|
Kenzie posted:My favorite gun is the one that shoots nukes. I prefer my nukes delivered via rocket.
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
LeJackal posted:Those magazines aren't fixed. We fought World War 2 with rifles that had fixed magazines. So what?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Well how do you propose classifying firearms if not by their inherent features?  I know that, but arguing the what defines a combat weapon on their magazine style is a worthless argument.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Then they can use laser rifles like everyone else. The 2A does not entitle you to the firepower of a main battle tank. What about rights to carry a SRM-4 and a Small Laser?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There is no ban on gun violence data collection. The FBI and CDC publish numbers every year. The ban is on using federal money to fund partisan research. What? Prove this. quote:“Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.” http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx quote:Research on the prevention of firearm-related injury, supported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and coordinated within CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), has come under attack from Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee initially rejected Rep. Dickey's attempt to eliminate the $2.6 million dedicated to CDC firearm-injury research. However, Mr. Dickey prevailed in the full Appropriations Committee. The Dickey amendment would transfer the $2.6 million to regional health education centers. This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA. The NRA has taken the position that firearm-related injury research at the CDC amounts to 'antigun' political advocacy and has also attacked the quality of this research. However, research proposals submitted to CDC are subject to a peer review process that follows standard practices. APA's Public Policy Office (PPO) has distributed accurate information to Congress on the nature of CDC-supported firearm-injury research and is advocating against the Dickey amendment. The only one's who think its partisan is the NRA. Who loudly pushed to FULLY DEFUND THE CDC if they allowed research on Gun Violence. The Surgeon General was bashed for declaring gun violence a public health issue. I think you are defining partisan as 'Anything anti-Gun' which literally means any negative study, or any study at all, into gun violence, counts as partisan. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill that everyone claims banned gun violence research is: "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." (Pg 245.) The CDC's interpretation is: "In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms." Nothing in that passage bans research, just advocacy. It was put in place because some researchers receiving money from the CDC were in fact engaged in advocacy. That doesn't make it partisan, however, the NRA and Legislative branch made a subtle hint that they would defund an entire agency if their reports showed negative effects from firearms. I'm sorry, that's not partisan. THIS. This is partisan. From the party that has a legacy of having poor views of science, yet suddenly they know what is scientific and what is not? quote:A Second Amendment rights advocate, in 1996 Dickey responded to a perceived bias on the part of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), whose research on firearm injuries and fatalities in the US was seen by Conservatives to be motivated more by pro gun-control politics rather than pure science.[3] Dickey successfully passed an amendment to eliminate $2.6 million from the CDC budget, reflecting the amount the CDC had previously spent on gun research. And rather ironically: quote:Following the mass shooting in Aurora, CO, Dickey publicly reversed his position on gun violence research, regretting that he had served as "the NRA’s point person in Congress" to suppress valid and valuable work, and called for new scientific research in the field. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That money was restored with the final passage of the bill, although it was earmarked for community health initiatives. It was earmarked for traumatic brain injury research. C'mon man. quote:The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “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.” ... quote:Stephen Teret, founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, estimated that the amount of money available for firearms research was a quarter of what it used to be. With so much uncertainty about financing, Mr. Teret said, the circle of academics who study the phenomenon has fallen off significantly. I think you need to re-think what counts as partisan if a group that openly advocated that Obama was a Muslim and promoted other wacko conspiracy theories including that Obama was going to come seize all firearms gets to decide what sort of community violence issues the CDC can and cannot talk about.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Apologies, TBI. Anyway, it doesn't say anywhere that the NRA has a veto over CDC publications and research, just that they provide information to the NRA about what research they are doing. Which the NRA would probably FOIA if they didn't. No, they don't have OFFICAL Veto powers. They have defacto Veto powers. Because the CDC is afraid of having millions chopped out of their budget, or even their entire budget axed if they pissed of the NRA. How is that NOT a veto? Its hilarious that we can sit and talk about the dangers of partisan gun violence research, but a partisan pro-gun group can bark and growl their way into getting congress to threaten research institutions that conduct studies contrary to their wishes. Its not a matter of making the information 'available' to the NRA. The CDC wants to know how they will react so that they can cut ties ASAP.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 20:56
|
|