. "I have regrets." He said the law was over-interpreted. Now, he looks at simple advances in highway safety -- safety barriers, for example -- and wonders what could have been done for guns. "If we had somehow gotten the research going, we could have somehow found a solution to the gun violence without there being any restrictions on the Second Amendment," Dickey said. "We could have used that all these years to develop the equivalent of that little small fence."[/quote] SOURCE: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf[/url]
this is why you should think and use your brain before making a decision, Dickey, for god's sake you moron
How could you think, yeah we don't need to research gun violence in the country where everyone has guns
Because politics isn't about doing what makes sense, it is about promoting whatever you're paid to promote unfortunately.
why the fuck do we have these people in charge of this nation?
You'd think a research like this would be important in a country that values guns because, like he said, it would find ways to decrease gun violence without actually fucking with the 2nd amendment, everyone wins.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;48858414]You'd think a research like this would be important in a country that values guns because, like he said, it would find ways to decrease gun violence without actually fucking with the 2nd amendment, everyone wins.[/QUOTE] I'm probably going to get blasted by people basing their views on the one-sided article in the OP, but back in the 90s there was a lot of government money going to government institutions not related to gun control that was being used for advocacy rather than research, and supporting knee-jerk legislative measures without proper evidence. This was at the height of gun control discussions, having followed on the tail of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban and amidst a serious crime wave in many major cities. The Center for Disease Control, of all things, put out a number of studies produced under the explicit goal of shocking people into changing the culture around guns. They cherry-picked sources and used methodology favoring the conclusion they had set out to 'prove'. They, and a few other agencies (most notably the US Public Health Service), were using a scientific position of research to promote a predetermined social agenda by deliberately shaping studies to support the desired conclusion, which is obviously a [I]huge[/I] no-no for federally-funded research. Republicans in Congress were pissed, so they wrote a piece of legislation that, while intended to curb advocacy, in effect destroyed all research as analysts didn't know how close to that line they could tread. Here are two articles that explain it a little more from the other side: [URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/[/URL] [URL]https://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots[/URL] Edit: Oh yeah, and let me just throw out there that this is the same CDC that warns that marijuana is a [url=http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm]major public health problem[/url] and [url=http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6428a6.htm]presents a substantial risk of psychoactive disturbances or death[/url]. It's not like their problem with putting politics before research is limited to just guns.
good, you fucking put politics before science. i hope in 20 years the republicans who put politics above climate change have fucking remorse when florida is underwater, and half the east coast is sinking
[QUOTE=Sableye;48859022]good, you fucking put politics before science. i hope in 20 years the republicans who put politics above climate change have fucking remorse when florida is underwater, and half the east coast is sinking[/QUOTE] I hope it only takes 20 years
[QUOTE=Lebofly;48863461]I hope it only takes 20 years[/QUOTE] This is why dictators seem to get things done in the first few years then massive corruption and eventual fall comes into play.
[QUOTE=Passing;48863623]This is why dictators seem to get things done in the first few years then massive corruption and eventual fall comes into play.[/QUOTE] Because of regrets? I don't think that's how it works There's a million different reasons dictatorships fail, remorse almost never has to do with it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.