LeJackal posted:

I guess you didn't actually read the part where the words promote and advocate were used.

Honestly if you can't read whats in front of you, why bother responding.

Here's something else for you to not read.

Please don't put words in my mouth. A claim was made, I disproved it.

Move on.

Knifegrab posted:

Not going to comment on anything else in that post?

Also your screenshot just says that they denied funding, it mentions absolutely nothing about political advocacy. Or in your warped mind is the CDC a political advocacy group?

The CDC does not have a bottomless budget, they generally research what they are provided the funds to research. So in your mind, the CDC is a biased organization, got it.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Uh, what? The screenshot he posted was from this list of votes.

The vote was on a motion to "strike general provision prohibiting HHS funds from being used to advocate or promote gun control." That's the vote all those articles are referring to, and they're representing it incorrectly.

The language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill was: "...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."

There isn't any ban on research, but people in favor of gun control keep framing the ban on advocacy and the refusal to appropriate government money for their pet cause as a ban on research.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Well, as I mentioned earlier, explosives are inherently dangerous in a way that guns are not. Also, the adjudication criteria for employees of explosives-licensed companies on the form 5400.28 are more or less the same as the adjudication criteria on the form 4473 for buying firearms. In fact, the criteria for buying firearms is more strict, since the explosives form doesn't ask about domestic violence. So it looks like you got your wish, and buying guns is subject to the same level of scrutiny as handling explosives.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Uh, what? The screenshot he posted was from this list of votes.

The vote was on a motion to "strike general provision prohibiting HHS funds from being used to advocate or promote gun control." That's the vote all those articles are referring to, and they're representing it incorrectly.

The language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill was: "...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."

There isn't any ban on research, but people in favor of gun control keep framing the ban on advocacy and the refusal to appropriate government money for their pet cause as a ban on research.

Knifegrab posted:

Of course some research on firearms exists. The CDC was allowed to finally begin research again but their funding for the research project was gutted. This is really simple. They are effectively, again, banning the research take place. There is no reason for this other than they are afraid of what the research might find.

Furthermore your post still doesn't indicate that the research was done by an advocacy group. Just because the summation (written by the majority who ney'd it) laid that claim does not add validity to it.

You have literally disproved nothing. Great job!

The article you linked posted:

As Public Radio International (PRI) reported recently, the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted to reject an amendment last month that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to study the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence.

The PRI article posted:

In the immediate aftermath of the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee quietly rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the underlying causes of gun violence.

Who What Now posted:

I'm not crazy, right? Lejackle was probated for one week starting yesterday. Thanks, cloud computing!

LeJackal posted:

Not just a river in Egypt. Are you dishonest? This is the only conclusion I can come up with that explains your posts.



The claim, as you stated and tried to support, is that in July the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee rejected an amendment that would 'allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the underlying causes of gun violence.'

Going to the website of the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee gives use the documentation for the amendment, which reads 'strike general provision prohibiting HHS funds from being used to advocate or
promote gun control'. The amendment does not address research or study, but promotion and advocacy.

It is false.


You are free to make other claims regarding the specific budget of the CDC, but to claim that there is some kind of ban on gun violence across all agencies of the US government is false, using that article and the vote in July is false, and you need to reconsider your position.

Knifegrab posted:

Lol nope, what that means is if the CDC does a study and finds that promoting gun-control would lead to better public health/safety, then they are not allowed to allocate funds for it. Therefore they cannot research anything because they can't be sure the results wouldn't advocate that.

Knifegrab posted:

If the research shows without a shadow of a doubt that gun control would be an effective way to end or curtail the violence in America, the study cannot be funded then.

VitalSigns posted:

Oh. Oh! You think these items are regulated the same, no, that firearms are regulated more strictly and you're fine with that.

Well okay, requiring gun purchasers to be on a federal registry with an industrial license or the agent of someone who is, well that's far stricter than anything I'd support. I think hunters and hobbyists should still be able to buy guns like they can in European countries, but okay if you say so I'm willing to try it out.

LeJackal posted:

Here's something else for you to not read.

Dead Reckoning posted:

That, uh, is not at all what I said.

You said that you wanted your neighbors "checked out" before they could buy explosive precursors, and I pointed out that the background check for explosives handlers and manufacturers already uses nearly identical adjudication criteria as the one for firearms purchases, and most likely uses the same criminal databases. I'm not sure how you got to "gun and explosives should be regulated the same" from that.

Dead Reckoning posted:

That... doesn't even make sense. If a study finds that, say, assault weapons bans reduce violent deaths by 90%, the money has already been spent to fund the study. The CDC couldn't know the results of the study in advance unless the authors were going in with an outcome they already decided on. Results aren't advocacy anyway.

The CDC got their hand slapped because they funded a researcher who did an awful study for the express purpose of advocating for gun control. Nothing in the plain language of the law prohibits them from studying gun injury or violence.

Knifegrab posted:

Serious question: Is anyone who is against gun control, also against lifting the ban on gun violence research?

LeJackal posted:

You're crazy, yes.

Ddraig posted:

This is the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill for 1997:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

In this, it is specifically mentioned that "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"

Which is a very clever wording, because there's literally no way to know if any particular study is going to be for or against the promotion of gun control until the study is done. At which point, if the study is done, then all funding will be cut. So in order to secure continued funding, better to not do any studies on it at all. That's a ban in all but name.

Funnily enough the Dickey Amendment, which did the same thing to research on human embryos, was correctly recognized as a ban on stem cell research.

Ddraig posted:

This is the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill for 1997:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

In this, it is specifically mentioned that "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"

Which is a very clever wording, because there's literally no way to know if any particular study is going to be for or against the promotion of gun control until the study is done. At which point, if the study is done, then all funding will be cut. So in order to secure continued funding, better to not do any studies on it at all. That's a ban in all but name.

Funnily enough the Dickey Amendment, which did the same thing to research on human embryos, was correctly recognized as a ban on stem cell research.

quote:

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for--

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code).

(b) For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

quote:

The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) shall include any activity to advocate or promote any proposed, pending or future Federal, State or local tax increase, or any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product, including its sale or marketing, including but not limited to the advocacy or promotion of gun control.

Kilroy posted:

I don't think we should hamper research efforts based on what we think the outcome might be. Whatever ban you're going on about, I'm in favor of lifting it and using the resulting research to inform future policy.

Dead Reckoning posted:

The Dickey amendment explicitly prohibited research though, so no one was arguing that it wasn't a ban on research involving embryos:


The CDC language just prohibits advocacy. It's not exclusive to guns, either. From the CDC's Anti-Lobbying restrictions document:
Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. The CDC can sponsor all kinds of research on the health effects of trans-fats, but they can't advocate for banning french fries or other fatty foods.

Ddraig posted:

This is the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill for 1997:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

In this, it is specifically mentioned that "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"

Which is a very clever wording, because there's literally no way to know if any particular study is going to be for or against the promotion of gun control until the study is done. At which point, if the study is done, then all funding will be cut. So in order to secure continued funding, better to not do any studies on it at all. That's a ban in all but name.

Funnily enough the Dickey Amendment, which did the same thing to research on human embryos, was correctly recognized as a ban on stem cell research.

archangelwar posted:

Basically my stance; as having been a strong gun rights proponent, I have been evolving my position based on discovering the intellectual bankruptcy of most gun advocacy. I would gladly sacrifice my guns, used primarily for acquisition of tasty sausage, sport and entertainment, if it means it will result in an overall reduction in death and suffering. This corresponds to my distance from misguided teenage libertarianism as well.

semper wifi posted:

How are you going to complain about intellectual bankruptcy in one sentence and then say "i changed my position because i'm afraid i'll get called a libertarian" in the next one

semper wifi posted:

Ignoring the reason the law exists, (surprise, it's because the CDC paid a guy to put out an anti-gun study) why's this an issue?

quote:

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of “putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,” said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

CommieGIR posted:

You can argue that all you want, the Dickey Amendment was SPECIFICALLY targeted at CDC funding for Gun Violence research. Hell, the freaking amendment SPECIFICALLY targeted the amount for funding that research. This does not hold up to your claim that its just reasonable compromise, it was a targeted attack.

semper wifi posted:

How are you going to complain about intellectual bankruptcy in one sentence and then say "i changed my position because i'm afraid i'll get called a libertarian" in the next one

CommieGIR posted:

Dead Reckoning posted:

The Dickey Amendment had nothing to do with guns.

Twice today. You should probably start googling the things you post about before trying to lay sick burns.

quote:

Tacked onto a 1996 appropriations bill, the Dickey Amendment was pushed through Congress by Republican legislators under substantial pressure from the NRA, as the amendment’s author, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), admitted in a 2012 op-ed in the Washington Post that he co-authored. Dickey wrote that the lack of research by the NIH and the CDC had resulted in a troubling information gap: "US scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries? We don’t know whether having more citizens carry guns would decrease or increase firearm deaths; or whether firearm registration and licensing would make inner-city residents safer or expose them to greater harm."

semper wifi posted:

Ignoring the reason the law exists, (surprise, it's because the CDC paid a guy to put out an anti-gun study) why's this an issue? There's no shortage of data about guns and injuries, there's like five different nonprofits that exist solely to churn out [cites] for Brady or Bloomberg or whoever needs one for a press release. There's so much poo poo out there you can pick basically any position, far right or left, and find ten studies backing you up no issue at all. I don't see much issue with keeping the CDC from using their position to lend undue weight to one side, and it's not like they'd be exclusively pro-control anyway, the director is appointed.

archangelwar posted:

Basically my stance; as having been a strong gun rights proponent, I have been evolving my position based on discovering the intellectual bankruptcy of most gun advocacy. I would gladly sacrifice my guns, used primarily for acquisition of tasty sausage, sport and entertainment, if it means it will result in an overall reduction in death and suffering. This corresponds to my distance from misguided teenage libertarianism as well.

Tezzor posted:

According to the sources I cited, gunshots are about 2-3 times deadlier than stabbings. According to the FBI, in 2012 the US had 12,765 murders and a murder rate of approximately 4.1. Of those murders, 8,855 were committed with firearms, or 69%. Therefore if the number of attacks did not go down if the attackers solely had knives (a shaky premise, but let's be generous) that would prevent 3900 to 5900 murders in the United States, for a murder rate of 2.8 to 2.2, a reduction of the murder rate of 32% to 46%.

It's not just homicides. There were 41,149 suicides in 2013. Of this, firearms made up 51.5%. The rate of successful suicide by firearm is 85%; the overall rate is 9%; Removing firearms from that equation gives us a successful rate of all other methods of 3.9. 93% of people who survive a suicide attempt do not successfully re-attempt suicide. So if people did not have firearms that would cut the suicide rate by 50.5% to 6.44, or nearly 21,000 prevented deaths per year. Even if people who didn't have firearms all exclusively chose the next most lethal method (again, a shaky premise, but again we're being generous) that would still reduce the suicide rate by almost 10%, and save almost 4,000 lives.

Knifegrab posted:

Shifting goal posts and red herrings are pretty much the tactics being used by the people against the research. Its pretty concerning honestly.

LeJackal posted:

"There is a ban on research." "Well, there are funding issues with one agency." "Well, not funding advocacy is a ban." "Well, research is advocacy because they can go back in time and take away a budget."

Liquid Communism posted:

It's okay, Tezzor. We're aware that all your ranting has nothing at all to do with actually caring about any of these things, because you have no interest in addressing any of these problems. You simply want to gently caress with gun owners because they are a class of people you don't like.

You don't have to pretend.

LeJackal posted:

Are you posting from a theater? Your day job must be as a projectionist.

"There is a ban on research." "Well, there are funding issues with one agency." "Well, not funding advocacy is a ban." "Well, research is advocacy because they can go back in time and take away a budget."

CommieGIR posted:

If the shoe fits.
That's the problem with arguing that 'Well, the CDC was just being biased'. Well, that is what the data SAID! The data said this was an issue, an alarming issue. The fact that the NRA took offense is the real thing you should be worried about, dressing it up as 'Well, its not real science' is just a really poor excuse.

VitalSigns posted:

"Why do you have to do science when you could just read articles on Bloomberg, isn't there enough science in the world already", yes this is the reasonable pro-informed-policy position.

Tezzor posted:

The thing about the gun control debate is they could just come out and say "I think thousands of preventable deaths per year is an acceptable price to pay for My Rights (to own useless toys (of any number and any type I want (without having to secure them (or fill out paperwork.))))" That basically boils down to a matter of opinion about security policy, and to their credit some gun advocates do say this. But much more often they argue these bizarre rote pieties that are not borne out in factual reality or critical thought, like "gun laws do nothing," "automatic weapons are not dangerous," "guns are not better at killing people than knives," "criminals will always have whatever weapons they want." And that's without getting into their incredibly common insane tough-talk fantasies of needing guns to fight off The Man and how any attempt to restrict them therefore are secret plots by The Man. (I say "The Man" and not any specific entity or organization because this is a nearly universal motivation and who The Man is varies entirely on their politics.) We can't even get to the nut of the issue because we're too busy shooting down these asinine irrational counterfactuals they found on ConfirmationBias.com

Tezzor posted:

I freely admit that I want to gently caress with gun fanboys (not necessarily all gun owners,) because they are extremely unpleasant, self-absorbed cretins who don't think or listen and whose sociopathic toy-obsession results in thousands of preventable deaths annually, not because it is some opinion that I pulled from a hat.

semper wifi posted:

I think the vast majority of pro-gun people will pretty willingly admit to being unwilling to give up rights for some "maybe-benefits", it's the foundation of the mindset and I think most people in this thread have said as much. The rest of what you're saying is bullshit though because all of those example arguments you're posting are true. Gun laws don't do anything. Machine guns aren't any more dangerous than other kinds of rifle. And I'm pretty sure stabbings have a higher fatality rate than shootings.