It amazes me that we don't have better data on something like this.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-re...
>In 1996, Republican Rep. Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the CDC budget — the precise amount the CDC spent on gun research in 1995 — at a time when the center was conducting more studies into gun-related deaths as a "public health phenomenon," according to The New York Times. The NRA and some pro-gun Congressmen perceived this as more of an attack.
The CDC currently has both the funding and legal ability to perform gun violence research, but choose not to. In my mind, if you want more research on this topic, you should be pressuring the CDC to resume it.
However, I think you make a good point that adds to the discussion; I just wish you'd use your normal account.
I suppose these topics are inevitable when an article like this is posted, but I'll try to take your comment to heart and not jump down the political rabbit-hole so easily.
The CDC lost a lot of respect and public trust as a result of that gun "research". Respect and public trust it's going to need to carry out its actual mission, which is disease control.
And no, I don't agree that simply doing research is inherently advocacy. All you have shown is you suspect the truth disagrees with your beliefs which is something you should consider more deeply. Cognitive dissonance is a sign that something you believe is false and ignoring that is a bad idea.
PS: Thank you for acknowledging your above statement was wrong. I am going to assume it means you where not simply trolling.
It's not that I suspect the truth disagrees with my beliefs - it's that I suspect my tax money is being used to propagandize my fellow citizens in an effort to erode my civil rights.
As to your p.s... 1) you are confused, and 2) people who assume other people are trolling when they meet disagreement aren't doing a good job of defending their own beliefs.
1) you just acknowled NRA has fought against the CDC conducting and then acknowled CDC where conducting research. Which means you acknowledged the NRA was fighting research. You may feel it was biased or that the NRA was in the right or whatnot, but that's a completely separate point that I really don't care about. NRA's job is to support a viewpoint so that's what they are going to do.
Um... okay. Whether or not the research is biased doesn't matter to you? That's an interesting position. Of what acutal value is biased research?
>NRA's job is to support a viewpoint so that's what they are going to do.
Yes, and the point was that's not the CDC's job. The day we start supporting the NRA with tax dollars is the day we can hold them up to the same scrutiny.
Anyway, the CDC's job is promote public health and they have an office of public policy so advocacy really does fall under their mandate as required by law. Ed: As does Saw Blade Guards oddly enough. Now, you can disagree with that mandate, but nobody was blowing public money on hookers and blow or something.
isn't it is normal duty of CDC to advocate for policies preventing epidemic deaths, like virus/bacterial control in hospitals? Guns kill people like a widespread virus (it doesn't really matter who carries the virus or a gun, be it human, bird, etc..) and such advocating does seems fitting for CDC.
"Timothy Wheeler, director of the group Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, said Congress had good reason to stop the CDC’s firearm inquiries. "It was what we call advocacy research," Wheeler said. "It was research done with a preordained goal, and that goal was gun control." Wheeler, voicing an opinion shared by many in the gun-rights movement, said the CDC has been "irredeemably tainted" by past controversy. "I don't have faith in them anymore," Wheeler said. [1]
So it seems that CDC is avoiding gun research in order to reduce the risk of having their funding cut in other areas. From the Washington Post again:
The agency recently was asked by The Washington Post why it was still sitting on the sidelines of firearms studies. It declined to make an official available for an interview but responded with a statement noting it had commissioned an agenda of possible research goals but still lacked the dedicated funding to pursue it.
But Republicans aren't interested in providing funding for dedicated research:
Congress has continued to block dedicated funding. Obama requested $10 million for the CDC’s gun violence research in his last two budgets. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced bills supporting the funding. Both times the Republican-controlled House of Representatives said no.
If Republicans consider the CDC to be tainted, why not establish a new, independent agency to conduct research into firearms?
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...
http://gotnews.com/breaking-obamas-justice-dept-limits-publi...
(I'm aware that the author of that piece is a known racist and not particularly accurate in general. But his facts - which are obtained mainly by reading a specific BJS webpage - check out: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2173 )
Like it or not, whoever controls the government will try to prevent facts inconvenient to their narrative from being published.
I'd wager there's a good chance this summary was removed for more mundane reasons, too. That 2010 table they link to only counts two possible victim races, white and black, and the only options for the offender are white, black, other, and unknown. That's awfully limited given the wide spectrum of humanity we actually have, and maybe they just didn't want to build a gigantic and unreadable table accounting for all the various possibilities.
Hide all the information because a table might be grow from 3x3 to 7x7? Will we run out of pixels in a pdf file?
I'm sure the classifications for crimes are somewhat more coarse.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-comprom...
What can you offer them, other than a smaller piece of what is left of the cake? It's not compromise if you don't offer anything.
Effective gun control means something like no private pistol ownership and tightly limited ownership of long guns with small internal magazines.
I mean, this is a political non goal, not nearly enough people agree with it, but let's not pretend that rules about pistol grips on rifles mean anything.
It would still be quite interesting to have a referendum on a constitutional amendment that provided clear legal powers for such restrictions. Not because I particularly think it would succeed, just to see the numbers.
Suggestion: fixing gun rights to be like driving rights, recognized in every state, so that driving from New Hampshire to Texas with a gun isn't a felony. (imagine if you needed a separate driver's license for each state)
Suggestion: allow mufflers on firearms to help prevent hearing loss. We allow mufflers on cars.
Suggestion: where carry is allowed, it may be concealed, and non-concealed is never worse than a fine.
Got any ideas? Remember, it has to be something the gun owners would actually like. Without giving something up, you aren't making a compromise. You're just taking more of the cake.
My argument is that a healthy society would choose to let people have a tictac rather than arguing about cake. The taking away the cake is just a rhetorical framing device to make the argument about taking something away rather than about what is reasonable for society as it exists today.
You say I hope you looked at the link I posted. but apparently didn't pay much attention to where I conceded that it is not politically plausible to move to a strict gun control regime in the US (and I readily concede that steps less than a strict gun control regime will not be especially effective in reducing gun violence). I think the first step towards a better situation with guns in the US is to convince people to stop owning them using means other than the law. Then I don't have to compromise with them anymore to get stronger laws.
Well, there you are. Just remember that when gun advocates fight you over every inch of political ground.
Personally, I would focus on winnable fights. But, politically having red flag issues tend to get out the voters.
These really are significant shifts is public behavior. And eventually public attitudes really do influence politics.
IMO, advocating for the rights of gun owners is a losing strategy, you need to promote gun ownership.
A lesson has been learned, and now nobody will give an inch. With today's gun owners putting up a fight, not much happens. They seldom win or lose; we are held to the status quo even though both sides might benefit from a bit of horse trading.
The trust isn't there. Consider registration: Gun owners would support registration except for the fact that history shows that registration is typically the first step toward confiscation, and this was even seen as recently as during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The cops lost in court, but the guns were already taken and destroyed. With events like that, and with gun opposition often having the stated goal of ultimately having a ban, the paranoia is justified.
Ownership went way up under Obama. The more people thought he or Clinton might restrict guns, the more guns people bought. There was also the matter of BLM and other riots, and a bit of terrorism here and there, and immigration. People buy guns when they don't feel safe.
Speaking of rhetorical framing devices, what is this "gun violence"? People can be violent, crazy, and evil. Guns are no more violent than knives, baseball bats, pit bulls, 5 irons, cars, hammers, and heroin. You're trying to put the focus on an inanimate object instead of on the guilty.
What are you trying to argue with?
Also, people that bought guns because they are afraid of Black Lives Matter (not a riot, that's a gross mischaracterization), riots, terrorism and immigration aren't very good at risk analysis.
On another note, the competing explanations are interesting. I just moved out of Baltimore recently, and remember a number of high profile targeted shootings. Recently some friends of mine were in a cafe in the arts district, and a man walked in and shot someone sitting at a table six times, then fled the scene. No one else was shot. It seems this kind of crime is prevalent there, but the data are scant and poorly reported.
ACR Select- radiology focused: https://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria/...
Zynx Health - order set based: http://www.zynxhealth.com/
Ken Kawamoto - academic working on CDS: http://medicine.utah.edu/faculty/mddetail.php?facultyID=u077...
Avhana Health - point of care and patient specific: http://www.avhana.com/
And there are a few others as well as systems built into some EHRs (electronic health records)