We will study it you ****!
So I watched the Daily Show last night where they covered the interesting topic of allowing the CDC to study gun violence.
[video]http://www.cc.com/video-clips/nc8xh2/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-a-new-approach-to-gun-violence-prevention[/video]
Now, the interesting thing to me is not that they covered this topic. It is an important topic and it would make sense for the Daily Show to cover it in the wake of multiple mass shootings that have taken place this year. No, what is interesting is the fact that the former director of the CDC, Mark Rosenberg, and Jay Dickey, the original author of the Dickey Amendment - the amendment which originally and continually prevents the CDC from studying gun violence - joined together in order to promote this cause. Here is a link to the article that they authored together.
The article is titled, "How to Protect Gun Rights While Reducing the Toll of Gun Violence." And that is a cause that I believe we can all support.
And to quote the Daily Show correspondent, during an interview with Jazz Shaw of Hot Air (who wrote an article on why he did the show here), when you are wondering how we could possibly make guns safer, the response...
Why not allow the CDC to study gang/drug related and other violent crime too?
It is very puzzling why any subset (based on the tool used) of violent crime should be addressed (or even studied) by medical folks as opposed to law enforcement folks - should the FBI now study cancer, AIDs, Alzheimer's and obesity?
The CDC has become politicized on a number of issues. We really don't need any more politicized science. It causes a great waste of resources.
So I watched the Daily Show last night where they covered the interesting topic of allowing the CDC to study gun violence.
[video]http://www.cc.com/video-clips/nc8xh2/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-a-new-approach-to-gun-violence-prevention[/video]
Now, the interesting thing to me is not that they covered this topic. It is an important topic and it would make sense for the Daily Show to cover it in the wake of multiple mass shootings that have taken place this year. No, what is interesting is the fact that the former director of the CDC, Mark Rosenberg, and Jay Dickey, the original author of the Dickey Amendment - the amendment which originally and continually prevents the CDC from studying gun violence - joined together in order to promote this cause. Here is a link to the article that they authored together.
The article is titled, "How to Protect Gun Rights While Reducing the Toll of Gun Violence." And that is a cause that I believe we can all support.
And to quote the Daily Show correspondent, during an interview with Jazz Shaw of Hot Air (who wrote an article on why he did the show here), when you are wondering how we could possibly make guns safer, the response...
So I watched the Daily Show last night where they covered the interesting topic of allowing the CDC to study gun violence.
[video]http://www.cc.com/video-clips/nc8xh2/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-a-new-approach-to-gun-violence-prevention[/video]
Now, the interesting thing to me is not that they covered this topic. It is an important topic and it would make sense for the Daily Show to cover it in the wake of multiple mass shootings that have taken place this year. No, what is interesting is the fact that the former director of the CDC, Mark Rosenberg, and Jay Dickey, the original author of the Dickey Amendment - the amendment which originally and continually prevents the CDC from studying gun violence - joined together in order to promote this cause. Here is a link to the article that they authored together.
The article is titled, "How to Protect Gun Rights While Reducing the Toll of Gun Violence." And that is a cause that I believe we can all support.
And to quote the Daily Show correspondent, during an interview with Jazz Shaw of Hot Air (who wrote an article on why he did the show here), when you are wondering how we could possibly make guns safer, the response...
There is no limitation on the CDC studying gang/drug related violence.
Maybe the EPA should study gun violence also. Lets get NOAA in on it and while we are at it get the FDA, NTSB, FAA, Postal Service and the Department of Agriculture to study it also. We can make them all independent and restrict them from sharing information.
The CDC blew it when they stated what they intended to find when they proposed the study. The outcome was predetermined to push their anti gun agenda. There was never any pretense of even having a scientific study. There are other agencies that already cover this area. The FBI releases tons of information every year. We don't need an agency that should be focused on disease control duplicate work already completed by an appropriate law enforcement agency (FBI).
So I watched the Daily Show last night where they covered the interesting topic of allowing the CDC to study gun violence.
[video]http://www.cc.com/video-clips/nc8xh2/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-a-new-approach-to-gun-violence-prevention[/video]
Now, the interesting thing to me is not that they covered this topic. It is an important topic and it would make sense for the Daily Show to cover it in the wake of multiple mass shootings that have taken place this year. No, what is interesting is the fact that the former director of the CDC, Mark Rosenberg, and Jay Dickey, the original author of the Dickey Amendment - the amendment which originally and continually prevents the CDC from studying gun violence - joined together in order to promote this cause. Here is a link to the article that they authored together.
The article is titled, "How to Protect Gun Rights While Reducing the Toll of Gun Violence." And that is a cause that I believe we can all support.
And to quote the Daily Show correspondent, during an interview with Jazz Shaw of Hot Air (who wrote an article on why he did the show here), when you are wondering how we could possibly make guns safer, the response...
So I watched the Daily Show last night where they covered the interesting topic of allowing the CDC to study gun violence.
[video]http://www.cc.com/video-clips/nc8xh2/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-a-new-approach-to-gun-violence-prevention[/video]
Now, the interesting thing to me is not that they covered this topic. It is an important topic and it would make sense for the Daily Show to cover it in the wake of multiple mass shootings that have taken place this year. No, what is interesting is the fact that the former director of the CDC, Mark Rosenberg, and Jay Dickey, the original author of the Dickey Amendment - the amendment which originally and continually prevents the CDC from studying gun violence - joined together in order to promote this cause. Here is a link to the article that they authored together.
The article is titled, "How to Protect Gun Rights While Reducing the Toll of Gun Violence." And that is a cause that I believe we can all support.
And to quote the Daily Show correspondent, during an interview with Jazz Shaw of Hot Air (who wrote an article on why he did the show here), when you are wondering how we could possibly make guns safer, the response...
Why do you believe that the CDC is politicized?
Did you really need to include the the snarky analogies? Setting aside the fact that they are terrible analogies, you have the problem that your argument would only be a reason why those groups shouldn't investigate gun violence as opposed to any reason why the CDC should not.
As for the main part of your analysis, where did the CDC "state their intended purpose" or show that they have an "anti gun agenda?"
As for the FBI already releasing information each year, I fail to see how that is particularly relevant or important. The CDC is a group designed to study medical information and to make recommendations on how to solve those medical issues. Gun injuries and deaths are certainly connected enough to the medical field that their suggestions would be relevant. Moreover, it's not like you would create some extensive amount of waste by merely ALLOWING them to study the issue AND their expertise might lend itself to some relevant and practical solutions that would help protect your gun rights while reducing the harm from gun violence.
The last time the CDC studied gun violence, it didn't work out so well for the gun grabbers. You sure you want to try again? Be careful what you wish for.
Gun violence is not caused by viruses, fungi, or other disease vectors, this is not in the scope of what the CDC is chartered for. The study of gun violence would be more appropriate for something like the the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
There are several issues in which politics plays a big role at the CDC and what they do. Examples are HIV/AIDS, chronic fatigue syndrome, and gluten sensitivity. Politics has resulted in changes in disease classification and the amount of resources allocated to study disease or whether or not to study them at all.
Injuries and deaths caused by firearms are certainly within the medical realm where a medical expertise on the topic would be both welcome and useful.
Advisory Resources | About | CDC
Purpose:
The Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Assistant Secretary for Health; and by delegation, the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are authorized under Section 301 [42 U.S.C. Section 241] and Section 311 [42 U.S.C. Section 243] of the Public Health Service Act, as amended to: (1) conduct, encourage, cooperate with, and assist other appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the conduct of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental diseases, and other impairments; (2) assist States and their political subdivisions in the prevention of infectious diseases and other preventable conditions, and in the promotion of health and well-being; and (3) train State and local personnel in health work.
OK - show me those studies.
[h=2]CDC study explores role of drugs, drive-by shootings, and other crimes in gang homicides[/h]
Did you really need to include the the snarky analogies? Setting aside the fact that they are terrible analogies, you have the problem that your argument would only be a reason why those groups shouldn't investigate gun violence as opposed to any reason why the CDC should not.
As for the main part of your analysis, where did the CDC "state their intended purpose" or show that they have an "anti gun agenda?"
As for the FBI already releasing information each year, I fail to see how that is particularly relevant or important. The CDC is a group designed to study medical information and to make recommendations on how to solve those medical issues. Gun injuries and deaths are certainly connected enough to the medical field that their suggestions would be relevant. Moreover, it's not like you would create some extensive amount of waste by merely ALLOWING them to study the issue AND their expertise might lend itself to some relevant and practical solutions that would help protect your gun rights while reducing the harm from gun violence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...th-guns/6c7f2bd2-fa57-4d69-b927-5ceb4fa43cf4/Rosenberg's weird-sounding (at first) idea is that the way to combat criminal violence is to treat it the way we treat infectious diseases: as a public health problem amenable to causal research, therapy and prevention.
Well, of course. Rosenberg is director of the National Center for Injury Prevention, a division of the National Centers for Disease Control, and the infectious-disease approach may be the only tool he has.
As a matter of fact, to the extent that it conjures up the idea of gene therapy or anti-violence vaccines, the disease model may be misleading. This isn't:
"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol -- cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly -- and banned." Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.
Less than 6 percent victims of gang and nongang homicides were bystanders.
This is true that it causes a medical issue, but it is not a disease.
No but a disease can damage the brain causing mental illness and be the root cause of violent behavior. Take for example rabies. Mental health is clearly in its infancy compared to physical health. I am convinced that most criminals in our prisons are mentally ill. One day hopefully we evolve to the point where we treat them instead of take out our vengeance on them. Jail has never worked to reduce crime or rehabilitate those that commit crimes. A lot of the people I have hired with criminal records clearly have limited metal capacities, diminished learning skills, limited cognitive abilities, or for those not politically correct retarded. Hopefully one day we will spend more time helping these people tham we do coming up with new politically correct names for their problem.
Purpose:
The Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Assistant Secretary for Health; and by delegation, the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are authorized under Section 301 [42 U.S.C. Section 241] and Section 311 [42 U.S.C. Section 243] of the Public Health Service Act, as amended to: (1) conduct, encourage, cooperate with, and assist other appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the conduct of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental diseases, and other impairments; (2) assist States and their political subdivisions in the prevention of infectious diseases and other preventable conditions, and in the promotion of health and well-being; and (3) train State and local personnel in health work.
It would seem that criminals are very (94%) effective at killing only their intended targets.
Many other "diseases" are not nearly so bystander friendly.
but it is not a disease.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?