re: Obama's CDC study on Firearms.

quote:

---

Lets say we can do that. Then in the following year 5000 people are murdered by knives. What do we do now?

---

Stop making up numbers, first.

Let's say 5000 people are murdered by firearms a year (and 1000 by knives), so we make firearms illegal. The next year, 50 people are murdered by firearms and 2000 by knives. Is that a positive outcome, or a negative outcome?

quote:

---

1. Why is the AR-15 a military weapon?

---

It was originally developed solely for military use. Aside from that, it contains features that no civilian needs in day to day life.

quote:

---

2. What specifically has Lott falsified and why does he continue to be a published author for the University of Chicago regarding his book "More Guns Less Crime"?

---

Here's a good starting point for you. You're welcome!

quote:

---

3. You said you'd like to see "Stricter gun control laws". Please explain what you'd like to see.

---

I feel like you're getting overrun here with a lot of different topics, so I'll refer you to numerous other threads where I've laid out specifics. Enjoy!

quote:

---

I think he is empathetic to people who are victims of crimes he thinks can be prevented by removing the tool.

---

Not at all. I'm cognizant of the applicable research and understand that the data demonstrate the validity of my position and the inherent falseness of yours.

The question is, why don't you listen to the data?

quote:

---

yes, it did. my word it's in almost every post of this very thread

---

It's been posted numerous times by you and others who are either acting in bad faith or lack the capacity to understand the data. That doesn't make it true anymore than you saying a year is 428 days long makes it true - you're still wrong.

quote:

---

as i said, not relevant. the results speak for themselves.

---

As I said, you misunderstood the point of that paper if you think it was to produce some sort of result for you to claim as your own. We have papers that have that aim, and they singularly say you're wrong.

quote:

---

as if chicago just doesn't even exist.

---

As if Indiana doesn't even exist. Sad, our VP is from there even!

quote:

---

It was originally developed solely for military use.

---

So was the Internet.

quote:

---

Aside from that, it contains features that no civilian needs in day to day life.

---

Irrelevant. Next.

Per Dickey, they aren't. Per the people that have actually held high ranking positions at the CDC they aren't. Per anyone with a room temperature IQ and a shred of honesty, they aren't. Guess that only leaves the willfully ignorant mental midgets like yourself.

quote:

---

DEATHS

---

*Murders.

quote:

---

You mean David Hemenway, the Director of the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard?

Yeah, I have no problem citing him any time you need to be refuted.

---

You would cite that dishonest hack The same hack that has claimed the science on this debate is settled, like any scientist or researcher worth a shite would ever claim the science of anything is settled. Typical of the ignorants that cling to bad science and gun-control advocacy.

You would do well to read this, as well. You won't, but you'd do well to read it anyway.

quote:

---

Per Dickey, they are

---

You should have stopped there and saved us all some time


Dickey, 2012:

quote:

---

From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide. The National Rifle Association moved to suppress the dissemination of these results and to block funding of future government research into the causes of firearm injuries.

One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6?million from the CDC’s budget, the amount the agency’s injury center had spent on firearms-related research the previous year. This amendment, together with a stipulation that “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” sent a chilling message.

Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240?million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries.

As a consequence, U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries? We don’t know whether having more citizens carry guns would decrease or increase firearm deaths; or whether firearm registration and licensing would make inner-city residents safer or expose them to greater harm. We don’t know whether a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines, or limiting access to ammunition, would have saved lives in Aurora or would make it riskier for people to go to a movie. And we don’t know how to effectively restrict access to firearms by those with serious mental illness.

---