CDC wasting time with studying gun violence

[gimmick]

Anyway, if Rochelle Walensky is having a hard time understanding what we should do about the gun violence epidemic in the US, I can solve that for her right now.

1) Aggressively investigate, arrest, and prosecute perpetrators of violent crime

2) Hand them stiff sentences, and don't search for excuses to be lenient

3) Give especially long sentences to repeat violent criminals

4) Make it known to everyone that the above will be happening, and that you'll be living most of (or all) your life in jail if you become a career violent criminal


There you go. That will significantly reduce violent crime, without having to take away people's guns.

You're welcome.

That will be $10,000,000, please.

They've tried all that multiple times. It doesn't work.

The problems with your solutions is that you draw from your experiences and personality.

It's not even a race issue. Just mentioning it because that would have been the dumbest interpretation of the above sentence.

You're just really bad at relating to other people's circumstances and mindset. It's not slight that you haven't been spending a whole lot of time with street criminals, but if you had, you would know why your solutions don't do anything to prevent crime.

The current generation that's doing most of the killings in the US already know they will die in the streets or be locked up for life. They don't even expect to live to 30 even when they are sober. When they were 12 they already knew dozens of relatives or their friends relatives that were killed or locked up. That realization isn't new to them.

[dwai]

does gimmick work for the fucking cdc or what

I've never seen a bigger faggot defend a government funded propaganda machine more than this queer

[Sanlmar]

does gimmick work for the fucking cdc or what

I've never seen a bigger faggot defend a government funded propaganda machine more than this queer

Why you always killing debate? Druff and Gimmick putting on a good show

[splitthis]

Instead of worrying about guns, that cunt should worry about obesity in this country, something that actually causes DISEASE.

Unfortunately, most all government agencies have lost all credibility due to their wayward political views.

You got some sheep to follow, but many are wise to their idiotic agendas.

[gimmick]

They do. It's called Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO). They've been around since early 2000. In 2020 they were budgeted for 108 million dollars.

https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/di...utus/index.htm

[Dan Druff]

Anyway, if Rochelle Walensky is having a hard time understanding what we should do about the gun violence epidemic in the US, I can solve that for her right now.

1) Aggressively investigate, arrest, and prosecute perpetrators of violent crime

2) Hand them stiff sentences, and don't search for excuses to be lenient

3) Give especially long sentences to repeat violent criminals

4) Make it known to everyone that the above will be happening, and that you'll be living most of (or all) your life in jail if you become a career violent criminal


There you go. That will significantly reduce violent crime, without having to take away people's guns.

You're welcome.

That will be $10,000,000, please.

They've tried all that multiple times. It doesn't work.

The problems with your solutions is that you draw from your experiences and personality.

It's not even a race issue. Just mentioning it because that would have been the dumbest interpretation of the above sentence.

You're just really bad at relating to other people's circumstances and mindset. It's not slight that you haven't been spending a whole lot of time with street criminals, but if you had, you would know why your solutions don't do anything to prevent crime.

The current generation that's doing most of the killings in the US already know they will die in the streets or be locked up for life. They don't even expect to live to 30 even when they are sober. When they were 12 they already knew dozens of relatives or their friends relatives that were killed or locked up. That realization isn't new to them.

My solutions would indeed bring crime way down, and indeed a form of these were implemented in the 1990s, and we saw a stretch of about 23 years where crime steadily fell. It's been on the way back up ever since the Ferguson shooting, and the attitude toward police and policing changed.

Even if you don't believe that these solutions would deter crime, it would prevent it simply by keeping the criminals off the streets for longers. A high percentage of major violent crime is committed by those with an existing violent criminal history. The current approach by the left is to keep cycling these people back on the street quickly, and repeatedly doing so until they do something really really awful.

Reducing the general presence of a violent criminal element also reduces violent crime from marginal types -- the ones who aren't necessarily terrible people, but are subject to being highly influenced by their surrounding environment. It's not too different than observing how two class troublemakers can cause other kids in the class to behave worse, or how two a few bad employees can spark bad behavior by other employees. Many people subconsciously adapt to the norms around them.

In any case, the solution to gun violence is to focus upon the people using the guns for illegal purposes, not the guns themselves. The left doesn't want to do that, because it will lead them to incarcerating more people of color.

[Kalam]

I'll give you a pass because you are not American. But the NRA has very little (if anything) to do with the gun violence epidemic in the US. It is just a political boogeyman. And the second someone says NRA that is a clear sign they have no interest in addressing the issue honestly, and it isn't worth listening any further.

And the more the Democratic Party wastes everyones time gaslighting us about the NRA, the worse and worse the problem is going to get.

NRA spending was there mostly as a comparison on the scale of funding.

Anyways i'll give you pass since you don't bother researching too many things before having a strong opinion about them.

The reason why 90% of the federal funding was pulled from research into gun violence is because of NRA lobbying. That was in 1996. That was the first time the Dickey Amendment was introduced to a spending bill. After that is has been included annually. It's still there.

In 2018 scope of that amendment was clarified in writing. Namely that organizations/researchers don't have to gamble with losing their funding because of a wide interpretation of a vague piece of text. Surely that was just an oversight in 1996.

The very short history of CDC's involvement in this...

"In 1992, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) converted its violence prevention division into a center that would lead federal efforts to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from violence."

"1996 spending bill declaring that “[n]one of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.”2 Congress also stipulated that $2.6 million of the CDC’s budget, which was the amount spent on firearm injury research during the previous year, would be specifically earmarked for research on traumatic brain injuries."

"The Dickey Amendment was eventually extended in 2011 to cover the National Institutes of Health as well as the CDC"

"After the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012, President Barack Obama directed the CDC not to regard the Dickey Amendment as a complete bar to funding research on gun violence."

"President Obama urged Congress to allocate funding to the CDC for work on gun violence prevention, but Congress denied the request."

"In March 2018, Congress passed a $1.3 trillion spending bill just in time to avoid a federal government shutdown"

"The federal spending bill included a compromise on gun violence research."

...i'm sure you can deduct why gun violence seemed like something important in the early 90s. And just maybe you can figure out why there's revived interest for it now.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/

https://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/44709...lence-research

1996 was 25 years ago. In 1996 the NRA was a powerful lobbying political force. In 2021 it is just a small time grift machine. The CNN article you hyperlinked even says then President Trump is the one who allocated the funding for gun violence research, and it says nothing about any political opposition from the NRA.

This whole thing is a giant nothing burger. The entire point of this entire exercise was probably just to troll and distract the right wing outrage machine.

In 2021 there is no powerful NRA lobbying blocking gun violence research. Maybe there is some antiquated law on the books creating some legal issues, I really don't know. But the fact that Trump is the one who signed the bill to provide this funding makes me skeptical even this is real.

The whole point of this article IMO is just to trigger the right, and mission successful IMO. Spending a few million $$$ to research gun violence is probably a great idea. IMO the only issue is the CDC is so corrupted by progressive politics, there is absolutely no chance of anything useful coming out of this.

Remember, these are the same clowns who were arguing that the riots in 2020 were public health necessity at the same time they were telling us we couldn't walk in the woods by ourselves because it was too great a public health risk. There is no chance in the world these clowns are going to come up with any useful recommendations for curbing gun violence.

[Dan Druff]

Spending a few million $$$ to research gun violence is probably a great idea. IMO the only issue is the CDC is so corrupted by progressive politics, there is absolutely no chance of anything useful coming out of this.

Remember, these are the same clowns who were arguing that the riots in 2020 were public health necessity at the same time they were telling us we couldn't walk in the woods by ourselves because it was too great a public health risk. There is no chance in the world these clowns are going to come up with any useful recommendations for curbing gun violence.

That's my biggest problem here, even more than this not being something the CDC director should be focusing on right now.

There is zero point zero chance that the CDC studying gun violence will result in anything the left disagrees with. It's money wasted on left wing partisans trying to find ways to blame the gun industry while not advocating tougher sentencing or policing.

The left is just really, really bad at crime and punishment, and they're the last ones who should be studying the gun violence issue, because it's guaranteed they'll get it wrong.

[gimmick]

They've tried all that multiple times. It doesn't work.

The problems with your solutions is that you draw from your experiences and personality.

It's not even a race issue. Just mentioning it because that would have been the dumbest interpretation of the above sentence.

You're just really bad at relating to other people's circumstances and mindset. It's not slight that you haven't been spending a whole lot of time with street criminals, but if you had, you would know why your solutions don't do anything to prevent crime.

The current generation that's doing most of the killings in the US already know they will die in the streets or be locked up for life. They don't even expect to live to 30 even when they are sober. When they were 12 they already knew dozens of relatives or their friends relatives that were killed or locked up. That realization isn't new to them.

My solutions would indeed bring crime way down, and indeed a form of these were implemented in the 1990s, and we saw a stretch of about 23 years where crime steadily fell. It's been on the way back up ever since the Ferguson shooting, and the attitude toward police and policing changed.

Even if you don't believe that these solutions would deter crime, it would prevent it simply by keeping the criminals off the streets for longers. A high percentage of major violent crime is committed by those with an existing violent criminal history. The current approach by the left is to keep cycling these people back on the street quickly, and repeatedly doing so until they do something really really awful.

Reducing the general presence of a violent criminal element also reduces violent crime from marginal types -- the ones who aren't necessarily terrible people, but are subject to being highly influenced by their surrounding environment. It's not too different than observing how two class troublemakers can cause other kids in the class to behave worse, or how two a few bad employees can spark bad behavior by other employees. Many people subconsciously adapt to the norms around them.

In any case, the solution to gun violence is to focus upon the people using the guns for illegal purposes, not the guns themselves. The left doesn't want to do that, because it will lead them to incarcerating more people of color.

Fairly sure we would need some sort of research on the subject to say what works.

[gimmick]

But anyways, if we look at the claims in the OP.

This isn't a recent thing.

This doesn't use significant amount of resources.

This doesn't take anything away from Covid related research.

And i believe that's all there was.

Oh and this was assigned to CDC because they started this thing almost 30 years ago.

Head of the CDC is a political appointee. It's usually better that they don't touch the day to day operations at all. Permanent 4 to 8 year press tour is about the best CDC can hope for.

[randomguy]

They should know after 30 years that the most violent cities are the ones with the most strict gun laws like Chicago and New York. Omar is gonna have his sawed off and could care less about background checks. Making it more difficult for non violent law abiding citizens to own a firearm is not the answer to gun violence. The CDC shouldn't get involved in gun violence issues but the good news is that they are completely incompetent so nothing will come from this anyway.

[Dan Druff]

But anyways, if we look at the claims in the OP.

This isn't a recent thing.

This doesn't use significant amount of resources.

This doesn't take anything away from Covid related research.

And i believe that's all there was.

Oh and this was assigned to CDC because they started this thing almost 30 years ago.

Head of the CDC is a political appointee. It's usually better that they don't touch the day to day operations at all. Permanent 4 to 8 year press tour is about the best CDC can hope for.

If they just assign a few low level idiots to such a study, then it doesn't matter much, aside from being a waste of government money. But since there's not huge money funding this research, that's not the biggest problem, hence why I'm not focusing upon that part of it.

My issue is that the DIRECTOR is going around posturing about this study in the mainstream media, rather than focusing upon far more important things. I would give much less of a shit if this were just a low-profile background effort. Instead, Wallensky is trying to use her current high visibility (can you think of a time in modern US history when the CDC director got so much attention?) to push political agendas in the media.

There's a second huge problem, which is even bigger. The current impression that the CDC is a partisan organization and can't be trusted by conservatives. The last thing you want is the CDC director going on TV and implying she's studying ways to take away people's guns. That doesn't exactly encourage right-wing anti-vaxxers to reconsider their positions. It just furthers the divide and the distrust, which should be opposite of what the CDC is going for right now. If Wallensky is looking to portray herself as a partisan hack, she's doing a great job.

[gimmick]

But anyways, if we look at the claims in the OP.

This isn't a recent thing.

This doesn't use significant amount of resources.

This doesn't take anything away from Covid related research.

And i believe that's all there was.

Oh and this was assigned to CDC because they started this thing almost 30 years ago.

Head of the CDC is a political appointee. It's usually better that they don't touch the day to day operations at all. Permanent 4 to 8 year press tour is about the best CDC can hope for.

If they just assign a few low level idiots to such a study, then it doesn't matter much, aside from being a waste of government money. But since there's not huge money funding this research, that's not the biggest problem, hence why I'm not focusing upon that part of it.

My issue is that the DIRECTOR is going around posturing about this study in the mainstream media, rather than focusing upon far more important things. I would give much less of a shit if this were just a low-profile background effort. Instead, Wallensky is trying to use her current high visibility (can you think of a time in modern US history when the CDC director got so much attention?) to push political agendas in the media.

There's a second huge problem, which is even bigger. The current impression that the CDC is a partisan organization and can't be trusted by conservatives. The last thing you want is the CDC director going on TV and implying she's studying ways to take away people's guns. That doesn't exactly encourage right-wing anti-vaxxers to reconsider their positions. It just furthers the divide and the distrust, which should be opposite of what the CDC is going for right now. If Wallensky is looking to portray herself as a partisan hack, she's doing a great job.

As mentioned before they will likely outsource nearly everything related to actual research.

And about stuff mentioned before...

"[n]one of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control"

...that's the gist of the Dickey Amendment and that's still in effect.

Sure let's blame CDC for how team retard feels about them.

Don't know if you should waste anymore resources for this subject. I have feeling you should be focusing on more important things going on in this forum.