Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Straw Man

(6,771 posts)
1. Ah, the "no fly list" argument.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 10:34 PM
Jun 2016

So a "known ISIL sympathizer" can't be barred from buying a gun? Boo-hoo. Isn't it terrible that we can't more aggressively pursue thought-crimes?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
2. We've been approaching the point where opposition to invasive gun control laws will be counted as a
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:27 AM
Jun 2016

factor for disqualifying someone from being allowed to purchase or possess a gun.

Oneka

(653 posts)
3. "Congress will not allow the Center for Desease Control to study gun violence"
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:26 PM
Jun 2016

I beg to differ:

http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf


Prepared By:
Steven Sumner, MD, MSc – Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer
James Mercy, PhD – Director, Division of Violence Prevention
Susan Hillis, PhD – Senior Advisor, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Matthew Maenner, PhD – Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer
Christina Socias, DrPH – Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer
Division of Violence Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
November 3, 2015



Unless by study, president Obama really means, advocate for gun control....
Then maybe he would be telling the truth on this matter.

Instead we're treated to more "Bloomberg" talking points. What a shame.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
4. Yeah, like they shouldn't advocate for vaccinations or other things that their
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:52 PM
Jun 2016

research show to advantageous for the public health. Do the research and keep the findings secret.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,577 posts)
5. well why not? all that fbi data is "secret"
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:59 PM
Jun 2016


There's this thing called a press release.
They get media coverage now and then.
Good to know that you believe that CDC research isn't in fact banned.

Oneka

(653 posts)
7. Fleetingly little, if any, evidence exists that proves
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:20 PM
Jun 2016

Gun control is either advantagious or not advantagious to public health. But if you're very concerned that our tax money be spent advocating for something that has proven to be niether good nor bad for public health, hurry and write your congress person. Maybe they will help overturn the ban that's not really a ban. Then the CDC can advocate for the closing of loopholes that are not really loopholes.

I will stand by my statement that there is no CDC ban on research into gun violence, and suggesting that there is, is a flat out lie.

"Do the research and keep the findings secret."

Who is keeping research studies secret? Looks to me like it's posted for all the world to see, some just don't want to see results that don't fit thier narritive.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
8. The best 'vaccination' against gun violence, is education.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:59 AM
Jun 2016

Would you support universal gun safety training in 12th grade?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Why restrict 'good' gun o...