So, the CDC is now funding research about gun violence, and the spigot has been opened to the tune of almost $8 million in 16 grants which are aimed (pardon the pun) at preventing firearm-related violence and injuries. The research projects, according to the CDC, must ”help inform the development of innovative and promising opportunities to enhance safety and prevent firearm-related injuries, deaths, and crime,” and “rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of innovative and promising strategies to keep individuals, families, schools, and communities safe from firearm-related injuries, deaths, and crime.”
Some of the research projects are being carried out by researchers who have a long and distinguished pedigree in gun research, such as Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Andrew Morral and Patrick Carter. Other projects are being led by investigators who are not quite so experienced, but hopefully this funding will give them the opportunity to reach a wider audience with their research.
This is the first time the CDC has supported public health research on gun violence since 1997, when the sluicegate was closed down. Ironically, the former wife of Jay Dickey, the late Congressman who stopped CDC gun funding, was one of the individuals who testified in front of Congress last year to get the money out back into the CDC budget. So, you never know.
Most of the research involves trying to figure out how to mitigate ‘risk factors’; that contribute to various kinds of gun violence – suicide, exposure to violence, unsafe gun storage, lack of community-based interventions, and so forth.
Frankly, this is the same kind of research that gun-control researchers have been doing for the last twenty-five years without the CDC money. Oh – I forgot! The New York Times has
now decided that we shouldn’t use the term ‘gun control’ any longer. It’s too ‘prejudicial.’ It’s like calling someone ‘Chinese’ instead of AA-PI. What we need to do is substitute the words ‘gun safety’ for ‘gun control.’ That’s what the Brady Campaign figured out after they took over a bankrupt advocacy group, Handgun Control, Inc., which couldn’t get enough financial support to push the idea of ending gun violence by getting rid of handguns.
Back in 1959, the Gallup Organization ran a national poll which asked Americans to decide whether banning handguns was a good thing. Not more restrictive licensing but an absolute ban. Sixty percent of the respondents to that question backed a handgun ban. The percentage of Americans who now back a handgun ban is now down around 25 percent.
If the 1959 Gallup poll results had been fashioned into a law, we wouldn’t suffer from gun violence today. Think that we have gun violence because we own 300 million guns? Think again. We have gun violence because we are the only country in the entire world which gives resident free access to the types of guns that are designed only for the purpose of being used to injure yourself or someone else.
With all due respect to my friends who do gun research, I don’t see the CDC spending one dime on trying to figure out how to stop gun makers like Glock, Sig, Beretta, Smith & Wesson, Springfield Armory, Kahr Arms – want me to name a few more? – from making and selling guns that shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone at all.
We don’t even need to give these kinds of gun s out to the cops. You think they needed to use a gun to kill George Floyd?
As you may know, I have started a petition to ban assault rifles. It’s been up now for five days and we are well over 1,100 names. I have also published a little book which explains everything you need to know about assault rifles and today you can get the Kindle edition for free.
Banning assault rifles is a no-brainer. Banning concealable handguns that load military-style ammunition will be a little more difficult to do. But that’s okay – I’m only 76 years old and I will shortly put up a website and a Facebook page to explain why the guns which create gun violence need to go.
Mar 30, 2021 @ 13:06:01
As is mentioned in this post: “We have gun violence because we are the only country in the entire world which gives resident free access to the types of guns that are designed only for the purpose of being used to injure yourself or someone else.”
This is terrible.
They say home is where the heart is. But for a large proportion of the world’s population who would like to migrate say that they would choose America. One in five potential migrants named America as their preferred destination. (21% potential migrants named America, followed by a distant second was Germany at 6%) An interesting response from most of the potential migrants, when asked for their reason, was safety. Maybe the word isn’t getting out across our borders letting people know how dangerous it is here.
However, the more I think about getting rid of the “military-style” ammunition the more I like the idea. Not only should the military be the only ones who are permitted to use “military-style” ammunition, but also Police. Afterall, they are properly trained to handle incidents involving the use of firearms. The only ammunitions civilians should be allowed to carry is non-military-style, i.e hollow points, dum dum bullets and the like.
Mar 30, 2021 @ 15:26:56
You should call yourself Mike the ANTI gun guy. So, you want to ban my handgun too in addition to modern sporting rifles? My handgun is a Smith and Wesson M&P CORE 9mm with a threaded barrel. That means I can easily equip it with a suppressor. You know suppressors, right? Bad guys use them in movies. So you probably want to confiscate them too, right? It carries 17 rounds in a standard magazine and 33 in an extended mag. Do you want to confiscate my magazines too?
I’m not some submissive European or Australian, so I’m not giving up my guns. Not even if there was a mass shooting every day. David Hogg and his fellow gun confiscation advocates can sling as many hashtags as they want.
And I read the NYT article you’re referring to. NYT is an antigun rag BTW. Trying to call ‘gun control’ ‘gun safety’ is an outright lie. The term ‘gun control’ has a negative connotation because it fucking deserves it. ‘Gun Safety’ is keeping your finger off the trigger and the like. ‘Gun control’ is restricting gun rights. There is a massive difference and anyone who willfully calls ‘gun control’ ‘gun safety’ is being disingenuous.
Mike, I’m against everything you stand for regarding gun control because I’m an actual Second Amendment supporter. But that doesn’t mean I want you to be quiet, in fact it’s quite the opposite. If you want gun confiscation, shout it from the rooftops. You will only damage the credibility of the antigun movement in general.