United States & Gun Control discussion.

That is a pretty obstinate thing to do. Why not just be honest...?

I guess I could blow them off. Sometimes I do. They are wasting my time, so if I am going to participate, it will be on my terms.

When I tell them I have no interest, if they say "thank you" and are on their way, it's all good. The ones who blurt out "but I only need a minute of your time....", I have no compunction to be the least bit helpful. The census folks that come around every few years? Don't even get me started. I don't even allow them on my property any more.
 
I guess I could blow them off. Sometimes I do. They are wasting my time, so if I am going to participate, it will be on my terms.

When I tell them I have no interest, if they say "thank you" and are on their way, it's all good. The ones who blurt out "but I only need a minute of your time....", I have no compunction to be the least bit helpful. The census folks that come around every few years? Don't even get me started. I don't even allow them on my property any more.

Why? Why not participate in the increase of knowledge?
 
Why? Why not participate in the increase of knowledge?

Once upon a time I was a 'real' nurse; you know, at the bedside. Now I am in an administrative job which affords me time to play around online participating in forums like this. And time for grad school. Can't forget that. Anywho, when I call patients, I am hyper-aware of the timing. I won't call at meal times, or early in the morning (when it's actually best for me). I always ask them, "is this a good time?"

When I am home after a grueling day of being on the phone and playing online, the last thing I want to do in engage someone in a poll, especially when the "it'll just take a moment..." turns into 20 minutes. I have never been asked if it was a good time for me. I have even offered to call a couple back at a time that would be good for me, but they decline the invitation. When I get home I eat dinner, spend time with my wife and kids, and do some homeschooling. That's all before MY schooling.

Again, when I tell them I am not interested or haven't the time, if they simply say "thanks" its a happy ending. They are happy, I am happy. If they want to press me on the issue, or God forbid tell me I "have a duty" (yes, I have been told that), then doom on you. You wanna play stupid games, then you will get stupid prizes. That's if I simply just don't hang up on them or shut the door in their face.

I lead a relatively private life. The amount of PMs I have shared with folks here and other places are astounding compared to the amount of open dialogue. If you want my opinion or to know about me or what I think, it's a mutually beneficial relationship. I have no desire to open myself otherwise.

Contrary to what my sister would say, I am not an asshole. But prodded enough I can be.
 
The funny thing about surveys and the like, is how do you trust them? I've quoted the FBI's data on crime and we all know it to be wrong, yet a study will come along and say the exact opposite of the FBI's crime data where guns are concerned. What if they are both wrong, then what?

That's right, we don't freaking know because we don't have the God's Eye view into the home of every American.

Besides, we're running studies against a Constitutional right in the hopes we can keep/ rewrite said right? (Sorry for the rhyme or whatever) Unbelievable.

It's also often hard to get people to give accurate answers about sensitive topics like gun ownership. For example, if someone I didn't know called/emailed me to ask me how many guns I own, I'd answer "None... as in none of your f'ing business." Or, if they're a representative of the government or are conducting a government-sponsored poll, I might give a flippant answer, "Oh, about 187."
 
Last edited:
The funny thing about surveys and the like, is how do you trust them? I've quoted the FBI's data on crime and we all know it to be wrong, yet a study will come along and say the exact opposite of the FBI's crime data where guns are concerned. What if they are both wrong, then what?

That's right, we don't freaking know because we don't have the God's Eye view into the home of every American.

Besides, we're running studies against a Constitutional right in the hopes we can keep/ rewrite said right? (Sorry for the rhyme or whatever) Unbelievable.


True. To be fair, I would be equally leery of an NRA survey. Everybody has a goddam agenda.
 
The left always wants us to let the CDC study gun violence...that's not a disease. Althought I'm sure they study other "things" as well.

The CDC tracks vital statistics, such as causes of injury and death.

Which other organization would you suggest study gun violence?


Besides, the CDC is, quite literally, prevented from studying the underlying causes of gun violence. I would be surprised if gun advocacy groups didn't shut down that sort of research by any other organization, too.

Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence
 
Who cares if it was gun advocacy groups that put the kabash. I don't think that should be in the CDC's purview especially since it's a question of crime and we have stats from the FBI for that.
 
The CDC posts nothing on their site for Gun Violence that I could find....:-"

I did find that Abortion and Obesity kill more then Guns....:wall:

Texting kills half as many people as guns and drug abuse twice as much.....damn statistics....:blkeye:
 
Who cares if it was gun advocacy groups that put the kabash. I don't think that should be in the CDC's purview especially since it's a question of crime and we have stats from the FBI for that.
The FBI only tracks violent crimes associated with firearms. The CDC keeps stats on accidental firearm deaths, injuries, and suicides. Those categories account for the largest proportion of firearm fatalities in the United States, and there is emerging research that gun ownership increases the likelihood of suicide success by a large amount. Unfortunately, there's no research organization, save for the CDC, with the kind of resources to do the kind comprehensive research necessary to address this problem. Looking at it as strictly a violent crime issue is incredibly short-sighted.
 
Who cares if it was gun advocacy groups that put the kabash. I don't think that should be in the CDC's purview especially since it's a question of crime and we have stats from the FBI for that.

Everyone interested in scientific research related to firearm safety and the public health impacts of guns.

"The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association.
As a result of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters."

How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research
 
Everyone interested in scientific research related to firearm safety and the public health impacts of guns.

"The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association.
As a result of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters."

How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research

Private funding??

I don't have an issue with research of any type, but rather what happens with it. It is no secret that the AMA (even though 15% of docs actually belong) uses it for their anti-gun/public health menace position, as does the AAP.

I think it may be better for the NRA to back off completely and use the research in the same manner to present their case. But does the CDC need to be doing research on it anyway? I don't know...I see both sides of it.
 
Private funding??

I don't have an issue with research of any type, but rather what happens with it. It is no secret that the AMA (even though 15% of docs actually belong) uses it for their anti-gun/public health menace position, as does the AAP.

Now I'm interested. How many people are involved? Who are they? How is this effort resourced and maintained?
 
Now I'm interested. How many people are involved? Who are they? How is this effort resourced and maintained?

Regarding the AMA? My info is anecdotal; it comes from a surgeon who had belonged (but no longer does). He is a pretty conservative guy, certainly pro-2A, and speaks out about some liberal tendencies of that organization.

A former president of the AMA, Richard Corlin, was big on the anti-gun platform and apparently manipulated some stats, and was excoriated because of it.

I really don't have a dog in the fight but always cast a wary eye at any organization that is anti-gun and politicizes because of it.
 
Back
Top