The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years

LOL.

Totally wrong.

There is plenty of research, just not government funded research. And there is plenty of excellent data to support research.

What you and the LA Times don't like is that the research shows gun control is a failure. Gun banners want to go back to the "good old days" when the government could fund pick and choose the "research" which supported the gun banner ideology.

 

Only if your mind is as slow as your avatar.

- - - Updated - - -

As I mentioned earlier. I'm going to state my positions points later in a separate OP.

 

Please link to it here when you do.

 

That means you can't and that you've lost your list of liberal talking points.

 

To me that reads "I am a rabid anti-gunner and can come up with nothing reasonable. I am in a discussion about guns and simply refuse to discuss any of my views on gun."

 

The "slippery slope" is very real. There is 80 years of experience that shows the gun control supporters will present a modest "common sense" gun control proposal, but once the people approve the proposal, the gun control proponents ratchet up the restrictions in the implementation until it is far beyond the "common sense" measure they sold to the public.

Look at concealed carry permits. Gun banners opposed concealed carry but compromised and allowed it as long as applications had the approval of a local review to "keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous people". The review was subjective. It is called "may issue" because approval is at the sole discretion of the local authorities.

All the gun banners did was place a gun banner in that review position, and he rejected all applications. Technically anyone could apply and receive a concealed carry permit, but in practical terms nobody could "justify their need" for a permit. It was a de facto ban.

The same happened for gun purchase permits. Reporter Emily Miller documented her long process of buying a firearm in DC. The first in the series of articles is here http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/
the last in the series is here http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/feb/8/miller-emily-got-her-gun/

That type of experience was the motivation for the "shall issue" push that started in the 1980's. With "shall issue", the application must be approved unless specific predefined reasons for disapproval can be shown.

Gun banners cannot be trusted. That's the real reason why gun rights people oppose any gun control proposal.

I would support firearm training in high school, or once in a lifetime firearm training for gun owners, but the gun banners would turn it into a ban. They would do their usual tricks - make the course mandatory, make it so expensive many could not afford at, make the classes at 2 pm on Tuesday (meaning you have to miss work), not have enough classes so you have an extreme waiting period, make you pass a test that nobody can pass.

 

Her post reeks of liberal talking points and buzz words without demonstrating any real knowledge about firearms. Money says there she owns no firearms, that she is a total anti-gunner and that she has realized that she is completely out of her element in this discussion.

 

If you are looking for her to come back and present her points you all are certainly going about it in the wrong way. Let her, encourage her to post her opinion then attack those points. I certainly wouldn't put up with the personal attacks if I were her.

 

Pro-gun activists can only respond with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. The CDC is part of some conspiracy to ban guns.... that's what they want to believe because it's easier than facing the painful truth about their guns. The sad thing is that they put themselves and their families at risk because of their irrational beliefs.

 

That is how it was used before, no reason to think that would change.

 

Why should the CDC rather than DOJ study gun violence? Has the NRA actually prevented Johns Hopkins or Harvard School of Public Health from publishing studies? Did the NRA block the Delaware, Wilmington CDC study on gun violence?

 

This is absolutely false.
Anyone who wishes to do research on gun-related violence is perfectly free to do so.

 

Personal attacks a person comes to a discussion forum states an opinion, then refuses to discuss that opinion. Why is she here? All that was asked of her was to expand her opinion and give details that she says she has.

 

actually the last time I took an IQ test i was in the 165 range. You are anti gun if you believe that there are such a thing as "reasonable restrictions" that apply to honest people. You never did tell us what firearms you owned.

- - - Updated - - -

BM activists generally proffer dishonest arguments because they claim the motivation for their proposals to harass and impede lawful gun ownership is based on a desire to control criminals which is demonstrably false. Rather the BM members are all about political payback of people who generally support conservatives

 

Okay Anna. We patiently await.

 

Yet again, you continue to post nonsense that has been proven as discredited.

The center for disease control is denied government funds for the purpose of researching firearm-related violence, not only because it is not a disease, but because the organization has admitted to using its position to building support for firearm-related restrictions. The center for disease control was misappropriating funds earmarked for scientific research, to lobby congress for the implementation of new laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Compared to whom?

Pray tell how so? What personal experience do you have to show conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt, that the NRA causes more harm than good?

The fact you have admitted openly to not investigating whether or not the article is truthful, undermines your entire position. Why are you even commenting on something that you have committed no effort to determining the accuracy of for yourself?

So then you do not believe that the people of the united states should resist efforts made by their government to restrict their constitutional rights? Do you believe that the people should simply give up and do nothing but silently comply, unable to even voice their opposition to such efforts?

 

Then pray tell why did the district of columbia, and the city of Chicago, both successfully prohibit the ownership of handguns for a period of more than thirty years, if the mere existence of the second amendment is supposedly strong enough to to prevent such from coming about?

 

What is irrational, is ignoring what is confirmed fact.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/58tenn.pdf

https://drgo.us/?p=266

The public health push for banning guns goes back to the late 1980s at least. In a 1989 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) official Patrick O’Carroll, MD stated “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) The CDC’s anti-gun activism ran unabated until the mid-1990s. We shall discuss those events in Part II of this series.

These medical researchers insist that what they call “gun violence” is a public health problem. That they prefer the term “gun violence” is revealing of their mind set in approaching the problem, because it puts the emphasis on guns and not on the humans who misuse them. This misleading public health terminology, enthusiastically repeated by fellow gun control advocates in the mainstream media, ignores the fact that almost none of America’s 80 to 100 million gun owners have any role whatsoever in the misuse of guns. Normative gun ownership is foreign to most mainstream media personalities and to public health anti-gun rights advocates. They fear guns and gun owners, and they have no interest in learning about them or respecting their views. These prejudices and fears drive their campaign to bring ever more regulation to American gun owners.

It is for these reasons that public health gun control advocates typically say such reckless things as:

“Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.”—Dr. Katherine Christoffel, pediatrician, in American Medical News, January 3, 1994. In the 1990s Dr. Christoffel was the leader of the now-defunct HELP Network, a Chicago-based association of major medical organizations and grant seekers advancing gun control in the medical media. The name HELP was an acronym for Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan.

“Data on [assault weapons’] risks are not needed, because they have no redeeming social value.—Jerome Kassirer, M.D., former editor, New England Journal of Medicine, writing in vol. 326, no. 17, page 1161 (April 23, 1992).

“I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”—Assistant Dean Deborah Prothrow-Stith, M.D., Harvard School of Public Health in her book Deadly Consequences.

These astonishing public statements reveal how thin the veneer of reason can be, even in our supposed leading voices of science. When prejudice and emotion cloud their thinking, all their erudition can’t prevent the transformation of these worthies into raving ideologues. All three were made aware of the voluminous criminology literature that called into serious question their devotion to banning guns. The first two were offered several opportunities to at least read and rebut the criminology literature of the time, as well as to discuss gun policy rationally with their opponents. Neither bothered to debate the issues. Instead they dismissed our evidence out of hand. (See the figure of an American Medical News article about Dr. Christoffel)

Christoffel was also one of the original architects of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) official policy on firearms, (this is the revised 2012 policy; the 1992 and 2000 versions are no longer available online) which advocates gun bans and urges doctors to use their patients’ trust to advance gun control. The AAP worked hand-in-hand with the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, the “educational” and litigating arm of Handgun Control, Inc. These gun-ban lobby groups were rebranded in June 2001 to the less revealing titles of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, respectively. (See the figure of a 1996 pamphlet jointly published by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence)

During the 1990s the mainstream media and major medical organizations routinely discounted the already-large body of criminology evidence that supported private gun ownership as a social good. The California Medical Association (CMA) was one of several state AMA affiliates that jumped on the gun control bandwagon. This author was then a member of its House of Delegates, a supposedly democratic representative body responsible for formulating CMA policy. During debates at the CMA House of Delegates annual meeting I tried to present evidence from the real experts on gun crime, the criminologists. These studies, accepted in the academic world outside the public health gun control community, showed powerful social benefits from armed self-defense.

But my presentations were not allowed to be entered into the record of the debate. Three times I faxed information supportive of a pro-gun rights view to the CMA House of Delegates reference committee in charge of firearm issues. Three times my faxes were “lost.” It became clear to me that the California Medical Association was intolerant of honest debate. In fact, they suppressed any reasoned and documented testimony that contradicted their almost religious anti-gun rights campaign.

No true scientist would ever say “data are not needed” (see Kassirer quotation above) in any area of scientific investigation. Data are the building blocks of science, and reputable scientists follow the data wherever they lead. Dr. Kassirer and Dr. Christoffel made it clear during the gun control controversy of the 1990s that they had no interest at all in engaging the scientific issues. Their dismissive attitude was typical of almost all treatments of firearm issues in the medical literature of that time. And that contempt for science was their undoing.

 

You won't find this gun owner trying to take anyone's guns away or trying to overturn the 2nd amendment.
I hope everyone isn't trying to tell me that a person can't be anti-NRA and pro-2nd amendment at the same time. Who made the NRA the spokesman and caretaker of the 2nd amendment? Who put them in charge? I don't want them speaking for me. They're too radical.

 

What guns do you own and how is the NRA "too radical?"

 

For the record I'm a moderate republican. And we don't all think alike.

 

what do you think the Second Amendment was intended to do?

 

I didn't say you were liberal but what I posted is generally true. Go read the liberal gun owners forum to see what I mean.

 

Liberal talking points are anti gun. I'm not. I'll make the argument that the NRA has done more harm than good to gun rights.

 

What do they do that you find radical?

- - - Updated - - -

Did you read the article I posted earlier about the NRA?