There will be the inevitable charges of vile racism if the report even obliquely mentions gang crime.

Why would the ones authorizing the study want to stick their tongues in that electrified light socket again ??

Hell, I'm going to take a hit for this post . . .

I like gang bangs.

As the OP said, this is about sucking the cock of the gun merchants and has nothing to do with science or public safety.

Fuck the NRA.

(October 5, 2015 at 12:36 am)Minimalist Wrote: As the OP said, this is about sucking the cock of the gun merchants and has nothing to do with science or public safety.

Fuck the NRA.

I knew I could count on you.

(October 4, 2015 at 11:56 pm)Kitan Wrote: Well, to be honest, what would the CDC have in relation to guns?  Guns are not diseases.

Gun violence is considered a public health issue.

I didn't know the CDC was an American thing. How about the WHO? There must be someone who can say fuck congress and do it anyways.

(October 4, 2015 at 11:54 pm)TaraJo Wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwed...-violence/

I've actually heard Republicans say, in the wake of these shootings, "we shouldn't ban guns if we don't have evidence that banning them will reduce violence."  I guess this is how they're going to suck some NRA dick and keep that line true: they just block any studies that might prove guns play a role in gun violence and hide behind the second amendment.

I had to read the bolded bit through a few times. Why would you need evidence to conclude than banning guns will reduce gun violence? I'm not a statistician, but if there are no guns about, isn't it going to be pretty difficult to shoot someone with one?

'Let's do a study to see of lack of water will reduce the danger of flooding.'

'Let's do a study to see if lack of sand reduces the amount of sand.'

Come on.

Boru, the argument is that banning guns will only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while all the criminals will keep their guns anyways. Thereby banning guns would actually increase gun violence because no one would have any protection.

(October 5, 2015 at 4:14 am)Losty Wrote: Boru, the argument is that banning guns will only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while all the criminals will keep their guns anyways. Thereby banning guns would actually increase gun violence because no one would have any protection.

Then it's a bad argument. 'Banning guns' doesn't mean the same thing as 'keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only'.

I haven't seen any statistics, but I'm willing to wager that the number of instances where privately held firearms offer 'protection' is insignificantly small.

Boru

Other than mental health, what disease do you or anyone expect them to study?