6
6
0
This. 100% this. There is absolutely no reason to not allow funding to find, essentially, a "cure" to gun violence. Maybe we won't but we can reduce the amount of it just like we do everything else we research and find treatments for.
Cancer patient: Treat gun violence like cancer
Posted from cnn.comPosted in these groups: 
Gun Control
Violence
Gun Control Violence
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
8
8
0
Violence is the issue, the gun is merely a tool. How do we curb violence? How do we get people to be more respectful and accepting of others? In my mind this has to start at home. Parents need to be parents not just sperm and egg donors to society.
(8)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Then what's the problem allowing the CDC to research all aspects of violence - specifically including gun use? Someone explain to me why it wasn't an issue until 1996 (I already know). There is no reason why this shouldn't be researched like we do everything else. None.
It's not always problems at home either. I know of plenty of people who had decent parents who did their job and still have kids who grow up into assholes.
It's not always problems at home either. I know of plenty of people who had decent parents who did their job and still have kids who grow up into assholes.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Phil Hsueh
I agree, this one of the things that always bugs whenever there's some kind of shooting or whenever there's a discussion on gun control: why the focus on just gun violence? Is gun violence the only kind of violence we have in this country, is it the worst kind of violence, is it the most prevalent? And the answer to all of the above is no. So if there's research to be done it should be into violence in this country as a whole and not just one subset.
(4)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Cpl Phil Hsueh - Ironically enough, we are fortunate when one of these mass-murderers chooses a gun instead of a far more deadly weapon to commit the slaughter of innocent strangers.
We need only look at the body count in the Kansas City bombing, or the 80 murdered by truck in Nice, FR to see that there are far greater dangers than guns in the hands of these maniacs.
We need only look at the body count in the Kansas City bombing, or the 80 murdered by truck in Nice, FR to see that there are far greater dangers than guns in the hands of these maniacs.
(3)
(0)
6
6
0
I commented on the CNN article yesterday on their website but I will put a summary here.
Research is not banned. Anyone can spend their own money conducting research into firearm related violence. The problem is people like former Mayor Bloomberg would rather spend millions per year of his money pushing for gun-control instead of spending it on research to see what would be effective at reducing it more than it already has been reduced over the last 20 years (50% decrease in homicide rate). This is because gun-control is not about logic and reason but about feelings and emotions. It doesn't matter if more background checks won't reduce mass shootings it only matters that more restrictions are placed on the right to privately own firearms.
On the other side of the aisle, the NRA and pro-2nd Amendment rights groups don't spend money on the research for two reasons, one any result that their research comes up that may show reducing firearm ownership won't decrease crime levels would be viewed with suspicion, and two they don't want to take a chance that maybe there are ways to curtail ownership that would help reduce firearm related violence.
Why should the federal government spend money for research on this area when no private organizations or individuals are willing to do so? Cancer research may be funded by federal spending but how much money do private organizations (pharmaceutical companies/ health insurers) and private individuals spend on their own over the government spending? This research has the potential to be so political that the federal government should stay out of it and private actors should fund research if they think it is that important.
Research is not banned. Anyone can spend their own money conducting research into firearm related violence. The problem is people like former Mayor Bloomberg would rather spend millions per year of his money pushing for gun-control instead of spending it on research to see what would be effective at reducing it more than it already has been reduced over the last 20 years (50% decrease in homicide rate). This is because gun-control is not about logic and reason but about feelings and emotions. It doesn't matter if more background checks won't reduce mass shootings it only matters that more restrictions are placed on the right to privately own firearms.
On the other side of the aisle, the NRA and pro-2nd Amendment rights groups don't spend money on the research for two reasons, one any result that their research comes up that may show reducing firearm ownership won't decrease crime levels would be viewed with suspicion, and two they don't want to take a chance that maybe there are ways to curtail ownership that would help reduce firearm related violence.
Why should the federal government spend money for research on this area when no private organizations or individuals are willing to do so? Cancer research may be funded by federal spending but how much money do private organizations (pharmaceutical companies/ health insurers) and private individuals spend on their own over the government spending? This research has the potential to be so political that the federal government should stay out of it and private actors should fund research if they think it is that important.
(6)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Was there an outright ban? No - but the NRA threw a fit in 1996 and accused the CDC of promoting gun control and their lobbyists pushed Congress. So Congress threatened to strip all of the CDC's funding. So the CDC stopped - and before that they would spend $2.6 million on researching gun violence. Now there's like 100,000 or something. They actually got that $2.6 million stripped from their budget in 1996 by a Republican congressman. That funding was restored but designated to other places. This wording was put into the CDC's appropriations bill: "“None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”"
After all this, no one wanted to pay for gun violence studies. Why would they if the NRA could get the government pulled funding from CDC. Any up and coming academics were told to stay out of researching gun violence or it would kill their careers. It's not even just the CDC - the National Institute of Justice funded 32 gun related studies from 1993 - 99. None from 2009 - 2013. Private non profits skip over gun-related research proposals. Any gun studies that did get funding would try to craft the study so it didn't mention guns in the titles or abstracts.
There aren't many organizations that have the legitimacy that the CDC has when it comes to public health crises. What study might more people believe - one from the CDC or from some private organization?
All this boils down to is the weird hard on some Americans have for guns and think that ANYTHING that looks into gun violence equates to losing your guns. It doesn't. This weird obsession for guns is relatively modern too.
After all this, no one wanted to pay for gun violence studies. Why would they if the NRA could get the government pulled funding from CDC. Any up and coming academics were told to stay out of researching gun violence or it would kill their careers. It's not even just the CDC - the National Institute of Justice funded 32 gun related studies from 1993 - 99. None from 2009 - 2013. Private non profits skip over gun-related research proposals. Any gun studies that did get funding would try to craft the study so it didn't mention guns in the titles or abstracts.
There aren't many organizations that have the legitimacy that the CDC has when it comes to public health crises. What study might more people believe - one from the CDC or from some private organization?
All this boils down to is the weird hard on some Americans have for guns and think that ANYTHING that looks into gun violence equates to losing your guns. It doesn't. This weird obsession for guns is relatively modern too.
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) - The fact that you keep calling exercising one's 2nd Amendment rights a "weird obsession" shows what site of the argument you are on. Private research on cancer is considered legitimate, why should it be any different in this area? The CDC is not the only organization out there that can look at crime and do studies about what effects it. The problem when it comes to crime research is that studies are effected so much by personal biases that none really are completely reliable. I actually just had this discussion at work about how no one can really agree on what causes crime to go up or down because there are so many conflicting studies.
It is also disingenuous to claim that the ultimate goal of many gun-control advocates isn't a complete ban on private ownership of firearms. Just since the Las Vegas shooting happened articles about Australia style confiscation and about only allowing people to own firearms if they keep them locked up at a registered gun club have increased. Usually there are not that many articles that come up about completely banning firearms after events like what happened just the standard more background checks and banning assault weapons which would have solved nothing in the event that had occurred.
So back to the research funding, Mayor Bloomberg and his Everytown for Gun Safety group can fund research to show what restrictions would help reduce violence if they think more need to be put into place without federal funding just as they can spend millions on lobbying for more gun-control laws. Maybe if they did the research it would force others to also do research in an attempt to disprove Everytown's claims which could actually result in meaningful progress being made whereas the federal government spending more money on research would just result in them spending more money they don't have on something that would most likely be lobbied against either by the NRA if it showed more restrictions were needed or by Bloomberg if it showed less restrictions were necessary.
It is also disingenuous to claim that the ultimate goal of many gun-control advocates isn't a complete ban on private ownership of firearms. Just since the Las Vegas shooting happened articles about Australia style confiscation and about only allowing people to own firearms if they keep them locked up at a registered gun club have increased. Usually there are not that many articles that come up about completely banning firearms after events like what happened just the standard more background checks and banning assault weapons which would have solved nothing in the event that had occurred.
So back to the research funding, Mayor Bloomberg and his Everytown for Gun Safety group can fund research to show what restrictions would help reduce violence if they think more need to be put into place without federal funding just as they can spend millions on lobbying for more gun-control laws. Maybe if they did the research it would force others to also do research in an attempt to disprove Everytown's claims which could actually result in meaningful progress being made whereas the federal government spending more money on research would just result in them spending more money they don't have on something that would most likely be lobbied against either by the NRA if it showed more restrictions were needed or by Bloomberg if it showed less restrictions were necessary.
(5)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) - Lots of people have weird obsessions with other rights too. So what? It IS weird the hard on Americans have for guns when we never had this weird obsession with them and the 2nd Amendment. It really is a modern issue.
I said most don't want a total ban not all.
I said most don't want a total ban not all.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) - "It IS weird the hard on Americans have for guns when we never had this weird obsession with them and the 2nd Amendment." Again this phrasing shows your thoughts on the subject. What do you consider modern? Americans have had private ownership of firearms and other weapons since the nation was formed. Some even had their own private naval gunships with the same cannons the US military when the nation was formed. This right is restricted more now than it was 25, 50, 100, even 150 years ago.
Personally I think a good start on who to to get rid of most firearm related violence would be to end the war on drugs. That way those that chose to sell them would have the protect of the law if there was a dispute with a competitor instead of feeling they needed to settle the dispute through violence. Think about it, when was the last time that McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's had an all-out actual physical war when one of the others moved into their "territory"?
The other factor to consider is suicide since it amounts to nearly two-thirds of firearm related deaths. This is a mental health issue and won't be solved by any of the measures that get discussed concerning gun-control. Firearms are very durable items, you can buy one today and it will still most likely be functional 50 years form how. No amount of background checks or waiting periods will stop someone from using a firearm for this purpose if they have a firearm they acquired decades ago.
Research is legal as the government banning it in that area would most likely violate one's 1st Amendment rights. If organizations or individuals feel that research is needed they should pay for it with their own money instead of expecting the federal government to pay. I am sure someone motivated enough could even start a gofundme page to pay for the research and then recruit qualified people to conduct the study.
Personally I think a good start on who to to get rid of most firearm related violence would be to end the war on drugs. That way those that chose to sell them would have the protect of the law if there was a dispute with a competitor instead of feeling they needed to settle the dispute through violence. Think about it, when was the last time that McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's had an all-out actual physical war when one of the others moved into their "territory"?
The other factor to consider is suicide since it amounts to nearly two-thirds of firearm related deaths. This is a mental health issue and won't be solved by any of the measures that get discussed concerning gun-control. Firearms are very durable items, you can buy one today and it will still most likely be functional 50 years form how. No amount of background checks or waiting periods will stop someone from using a firearm for this purpose if they have a firearm they acquired decades ago.
Research is legal as the government banning it in that area would most likely violate one's 1st Amendment rights. If organizations or individuals feel that research is needed they should pay for it with their own money instead of expecting the federal government to pay. I am sure someone motivated enough could even start a gofundme page to pay for the research and then recruit qualified people to conduct the study.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The problem with funded research that does not have measurable, concrete, deliverables, it that it just becomes a gravy bowl for academics.
_Australia -- A team of psychologists from Plymouth University and Queensland University of Technology have determined, after many hours of Tetris, that the game can be addicting and distract users from doing other stuff for a while like eating, drinking and having sex. It kind of makes you wonder how they managed to finish the study. Price tag: $287,000
_Japan -- A University of Tokyo study looked at tens of thousands of Japanese men and women and concluded that “balanced consumption of energy, grains, vegetables, fruits, meat, fish, eggs, soy products, dairy products, confectionaries, and alcoholic beverages can contribute to longevity by decreasing the risk of death, predominantly from cardiovascular disease, in the Japanese population.” Price tag: $328,500
_Canada -- In a study conducted by researchers at McGill University and other schools and published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, researchers compared a group of world class athletes to normal, older people and found that the athletes' legs were "much stronger" and had "about 14 percent more total muscle than the control group." This report concluded that "In essence, the sedentary elderly people had fewer motor units in their muscles, and more of the units that remained seemed to be feeling their age than in the athletes’ legs." Price Tag $180,000.
_Australia -- A team of psychologists from Plymouth University and Queensland University of Technology have determined, after many hours of Tetris, that the game can be addicting and distract users from doing other stuff for a while like eating, drinking and having sex. It kind of makes you wonder how they managed to finish the study. Price tag: $287,000
_Japan -- A University of Tokyo study looked at tens of thousands of Japanese men and women and concluded that “balanced consumption of energy, grains, vegetables, fruits, meat, fish, eggs, soy products, dairy products, confectionaries, and alcoholic beverages can contribute to longevity by decreasing the risk of death, predominantly from cardiovascular disease, in the Japanese population.” Price tag: $328,500
_Canada -- In a study conducted by researchers at McGill University and other schools and published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, researchers compared a group of world class athletes to normal, older people and found that the athletes' legs were "much stronger" and had "about 14 percent more total muscle than the control group." This report concluded that "In essence, the sedentary elderly people had fewer motor units in their muscles, and more of the units that remained seemed to be feeling their age than in the athletes’ legs." Price Tag $180,000.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google