search
top

This is a New Idea?

Time To Study Gun Violence As Public Health Issue,” followed by whining that NRA is killing publicly funded anti-gun research. You know, you can still raise private money to do this kind of research:

And here is where I say I am not anti-gun, though I have a severe prejudice against willful ignorance. I would not ban guns, but I would favor a healthy examination of our gun culture.

It’s not willful ignorance. We know exactly what we are doing and we would be fools not to try to prevent this woman from getting our tax dollars to do research on this topic. My constitutional rights don’t depend on the outcome of any study, and I intend to keep it that way. Plus, “our gun culture,” is none of your goddamned business to begin with.

18 Responses to “This is a New Idea?”

  1. Jacob says:

    Actually, they can’t raise private monies for junk science projects:

    … Doctor… Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge… or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman! …

  2. Carl from Chicago says:

    Look at the Joyce Foundation funding list … They indeed have been funding the “guns as health issue” for quite some time. Every bit is to promote thus regulating gun ownership.

  3. Carl from Chicago says:

    Here is a list of the public health – gun control funding by Joyce. Many additional grants are given to communicate results of these studies to the public. These are in addition to the grants to VPC, LACV, MAIG, WAVE, and the rest of the more traditional gun control groups.

    http://www.joycefdn.org/content.cfm/program-grants-list-3

    American College of Preventative Medicine
    $425,083.00 – 07/19/2007
    $203,193.00 – 04/16/2009
    $260,114.00 – 11/30/2006
    $204,094.00 – 4/15/2010

    Boston University School of Public Health
    $40,000.00 – 07/27/2004

    Children’s Memorial Hospital
    $100,000.00 – 12/02/2004
    $60,000.00 – 04/12/2006
    $41,800.00 – 04/12/2006

    Consumer Federation of America Foundation
    $75,000.00 – 04/08/2004

    Harvard University School of Public Health
    $700,000.00 – 07/21/2005
    $80,000.00 – 12/04/2003

    Help Network NFP
    $120,000.00 – 12/04/2003

    Indiana University Department of Pediatrics
    $150,000.00 – 12/02/2004
    $40,000.00 – 07/27/2004

    Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
    $179,971.00 – 04/16/2009
    $175,000.00 – 04/11/2007
    $181,117.00 – 04/13/2005

    National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Inc
    $168,547.00 – 07/20/2006

    New York Academy of Medicine
    “For … national medical societies to promote public health-oriented gun policies and practices.”
    $100,000.00 – 12/04/2003

    Physicians for Social Responsibility
    $100,000.00 – 04/08/2004

    President and Fellows of Harvard College
    $600,000.00 – 12/04/2008
    $600,000.00 – 07/20/2010
    $325,000.00 – 04/10/2008

    Research Foundation of City University of New York
    $79,950.00 – 04/15/2010

    The George Washington University
    $20,000.00 – 11/30/2006

    The University of Chicago
    $100,000.00 – 07/23/2009

    University of California, Davis
    $175,000.00 – 04/16/2009

    University of California-Los Angeles
    $250,000.00 – 07/27/2004

    University of Pennsylvania
    $200,000.00 – 04/08/2004
    $100,000.00 – 12/06/2007
    $300,000.00 – 07/21/2005

    University of Washington
    $15,000.00 – 12/10/2009

  4. eck! says:

    Look at the bright side all they money to prove what?

    Guns cause cancer?

    Guns cause flatulence?

    Guns lead to exercise?

    Oh, money can buy an opinion that appears studied, yep.

    Eck!

  5. Last I checked, it wasn’t the NRA which ended public funding of gun studies. It was Congress, after the CDC performed such a study which was WAY out of their realm of expertise.

  6. Chas says:

    It’s not a new idea; it is an old canard. The left continues to see it as a way to advance gun control restrictions, but it’s been tried in the past and look where it’s gotten them.
    The Second Amendment is not a medical issue; it’s a freedom issue.

  7. Sparkster says:

    I guess I might read a little between the lines of her statement. That sometimes guns end up in the wrong hands (Arizona shooter maybe). I’m a proponent of 2nd Amendment rights but there has to be some better way to weed out the mentally incompetent from the gun ownership ranks. Some do slip through the cracks and it probably happens far more often than most of us would care to admit.

  8. gc says:

    If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the government afraid of the people; meaning I can “keep and bear arms” why can’t I buy a tank, a missile, a biological or chemical weapon”?
    Or perhaps in the 21st century the equal is a very powerful computer with internet access?
    Or perhaps the founding fathers in all their wisdom had difficulty envisioning society 200-250 years in the future and all its instruments of destruction?
    These very same people wrote the 3/5 compromise whilst stating in the declaration of independence that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
    Where do you stand on the 13th amendment and so-called anchor babies? I imagine in a different place to me.

  9. Carl from Chicago says:

    gc Said (January 31st, 2011 at 7:33 pm)”
    I imagine in a different place to me.

    That you imagine such I suspect is true.

  10. AC says:

    The only reexamination needed is of the un-Constitutional ATF regulations, the un-Constitutional Gun Control Act, and the un-Constitutional National Firearms Act.

    Strike them down, change them, repeal them – don’t care how.

    Want gun control? Move to the repressive country of your choice, and stop ruining America. Seriously, GTFO.

  11. Andrew says:

    The second amendment has only recently been understood as an individual right to bear arms. This is not a freedom issue, it is a current case-law issue. Do your research, but by what I’ve seen on the comments here, research is for wimps and commies. So never mind, carry on.

  12. cmurphy says:

    Andrew is correct. The right to bear arms was compatible with the lack of maintaining standing armies and still being able to defend not only the country, but one’s property. We very clearly have numerous standing armies today. The 2nd amendment was and is not a mechanism for making violent sedition feasible. I don’t see how regulation of how many bullets you can put into a clip does anything but improve the odds a crazy will be disarmed sooner.

  13. Sebastian says:

    Andrew is certainly not correct, as people who actually have done research into this topic can attest. Hell, just read the Heller decision for a good summary of the research that’s been done to date.

  14. Sebastian says:

    See here for instance. But really, start with the Heller decision.

  15. ExNuke says:

    GC, You can’t buy a tank, or an ICBM with a nuclear warhead or chemical/biological weapons because you don’t have the money, not because it is against the law. A tank or a flame thrower or an M2 machine gun is legal according to Federal Law, if you pay the tax and meet the requirements and there is no law in your state of residence against them.

    The founders wrote and ratified a Constitution that set up the Federal Government granting them certain limited powers and specifically prohibiting them from assuming others. The reason you can have a computer and internet connection is the government was not given the power to regulate speech. You are not required by law to be a Catholic because they were prohibited from “respecting the establishment of religion”.
    There is an established procedure for changing the Constitution, redefining words and twisting the meaning of simple statements isn’t it. When the Government does not follow the law it is based on why should any one respect it?

  16. Sebastian says:

    Little known fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated by federal law.

  17. Sebastian says:

    Which is kind of odd, since molotov cocktails are.

  18. AnObserver says:

    Gun control had some positive effects while it was enacted; I would not say the Brady laws were entirely effective or addressed the problem since it grandfathered in certain dangerous items that were already in the market while providing minimal effect in terms of managing who was able to purchase a firearm. At best, these laws only served to delay the purchase or direct the individual into purchasing it on the black market. A more effective approach, in my opinion, would be to require gun training, licensing and annual renewal; failure to comply would allow for another route to reinforce the desired effect by adding a charge in a related crime in much the same way that RICO laws are applied.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. P.L.U.R. – 132 - [...] This is a new idea? (isn’t research for a particular position already tainted?) [...]
top