• Democrats are staging a sit-in on the House floor over gun control
    113 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50567821]Because the CDC was openly bias against them, you've been told that several times already. It's the same reason you don't trust health studies by junkfood companies. The research isn't meant to be impartial or informative, the conclusion was drawn before it started, and intended to serve a specific goal envisioned by the researcher.[/QUOTE] Except it wasn't? The measure blocked them from even talking about the role of firearms in public health. This has led to the bizarre situation where the CDC publishes studies on gun violence without even talking about guns - because they've been bullied into keeping their mouths shut. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;50567876]Because the CDC was defunded because the person in charge openly admitted that the only thing that he wanted the CDC to do with its "research" was demonize guns.[/QUOTE] It's been 20 goddamn years and every time the question of funding has been shut down. The CDC is an apolitical organisation that studies public health. People making the argument that it was "biased" are bullshitters who are actively working against the basic principles of scientific research. The bill itself even specifically stated that the CDC couldn't come out with conclusions that would favour "gun control", while making no mention of anything relating to conclusions in favour of the opposite.
[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;50567609]Doesn't seem very Democratic what they are trying to do.[/QUOTE] Perfectly democratic. Protesting is a key part of democracy to ensure that you actually get a chance to speak and be heard when things just aren't right to you. Politicians currently serving are just as entitled to protest as you or I.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;50567761]You probably grew up a little and realized you were putting them on a pedestal and convincing yourself that they could do no wrong before? I hate to sound like grandpa but that is how it usually happens.[/QUOTE] Nope that's definantly what happened to me in the years after I left high school. This news just confirms now that the Democrats are nothing more than angry children getting angry at old people.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50568035]Nope that's definantly what happened to me in the years after I left high school. This news just confirms now that the Democrats are nothing more than angry children getting angry at old people.[/QUOTE] start a revolution about it Seriously, instead of just resorting to fucking name calling or whatever, are you actually trying to do anything to fix the system? Are you voting? Are you voting for people that aren't actual manchildren? Are you considering running? Are you locking and loading as so many gun owners on here keep saying they have the right to do? What are you doing about it?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50567896]No it's childish that they're throwing a fit because the two bills they wrote didn't pass. Nevermind the fact that they defeated two other bills just because they didn't write them. They got nothing because they weren't willing to work with Republicans at all. And now they're sitting on the floor whining about it.[/QUOTE] Was it just because they didn't write them or was it because they were quantifiable different and not at all what they were looking for? The narrative is becoming "goddamned obstructionists Democrats can't work within the system to get gun control even though Republicans agreed" when maybe they simply felt those bills weren't good enough, and to give ground now would be irresponsible to their constituents.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50567896]No it's childish that they're throwing a fit because the two bills they wrote didn't pass. [B]Nevermind the fact that they defeated two other bills just because they didn't write them[/B]. [B]They got nothing because they weren't willing to work with Republicans at all[/B]. [B]And now they're[/B] sitting on the floor [B]whining about it[/B].[/QUOTE] Par for the course.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50567922]Except it wasn't? The measure blocked them from even talking about the role of firearms in public health. This has led to the bizarre situation where the CDC publishes studies on gun violence without even talking about guns - because they've been bullied into keeping their mouths shut. It's been 20 goddamn years and every time the question of funding has been shut down. The CDC is an apolitical organisation that studies public health. People making the argument that it was "biased" are bullshitters who are actively working against the basic principles of scientific research. The bill itself even specifically stated that the CDC couldn't come out with conclusions that would favour "gun control", while making no mention of anything relating to conclusions in favour of the opposite.[/QUOTE] [Url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#665a625d2eb5]Bullshit, huh?[/url] [Quote]since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”[/quote] [Quote]Rosenberg told the Washington Post: “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.”[/quote] If there's anything that's bullshit, it's blaming the NRA for the CDC's own bias and agenda biting itself in the ass.
In case everyone forgot what the GOP senate has done over the last couple of years (absolutely nothing but impede progress, in order to keep their paychecks), dems finally decided they arn't putting up with their lack of communication and decided they are going to try to do something about it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50567775]It's childish because they're politicians and representatives that actually have a democratic say in government to achieve their goals but because their feel-good laws got shot down (democratically!) they chose to protest in a way that literally achieves nothing but more feel-good publicity. "Oh, we can either make a more workable law that appeals to both sides or we can sit on the House floor and say to the media 'look, we're protesting, we're doing something!!'"[/QUOTE] Democratically is a strong word, due to strongly Republican tilting gerrymandering, but otherwise I get your point. Although, getting publicity to drum up public support is not necessarily a bad thing, although it won't work in this case.
[QUOTE=Glaber;50567646]Seems like a good way of saying they're doing this for themselves and that they just want more power over guns.[/QUOTE] or they're fed up that legislation isn't even brought up to a vote
[QUOTE=ZachPL;50568108]decided they are going to try to do something about it.[/QUOTE] Refuse to support modest improvements to gun control because they came from the 'other side', pretend that the evil Republicans are blocking all attempts at gun control? This isn't just refusing to compromise, this is refusing to compromise and then outright lying that the other guys are refusing to compromise and that's why nothing happened. If the GOP pulled that I wouldn't be surprised, but the Democrats doing this is rapidly destroying all respect I had for them.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;50567934]Perfectly democratic. Protesting is a key part of democracy to ensure that you actually get a chance to speak and be heard when things just aren't right to you. Politicians currently serving are just as entitled to protest as you or I.[/QUOTE] Just like the legal checks that keep a majority party from ruling with an iron fist in a Presidential system, there are also "social checks" (term I just came up with) used by the minority party to keep the majority from doing what it wants. This is a good example, although it won't work, as the gun issue is too entrenched by party line.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50568073][Url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#665a625d2eb5]Bullshit, huh?[/url] If there's anything that's bullshit, it's blaming the NRA for the CDC's own bias and agenda biting itself in the ass.[/QUOTE] this is despite the fact that over a hundred professional medical institutions representing over a million healthcare professionals signed a petition asking for research to resume? [url]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/06/cdc-congress-research-gun-violence-public-health[/url] This is despite the fact that the guy who originally drafted the bill decided to turn around and said that he regretted his decision and demanded that funding be resumed? [quote]In July 2012, former Representative Dickey co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with Rosenberg, announcing that his views had reversed since he introduced the Dickey amendment in 1996. Wrote Dickey and Rosenberg, “We were on opposite sides of the heated battle 16 years ago, but we are in strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners. The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence.” [/quote] [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research/[/url] They have to get their research fucking vetted by the NRA before they're even allowed to publish it: [url]http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx[/url] [quote]Following the January 2011 shootings in Tucson, Ariz., (in which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was injured), the New York Times published an article reporting that the CDC went so far as to “ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the NRA as a courtesy.” In response to this report, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence sent a letter (PDF, 647) in March 2011 to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius expressing concern that the agency was giving the NRA a “preferred position,” and urging that the NRA not be given the opportunity to exercise special influence over CDC’s firearms-related research.[/quote] It's politics interfering with scientific research. It's a direct attack on free speech and open debate and it's stifling the ability to even talk about the issue. The NRA and other shitbags go on about saying that they've given up enough ground, and that they won't concede to anything. No. The buck stops here. Fund scientific research. To be against it is the most disgustingly hypocritical thing I can think of for these bastards to do, to put a muffle on people from even talking about problems. It's just repressing them and bullying and battering and hammering them into submission until there's nothing left and they win.
[QUOTE=elfbarf;50567662]They're doing it because the majority of Americans are in favor of additional gun control measures (generally dealing with background checks) yet the GOP seems to care more about the NRA backing them than the wishes of their constituents.[/QUOTE]You're such an expert, aren't you? [img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/gb.png[/img] Well no matter where you're from you're still wrong, Americans have been steadily [url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/gun-control-poll-americans/]turning against gun control[/url] measures since the 70's and our thoughts on the 2nd Amendment have been [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/public-believes-americans-right-own-guns.aspx]shifting as well.[/url] [QUOTE=ZachPL;50568108]In case everyone forgot what the GOP senate has done over the last couple of years (absolutely nothing but impede progress, in order to keep their paychecks), dems finally decided they arn't putting up with their lack of communication and decided they are going to try to do something about it.[/QUOTE][B]Bullshit.[/B] Two of these bills were proposed by Republicans, the Democrats instantly shot them down and offered up their own instead. [QUOTE=person11;50568150]Democratically is a strong word, due to strongly Republican tilting gerrymandering, but otherwise I get your point. Although, getting publicity to drum up public support is not necessarily a bad thing, although it won't work in this case.[/QUOTE]See above, it won't. People are turning against gun control because [I]it doesn't work[/I] and it's angering people in the process. I really would like it if everyone would stop pointing to the usual bogeymen thrown up by clueless people in this situation: the NRA and "the Republicans." These bills violate due process in several ways, and if you want to go down the road of comparisons this is the Democrat PATRIOT act which was and is decried for being so terrible [I]for the same reasons.[/I] I hope both parties burn this election because the tribalist bullshit in the legislative branch needs to be done away with. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] Oh and the NRA is [url=http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/][I]not[/I] just representing the interests of "the gun industry"[/url] it's representing the gun [U]community.[/U]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50568258]this is despite the fact that over a hundred professional medical institutions representing over a million healthcare professionals signed a petition asking for research to resume? [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/06/cdc-congress-research-gun-violence-public-health[/URL] This is despite the fact that the guy who originally drafted the bill decided to turn around and said that he regretted his decision and demanded that funding be resumed? [URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research/[/URL] They have to get their research fucking vetted by the NRA before they're even allowed to publish it: [URL]http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx[/URL] It's politics interfering with scientific research. It's a direct attack on free speech and open debate and it's stifling the ability to even talk about the issue. The NRA and other shitbags go on about saying that they've given up enough ground, and that they won't concede to anything. No. The buck stops here. Fund scientific research. To be against it is the most disgustingly hypocritical thing I can think of for these bastards to do, to put a muffle on people from even talking about problems. It's just repressing them and bullying and battering and hammering them into submission until there's nothing left and they win.[/QUOTE] You know, I agree that research should be reinstated. But you just made the claim that the CDC was never biased, which is obviously false by the CDC's own words, and DaCommie1 is totally right. They screwed the pooch hard and are still facing repercussions for it. It's probably time for them to start pursuing research again in an unbiased, bipartisan desire for data, but it's still downright wrong to claim that they were always doing that and just got shut down by the big bad NRA because totally unbiased research suggested gun control. That's not how it went down and there are ample sources to prove it.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50568342]You know, I agree that research should be reinstated. But you just made the claim that the CDC was never biased, which is obviously false by the CDC's own words, and DaCommie1 is totally right. They screwed the pooch hard and are still facing repercussions for it. It's probably time for them to start pursuing research again in an unbiased, bipartisan desire for data, but it's still downright wrong to claim that they were always doing that and just got shut down by the big bad NRA because totally unbiased research suggested gun control. That's not how it went down and there are ample sources to prove it.[/QUOTE] Except this argument is still being trotted out today to prevent any funding. The only reason it was "biased" is because they came out with conclusions that people didn't like. That's why they weren't banned from coming out with conclusions that favoured /less/ gun control. The specific wording of the ban outright stated that they couldn't publish anything supporting gun control, rather than a demand for it to be apolitical or to avoid supporting less gun control too.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50568258]It's politics interfering with scientific research. It's a direct attack on free speech and open debate and it's stifling the ability to even talk about the issue. The NRA and other shitbags go on about saying that they've given up enough ground, and that they won't concede to anything.[/QUOTE]Well [I]maybe[/I] the original attempt shouldn't have been political to begin with, because last time I checked politics have nothing to do with the scientific method and instead actually compromises it. So no, us "shitbags" are not going to compromise anymore. Deal with it. You people had your chance to play fair and you blew it. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50568258]No. The buck stops here. Fund scientific research. To be against it is the most disgustingly hypocritical thing I can think of for these bastards to do, to put a muffle on people from even talking about problems. It's just repressing them and bullying and battering and hammering them into submission until there's nothing left and they win.[/QUOTE]waaaaaahhh!!!! How would this research take place, exactly? Would it be transparent? (you might want to look up how the CDC does things) Would the results be published without bias, slant, or agenda? I'm all for scientific research, hell, I'm curious as to what effects conceal-carry has had on crime (something the FBI doesn't directly investigate) but I'm not interested in the Center for [I]Disease[/I] Control investigating crime if it's going to do it without impartiality. That's where the fucking buck stops.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;50568048]start a revolution about it Seriously, instead of just resorting to fucking name calling or whatever, are you actually trying to do anything to fix the system? Are you voting? Are you voting for people that aren't actual manchildren? Are you considering running? Are you locking and loading as so many gun owners on here keep saying they have the right to do? What are you doing about it?[/QUOTE] Jesus mate calm yourself. I just confirmed what the guy I was responding to said. No I have no way to fix the system because I'm a fat gamer from Chicago that has no political connections at all. I am doing early voting in October, but probably not democratic this time. Pfft I have no political interest aside from talking politics, and I have no money to own a gun, not that I would like to own one other than for a shooting range, or for display. And to start a revolution in America is a big mountain to climb, nevermind the dangerous slide down the other side of said mountain. Overall there's not much I can do about things right now other than understand that they're happening and base my opinions on it. Bernie Sanders lost the election, now it's time to vote for who I think will be the better to have in the next 4-8 years, than play favorites because of my previously held beliefs.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50568363]The only reason it was "biased" is because they came out with conclusions that people didn't like. [/QUOTE] Or because they openly said that their [I]goal[/I] was to support gun control and [I]build the case[/I] that gun control was a good thing. Are you seriously going to say that it's an unbiased approach to research to declare ahead of time what your conclusion is going to be and then go perform research to prove it? [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50568363]The specific wording of the ban outright stated that they couldn't publish anything supporting gun control, rather than a demand for it to be apolitical or to avoid supporting less gun control too.[/QUOTE] Probably because when the exact issue is that they're promoting gun control, you... tell them to stop promoting gun control? Why does this have to be difficult? They're still not even banned from conducting research, they're only banned from promoting gun control, and it's their own internal policy that that means no research whatsoever.
[QUOTE=ZachPL;50568108]In case everyone forgot what the GOP senate has done over the last couple of years (absolutely nothing but impede progress, in order to keep their paychecks), dems finally decided they arn't putting up with their lack of communication and decided they are going to try to do something about it.[/QUOTE] By doing the same shit the GOP does? That's hardly any improvement.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50568398]waaaaaahhh!!!![/quote] the hell is this hypocrisy? [quote]How would this research take place, exactly? Would it be transparent? (you might want to look up how the CDC does things) Would the results be published without bias, slant, or agenda? I'm all for scientific research, hell, I'm curious as to what effects conceal-carry has had on crime (something the FBI doesn't directly investigate) but I'm not interested in the Center for [I]Disease[/I] Control investigating crime if it's going to do it without impartiality. That's where the fucking buck stops.[/QUOTE] do you actually know what the CDC even does? like, beyond what the name would imply?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50568363]Except this argument is still being trotted out today to prevent any funding. The only reason it was "biased" is because they came out with conclusions that people didn't like. That's why they weren't banned from coming out with conclusions that favoured /less/ gun control. The specific wording of the ban outright stated that they couldn't publish anything supporting gun control, rather than a demand for it to be apolitical or to avoid supporting less gun control too.[/QUOTE] I literally just provided proof that they had a confirmation bias in their research in the '90s and you are [i]still [/i]trying to insist they were defunded purely because of what they found rather than the fact that they were trying to come to a predetermined conclusion as part of an agenda. Yes they should receive funding for unbiased research, but it is a proven fact that they were pushing an agenda with their "research" in the '90s and that is why they originally lost funding. It was not because people didn't like the conclusions, it was because the conclusions were predetermined and data was manipulated or ignored to support the desired outcome. That's not research, it's propaganda.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50568414]Or because they openly said that their [I]goal[/I] was to support gun control and [I]build the case[/I] that gun control was a good thing. Are you seriously going to say that it's an unbiased approach to research to declare ahead of time what your conclusion is going to be and then go perform research to prove it? Probably because when the exact issue is that they're promoting gun control, you... tell them to stop promoting gun control? Why does this have to be difficult? They're still not even banned from conducting research, they're only banned from promoting gun control, and it's their own internal policy that that means no research whatsoever.[/QUOTE] If they were banned from promoting gun control, why not simply introduce increased oversight on the organisation instead of banning them from talking about it and completely eliminating all of the funding set aside for firearms research? For 20 years.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50568421]the hell is this hypocrisy?[/QUOTE][QUOTE]do you actually know what the CDC even does? like, beyond what the name would imply?[/QUOTE]I like how I don't get an actual response, you focus on one inane thing not even a part of my argument and then ask me a stupid question. Yes, I am well-aware of what the CDC does, I am also aware that [I]other organizations already do what you're proposing[/I] and actually have some relevant experience. (you know, the [I]FBI[/I] might know a thing or two about gun violence)
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50568438]I literally just provided proof that they had a confirmation bias in their research in the '90s and you are [i]still [/i]trying to insist they were defunded purely because of what they found rather than the fact that they were trying to come to a predetermined conclusion as part of an agenda. Yes they should receive funding for unbiased research, but it is a proven fact that they were pushing an agenda with their "research" in the '90s and that is why they originally lost funding. It was not because people didn't like the conclusions, it was because the conclusions were predetermined and data was manipulated or ignored to support the desired outcome. That's not research, it's propaganda.[/QUOTE] The CDC didn't even make the statement “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.” It was a completely different organisation. I also can't find where they originally stated it, I've been combing google and I can't find their original citation for this. As for the CDC heads comments: [url]http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1994-10-16/news/9410150290_1_gun-control-public-health-approach-dr-mark-rosenberg[/url] [quote]Officials of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say a public health approach could identify the causes of violence through scientific research and then devise programs to stop it before it occurred. This is a shift from the traditional solution of relying on police and prisons to punish criminals after they have committed violent acts. "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes," said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. "It used to be that smoking was a glamor symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned," he said. Armed with the facts about the danger of guns, Rosenberg said, the public [b]will move beyond the impasse between advocates and opponents of gun control.[/b][/quote] This doesn't suggest that he's going to ban guns or want them reduced. One of the big points about cigarettes was that research about them was often ignored or squashed for being inconvenient despite detailing the risks. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50568470]I like how I don't get an actual response, you focus on one inane thing not even a part of my argument and then ask me a stupid question. Yes, I am well-aware of what the CDC does, I am also aware that [I]other organizations already do what you're proposing[/I] and actually have some relevant experience. (you know, the [I]FBI[/I] might know a thing or two about gun violence)[/QUOTE] Because there's nothing else in your argument. If you want it to be unbiased, impartial, transparent, etc then why does it have to submit research to the NRA before its allowed to publish it? Can't something better than this be done? Better than the fact it doesn't even get any funding? The CDC is a organisation involved in public health. The fact it has "disease" in its name is misleading because it looks at workplace safety and how to prevent injuries as well. It should be allowed to study guns because it comes well within their right to study it since there are many areas of public health in which guns cannot be excluded.
My biggest problem here is how difficult it is to get a vote. I spoke previously of the need for checks and balances, but this one is unnecessarily constricting. Why should Speaker of the House have all the authority to allow votes? Why do we need a supermajority to allow votes in the Senate? The bills will fail if put to a vote. Guaranteed. Why not let them try?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50568050]Was it just because they didn't write them or was it because they were quantifiable different and not at all what they were looking for?[/QUOTE] Judging by [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/the-senate-will-vote-on-4-gun-control-proposals-monday-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/"]this[/URL] link they were different in a few key parts. I'm not sure how credible the article is, but if it is, then it's just the same old shit. So I would guess that the Democrats thought the Republican versions weren't harsh enough and the Republicans probably thought the Democrat versions were way too harsh.
oh man whatever bill they pull out of their ass you know california is gonna feel the brunt of it i hate my state
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50568529]Because there's nothing else in your argument. If you want it to be unbiased, impartial, transparent, etc then why does it have to submit research to the NRA before its allowed to publish it?[/QUOTE]Second verse, same as the first: [B]because they had bias to begin with, they fucked up, now it's fraught with political bullshit. They shouldn't have done any of this in the first place, people have been telling you this over and over.[/B] I put it in bold for your pleasure. [QUOTE]Can't something better than this be done? Better than the fact it doesn't even get any funding?[/QUOTE][B]This is why letting politics into research is a bad idea, everything is tainted now. By the way, the funding for CDC research is not the problem and this isn't the first time you've been told this: catbarf already said this is an internal policy.[/B] Bold text again since you have trouble reading things. [QUOTE]The CDC is a organisation involved in public health. The fact it has "disease" in its name is misleading because it looks at workplace safety and how to prevent injuries as well.[/QUOTE]More focusing on the irrelevant parts, this is quite common with you. [QUOTE]It should be allowed to study guns because it comes well within their right to study it since there are many areas of public health in which guns cannot be excluded.[/QUOTE][B]Nothing is preventing them from studying gun violence aside from funding, but funding can come from elsewhere. DaCommie1 has pointed out that the ban, as laid out in the Dickey Amendment, which states plainly that, “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” There is nothing that comments on research, there's a ban on allocating a specific amount of money in the budget of a government agency toward a political agenda.[/B] There, I hope that the bold text is enough to get through to you. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50568529]The CDC didn't even make the statement “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.” It was a completely different organisation.[/QUOTE]Oh, you mean the U.S. Public Health Service, the parent organization of the CDC? Yeah I can't imagine how their agenda would affect the CDC publishing research.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50568726]Second verse, same as the first: because they had bias to begin with, they fucked up, now it's fraught with political bullshit. They shouldn't have done any of this in the first place, people have been telling you this over and over. This is why letting politics into research is a bad idea, everything is tainted now. By the way, the funding for CDC research is not the problem and this isn't the first time you've been told this: catbarf already said this is an internal policy.[/quote] Except the NRA directly injected their politics into it by specifically banning them from talking about firearms. How in the hell is it acceptable that the CDC is actively pressured by the NRA and has its research scrutinised before it is allowed to be published? It's fucking incredible to argue that the CDC is injecting politics into it when they are subject to massive political inference. Nobody in the scientific community thinks that the claims of it being biased are reason to defund it. [quote]More focusing on the irrelevant parts, this is quite common with you.[/quote] I don't see why it being the CDC should preclude it from studying the topic. [quote]Nothing is preventing them from studying gun violence aside from funding, but funding can come from elsewhere. DaCommie1 has pointed out that the ban, as laid out in the Dickey Amendment, which states plainly that, “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” There is nothing that comments on research, there's a ban on allocating a specific amount of money in the budget of a government agency toward a political agenda.[/QUOTE] But it's had a massive chilling effect on the research. They have effectively no budget to use, and as such cannot actually study gun violence in any meaningful capacity. Have you even read their studies? It's just insanely hypocritical that by proclaiming to defend one freedom, another is brutally trampled upon by preventing people from talking about it. The first amendment is just as important as the second, if not moreso. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50568726]Oh, you mean the U.S. Public Health Service, the parent organization of the CDC? Yeah I can't imagine how their agenda would affect the CDC publishing research.[/QUOTE] You ignored the fact that I can't find the original statement by the U.S. Public Health Service which reputedly said this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.