51 studies showed no evidence that gun laws reduce crime. If it did, shouldn't the vast majority of studies indicated that it did? All these studies were by antigun groups, yet they couldn't fix the evidence well enough. Why do antigun states pass laws that infringe rights without any evidence that gun laws work?
That is one opinion. I imagine the scientists involved in those syudies have a differing opinion. Why don't you include the rest of your post anymore. Results were inconclusive by your own account. - - - Updated - - - You're welcome
Hmmm, why would people who make a living doing studies indicate that more studies are needed? Must not have read this one: http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2013A/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/c4b73dc817da609e87257b24005ef7f8/$FILE/13SenState0304AttachC.pdf
Of course you would. However, when it comes to determining how effective gun control laws are, I'll leave it to the experts at the DOJ rather than a team who consist mostly of data crunchers.
51 studies concluded there is no evidence that gun laws reduce crime? Sounds pretty consistent to me, and proof the CDC does not need to study the issue.
Since the member Vegas Giants has chosen to ignore points that cannot be adequately addressed, it is necessary for someone to present the message by proxy so that it must be addressed. Pray tell, if fifty one consecutive studies carried out by the center for disease control have all returned the exact same results each and every time, exactly what could a fifty second, fifty third, or even fifty fourth study return that would in any way be different? The definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing, and expecting a different outcome when the variables remain fixed and constant. Beyond being a demonstration of insanity, it is a confirmed waste of taxpayer funding that could be better utilized elsewhere.
No one here expects anything else. Like recounts in FL, they want to keep going until they get the one result (out of 50 or more) that benefits their agenda. They will declare this result as sound and ignore the 50+ other results that say otherwise. If the anti-gun side could not argue with fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly, they'd be silent.
CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347 Further high-quality research is required to establish the relationship between firearms laws and violent outcomes. The American Medical Association voted on Wednesday to expand its policy to include support for waiting periods and background checks for all firearms, not just handguns. Earlier this week, the association called firearm violence “a public health crisis” and called for lawmakers to relax the Dickey Amendment so that the CDC can conduct meaningful research to understand the effects of firearms on public health. The group said it plans to lobby Congress to restore funding to the CDC for research into firearms as it relates to public health. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
Studies on firearms laws belong to the Department of Justice. Looks like the AMA has already determined the results of the study they're calling for and have determined what the solution needs to be. Given that DOJ has already determined that UBCs are useless without registration, the AMA is just blowing smoke. It's this type of "science" that keeps the CDC from getting funding for "gun violence" studies. They couldn't get funding with Democrats in office. They certainly aren't going to get funding with a full Republican Congress and White House. More posturing and theater.
Do we have astrophysicists study plant cells? Scientists would have worded the AMA request as: Is gun violence actually a public health issue? Will background checks for all guns affect the impact of gun violence? Are they effective as proposed? What else would have to change? Will waiting periods affect the impact of gun violence? If so, does the effectiveness varies directly with the length of the waiting period? Do waiting periods have any effectiveness on study subjects who already own guns? IF not, what is the number of new gun buyers each year, what percentage of those have a negative gun violence experience, and what effect would a waiting period have on those so affected? What percentage of those would use a substitute, and thus still experience the same detrimental effect?
Many people believe gun violence is a public health issue. It is an opinion but one that many find has merit. Every question you posed should be examnined by scientists with the objective view of science. They are good questions and deserve further study.
Well, it shouldn't be the AMA or anyone they suggest, as they've ignored the scientific method to determine that gun violence needs to be addressed by background checks and waiting periods. They just want to CDC to confirm their bias. That's not science.
They don't want science, or they wouldn't already be proposing solutions. They want a study that supports that solution, regardless of the science.
They also clearly asked for more research. If the research indicates something else they will support what the research indicates.
Clearly -- you cannot propose and/or support a solution until you determine the nature of the problem; the "scientists" at the AMA want to work backwards.
It would seem some do not want science to determine the nature of the problem thru research. They must have a guess as to what the research will say and do not like the answer
One, the AMA definitely doesn't want science to determine the nature of the problem, as they've already proposed solutions and which research arm of the government they want to "study" it. Two, it doesn't matter what they come up with, as every single new law they'd want to put in place has to be Constitutional and enforceable. CDC answers don't take that into account.
