• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CDC Gun Safety Studies

They tend to pick the same anti-gun researchers.
who, what instance?


"Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies"
Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016

and other studies.

What do they have to do with the CDC?
 
I didn't say they were uniquely equipped.

Whatever. I stand corrected. "Most equipped," "uniquely equipped," it's essentially the same thing as far as my post is concerned. Feel free to read in the word "most" wherever you see the word "uniquely." I'll stand by that.
 
So there can be no science as long as they're are political view points?

I don't think the CDC should be put in the position if affirming political views. And the more you disagree with them the more politically opposed to you they will seem.

Not everything needs to be partisan.

If it originates from government it is ideological. Government doesn't do science.

Like the Intergovernmental Policy on Climate Change. They exist to provide other governments with an ideological view on the changing climate. They produce no science themselves. They intentionally misrepresent the scientific contribution of others. Just like the government body of the CDC.
 
Good question. And another good question is: why is the CDC the only organization that can study the issue?

A better question is what does this have to do with the Center for Disease Control at all? Why not instead give it to the Department of Agriculture or Department of Transportation? They have as much - if not more - to do with firearms than the CDC?

The CDC has become a political organization filled with lazy ass wannabe bureaucrats who work 2 days a week 6 months a year, writing political think pieces about social engineering.
 
A better question is what does this have to do with the Center for Disease Control at all? Why not instead give it to the Department of Agriculture or Department of Transportation? They have as much - if not more - to do with firearms than the CDC?

The CDC has become a political organization filled with lazy ass wannabe bureaucrats who work 2 days a week 6 months a year, writing political think pieces about social engineering.

Actually, the phrase "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment makes it so that the federal government should not be attempting to implement any form of gun control at all. Also, since McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) the Second Amendment now applies to all 50 States. Which makes any restrictions on firearms by any form of government (local, State, or federal) unconstitutional. It is also unconstitutional for Congress to appropriate funds for an unconstitutional purpose, such as gun control.
 
I don't think the pro gun crowd is going to go for this.

Since the 9th Circuit in California that never failed to invent a new power overturned their magazine ban, I don't think some of these could survive even them.
 
Since the 9th Circuit in California that never failed to invent a new power overturned their magazine ban, I don't think some of these could survive even them.

Don't get too excited about the 9th circuit decision. There's a reasonable chance it will get overturned on en banc review (although it is pretty well stacked with Trump appointees now).

EDIT: 13 of the 28 judges from which the en banc panel would be selected are either Trump or Bush appointees. The other 15 are Obama or Clinton appointees.

Interestingly, the Chief Judge (who will automatically sit on the en banc panel) is a Clinton appointee, but he's also from Montana. Interesting wild card.
 
Last edited:
Whatever. I stand corrected. "Most equipped," "uniquely equipped," it's essentially the same thing as far as my post is concerned.
as far as my post is concerned it doesn't.
Feel free to read in the word "most" wherever you see the word "uniquely." I'll stand by that.
No I don't excuse straw man fallacies words mean things.
 
From the Democratic Party platform:
"There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue."
In other words, the Democrats hold the position that we don't know what gun prevention (sic) policies would be effective.

Even in that ignorance, the Democrats are still supporting "common sense" laws like:

Amend the Lautenberg Amendment to cover boyfriends, dating.
Universal background checks.
Repeal PLCAA - Allow gun manufacturers to be sued out of business
Ban "assault weapons"
Ban "large capacity magazines"
Buy-back programs
Impose red flag laws
Ban 3-D printing of guns
Ban bump stocks.
Permit to purchase licensing system
"Charleston" loophole
Mandatory notification of stolen guns
"Hate crime" loophole
No "ghost guns".
Eliminate campus carry
Raise the legal age to purchase a firearm
Increase taxes on guns and ammunition specifically to reduce the number of lawful citizens exercising a Constitutionally protected right
Limit the number of firearms that can be purchased in a month by law abiding citizens.
Ban silencers
Expand gun free zones to universities and colleges

If they don't know what policies will be effective and need CDC to study the issue, why are they pushing for all of these?

Because outright abolition is the ultimate goal.
 
If it originates from government it is ideological. Government doesn't do science.
the CDC to my knowledge is not the government.
Like the Intergovernmental Policy on Climate Change. They exist to provide other governments with an ideological view on the changing climate. They produce no science themselves. They intentionally misrepresent the scientific contribution of others. Just like the government body of the CDC.
I'm not talking about governmental policy I'm talking about doing science.
 
as far as my post is concerned it doesn't.

No I don't excuse straw man fallacies words mean things.

I said I stand corrected. Nothing to excuse. Would you like me to retype my entire comment, or are you capable of substituting one word and then responding as if I didn't make such a horrible mistake?
 
I said I stand corrected. Nothing to excuse. Would you like me to retype my entire comment, or are you capable of substituting one word and then responding as if I didn't make such a horrible mistake?

Fair enough, you don't have to retype anything. My apologies.
 
who, what instance?

Kellermann, Wintemute, Donohue, Hemenway, to name a few.

"What do they have to do with the CDC?

I interpreted your "DOJ" comment as a request for studies on violence conducted by the DOJ.
 
Actually, the phrase "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment makes it so that the federal government should not be attempting to implement any form of gun control at all. Also, since McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) the Second Amendment now applies to all 50 States. Which makes any restrictions on firearms by any form of government (local, State, or federal) unconstitutional. It is also unconstitutional for Congress to appropriate funds for an unconstitutional purpose, such as gun control.

Unfortunately, Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald, later, affirmed that some gun control laws would be considered Constitutional.
DC v Heller
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Chicago v McDonald.

"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. "
 
I'm just not sure what they have to do with the CDC

We have to go back to page two:

You wrote "I think they are the most equipped and the least partisan". I responded "How are they the most equipped? Do they even have any gun violence experts on staff? They seem to outsource their studies.
The Department of Justice certainly does, but the Left doesn't like their reports" to offer a counter to the claim that the CDC was the most equipped conduct studies rather than the DOJ.
 
It's government funded, but so are colleges are they the government?

Are public colleges 100% funded by the government? Does the president of a college report to the president?

Are you truly asserting that CDC isn't the government?
 
the CDC to my knowledge is not the government.
Then you clearly are not knowledgeable. The CDC was created by Congress in July 1946 and falls under the Department of Health and Human Services. It's annual taxpayer-paid budget is $11.1 billion (as of FY18).

Source: Our History - Our Story | About | CDC

I'm not talking about governmental policy I'm talking about doing science.
There are no government agencies that do science. It is all contracted out to the private sector. Government is only interested in ideology, not science.
 
Unfortunately, Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald, later, affirmed that some gun control laws would be considered Constitutional.
DC v Heller
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
Overturned by McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). The States are now required to abide by the Second Amendment. They weren't required under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), but they certainly are now. Any restrictions on how firearms are carried is an infringement and therefore a violation of the Second Amendment. As are the overwhelming majority of gun control laws implemented by the majority of the States. There are a few States that abide by the Second Amendment, like New Hampshire, Arizona, and Alaska, but most do not.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Chicago v McDonald.

"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. "

Any State law that restricts the ownership and/or possession of a firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment. Just because it took 143 years before the Supreme Court finally got around to incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the States does not mean that all the unconstitutional laws enacted by the States that infringe on our individual right to keep and bear arms should be allowed to stand.

Every law enacted by the States that violated the Second Amendment, when the Second Amendment did not apply to them, is illegal as of the McDonald decision and must now be undone.
 
Overturned by McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). The States are now required to abide by the Second Amendment. They weren't required under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), but they certainly are now. Any restrictions on how firearms are carried is an infringement and therefore a violation of the Second Amendment. As are the overwhelming majority of gun control laws implemented by the majority of the States. There are a few States that abide by the Second Amendment, like New Hampshire, Arizona, and Alaska, but most do not.



Any State law that restricts the ownership and/or possession of a firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment. Just because it took 143 years before the Supreme Court finally got around to incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the States does not mean that all the unconstitutional laws enacted by the States that infringe on our individual right to keep and bear arms should be allowed to stand.

Every law enacted by the States that violated the Second Amendment, when the Second Amendment did not apply to them, is illegal as of the McDonald decision and must now be undone.

Perhaps you should actually read the Court's Opinion by Justice Alito....near the end of section IV:
"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

I think that's quite clear that not all gun control laws are unconstitutional.
 
We have to go back to page two:

You wrote "I think they are the most equipped and the least partisan". I responded "How are they the most equipped? Do they even have any gun violence experts on staff? They seem to outsource their studies.
The Department of Justice certainly does, but the Left doesn't like their reports" to offer a counter to the claim that the CDC was the most equipped conduct studies rather than the DOJ.

They aren't an endorsement agency why would they have any thing at all to do with criminal activity?
 
Are public colleges 100% funded by the government? Does the president of a college report to the president?

Are you truly asserting that CDC isn't the government?

Yes, the judiciary, legislative and executive branches are the government.
 
Then you clearly are not knowledgeable. The CDC was created by Congress in July 1946 and falls under the Department of Health and Human Services. It's annual taxpayer-paid budget is $11.1 billion (as of FY18).

Source: Our History - Our Story | About | CDC
I'm just not knowledgeable of when they replaced the judicial legislative and executive branches that make up the government.
There are no government agencies that do science. It is all contracted out to the private sector. Government is only interested in ideology, not science.
So if the science is done by the private sector, what's the problem?
 
Back
Top Bottom