Congress Quietly Extends Ban On CDC Research On Gun Violence

"“The NRA complained to Congress that the CDC was using the results of its research to essentially advocate for gun control. They called it propaganda."
By |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+

    In the immediate aftermath of the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee quietly rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the underlying causes of gun violence.

    Though gun violence and gun control has again come to the forefront of the American conversation, prohibition on gun research goes back decades.

    Dr. Fred Rivara, a professor of Pediatrics and Epidemiology at the University of Washington at Seattle Children’s Hospital, has been involved with injury research for 30 years. He was part of a team that researched gun violence back in the 1990s and personally saw the chilling effects of the NRA’s lobbying arm. Rivara says that the NRA accused the CDC of trying to use science to promote gun control.

    “As a result of that, many, many people stopped doing gun research, [and] the number of publications on firearm violence decreased dramatically,” he told The Takeaway in April. “It was really chilling in terms of our ability to conduct research on this very important problem.”

    In 2013, some 34,000 Americans died from gunshot wounds. So Takeaway Washington Correspondent Todd Zwillich decided to ask House Speaker John Boehner why his party is trying to block research on gun violence.

    “The CDC is there to look at diseases that need to be dealt with to protect public health,” Boehner said at a press conference last week. “I’m sorry, but a gun is not a disease. Guns don’t kill people — people do. And when people use weapons in a horrible way, we should condemn the actions of the individual and not blame the action on some weapon.”

    But does the CDC research blame the public health issue of gun violence on the weapons themselves?

    “The original concern from the National Rifle Association back in 1996, which Dr. Rivara mentioned, made that very implication,” says Zwillich. “The NRA complained to Congress that the CDC was using the results of its research to essentially advocate for gun control. They called it propaganda. And back at that time, Congress slashed the CDC’s funding by the exact amount that was used for gun-related public health research.”

    Read more:

    Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence

    Be Sociable, Share!

    Stories published in our Hot Topics section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.


    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    This entry was posted in Daily Digest, National and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • Pingback: Average Cost Of A Teeth Cleaning North Clayton Ga()

    • Pingback: The girl in SC vs the Resource Officer - Page 10()

    • Pingback: Secondosis: A Tale of One Treatable Disease, Left Untreated | Technewsnow.Today()

    • Pingback: Auto Window Repair In M C B H Kaneohe Bay Hi()

    • Pingback: The Extremism In America Series Gun Rights VS Public Safety Rights | thedenalwaysprevailswordpresscom()

    • Greenwich

      You can also look to the Koch Bros. for their FUNDING of the NRA and its campaigns.
      Two of the most notorious proponents of violence in America.
      87,000 Americans shot dead since Sandy Hook (Dec.2012)
      142 school shootings since Sandy Hook
      247 mass shooting in first 283 days of 2015
      4 Americans killed in Benghazi terrorist attacks (Sept 2012)
      The Republicans third wold, Wild West America which they’ve long worked for —
      and it’s here, folks!

      • William Boothe

        Around 2.5 million Americans have been killed by heart disease since Sandy Hook! Lets get the state to ban all fatty foods!

        • Greenwich

          The reason you see financial backing by the Koch Bros. is because fear and violence assist them in the control they are looking for over the population — for the purpose of increasing their own power and wealth — pretty much by reducing America to a third world nation and its citizens to paupers.

          William —
          Right …
          and 1 in every 3 Americans has cancer.
          We should ignore it all —
          Who cares if people are being shot dead on our streets!
          Btw, eating animals and dairy is a large part of heart disease.
          Unless you’re a denier of Global Warming — and I guess there’s a good possibility of that ….
          you might be interested to know that domestication of animals certainly contributes to Global Warming.
          “Eat only what grows in the garden.”
          OOPS! Cancel that — go out and kill your animal friends.

          • William Boothe

            Just as a side note I am a vegetarian but for moral reasons. It is true that cancer is a killer but we don’t attempt to ban cancer, that would be obviously ridiculous we instead look for the causes of cancer and possible cures. Homicide should be approached the same way. Banning guns, like attempts to ban anything (eg alcohol, narcotics) would only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. We instead need to focus on what makes people willing to kill other human beings and work on that. I would completely support more thorough background checks such as mandatory psycho-analysis for individuals seeking to purchase firearms but a ban would be counterproductive and impossible to enforce.

            • Greenwich

              I’m a VEGAN for spiritual reasons —
              Well, frankly you can’t “ban” cancer — can you?
              Nor do we seem to be seriously looking for the “causes” which seem very obvious to many of us — the planet is ill, we are ill, from the pollution and chemicals thrown around by corporations.
              As for guns, think about this.
              Police used to have a billy club — rarely did we see a gun used.
              As the corrupt among us benefit from a violent society, we saw the “Drug War” first being used to frighten the public: Drug Wars require guns.
              As the propaganda piled up, the NRA got busy pushing paranoid propaganda, backed with a lot of RW money, and increasing their sales. Targeting members of Congress who wanted gun control.
              “Law abiding citizens” — or “innocents” as they are laughingly being called by a few — have just been proven hopelessly wrong in their assumptions about shootings on a campus in Oregon where there were many who had concealed weapons (which is legal even in a “gun free zone”) and they did NOT use their weapons because they immediately understood that they could be taken for the “bad guy with a gun” by police forces responding.
              This common sense is also taught to them in their training.
              The “bad guy,” as they stated it, doesn’t wear a big sign saying “I’m the bad guy.”
              Nor do they have any big signs on their backs which say “I’m the good guy.”
              They leave themselves open to being shot —
              That makes the “we need more of the public to be armed” argument null and void.

              Gun owners also have to rid themselves of the delusion that gun owners can protect themselves or us against a corrupt government which controls the MIC-Intelligence Industry. No chance.

              • Trey

                Vegan and a fantasist.

                your 90% want more gun control is a joke

                Even the suspect Quinnipiac (left leaning) poll found More people appose stricter gun control then support it. Sept 2015

                As far as “universal” back ground checks there is no FEDERAL nexus on intrastate commerce.

                • Greenwich

                  Well, Trey — I guess if you were there with your gun you would have jumped in shooting,
                  You’ve been so lied to by people who make money from selling guns that you can’t even hear truth —
                  Yes, 90% of the public wants gun control.
                  Even gun owners want gun control.
                  Our Police Departments want gun control —
                  they certainly don’t want to go out every day to be shot at.
                  In order for these right wing forces to lie to you for their own profit, they have to make you believe in a liberal press — there is no liberal press.
                  See: Operation Mockingbird –
                  We’ve had a CIA/corporate press for decades. That is not a liberal press.
                  There is only one way the right wing can rise and that’s by violence, deception, stolen elections. And that is true now and has always been true.

                  • Trey

                    Actually my family has stopped crimes with firearms but since you wish to live in a fantasy world (betting you are Truther too.)

                    As to your question, I would hope that I did something as I have in the past ran TOWARD burning car with fire extinguisher I think there is a good chance I would not be the one laying down waiting to be shot.

                    well if 90 % want it why not have an amendment passed it would be breeze yes ? oh wait that is the real world not the one you make up..

                    • Greenwich

                      My family has also stopped crimes —
                      a nut at a wedding with a knife trying to kill his girlfriend, for one.
                      Had he had a gun, no one could have saved her.
                      He was coming at her from a distance.
                      Of all the people on campus, the ones with guns did what common sense and their
                      TRAINING told them to do. Do you disagree with their training?
                      Evidently, others there didn’t see a way to interfere with a fire extinguisher —
                      how many guns did this guy have?
                      The Congress has been ignoring the will of the people —
                      BECAUSE most of them are owned by the NRA and Koch Bros., among others.
                      NRA and right wing money has been targeting members who supported gun control
                      laws for decades.
                      (Pour enough right wing money into an election and you can influence it —
                      not to mention hackable electronic voting machines.)
                      I think the first up is an amendment to deny personhood to Corporations and
                      to get elite/corporate money out of politics.
                      I’m a bit tired of a Congress/government owned by the Koch Bros. and other elites.
                      Then, why not clarify the 2nd amendment — ?
                      It was originally intended to allow “slave patrols” to continue.
                      They had to be armed in order to sufficiently intimidate the slaves and keep them
                      from feeling confident enough to try to run off to the North.
                      The US government was very involved in helping slave owners —
                      I’m sure you also recall the “Runaway slave act.”

                      Slavery is one of the reasons why we basically have a schizophrenic Constitution.
                      And why we had a Civil War.

                      • Trey

                        which is why the house is dominated by gun control socialist, since the will of the electorate would have put them there…oh wait the electorate did not do that…

                      • Greenwich

                        Trey —
                        We don’t have gun control despite the fact that 90% of Americans want gun control …
                        because the NRA owns our Congress.

                      • Trey

                        You have said that, saying it again will not make it true. but feel free to keep doing so those of us that understand how the federal election system will keep on ignoring your fantasy world.

                        I read some of your other posts.. you are a bit of a loon on other issues too. Hope every one ignores you as I intend to do (unless I just want to have some fun shooting down one of your posts..)

                      • Greenwich

                        If you know how to google — check the NRA and Koch Bros. who are financing the NRA’s latest campaign which is called “Trigger the Vote.”
                        The NRA and the Koch Bros. have a “trigger” against the heads of all Americans.

                      • Trey

                        and of course no one could vote contrary to the almighty NRA. Tell me how did nancy policy get elected anyway.

                      • Greenwich

                        OK — so presume that you support the NRA and their campaign to put more guns out there despite the great harm being done to our society?
                        And, the Koch Bros. fascism — John Birch Society founders.
                        Meanwhile … Happy to say Nancy Pelosi’s NRA rating is an F —
                        Nancy Pelosi on Gun Control – On The Issues
                        Nancy Pelosi on Gun Control; … Pelosi scores F by NRA on pro-gun rights policies . While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America’s …

                      • Trey

                        So you defeat your own argument that a F rated Representative got elected.

                        I doubt very seriously off the top of your head you could even define Fascism or should I say define it correctly.

                      • Greenwich

                        I don’t think my response could be any clearer —
                        HAPPY that a anti-NRA representative was elected.

                      • Trey

                        You state that the NRA owns congress, but then admit that an rabid anti Constitutionist is elected.. if you do not see how that defeats your argument then.. well you need to do some remedial logic work.

                      • Greenwich

                        Yes — they don’t yet own all of Congress.
                        Enough however to pretty much keep gun control laws from being passed.

                        Where do you get the idea that someone who recognizes we are not still in the
                        1776-Era with guns is anti-Constitutional?

                        The guns at that time were quite different from today — it was a different and
                        more rural country — and the SOUTH was concerned about being able to maintain
                        its “Slave Patrols” to keep Africans enslaved here in line.

                        I’m sure you’re also aware of the “Runaway Slave Act.” Right?

                        That was our government working to ensure that slave owners profiting from
                        slave labor were kept in business.

                        That’s not unlike what happens still today between our government and the wealthy.

                      • Trey

                        Nice laundry list of non reasons for the 2nd amendment.

                        Any one be they low or lofty that wishes to change, ignore or modify the Constition with out use of the Amendment process is defacto Anti-Constitution she does and is.

                        I doubt you have a good foundation if the firearms of the late 1700’s.

                        The firebrands that started and sustained the Revolution those that created the Constitution and Bill of rights were ALSO from free states and of course the influence of the British Constitution of 1689 is also an issue I doubt you will wish to investigate.

                        “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms”

                        Samuel Adams of Mass.

                        “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty
                        can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.”

                        John Adams of Mass

                        “The supposed quietude of a good man
                        allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage
                        and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the
                        world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace.
                        The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of
                        arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not
                        lay them aside.”

                        Thomas Paine (various UK,France and NY)

                        * you might want to research past the UC law and Southern Poverty law web sites.

                        Carl T Bogus is NOT the sole arbiter of history and claiming to have found “hidden” history should always be a bit suspect.

                        Whats next you going to quote “arming America” by Michael A. Bellesiles

                      • Greenwich

                        Trey —
                        Let’s cut to the chase —
                        The idea that citizens holding “guns” can protect themselves against our MIC-Intelligence Complex — unless you are going to demand that the Supreme Court also give you jets, missiles, and atomic bombs? — is delusional.
                        But maybe you want to explain the theory to me?
                        Much of our Constitution has been changed to increase freedom — i.e., ending slavery — despite the effort of right wing extremists who have seriously tried to simply rip it up . . .
                        W Bush — “It’s just a GD piece of paper.”
                        Further, we have a schizophrenic Constitution which states that “all are created equal” and then holds white males who own property as superior. Only they had the vote.
                        Wealthy white males were given land grants and opportunities to attach themselves to the teats of government. Our Natural Resources passed into private hands for exploitation and profit.
                        Women do not have equality under our Constitution — neither do Native Americans — and at the time of the Constitution Africans were slaves and not even counted in the population figures.
                        The Founders also produced a Constitution which protected SLAVERY and Slave Owners — and resulted in the disaster of the Civil War.
                        There is nothing perfect about our Constitution.
                        “We the people” have the right not only to change government but to remove it — which the Founders recommended we do every 20 years, in fact —
                        and to change the Constitution and that has also been done a number of times.
                        As for the second amendment, the opening clause makes clear that it is about a militia —
                        a well-regulated militia.
                        It is also clear that it is about a very rural America where individuals were at that time hunters and alone in the wilderness, facing what they considered their enemies — Native Americans.
                        Those times have changed — all of the circumstances have changed.
                        The guns themselves have changed.
                        Public opinion has changed.
                        And before too long, let’s hope that our gun laws and gun control will once again — and soon — bring sanity and reason to America.


                      • Trey

                        As for small Arms not being effective against a super power lets take a look at oh… Afghanistan ? (also you are using a straw man argument about nukes… but that is part and parcel of your style) yes you are self deluded that man will suddenly become non violent .. sort of like the “soviet man”

                        Yes the Constitution has been change by the Amendment process that your side does not wish to use.

                        Yes slavery is a great blot on the early republic, tell me where in the world was better in 1791 ? They did put in a time limit and made a way to correct the error as well. Must be nice living in your ivory tower where perfection is the MINIMUM for success.

                        You are completely wrong on the construction of the second amendment .

                        The Prefatory clause does not define the limit of the right as pointed out by the supreme court.

                        “The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause”

                        One must take as your position that only people running news papers (with had set wood presses) are protected by the first Amendment “press” clause.. and the peoples right to free speech is only for govt sanctioned groups. * collective rights nonsense applied.

                        The Majority (since you want to live in democracy .. thank you no for me I will stay in my Republic) want the gun laws to not change or become LESS strict not more so (Gallup)

                        You miss the most important thing MAN has not changed. You and your fellow Utopians have stacked up bodies by the millions and MAN has not changed when next one of your fellow Utopians try to do so its my hope that a private citizen can say NO effectively at 600 yards or so.

                      • Greenwich

                        Afghanistan —

                        US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda — the latter having been an ancient organization which had petered out and was turned over to our CIA by the Nazis after WWII.

                        US was still funding these groups even after 9/11.

                        You will also find this story all over the internet from Zigigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor to President Carter) and in his interviews and his book —

                        “Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated in 1979 a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which was run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the Central Intelligence Agency and Britain’s MI6.[44] This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces”

                        US military went into Afghanistan 6 months BEFORE the Russians came in …
                        “in order to lure the Russians into Afghanistan … in hopes of giving the Russians a Vietnam-type experience.”
                        After 9/11, US invaded Afghanistan — we’re still there.
                        Oil and Drugs —
                        War creates huge profits for the few — McCain is still looking for a 100 year war.
                        $6 TRILLION so far for our wars of aggression.

                        If you’re read anything about military training you would be aware that the military always has had a very difficult time getting males to kill — even the enemy.
                        Humans are not naturally violent.
                        Most of the training involves distancing the soldier from the victims — “video-games” are one very popular way of training them to hit a “target.”
                        Many pilots from WWII didn’t reflect at the time on the fire bombings until later when they had some time to think about the fact that there were real people on the ground burning to death — civilians.
                        See: Writings by Howard Zinnn/WWII —
                        And YouTube in discussion of the reality that humans are not naturally violent.

                        I’ve never said that there wouldn’t be an Amendment to change the 2nd Amendment.
                        I’m sure the public will do whatever they have to in order to stop this 2nd Wild West America from continuing on. Sanity brought the first one to a close.
                        Insanity by the right wing has sought a return.

                        The Founders compromised — knowingly — with the South and Slavery.
                        This landmine later brought the American Civil War.
                        And it created a new class of wealthy who profited from this war immensely –
                        especially arms dealers selling to both sides.
                        It is also said that the Vatican was funding the Confederates —
                        See: Papal Edict on Africans here — “Enslave them or kill them”

                        There can be no claim to morality by this nation from its beginnings to its use of the Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki on civilians.
                        Neither in view of its most recent wars of aggression made illegal at Nuremberg and in UN Charter.

                        We all know that the 2nd amendment is about a MILITIA — a WELL-REGULATED militia.
                        We also know that the US government will never surrender it’s right to REGULATE any arms in any US citizens possession.
                        Do you remember David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in Waco, Tx?

                        “…at dawn on April 19 with tanks, armored vehicles, and chemical weapons. … as attorney general “because some religious fanatic killed all those people.”
                        You have five right wing fanatics on the Supreme Court right now who want to overturn Roe vs Wade, yet protect Capital Punishment (which had previously been overturned by the Warren Court.) Again, little morality or ethics there.

                        The “free press” isn’t a weapon which kills people — except, perhaps, as it’s wielded by the CIA. Cord Meyers/later CIA, two years before the end of WWII drafted Operation Mockingbird which was later run within the newly formed CIA under Allan Dulles.
                        See: Operation Mockingbird
                        I don’t see that you have any real curiosity at all, but none the less there’s the info.

                        90% of Americans want gun control –
                        Americans mainly wanted to hear from candidates last night …
                        “Screw the NRA” —
                        Even gun owners want gun control
                        Bernie Sanders, I predict, will soon have an F from the NRA.

                        CRG — The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan
                        According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, … intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of … Soviet entry into war and …

                        QUOTE —
                        Some of the earlier history of Afghanistan …

                        The first, which became known as the First Anglo-Afghan War, took place in 1838. Outraged by the presence of a single Russian diplomat in Kabul, the British demanded that Afghanistan shun any contact with Russia or Iran, and that it hand over vast tracts of Pashtun inhabited land to British India (regions that are today party of Pakistan). Dost Mohammad, the Afghan ruler, agreed to these humiliating demands, but the British still invaded the country. The British seized most of the major cities in Afghanistan with little resistance, but their heavy handed rule soon resulted in a popular uprising by the people which resulted in the massacre of the entire British army of 15,000, save one.

                        British outrage over the uninvited arrival of a Russian diplomatic envoy in Kabul in 1878 resulted in the Second Anglo-Afghan War. Again the British were able to occupy all of the major cities, but unlike the last time, the British got wind of an impending rebellion against their occupation, and brutally crushed it in a pre-emptive move. They did subsequently withdraw, but not before they set up a puppet ruler and forced the country to hand over control of its foreign affairs to Britain. UNQUOTE
                        Do you really think that Afghanistan would survive a US nuclear attack — and do you really thing that our MIC/Pentagon wouldn’t do it?
                        Remember Nixon talking to Kissinger — “I want you to think big, Henry”
                        re the Atomic bomb and dropping it on Vietnam.
                        Give it up, Trey —

                      • Trey

                        text wall defense.. good choice when you have no valid arguments .

                        As for free press / CIA Guessing you never heard of Yellow Journalism.. i.e. The Spanish American war. you really do need to read something not from the CT book shelf.

                      • Greenwich

                        Trey —
                        What in the heck are you talking about?
                        You had an opportunity here to learn something, but before I say goodbye
                        I will again suggest that you actually READ — especially when someone gives
                        you information that you are unfamiliar with.
                        Yellow Journalism is NOT what I am telling you about Operation Mockingbird.o
                        OK — and I see what you have — and …
                        Good Luck, Trey

                      • Trey

                        Nice way to bow out.. Buy more tinfoil and have a good weekend.

                      • Trey

                        Reports that the CIA did bad things in the 60’s… hmm who was the executive in most of the 1960’s

                        lets see.. JFK Elected 1960.
                        LBJ Elected 1964
                        that is the time frame when all the major claims of mocking bird books

      • Pels04
        • Greenwich

          So, 87,000 Americans shot in just the last three years since Sandy Hook
          is OK with you?
          Plus school and mass shootings —
          We’ll accept your lack of concern as the way we should all feel, I’m sure.
          Meanwhile, we have a fascist Patriot Act, NSA spying on citizens emails and telephone calls,
          and a shiny new “Homeland Security” because of terrorism which has killed 4 Americans!
          What we do see is that over and again we have a problem with male violence —
          especially males who show themselves as resentful of a falling status in America as they lose jobs, as the rich get richer and the middle class gets wiped out. Many of them being told it’s the fault of feminists and they believe it. Welcome to the Koch Bros./NRA/GOP “third world America.”

          • Pels04

            Obviously i want that number to be as low as possible but i was simply pointing out that there hasn’t been an increase like most believe, in fact its the opposite, meanwhile gun sales/ownership has skyrocketed. What does that tell you?! I agree with you about the Patriot Act and it being a male problem but it you left out its mostly black on black male crime (no im not racist its just the facts).

            • Greenwich

              Are people concerning themselves with watching the gun-killing statistics rise or fall?
              I doubt it —

              90% of Americans want gun control and I think what concerns them is . . .
              “WHY would there be any mass shootings?”
              “WHY would there be any school shootings?”
              “WHY are so many women being shot by their male intimate partners?”
              and the fact that the Koch Bros./NRA “own” so much of our Congress.

              What do skyrocketing sales of guns tell me?
              Only that there will be many more deaths.

              You may think that your statistics are not racist, but I’m sure you recognize that the Koch Bros./NRA and gun shop owners will use racism and racist fears to get people to buy guns.

              One of the reasons for skyrocketing sales was the election of Pres. Obama.
              What does that tell you?

              They will use terrorism, the Drug War and anything else they can to create fear.

              “For the oligarchy, their solution is to institutionalize fear, increase it, build targets,
              and watch the destruction of freedom and civilization. For them, only profit and ever increasing power exists. Starving, frightened, fighting, struggling humans are of no
              importance.” FDR

              • Trey

                Ah more guns = more deaths.. glad to here that your OPINION is more valid than actual FACTS. Good job sir..

                • Greenwich

                  Well, if deaths by gun stop suddenly, come back and I’ll apologize.

                  • Trey

                    When human nature changes I will too. Oh by the way what caliber of assault rifle did Cain use to slay able any way ?

                    • Greenwich

                      Human nature does change —
                      We have an African-American president –
                      We ended slavery –
                      We ended Segregation system in the South –
                      We ended Christian preachings against Jews –
                      We allowed 18 years olds to vote –
                      We ended the draft —
                      We stopped the war in Vietnam —
                      We ended Christian preachings against homosexuals —
                      We now have same-sex marriage —
                      Women got the vote —
                      We ended back alley abortions with Roe vs Wade —
                      Granted the right wing is constantly destroying everything they touch,
                      but we’re right behind them —
                      Corporations aren’t people —
                      And, eventually, Americans will get rid of the right wing Christian fanatics
                      who now have control of our government.
                      99% “Christian” — dominated by males.
                      1/3rd Catholic —
                      Eventually, if the planet keeps turning long enough, we will pass an
                      Equal Rights Amendment for Females —
                      Cain and Able = male violence which is behind much of society’s problems.
                      But, look at it this way, if Cain had had an assault rifle he probably would
                      have not only killed Cain, he probably would have shot up all the kindergardners
                      as well.

                      • Trey

                        Actions not Nature. I see you are unable to understand the diffidence.

                        “And, eventually, Americans will get rid of the right wing Christian fanatics” and replace then with Left wing atheists ?… Stalin approves!

                      • Trey

                        Human nature does change —
                        We have an African-American president – 1/2 but true.

                        We ended slavery – In the USA much of the world still has it.

                        we ended Segregation system in the South – It was not only in the south.

                        We ended Christian preachings against Jews – When did the 1st amendment get repealed ?

                        We allowed 18 years olds to vote – yes, by amendment which your side no longer believes in much.

                        We ended the draft — No we still have selective service just not using it at this time due to lack of need.

                        We stopped the war in Vietnam — Yes most wars do eventully end but thanks to YOUR side and Frank Church many more died after we left.

                        We ended Christian preachings against homosexuals — Nope still preached as a Sin in many places because well. that is what the New Testament says … again did the 1st amendment get repealed ?

                        We now have same-sex marriage — Created by a Court fiat when YOUR side kept loosing Votes.. (guess you only like democracy when it pleases you)

                        Women got the vote — Yes voted in by those white male Christians you seem to dislike so much.. in 1920 also by Amendment .. that YOUR side no longer will even try to do.

                        We ended back alley abortions with Roe vs Wade — Also by Fiat of a court with no federal or interstate connection made from whole cloth. I might add that the states were moving your way on things but elections are so slow and unsure easier to get a court to fiat it for you.

                        Granted the right wing is constantly destroying everything they touch, — Yes Socilsts are your friend… Solzhenitsyn agrees ? as would Ann Franke.. oh wait maybe not her.. the National Socialists killer her.

                        but we’re right behind them —
                        Corporations aren’t people -the are a legal person for some purposes or you rather live in the pre-industrtial age I take it. ?

                        And, eventually, Americans will get rid of the right wing Christian fanatics – who now have control of our government.
                        99% “Christian” — dominated by males.
                        1/3rd Catholic — Ah I see your inner Stalin is peeking out!

                        Eventually, if the planet keeps turning long enough, we will pass an
                        Equal Rights Amendment for Females –Um you did notice that it never passed yes ? oh wait you do not read much real history do you?

                        Cain and Able = male violence which is behind much of society’s problems – See you are behind the times women kill too..

                        But, look at it this way, if Cain had had an assault rifle he probably would
                        have not only killed Cain, he probably would have shot up all the kindergardners
                        as well. 🙂 ah and this idea makes you happy ? maybe pol pot is more your style then Stalin.. but same same really.

            • Greenwich

              I replied to this —
              something must have gone wrong. Back later.
              Just had to redo this simple post as part of it was missing.
              And, “reply to Pels04” takes me to completely different article.

              • Pels04

                Ya not sure what’s happening. I replied as well but said my post was being reviewed and was pending

            • Greenwich

              Pels04 — What was your reply to this — I don’t see it????

              Quote …

              Greenwich Pels04 • 6 hours ago

              Are people concerning themselves with watching the gun-killing statistics rise or fall?
              I doubt it —

              90% of Americans want gun control and I think what concerns them is . . .
              “WHY would there be any mass shootings?”
              “WHY would there be any school shootings?”
              “WHY are so many women being shot by their male intimate partners?”
              and the fact that the Koch Bros./NRA “own” so much of our Congress.

              What do skyrocketing sales of guns tell me?
              Only that there will be many more deaths.

              You may think that your statistics are not racist, but I’m sure you recognize that the Koch Bros./NRA and gun shop owners will use racism and racist fears to get people to buy guns.

              One of the reasons for skyrocketing sales was the election of Pres. Obama.
              What does that tell you?

              They will use terrorism, the Drug War and anything else they can to create fear.

              “For the oligarchy, their solution is to institutionalize fear, increase it, build targets,
              and watch the destruction of freedom and civilization. For them, only profit and ever increasing power exists. Starving, frightened, fighting, struggling humans are of no
              importance.” FDR

      • Trey

        Looks like every town just kept on with the creative math…

        when every town claimed 74…

        “The group’s figure is accurate only if you use a broad definition of “school shooting” that includes such incidents as suicides, accidents and spillover from adjacent criminal activity. The figure has some value in quantifying the proximity of guns to school campuses, but the group makes a significant stretch by tying the statistic so closely to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook. By doing this, the group closely associates the statistic with planned mass shootings targeting students and school staff — a category that, using a more strict definition, accounts for only 10 of the 74 incidents.

        The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False”

    • AlleenFJones

      Last 30 year Best Home Income with mintpressnews < Find Here

    • lesteram .

      So the bobble headed brain dead anti gun zombie freaks like Robbie want to rely on the CDC, aren’t they the group that keeps losing seriously dangerous diseases?????

    • jarhead1982

      While CDC financing for research on gun violence hasn’t actually stopped completely, it is currently limited to research where firearms are treated only as a component of a broader problem. The CDC asks researchers it funds to give it a heads-up whenever they publish studies related to firearms, and as a courtesy, typically relays this information to the NRA.

      As a result of CDC’s sensitivity to controversy, the circle of academics who study gun-related issues has fallen off dramatically, a circumstance that this research community is clearly unhappy about. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis who had his CDC funding cut in 1996, knew who to blame: “The National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have largely succeeded in choking off the development of false evidence upon which that [government gun] policy could be based.”

      Yup…you betcha! That “policy” was settled by our by our Constitutional forefathers long ago, and was recently affirmed by our Supreme Court. Those who care about our Second Amendment rights should be grateful that those judgments weren’t rendered on the basis of CDC advice.

    • jarhead1982

      Kellermann and University of Washington pathologist Donald Reay examined gunshot deaths in King County, Washington from 1978 to 1983, concluding that of 398 people killed in a home where a gun was kept, only
      two were shot when trying to get in. They also claimed that there were “43 suicides, criminal homicides, or accidental gunshot deaths involving a gun kept in a home for every case of homicide for self-protection.”

      Yet research by well-known criminalist Gary Kleck indicates that only a tiny percentage of defensive gun uses result in the deaths of offenders. In fact, even Kellermann and Reay conceded that: “Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified.”

      Kates and Schaffer observe in their Reason article that “by leaving out such cases, Kellermann and Reay excluded almost all the lives saved, injuries avoided, and property protected by keeping a gun in the home.” Yet they note that gun control advocates continue to use that study as a basis for lies such as, “A gun in the home is 43 times as likely to kill a family member as to be used in self-defense.”

    • jarhead1982

      Dropping the 83 no-confrontation incidents from Kellermann’s 198- burglary list leaves 115 which should have been counted. Then, of those remaining, assuming that only about half of U.S. homes had guns at that time… and also that 70% of those that do store them unloaded where their use for self-defense wasn’t feasible… his 1.5% figure rises to 17%.

      Even more problematic for his conclusion, Kellermann’s study only covered burglaries reported to police…and since police only catch about 10% of home burglars, the only good reason to report them is for insurance purposes. So if no property was lost because a burglar fled when a household member brandished a gun, many or most of those incidents may not have been recorded.

    • jarhead1982

      CDC funded Kellermann and his colleagues to study whether guns in homes are a benefit or liability for protection from criminal intrusions. According to their examination of 198 incidents in which burglars entered occupied homes in Atlanta, they found that “only three individuals (1.5%) employed a firearm in self –defense”, therefore concluding that guns are rarely used. Closer examination of their data, however, tells a somewhat different

      In 42% of those incidents, there was no confrontation between the victim and offender because, as they admitted, “the offender(s) either left silently or fled when detected.” When the burglar left silently, the intended victim wasn’t aware of the crime, and therefore had no opportunity to use a gun in self-defense, or alternatively, to call the police. The incidents where would-be intruders “fled when detected”, is forcing burglars to flee.

    • jarhead1982

      A key go-to guy for many of the CDC’s studies was their favorite gun researcher, Arthur Kellermann, the director of Emory University’s Center for Injury Control. In a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine article, Kellermann and his coauthors cited a book written by James Wright and Peter Rossi titled “Under the Gun” to support their contention that “restricting access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate of homicide.” Yet the book actually says the opposite. With reference to that particular notion, it actually said: “There is no persuasive evidence that supports that view.”

      Then in 1992, writing in another New England Journal of Medicine piece, Kellermann cited an American Journal of
      Psychiatry study to back up a claim that “limiting access to firearms could prevent many suicides.” Instead, that study really concluded that suicidal people who don’t have guns find other ways to kill themselves.

    • jarhead1982

      In fact, the CDC conducted a major two-year independent study of various regulatory laws in 2003. The investigation considered bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry;
      and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The study concluded there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

      As Don Kates and Henry Schaffer point out in a 1997 Reason article, the main function of treating gun violence as a public health issue with a disease metaphor is to: “…lend a patina of scientific credibility to the belief that guns cause violence…a belief that is hard to justify on empirical grounds.” Kates, a civil liberties lawyer, and Schaffer, a professor of genetics and biomathematics, cite several examples where CDC has sponsored flawed research to advance that belief.

    • jarhead1982

      A major danger of treating gun violence as a public health issue is that invites a false, politically-driven association of guns with disease, rather than the addressing much more fundamental mental health and social causes underlying violent behavior in general.

      This mischaracterization is made clear in 1994 American Medical News interview with Dr. Katherine Christoffel, head of the “Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan”, a CDC-funded organization who said: “guns are a virus that must be eradicated…

      They are causing an epidemic of death by gunshot, which should be treated like any epidemic…you get rid of the virus…get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths.”

      In the same article, Mark Rosenberg, who then headed CDC, agreed: “Kathy Christoffel is saying about firearms injuries what has been said for years about AIDS: that we can no longer be silent. That silence equals death and she’s not willing to be silent anymore. She’s asking for help.”

      That same year, Rosenberg told the Washington Post: “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.” And in the previous year, he had subtitled his part of an article on the public health approach to violence published in Atlanta Medicine: “The Bullet as Pathogen.”

      This conflation of gun and disease research even drew criticism within other CDC divisions. As C.J. Peters, head of its Special Pathogens Branch told the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette in 1996, “The CDC has
      got to be careful that we don’t get into social issues. If we’re going to do that, we ought to start a center for social change. We should stay with medical issues.”

    • jarhead1982

      Ten senators who strongly supported the CDC gun research funding ban put their reasons in writing: “This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in
      America…Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense.”

      Sociologist David Bordura and epidemiologist David Cowan characterized the public health literature on guns at that time as “advocacy based upon political beliefs rather than scientific fact”. Noting that The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association were the main outlets for CDC-funded studies of firearms, they observed that “reports” with findings not advocating strict gun control were rarely cited. Bordura and Cowan found that “little is cited from the criminological or sociological field”, and also that the articles that are cited “are almost always by medical or public health researchers.”

      All too often, they witnessed that “assumptions are presented as fact:”… that there is a causal association between gun ownership and risk of violence, that this association is consistent across all demographic categories, and that additional legislation will reduce the prevalence of firearms and consequently reduce the incidence of violence.” They concluded that “…incestuous and selective literature citations may be acceptable for political tracts, but they introduce a bias into scientific publications…Stating as fact associations which may be demonstrably false is not just unscientific, it is unprincipled.”

    • jarhead1982

      In 1996, the Congress axed $2.6 million allocated for gun research from the CDC out of its $2.2 billion budget, charging that its studies were being driven by anti-gun prejudice. While that funding was later reinstated, it was re-designated for medical research on traumatic brain injuries.

      There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban.

      Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control.

      This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”

    • jarhead1982

      Among President Obama’s 23 new executive orders purportedly aimed at reducing gun violence, it is one which may appear relatively innocuous that perhaps poses the greatest danger as an assault upon our Second Amendment protections. Referring to this issue as a “public health crisis”, the president is determined to resurrect a previously failed Clinton tactic to build public support for stringent gun control gun regulations
      premised upon trumped-up “guns as a public disease” rationale based upon federally-funded medical pseudo-research.

      Labeling his not-so-concealed gun control weapon as science, Obama took aim at the NRA and their inconvenient gun-totin’ ilk, declaring: “While year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct
      the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it.”

      Perhaps the president has forgotten that the CDC has previously been funded, then later defunded, regarding medical research for gun violence. His directive, if funded again by Congress, would end a virtual 17 year ban which stipulates, quite appropriately, that none of CDC’s federal financing can be used to advocate or promote gun control…exactly what CDC was originally doing.

    • Robert Munro
    • it’s van pelt

      there is no other day such as this that the speech of Patrick Henry should resound through out this greta nation.

      ‘They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable

      an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the

      next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed’

    • My2Bits

      Back then, when you had CDC “researchers” saying things like “guns are a virus that must be eradicated” (Dr. Katherine Christoffel, 1994) and then releasing papers pushing that position (i.e. propaganda wrapped in a “science” wrapping paper). The CDC was also caught directly funding gun-control groups by paying for literature. I wonder why we never hear about that when discussing why the CDC funding was cut?

      Oh, and FYI: there were twice as many studies released to the public in 2013 on gun-control from academia other government groups, than there were in the year the CDC funding of a couple million was cut. And the CDC still collects “gun violence” data, which is publicly available.

    • Thruda Hoop

      Bet you that you will never see the true facts about crime and violence as it relates to white and black. So if you like a read here you are.

      Bill Whittle: Ferguson and the Real Race War

      Since the shooting of Michael Brown by a white policeman and
      the ensuing riots and looting in Ferguson, MO, Americans have been told,
      yet again, that there is an epidemic of crime against black people in
      this country. But is there really a race war, and if so, which side is
      actually waging it?



      Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.

      Before we get into the bigger picture – of which the ongoing rioting
      in Furguson, Missouri is merely a symptom – let’s just be crystal clear
      about something.

      IF it turns out that a police officer shot
      Michael Brown as he was standing still, his hands in the air, as his
      defenders claim, then that police officer needs to be charged with
      murder, and he needs to go to jail for the rest of his life.

      But that doesn’t seem like what happened at all. This story is still
      unfolding and new details are being revealed every day. I’m not going
      to speculate on how Michael Brown’s life actually came to an end. But I
      am going to talk about what happened before and after.

      Michael Brown has been repeatedly referred to in the media as a “gentle giant,” and an “unarmed black teen.”

      Here’s surveillance video of the gentle giant, taken a short time
      before the shooting, stealing a handful of cigars and then gently strong
      arming the store owner out of his way.

      So why is it that the
      Attorney General, appointed by the President of the United States of
      America, put intense political pressure on the Ferguson Police
      Department to suppress this standard, ordinary surveillance video – a
      video, by the way, that caused the destruction of this man’s store and
      left him fearing for his life. Well, we’ll get to that in a moment.

      Defenders of Michael Brown say that this is an attempt to criminalize
      him and therefore deflect attention from the police shooting. Really?
      That kind of casual violence, that sense of entitlement, that utter
      disrespect for the law or another human being – don’t take my word for
      it; the evidence is right there in front of your eyes – that attitude
      has nothing to do with the police claim that he was charging the officer
      when he was shot? This doesn’t shed some doubt on the story of a
      gentle, innocent, “unarmed black teen” assassinated by the police while
      his hands were in the air for the crime of being black?

      cut to the chase here. Spokesmen for the protestors rioting in Ferguson
      and St. Louis – and, in fact, a large percentage of the general
      population — claim that there is an epidemic of white on black crime,
      of white cops shooting unarmed black teens. Is that, in fact, happening?

      According to the FBI, there were 408,217 robberies in 2009. That’s
      about 1100 a day, or in round numbers, about once a minute, 24 hours a
      day. That means a thousand times a day the police are called, a thousand
      times a day arrests are made and in general terms the events leading up
      to the shots being fired in Ferguson Missouri happen about one thousand
      times PER DAY.

      So if there’s this epidemic of white
      policemen executing innocent black males, why do we only hear about a
      case like this every few years? And why do most of those cases – like
      this one – seem to end up with extenuating circumstances? And why do the
      few cases that don’t have extenuating circumstances end up with the
      offending officers in jail? If this is an epidemic – where’s the
      epidemic? 30,000 commercial flights land safely each day in America.
      They don’t make the news either.

      So. Is there an epidemic of racial violence loose in America today?

      There is.

      According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, in 2010, 62,593
      blacks were the victims of white violence. During that same year,
      320,082 whites were the victims of black violence. That’s five times as
      many violent attacks, but that number is misleading, since the black and
      white populations are not the same size. When 38 million black
      Americans commit five times as many violent crimes on 197 million whites
      as they receive, what you discover is that black perpetrators violently
      assault White victims TWENTY-FIVE times more frequently. When it comes
      to a specific kind of violent crime — aggravated assault — the number
      of black on white crimes is TWO HUNDRED TIMES HIGHER than white on black
      crimes. Oh, there’s an epidemic of racial violence in America, all

      Reporter and author Colin Flaherty has taken a cold,
      clear-eyed view of the statistics that don’t make the news because they
      are suppressed by the news. He reports, for example — again in 2010 —
      the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000
      black-on-white rapes and 39,000 black-on-white robberies – both violent
      crimes. The statistics show that the number of white on black rapes and
      violent robberies were so small that they had to be rounded to the
      nearest whole number, and that whole number was ZERO.

      will say that I am using these statistics to justify the murder of
      Michael Brown. But I said at the beginning – if Michael Brown were shot
      in cold blood then the police officer needs to pay the price for murder.
      This has nothing to do with Michael Brown. This has EVERYTHING to do
      with the narrative that the President, the Attorney General, and all of
      these race hustlers are trying to create using Michael Brown.

      There is, in fact, a racial war of violence and hatred in America. Open
      racism is simply not tolerated in white America today, but black racism
      is the toxic glue that holds the progressive coalition together.
      Tolerance of – in fact, as we see from the events in Ferguson, open
      encouragement of black rage at a narrative that not only does not exist
      but reverses the daily outrages that do exist, is what defines modern
      progressivism. It is the politics of envy, anger, entitlement,
      lawlessness, violence and bald-faced lies. And of all the
      promises broken by this man, surely none is more heartbreaking than the
      one promise that got him elected in the first place: the promise of a
      post-racial future. He and his racist progressive cohorts can never
      surrender the weapon that has gotten them everything, not the least of
      which is personal political power and trillions of dollars of
      redistributed wealth. And this latest outrage in Furguson is yet another
      example – as if another was needed among the economic wreckage,
      creeping totalitarianism, and foreign-policy disasters — that he and
      his leftist cohorts would rather rule over ruins than disappear into the
      dustbin of a healthy and healed nation.

    • The Moogly

      The reason Congress banned CDC doing gun research is that the results were so bias as to be worthless.

    • Thomas Karlmann

      Nope, sorry: “… gun control has again come to the forefront of the American conversation” it HAS NOT! This is just the Progressives taking ANY opportunity they can to further their arsinine gun-grabbing agenda — that only serves to disarm honest citizens — which is what they want. The rest of the article is the usual BS.

    • Intrepid

      “If you are for gun control, then you’re not against guns, because guns
      will be needed to disarm people. You’ll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns.

      So it’s not that you’re anti-gun, because you’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns, so in actuality, you are very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government
      (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking)
      should be allowed to have guns.

      So there’s no such thing as gun control, there’s only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions.

      Gun control is a misnomer.”

      • mike h

        what does the government have planned for us that they need us disarmed? look up the 28th amendment and sign it if you are for giving politicians term limits,obamacare,and social security. basically no more than us citizens have

      • Geralt_0f_Rivia

        Stefan Molyneux. 😉

    • jaw2785

      I wonder if they study backyard swimming pool drownings. Besides… it doesn’t matter. There’s no constitutional right to bear swimming pools.

    • dee

      And just how many of those gun owners were actually defending themselves from some criminal? And, how many of those killed had no way of protecting themselves? (like a gun) How many of those who did the shootings were real criminals? Normal, every day citizens do not go around shooting people. They own guns for protection, hunting, sport shooting, etc. The government wants ‘no one’ to own a gun, just like Hitler. Guess why? We can’t defend or protect ourselves from anyone, including government. Who’s going to take the guns away from the criminals and tell them they can’t have them? It will be ordinary citizens who are targeted. We’ll be sitting ducks. Do they think the American people are too stupid to think for ourselves and know what’s really going on?

      • mike h

        seems like most of us are too stupid or preoccupied and know whats going on.hopefully more are waking up

    • Pingback: Congress Quietly Extends Ban On CDC Research On Gun Violence - 2 Real News()

    • Kevin

      The CDC should concentrate more on diseases but after the Ebola incidents, I would almost say, maybe we need to re-think the actual job of the CDC. It is getting as useless as the BATFE and IRS.

      • mike h

        ebola incidents?but the cdc needs to concentrate on gun violence.agenda much?like doing the extra credit without taking the actual test


      The cdc wasnt doing research it was parrotting bloomberg propoganda. Stick with diseases.

    • Everett Walker

      the is an objection lesson in the result of being an over-reacting internet puke. I went all day buthurt over this article because I misread ” Extends the Ban as “rescinds the ban…”

    • tumbleweedtom

      There are already plenty of statistics on the issue. When you consider the benefits of gun ownership (far more lives saved by guns – 98% of the time, the gun is not fired, simply brandished – and this doesn’t include the deterrent effect of criminals knowing people are armed – hence, they travel from Texas to San Fran where CCW is prohibited to rob and kill) compared to the detriments. In any event, the Second Amendment does not say anything about statistics.

      • LW

        What a bunch of “hog wash”, at one time in the past almost all Americans openly carried guns and that did not prevent robberies, murders, thievery, kidnappings, etc., etc., etc…statistics have shown that much more people are kill with guns than save by them….Google the “Top 10 Pro-Gun Myths”… But just like the communist do, the best way to control people is to keep them in the dark by keeping the truth hidden! Makes you wonder why the NRA/Congress want to continue the Ban On CDC Research On Gun Violence.

        • Nonfarleftian

          Oh nice diatribe there cupcake…… I can clearly see your opinion deservedly soaks in the mini pool of public sentiment. Seems not too many feel the same way you do………….Better get used to that….. 🙂

        • mike h

          you can always find statistics to support your belief these days. how to lie with statistics. on may 24,1993 gun murders were at an all time high between 10:12 and 10:15 am in a period of 51 years. use your brain and think about what is most logical. im not so quick to believe anything anymore. think about it

        • jarhead1982

          Another anti gun dumfukkus moranadon who doesnt understand that the only thing banned, was the false science lies using TAXPAYERS $, and the CDC has been free to do studies funded by OTHER sources…

          But here is a simpler solution, the CDC wants to use tax payers dollars, then they need to include the data from the US govt. data proving since 1960 that lawful armed self defense has prevented over 1.131 mil murders and prevented over 6.5 mil injuries….

          Oh wait, doing that would prove gun control to be a colossalfkkn failure……….

        • Geralt_0f_Rivia

          “….at one time in the past almost all Americans openly carried guns and that did not prevent robberies, murders, thievery, kidnappings, etc., etc., etc.”

          You mean during the “old west” and the early 20th century, before gun control laws, when the homicide rate in the United States was about 0.9 per 100,000 people, as opposed to the 4.7 rate we see today. You’ve been watching to many “westerns” on TV.


        • henrykrinkel

          I don’t think it’s “hog wash”

    • Edward Bernas

      Like the CDC under the Obama administration would have any outcome determined by a study other than more feel good legislation that does nothing to stop criminals

    • MoeHamhead

      Good, Firearms do not belong in the CDC’s pervue.

    • KiloJuliet

      Google ‘Carol Browne New Jersey’. She died 3 weeks ago because of gun control.

      • nunya

        @ KiloJuliet that was the woman who was threatened by her ex boyfriend and had gone thru all channels to get a CCW and Jersey took its sweet communist time and now she is dead. Jersey is a shithole commie state

        • dave

          Run into the ground by a Republican.

          • nunya

            Dave you are an idiot. Jersey is far from being conservative. That is a liberal lunatic state

            • dave

              Nunya, you are a moron. New Jersey choose a Republican governor. Not that I have anything nice to say about that state anyway.

              • nunya

                Repub gov but the rest of the state is commie liberals.

                • dave

                  What makes a liberal a communist?

                  • jarhead1982

                    Liberals protect rights, communists take rights..

                    • cheechio

                      check your political spectrum again… both sides are guilty of authoritarianism at times…

                      • jarhead1982


                      • cheechio

                        lol, i guess you won the argument…

          • nunya

            Dave liberal want all types of people to have rights except for law abiding gun carrying 2nd amendment honoring citizens. They think no one should own a gun for protection. I say get rid of liberals. They are a sick breed of stupid

            • dave

              I find it funny that, while showing atrocious writing skills, you call another group of people “a sick breed of stupid”.

              You understand zero about liberals. Everything you think you know about liberals is wrong.

              You appear to be a sick stupid breed of ammosexual. Why don’t you go clean your guns.

          • Trey

            Rino.. at best.

    • anabelle kyrie

      That’s cool! I have quietly expanded my research on Congress! 🙂

      • mike h

        research the 28th amendment.please. I think its time. I signed it.

    • Donald Edwards

      “the second amendment is the only amendment held with religious fervor………..” I personally detest the NRA. I own several firearms, am a combat veteran and do not “FEAR” some boggey man come to take my weapons,. I am not ignorant,do not have my head in some dark place or need to join some money/power first organization with no moral compass. I feel the same abouit Norquist tax BS pledge.

      • nge

        Useless post.

      • brbroberts

        Oh, really? the First Amendment is held with just as much religious fervor.

    • Mark

      Isnt it kind of a waste?

      Liberals are like Greeks. There is no limit to spending

      • dave

        What a strange comment, considering it was a conservative who put two wars and a Medicare expansion on the national credit card. Conservatives ONLY care about deficits when there is a Democrat in the White House.

    • lesteram .

      The Center for DISEASE Control, should concentrate on it’s purpose, disease, violence of any kind (but they harp on “gun violence”), is not communicable. And damn right the anti gun zombies did try to use the earlier studies to foist gun control on the people, even though they could find no correlation. QUIT WASTING our damn tax money.

    • trapman

      Why fund a study, when we all know the results already? Run by liberals, for liberals. They’ll say guns are bad. See? All that money saved!

    • SayWhat

      What research. Here it is America. If you want to stop gun violence then look at who is doing the killings to find the common trait or cause. If drunk drivers are killing with cars do you ban cars? No, you stop drunks from driving.

      Here’s the common link. Most all people who shoot and kill people with guns are liberals. roof your whine. You can do all the studied you want but the proof in the news.

      A 1000 Blacks shot by Blacks in Chicago so far this year. Who do Blacks support, liberals like Obama or conservative like Romney? Blacks account for 51% of all murderers in the US. That’s a majority right there so if we stop liberal Blacks from killing we cut gun deaths by over half and not one gun banned.

      Now lets add the other liberals groups that the Democrats go after for support- the youth, Hispanics, illegals, felons, gang members, ghetto dwellers, and half the whites.

      Why do liberals kill so much? They are taught nothing is their fault and they can blame all their fails on someone else. Look at the violent rioting when they don’t get their way. Throw in the old “I be entitled” with “The man be keep you down” and you have an arrogant antisocial hate filled person who see nothing wrong with killing to get their revenge or let out their hate.

      Truth is if you ban liberals you will eliminate most all gun violence in America.

      Who isn’t doing the killings? The groups the liberals want to blame to deflect the truth off of them- NRA members, Tea Party members, gun nuts, and conservatives (the other half of Whites).

      No study needed as this is the truth. Next time you hear, read, or see news about a gun shooting or death, ask yourself, who does that criminal support- Democrats or Republicans? Soon you will see you answer is most always going to be Democrats.

    • allen gardner

      Former California State Senator and top gun control advocate Leland Yee pleaded guilty Wednesday to public corruption. Still facing allegations of weapons trafficking, money laundering, murder-for-hire, and drug distribution, Yee’s plea deal seems to indicate that he is ready to “rat out” an even wider group of Bay Area and Sacramento conspirators

    • Kevin McGrath

      We have to fund studies to take away our rights. Jut as we have to feed, cloth and educate people who drive down our wages. Any question?

    • Tony Currie

      If it was done quietly, how did you guys hear about it?

    • Harold Morris

      Gun violence, as they describe it, includes both suicides and accidents.
      Suicides comprise nearly two thirds of “gun deaths” in America. The underlying cause of suicide is depression. OK, that one’s done. As an aside, the United States suicide rate ranks 5th among the G7 nations. Only the UK and Italy have lower rates. Australia,Sweden, and Korea, also restrictive gun nations with high level economies,, also have higher suicide rates
      The underlying cause of accidents is negligence, always was, always will be, whether it is drowning, falls, or poisoning. OK, that one’s done.
      Now we come to violent crime. Here we come to the elephant in the room, the problem none in government wish to really address. Nearly 75% of gun homicides in the United States are committed by one of two ethnic minorities, blacks or Hispanics. A large portion of these deaths are drug or gang related, or both. Too many of these deaths are collateral damage, children and others caught in the crossfire. This represents a cultural decline in these subcultures, a decline that is in part supported by failed government policies that contributed to the decline of the nuclear family.
      It is also important to note that while “gun deaths” have declined in some countries after they stripped basic rights from their people, violent crime in those same nations rose. The gun is not the only tool that can be used in a violent manner.
      The CDC needs to study diseases, and gun violence is not a disease that can be cured by anything but isolation. Lock the miscreants up, and make incarceration so distasteful that they will never wish to return.

      • jarhead1982

        Make them stare at Feinsteins current physical state as a naked picture….they will kill themselves soon afetr, problem solved….

    • Slufoot

      I wish they would not have done that. The underlying factor in gun violence is the black race. Since Trayvon Martin was killed over 37.000 blacks have been killed by other blacks. That is a fact I would like to be thrown in Obozo’s face everytime he smarts off about gun violence. Maybe if your people did not have guns that rate would be very low

    • MoreBS

      This is just bizarre. What are you worried about? Do you think that they might find something like driving w/o a seat belt can result in injury or death or drunk driving can result in someone else’s injury or death or driving drunk without a seat belt can result in your and someone else’s injury or death. All of which have been accepted as fact after a bunch of initial resistance and yet driving has not been made illegal. What’s the difference between this and the gun stuff?

    • Charles Douglas

      wish they would enfore the laws on the books i will never give up my guns law or not they will get whats in them first then they will take my out of my cold dead hands

    • disqus_D5jC7jqybG

      The truth is that I trust my guns a lot more than I trust my government.

    • Tim Miller

      Gun control, climate change, Gay rights. What next, Child molester rights and marriage to children?
      Our founding fathers fought for Liberty and Justice. What would they think of our Government now?
      I am betting they would see it as a money sucking, over powered entity, that needed to be eliminated.

    • disqus_ZhzNhBKfH0

      On a side note, the recent gay marriage decision by SCOTUS just opened the door for gun owners. It based its decision on the premise that rights enjoyed by one state should apply to all. There are numerous states that allow open and concealed carry, often without any license or permit. Can’t wait for that case to reach the Supremes.

    • Daniel Applebee

      Why would the CDC be the appropriate entity to conduct research on violence? I don’t just mean violence executed with firearms, I mean violence executed by any means. They deal primarily with communicable diseases and biological threats. Violence, so far as I know, is not a communicable disease. The reasons people engage in violent behavior vary as much as the behavior itself does. You have mental illness, poor judgement, racially motivated violence, criminal activity, and on goes the list. None of these things, nor the numerous others one could mention, actually fall into the CDC’s purview. Using that entity to study violence is like taking your car to your veterinarian to have it diagnosed and repaired. It just doesn’t make much sense. There are numerous other agencies who are much better suited to the task. In fact, some of those agencies are already studying this subject. The Bureau of Justice Statistics comes to mind. Another would be the National Institute of Justice. In fact, the B.J.S has studied this. Their results were not so interesting to our sensationalized media. Check out their report on Firearms Violence, 1993 – 2011 (google B.J.S and that term, you’ll find it). The information in that report is quite interesting.

      I am a gun owner, and I support 2nd Amendment rights. I live in one of the handful of Constitutional Carry states. I have no problems with appropriate entities attempting to lower gun violence, but gun control is simply the wrong avenue to do that. You need to solve the underlying reason someone kills someone else and find ways to reduce that. Violent people will always find an outlet to express their violence, be it a gun, a knife, or a blunt instrument. Regulating your kitchen cutlery is not going to solve that problem – you have to figure out why the violence is occurring and work to reduce those causes. Just my two cents. Mahalo.

    • Robert Munro

      Whenever the word “gun” is used, the ONLY thing that is assured is that the paid NRA shills and gun-as-penis-substitute trailer trash will swarm. This discussion is proof.

      Sooooo macho looking………….smooooth as a Ken Doll inside………….

      • Bruhn

        Speaking of shills, you are obviously one with all your copy and paste posts. You automatically discredit yourself.

        • Robert Munro

          Sorry, Ken Doll, it’s the only way to deal with NRA’s version of welfare for the losers who can’t get jobs flipping burgers.

          Consider the fact that your opposition doesn’t have huge profits to pay us gun control supporters – there’s nothing but our rage over NRA trash like Adam Lanza’s mommy.

          • Bruhn

            Barbie….hush… didn’t anyone tell you it’s not nice to lie? Bloomberg, Soros, and a multitude of anti-freedom folks have put plenty of money to anti-gun rhetoric. Which one is obviously paying you?

            Nevermind, don’t really care. Go brush your hair, put some pink ribbons in it, and fix your makeup. The real men will continue to protect you.

          • lesteram .

            You blatant stupid fool, Lanzas mom did not belong to the NRA, just more anti gun lies. The only TRASH on here is you.

      • lesteram .

        Spoken like the bobble headed brain dead anti gun zombie freak you are. You readily accept and laud the lies and misinformation of your masters. Or did you forget that glorious lie last year they tried to float of “74 school shootings since sandy hook.”

        • Robert Munro

          .Well, mr/ms PesterCram, why don’t you try to refute this (you might have to ask your bosses at NRA how to refute REALITY………..

          Here’s an artlcle listing the 21 FATAL SCHOOL SHOOTINGS SINCE NEWTOWN (feel free to check out EVERY ONE – I did)………….

          Here’s a map of ALL 74 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS SINCE NEWTOWN………..

          And you can google EVERY shooting on the list , YOU TRAILER TRASH NRA SHILL

          • nomadr

            Robert, did you notice that all the shootings occurred at places that are “gun free zones” by a coward with a gun!(shooting helpless victims). Let one of these cowards come to the firearms training center that I attend, where we have between 1200 and 2000 people training (armed to the teeth) at any given time and let’s see how far they get!

          • Sue Nicholai

            ah but you see it starts with the fact that the people who are doing these shootings think killing others is an appropriate way to solve the problem whatever that problem maybe

          • jarhead1982

            Thought Oblama was the Burger King, cause he told the biggest whoppers, but munro is now BURGER KING, home of the biggest whoppers of lies ever told….

            • Robert Munro

              Yeah, this wanna-be “marine” is soooo much brighter than Washington Post or Huffington Post.

              Give it up, Ken-Doll and cuddle your penis substitute. Marine groupies were seldom throw-away soldiers (that’s what we called Marines 45 years ago – they were the only ones stupid enough to man the indefensible “political” fire-bases.

              • jarhead1982

                Only perverts and pedophiles are so concerned with others junk size……..

                • Robert Munro

                  Actually, marine-corpse (no typo) groupie, it was my wife who pointed out the reverse correlation between guns/pick-um-ups and junk size.

                  And, I would have gone to Montreal before getting near those kamikaze morons that the corpsmen had to deal with. After 22 months on the Mekong, I didn’t leave until my twin-50 gunner was taken out and the winners put two RPG-7s into us.

                  WE had plenty of ladies in the village next to our marina. It was the boots in the surrounded fire-bases who fell in love with each other.

                  • jarhead1982

                    Actually we don’t consider transgender ho’s as wives, only squidies say that REMF

                    • Robert Munro

                      Yep, the fudge-packin’ boots.

                      • jarhead1982

                        We understand, your momma kicked you off her teet at 32 yrs old and you hate women, got it!

            • Sun Kim

              Obama is your president…..your CINC

              • jarhead1982

                Yawn, more like chief diktaster….

              • jarhead1982

                One other thing, I support the position, the presidency as it was intended to be, not subverted by a race baiting pathological liar…

          • jarhead1982

            Look at munros lies and then look at the lies given 4 pinnochios by fact check….they are the same…..brady bunch bs and talking points = lies

            (Monday, June 29th), the Washington Post gave Four Pinnochios to U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) for repeating a claim originated by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety group, that there has been an average of one school shooting per week since the December 2012 crime at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

            “Applying a reasonable person standard” to what should be considered a “school shooting” in the context of the Sandy Hook crime, the Post concluded that of 126 incidents on Everytown’s list, most were suicides or attempted suicides, accidents, or shootings resulting from arguments between individuals, and perhaps only 10 were crimes in which someone intended to shoot multiple people.

            The Post, saying “lawmakers need to present information—especially for such a controversial topic as gun control—in a clear, responsible and accurate way,” considered Sen. Murphy’s lie particularly egregious in view of the fact that Everytown’s claims about school shootings have been so widely discredited previously. As examples, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution first rated Everytown’s claims about the number of school shootings since Sandy Hook mostly false back in June 2014. Three months later, John Lott released the result of research that found that some of the persons involved in the incidents cited by Everytown weren’t even associated with the schools and/or the incidents didn’t occur during regular school hours.Gun Control Liars

            Maybe Murphy can take comfort from the fact that he’s not the only anti-gunner that has been taken to task for telling lies. In 2013, the Post rejected former Pres. Bill Clinton’s claim that half of all mass killings in the United States had occurred since the September 2004 expiration of his “ban” on “assault weapons” and “large” magazines. The newspapersaid, “the available data show that Clinton was way off base in his assertion, making an exaggerated claim—which his office would not even defend.”

            The same year, the Post gave Pres. Barack Obama Three Pinnochios for repeating Everytown’s claim that 40 percent of firearms are sold without a background check. (And even if Obama had been telling the truth, it would only have been an endorsement for checkless firearm sales, given that the nation’s murder rate is at or near an all-time low.)

            In December, the Journal-Constitution gave a mostly false rating to Everytown’s claim exaggerating school shootings in Georgia. In March, the Post gave Pres. Barack Obama Three Pinnochios for his “odd series of exaggerated gun claims,” including the claim that the U.S. has the world’s highest murder rate, the claim that it’s easier to buy a handgun than a vegetable, and the claim that gun control opponents want laws to allow “firearms in kindergartens and machine guns in bars.”

            In April, the Richmond Times-Dispatch gave a mostly false rating to Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) for repeating the “40 percent” claim that Pres. Obama was faulted for previously, but which Everytown continues to use every chance it gets. Also in April, Everytown was caught trying to exaggerate the size of their miniscule anti-gun demonstration during the NRA Annual Meeting in Nashville.

            In May, the Journal-Constitution rated as “mostly false” Everytown’s claim that weak gun laws were responsible for a gun being stolen in Georgia and later used in a crime in New York City.

            And last week, the Tampa Bay Tribune rated as mostly false Obama’s recent claim comparing multiple victim shootings in the U.S. to those in other countries.

            • Sun Kim



    • jdhrris

      best thing they have done in a long time/

    • Randy HK-91

      You see the agenda Of the Liberal media — Get your friends to the polls and VOTE the gun banning Liberals Out !!! Happy 4Th Independence day !! Remember where/ how got the holiday !!!

      • dave

        Look, another fraidy-cat conservative ammosexual who cannot walk out the front door unarmed.

    • Robert Priscaro

      And that is the REAL issue about any so called research into gun violence. How can it be used to further restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners and eventually confiscate and destroy our firearms. Liberals don’t want real answers to gun violence they want justifications to rewrite the second amendment at the Constitutional Convention they are pushing. Real research into gun violence would start with the common denominators of the mass shooters themselves. Common mental illnesses, common medications, common environmental conditions, but this won’t happen because blaming the GUN is the only true agenda. Law abiding gun owners are not the problem here, case in point the shameful and transparent editorial from the New York Times today about the legal challenge to the requirement that people in California have to show “good cause” to the local sheriff to get their CCW. The NYT supporting the right of the “community” (read government) to determine the safety of its citizens. The NYT knows full well that the second amendment is an individual right under the Bill of Rights and it is the right of the PEOPLE to protect themselves and their families that is far superior to that of a local sheriff to determine whom he bestows a CCW upon. That, as they say, elevates form over function.

    • Fred

      Why would anyone want to do this except to conceal facts?

      • Freeordie

        To prevent liberals from lying with statistics.

        • lesteram .

          you got it free. as Mark Twain said , “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

      • jarhead1982

        What logical reason is there to allow the CDC to make studies based on only lies…..

    • Steve

      It’s pretty simple. You have gang bangers and crazy people that kill other people. OK – the fix,,,quit letting criminals out of jail. Once you’ve been convicted of a felony or are a known gang affiliate you go to jail without parole. ANY felon convicted of a violent crime gets the death penalty. As for the crazies, lock their butts up. If their families have resources to pay for their detention then they pay. If not, have them perform menial tasks such as gardening, debri reclamation, cleaning etc.

      • PatriciaJ

        A lot of people are accidentally killed by guns and open carry should be banned, macho man. That’s why you guys like your guns. You are in control when you have one. It’s sick.

        • lesteram .

          No pattiecakes, you people are the only ones wanting to control every one and every thing. I guess you are ok with your hero Bloomberg carrying a gun, he does you know, and his heavily armed army of guards. Or Feinstein carrying a gun though she wants to disarm the people, her rational, “I want to be able to take ’em with me.” She just doesn’t think you should have that right. There’s your sickness.

      • lesteram .

        The main problem is the liberal sob sisters allow these useless pukes to plea bargain their offenses down to lesser charges, then let them run loose again.

    • Paul Dragu

      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics

    • Blatant Abuse

      Good. No need to waste money. Go the FBI website’s Uniform Crime Report. There’s all the info you need. Let’s not pretend that any CDC “study” that would be released would be nothing more than more anti-gun mass media propaganda paid for by American tax dollars. Let’s have the CDC focus instead on the harmful effects of pesticides, sugar saturated diets, fluoride in our water, and petroleum byproducts in our food. Put our tax money to good use.

    • Everett Walker

      It was a move to prevent tax revenue to be used to advocate anti-gun legislation. Obie invalidated it by executive order a few months ago with the result that a number of publically funded “studies.” are now coming out.

    • Worried

      Unless the epidemic of mental illness in this country is addressed, no gun law will do any good. If a mentally unstable person or a criminal wants to commit violence, there is not any good way to stop them. People hide their heads in the sand about the mental health of their children and other family members and the ones who try to get help are largely ignored. Ban guns? Prohibition will never work, just like it did not for alcohol. Anybody with a computer can get instructions on bomb making. Just ask Timothy McVeigh. Oh, I forgot, they executed him for killing 168 people WITHOUT USING A SINGLE GUN.

      • Fred

        The mentally ill commit a whopping two per cent of murders. What do you propose to do about the other 98%.

        • Freeordie

          change their culture

        • Randy HK-91

          AND They Killed McVeigh quickly ,,Unlike the rest of the murdering trash !

        • Blatant Abuse

          I don’t know where that statistic came from, but I flat out reject it, because only someone who is mentally ill would commit murder in the first place, therefor 100% of non-justifiable homicides are committed by the mentally ill. Maybe you could start by “studying” why the per-capita homicide death rate for blacks is 19.4, while it’s only 5.3 for hispanics and 2.5 for white people? Maybe there’s a cultural issue there that cannot be solved by simply stripping Americans of their rights.

          • Fred

            You can reject it all you want, but it remains true. As for your useless comment after that, so how do you identify someone who is MI before the murder? I would assume you to be MI, so should we incarcerate you?

            • Blatant Abuse

              You asked what to do about 98% of the murders. I offered a suggestion. Do you have anything to back up your true statement that 98% of murderers don’t have any mental illness? Do you have a link? Why would you disagree with a postulation that anyone who would commit murder is mentally ill? You obviously think anyone who disagrees with you on the internet is mentally ill, but murder is ok? I’ve never committed a crime more serious than speeding, by the way, what category of mental illness does that fall under? I never said anything about incarcerating mentally ill people. I simply offered a starting point to investigate to determine what to do about 98% of the murders. That’s what you asked for. Do you have anything at all to contribute to this discussion, or are you just here to to insult people on the internet?

              • Fred

                You may try this for a start, although the percent is higher than other research. No I do not disagree that someone who commits a murder is mentally ill; there is no way to identify that person in advance, thus my humor at labeling you mentally ill. Shifting the gun issue to the mentally ill is only a diversion. We must address our culture of guns.

    • Larry Lang

      “Congress Quietly Extends Ban On CDC Research On Gun Violence”

      Obviously not quite enough or how else would this article be possible. This couldn’t possibly be more exaggeration from the Liberal press just to get attention to their quest for lies and deceit, could it?

      • Robert Munro

        Don’t worry, little gun groupie, your secrets are safe with NRA. Gun industry bribes and corruption will, undoubtedly, protect you. Poor losers whose guns and big-wheel pick-um-ups hide the fact that you are smooth as Ken Dolls.

        • Rick Russon

          When you start off with insults you show your bigotry. It’s OK to belittle gun owners but not Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc? Your post is idiotic.

          As far as gun studies it’s pretty obvious. Of 30,000 deaths 20,000 are suicides. Why doesn’t the CDC study why people want to kill themselves? That would take care of deaths by guns, slitting wrists, drug overdoses, alcohol poisoning, and a myriad of other ways to kill yourself.

          Of the remaining 10,000 deaths 8,000 are gang/crime related per the FBI. Go to any county hospital on a weekend night and it’s obvious who are shooting each other.

          Of the remaining 2,000 it’s idiots doing stupid things. Again, go to a hospital and see who is in the Emergency Department.

          So another example of too much schooling and not enough education. This is either a push for gun control pseudo-science or the “researchers” are too stupid to see the obvious.

        • Blatant Abuse

          The NRA is the people. It has 5,000,000 members, and that’s just the people who are willing to shill out the money. Why do you anti-gun people have to express your messages with such perverted penis-centric insults? Grow up loser, stop acting like a kindergarten bully.

          • Robert Munro

            Nipple-brain, I have more than 20 guns, had 22 months of combat in Vietnam (left on a stretcher), have taught for 35+ years and the last person who entered my property armed, without an invitation, spent 25 minutes face down in mud waiting for sheriff’s transportation to take him to jail for the weekend . He spent those 25 minutes disarmed, in handcuffs thanks to my sheriff’s Dept. lieutenant son-in-law who was helping with our yard sale.

            Among my guns, though, the ONLY one for people is a handgun with wad-cutter loads. All the others are for hunting or are antique. In case of problems, I do know exactly where weapons rather more serious than your “Bullpup” toy or the mag that lets you play machine-gun with your handgun are located.

            Most communities in the US have armories, police/sheriff’s departments and, if the community controls their OWN local government, you don’t need to mortgage your kids to have access to those weapons IF IT EVER BECOMES NECESSARY.

            Meanwhile, if you become a nuisance, a .300 mag will discourage you long before you even get in range with your cute little $2500 “Bullpup” (or whatever) squirt gun.

            • jarhead1982

              So youre a communist traitor, got it benedict…..

            • Blatant Abuse

              Wow. That’s quite a story. (pause for applause) I’m glad that you’re such a badass. Must be nice. Unfortunately, you’re not taking into account that not everyone in America is exactly the same as you. What about my grandfather, for whom a .357 magnum is too much to handle? It is much easier for him to shoot a lightweight AR15 than a .357 or shotgun. But, just because you don’t need an AR15, no one should have them, eh Fudd? What would you say to the next guy, who says that only real badasses need BB guns, and that you shouldn’t have your hunting rifles and solitary wheelgun? Bet you wouldn’t take that too well. I’m free to have whatever I want. Fortunately, your opinion of what I should need, or what badass level I need to be at to defend my family, mean exactly jack. And AR15s can be had for under $500 now, btw. And what exactly are you suggesting regarding police and military armories? You’r suggesting that if I think I’ll ever need an AR15, I shouldn’t go out and buy one beforehand, but instead I should wait until I need it most and storm a government armory and steal it? Seriously? Look, thank you for your military service to our country. And thank you for arguing without making assertions towards my penis size, or the lack thereof, or whatever. But please realize that you can’t simply limit people to only having the guns that YOU like, or that YOU think people should need. But if you insist that you should still be the authority on what guns people should have, I’d like you to start at the police stations and local military bases. Go tell your son in law that he doesn’t need his Glock and trunk AR15 to fight crime. All he needs is your wheelgun and a bolt action hunting rifle. Go tell the next troop to be sent to Iraq to dump those ridiculous M4s and take your Savage to battle terror in the desert. See how well THEY like you trying to decide what is best for their defense.

        • Larry Lang

          Dude, you need help fast.

    • David Ransom

      18-25 year old gang-bangers were included as children in the older study. So much for using science to study the issue. The first thing a good statistician will ask when you hire him/her is; “What do you want the results to show?”.

      • Robert Munro

        My goodness! The NRA paid shills are out in full force and lying like Jewish bankers.

        • Blatant Abuse

          NRA paid shills? Do you realize that the NRA has 5,000,000 members, and that each one PAYS THE NRA? Those are just the people willing to pay. I don’t pay the NRA, I’m not a member, but I’m glad other people do. The mass media has been pushing a very successful campaign to push the NRA as just another big lobby, and you, sir, have sadly fallen for it. But how many people pay to be a member of the “Big Oil” lobby? How many paying members does the “Big Pharma” have? We’re talking about an organization that protects the people’s constitutionally gauranteed rights. There should be no need for the NRA, but sadly there is. The mass media has taken your justifiable dislike for big money in politics, and turned it against you in an effort to remove your freedom from you. It’s sad that it’s so easy for them to succeed with people like you. Just for fun, try this the next time you read any mass media article about gun control. Replace every instance of the phrases “big gun lobby,” or “NRA” with the phrase “the people of America.” You’d have a more accurate article if you did that, even if you don’t want to believe it.

          • LeonardH

            No use providing facts to people such as Robert Munro, he’s a proven (by his own words) anti-Semitic troll who isn’t above lying to get his point across. Fortunately, he isn’t much of a liar.

        • Randy HK-91

          Yes Robert–we know you dont like freedom and are afraid of guns !

        • disqus_ZhzNhBKfH0

          OK, now you are showing your true colors as a national socialist and anti semite.

      • Seventhrama

        Good research has nothing to do with statisticians.

    • markrb

      I talked to my guns this morning and they assured me that they were fine, and promised they would not go out and shoot anyone today.

      • Robert Munro

        Well, little NRA shill, be very, very careful where you take your little penis-substitutes. There are more and more places in America where we make sure that gun groupies learn just how unwelcome they are.

        • Freeordie

          Except gun ownership and pro gun laws are on the rise everywhere

        • markrb

          Robert, why are you guys always so obsessed with penises? Your “gun free zones” work so well, afterall. I understand how you little girly men want others to hold your hand and protect you, but as an American who exercises their inalienable right to self defense, I won’t allow you to disarm me. As a CCW holder, you wouldn’t know if I was armed or not.

      • Eddie

        mine said the exact same thing….

    • Jeff

      The CDC and other government entities have been soured by leftist stink.

      • Robert Munro

        Soooo macho on the outside…………smooth as a Ken Doll on the inside……………

        • Tommy

          Yea, quoting a link from communist “Mother Jones” makes you so credible.

          • Robert Munro

            Mother Jones is Communist (Jewish)??? Are you really that imbecilic???

            Whenever the word “gun” is used, the ONLY thing that is assured is that the paid NRA shills and gun-as-penis-substitute trailer trash will swarm. This discussion is proof.


            Sooooo macho looking………….smooooth as a Ken Doll inside………….


            • Tommy

              Yay, you learned to copy and paste. Your parents must be so proud.

              • Robert Munro

                Hey, Ken Doll, who told you that Mother Jones was Communist??? Communism is nothing but a smoke-screen for fascism……………..

                Leaders of the Bolshevik/Communist “Revolution” in Russia. These are the people who fomented this revolution and carried it out. After they had won, they embarked on a slaughter of 30 Million Russians, ALL Christian plus some Muslims. There were no Jewish victims of this genocidal act.

                Leading Bolsheviks…….

                Lev Trotsky (aka Bronstein) Jewish

                Lazar M. Kaganovich Jewish (oversaw slaughter of
                30+ million Russian Christians)

                Alexander Israel Helphand [aka “Parvus”] Jewish
                (helped Trotsky develop the theory of “permanent revolution.”)

                Avel Enukidze Jewish

                Mikhail Kalinin Jewish

                Nikolai Bukharin Jewish

                Mikhail Tomsky Jewish

                Mikhail Lashevich Jewish

                Lev Kamenev Jewish

                Yevgeni Preobrazhensky uncertain

                Leonid Serebryakov Jewish

                Vladimir Lenin Jewish

                Alexei Rykov Jewish

                Grigori Y. Sokolnikov Jewish

                Grigory Zinoviev [aka Apfelbaum; aka
                Radomyslsky] Jewish

                Felix Dzherzhinsky Jewish
                (founder of Cheka/NKVD/KGB/etc)

                Lavrenti Beria Jewish (Turned
                Cheka/NKVD/KGB into a monster. Beria instigated the mass executions of the
                Katyn massacre)

                Yakov Sverdlov [aka Solomon] Jewish (supervised
                massacre of Czar’s family)

                Sergei M. Kirov Jewish (supervised party
                purges/executions of late 1930s – 20 million dead)

                Yakov Yurovsky Jewish (carried out massacre of Czar’s

                (other members of the Czar death squad: Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov, Yurovsky……..all Jewish)

                Nikolai Bukharin Jewish

                Ilya Ehrenburg Jewish (Propaganda Minister)

                Letters written by Baruch Levy, a close associate of the Rothschild family, and by Lev Trotsky/Bronstein…..

                “The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which
                the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.

                In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state.

                Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.”
                –Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx (written – 1879), printed in La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928

                (Levy was a close associate of the Jewish Rothschild Bankster Cartel, that strangles so much of our world today)

                We should turn Russia into a desert populated with white Ni**ers. We will impose upon them such a tyranny that was never dreamt by the most hideous despots of the East. The peculiar trait of that tyranny is that it will be enacted from the left rather than the right and it will be red rather than white in color. Its color will be red literally because we would spill such torrents of blood that they will pale all human losses of the capitalist wars and make (the survivors) shudder.

                The LARGEST OVERSEAS BANKS (Rothschilds, who funded the Bolsheviks) will cooperate with us most closely. If we win the Revolution and squash Russia, on the funeral pyres of its remains we will strengthen the power of Zionism and become a power the whole world would drop on its knees. We will show the world what real power means. By way of terror and blood baths we will bring the Russian intelligentsia into a state of total stupor, to idiocy, to the animal state of being…. And so far our young men dressed in leather – the sons of watch repair men from Odessa and Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitza – oh, how beautifully, how brilliantly do they master hatred of everything Russian!

                With what a great delight do they physically destroy the Russian intelligentsia ~ officers, engineers, teachers, priests, generals, agronomists, academicians, writers!” ~ Leib Bronstein (also known as Lev TROTSKY)

                (Few in the world today are aware that the original leadership of the
                Bolshevik/Communist “Revolution” was almost entirely Jewish and VERY
                FEW WERE RUSSIAN. They slaughtered more than 30 million Russians, all
                Christian, and mostly well educated, before being stopped by a Russian faction,
                led by Stalin and others.)

                • Tommy

                  Mother Jones is nothing but a smoke screen for fascism, but yea blame everything on the Jews.

                  • Robert Munro

                    Hey, Tommy-Tinker, CHECK MY FACTS………JUST TRY TO REFUTE ANYTHING I HAVE POSTED. You CAN’T, boy.

                    • Tommy

                      Calling names just makes your argument moot, so I’m done with you and your Mother Jones links.

                      • Robert Munro

                        Poor widdle NRA Ken Doll – can’t manage to argue for his widdle penis substitutes..

                • nomadr

                  Robert, Without knowing it, you just proved our point! “they embarked on a slaughter of 30 Million Russians” Had they been “armed” it would not have been a “slaughter” they would’ve been able to fight back! Case closed!

    • Goose

      Guns ,guns, guns , so tired of this crap. Society is just self destructing along with moral values. People just love to hurt each other, and no law can stop that.

      • Everett Walker

        The Gay marriage thing was a relief for a while. It gave the demimondaine media something to onanize about besides its hatred for gun rights.

    • Mr.Mike

      Why wasn’t the CDC asked to study the increase in violent behavior IN GENERAL ?? After all – GUNS don’t have diseases – PEOPLE do – therefore, the CDC would investigate PEOPLE, not THINGS. Oh – wait – I see now. It’s the BLATANTLY obvious political agenda of an anti-gun bunch of elitist hypocrites whose ONLY true agenda is to try an end-run around the second amendment to The Constitution by bringing firearms into and/or under health considerations. Caught ya – ya sneaky bassers ! I bet the underlying causes would never be revealed anyway, since there would be too many aspersions cast on too many HIGHLY moneyed facets of our economy – entertainment, media, pharmaceuticals, etc. Can’t hurt them ! They run the country after all….

    • chrismcphail

      The U.S. Supreme Court explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Second Amendment ‘codifies,’ ‘protects,’ and ‘secure[s]‘ a right – rather than ‘grants,’ ‘bestows,’ or ‘gives’ one.

      The Supreme Court explicitly stated that ‘it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The Second Amendment text recognizes the right as pre-existent, declaring only that it ‘shall not be infringed!

      That is why the court concluded in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms ‘belongs to all Americans.

      Thus, the Second Amendment protects a right granted us by our Creator, as described in the nation’s charter, the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

      if the Second Amendment is a mere privilege given to American citizens by government, it is a privilege which can be overcome by naked assertions of public safety.

      The Second Amendment seeks to preserve the United States as a free nation, by protecting the right of individual American citizens to acquire, own, possess, sell, carry and use modern firearms, both through service in a citizen’s militia as a final line of defense against government tyranny, as well as other personal uses such as self-defense, hunting, and other sporting activities.

    • chrismcphail

      Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776 Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve, rather, to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. – Thomas Jefferson

      • nitrog100

        That assailant only got one shot when Jefferson wrote that. That is, unless he was carrying a knife or a sword, the carry of which are far more regulated than guns in most states now.

        • chrismcphail

          That has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is that an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. If everyone turned in their guns then only the criminals would be armed.

          • Robert Munro

            OBVIOUSLY, contrary to the lies of your Koch/NRA employers, NOBODY is trying to take away America’s guns. We do, however, want to take away certain assault weapons, high-cap magazines, CONCEALED CARRY.

            When our outlaw government goes too far, there are stockpiles of weapons and ammunition in most decent size towns and your “Bullpup” isn’t going to do SQUAT against an AH-64D, M1 Abrams or drone.

            • Freeordie

              None of those worked on ISIS, The Taliban or Al Queda

              And there are100 million plus legal gun owners, what makes you think we are going to fight one at a time?

            • Tommy

              What makes you think the military would turn against the American people, Robbie.

              • Robert Munro

                So many of the NRA propagandists squeal that they have to protect their rights from the guv’mint. They talk about taking up arms against the guv’mint.

                ONLY fools who’ve NEVER been in combat would use such BS. IF it comes to that point,troops will kill thousands before they figure out that they are destroying what they are supposed to protect.
                Until the military is on the side of the people, your infantile “bullpups” and hi-cap magazines will have ZERO value against modern weapons. After the military sides with the people, there will be plenty of useful weapons available.

            • nomadr

              America’s freedom and liberty was established by anti-big government gun owners with “unregistered assault rifles,” the individual men of the local militias of the several states.

              The Greek philosopher Aristotle proclaimed 2,300 years ago that the prevalence of privately owned weapons was the best indicator of whether a nation was free. It is still a true measure of freedom today. Free men own guns, slaves do not.

              The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, “The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that when called into action the militia was to show up “bearing arms supplied by themselves…” Black’s Law Dictionary defines militia as, “The body of citizens in a state” and not the “regular troops of a standing army.” The militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the US military forces.

              Our Founding Fathers warned that the militia must never be replaced by a standing army. Today, our nation has the world’s most powerful military; 57 government agencies carry guns and most have their own SWAT teams; and local police are trained in para-military operations.

              As our Founding Fathers warned – the demise of the militia and rise of a standing army would spell the end of freedom and liberty.

          • nomadr

            And the Government!

      • Robert Munro
        • Bill Lucas

          tell that to the young lady that was just recently murdered in San Francisco in broad daylight by someone who obviously did not possess a fire arm lawfully. Too bad these people could not fire back!

    • chrismcphail

      First they register, then they regulate, then they restrict, then they confiscate!

      Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.”

      Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.

      Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.

      Fact: 54% of these deaths are suicides (80% in Canada). Numerous studies have shown that the presence or absence of a firearm does not change the overall (i.e., gun plus non-gun) suicide rate.

      Fact: Guns are used for self-defense 2,500,000 times a year in the United States.

      • 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
      • 64% had been convicted of a crime.
      • Each had an average of 11 prior arrests.62,63
      • 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories).

      In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

      In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.

      In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.

      In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20-million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

      In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million “educated” people were rounded up and killed.

      In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.

      In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.

      Over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century.

      “Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move… Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” – Charles Krauthammer Syndicated Columnist The Washington Post, April 5, 1996

      All Quotes are from Gun Facts by Guy Smith 2011


      Sure they block the investigation. You wouldn’t want the government actually proving that guns are the most fatal disorder in America.

    • gregoryheiman

      Just more bullshit from the Bloomberg and Watts bullshit wagon…

    • M.

      Of course it is propaganda if the use the term, “gun violence”. What exactly is Gun Violence????? Are the causes of MURDER different if they committed with a gun or another tool??? Are the CAUSES of Assault different if they committed with a gun or another tool??? Are the CAUSES of Robbery different if they committed with a gun or another tool??? Are the CAUSES of Rape different if they committed with a gun or another tool??? Are the CAUSES of Kidnapping different if they committed with a gun or another tool???

      OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Therefore, if they use the term “Gun Violence” you already know it is BIAS JUNK SCIENCE. It;s like studying Unicorns, they DON’T EXIST. The CDC studied Gun Control laws nearly 15 years and they could not find ANY evidence that Gun Control works to curb VIOLENCE. In order to get science to work they create nonsense terms to cherry pick data that spins statistics in order to support a false conclusion.

      • Memento Mori

        Well said…

    • Memento Mori

      Gun violence is a misnomer. The correct term should be gun violent, with special emphasis on VIOLENT… Australia basically got rid of it’s firearm ‘problem’ in 1997, with the ‘buyback’, and the violent crime rate has remained the same, and actually increased with rising population. A good place to start in dealing with the violent (gun or otherwise) would be to get rid of liberal judges, plea bargaining prosecutors, and lax members of parole boards… Laws simply define criminal behavior, they do absolutely nothing to prevent the actual crime. Any future gun law or laws will serve only to define the criminality of the act when it happens again, not stop it….

    • drdos1943

      It seems that no matter who does any kind of “scientific” research on anything concerning guns and firearms, the results always corroborate their agendas.

    • This is the new atheistic, liberal, no moral society which so many of you have worked for. We now have a new
      generation of young folks with no ethics or respect for people, the country, or anything else. Most of these people
      crave attention and the media will be glad to make them famous. Past generations gave you a free, wealthy,
      God fearing country and your generation has pissed it away. I would suggest you get used to the killing as there will probably be a lot more.

    • UStu Padas

      Goes to show you the GOP and elected officials WANT gun violence so they can use the 2nd as their sheep herding tactic.
      Stopping research that could potentially help stop the gun violence proves they could care less.
      We require safety precautions on everything else but not guns.
      We require continuing training to run certain types of machines or deadly chemicals, we require training and licenses to drive a car.
      But when it comes to logic with guns all goes out the window.
      Seems those who gun crazy can not sit down and have an intelligent thought or discussion about how to lower the gun violence.
      They have 1 stupid response and that is guns everywhere.
      This has already been proven to lead to more gun deaths and violence so again the gun crazy people ignore facts and listen to paid pundits and lobbyists.
      Fools every one of them.

      • Memento Mori

        Laws simply define criminal behavior, they do absolutely nothing to prevent the actual crime. Any future gun law or laws will serve only to define the criminality of the act when it happens again, not stop it….

      • markrb

        So…the GOP want their sheep well armed? LMAO!!! Yeah, because a well armed citizen is so easy to control!! Funny, but I seriously doubt all those shooters in Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc, etc, are registered Republicans or NRA members.

    • cheechio

      “Gun violence” is a political term designed to cast blame from violent people, criminals, and mentally deranged people onto an inanimate object so its a good thing our tax dollars are not going to research this, it would be equivalent to funding research into witches…

      • dave

        Another comment by a brain-dead ammosexual.

        • nunya

          Dave what kind of sexual are you. Man on man. I love liberal lunatics. They show the world how naive and stupid they are. Ammosexual thats cute but if the shtf I will be ready. What are you going pack and shoot? Another nans butt. Hahahaha lmfao liberal lunatic hack

        • cheechio

          everyone who disagrees must be a “brain dead ammosexual”, right dave???

          • dave

            Not at all, but anyone who disagrees and, in doing so, makes the comment you made, can definitely safely be called a “brain dead ammosexual”.

            Your comment shows no intelligence whatsoever.

            • cheechio

              excellent rebuttal. not actually saying anything of consequence, but reinforcing your original statement. you are brilliant, or you have absolutely no understanding of how a debate works…

              • dave

                What is there to rebut? You simply claimed that “gun violence” is a political term. There is no intelligence in that statement. You seem to believe, as most ammosexuals do, that guns are perfectly safe. Statistics show otherwise. Law enforcement has stated that they need the heavy weapons and equipment that the military has, simply because America has too many firearms.

                Your claim that firearms are not dangerous is as stupid a claim as can be made. Your claim that individuals owning and carrying firearms are safe flies in the face of reality.

                And yes, I am brilliant, but brilliance is unnecessary when debating this topic or the likes of yourself.

                • cheechio

                  There is no intelligence in the claim that there is no intelligence in my statement. most antigun fanatics like yourself see nothing but the narrow statistics you want to see, again to confirm your POLITICAL stance on the issue. exactly as i said – its a political term to target specific instances of violence in society as if a massive problem can be solved if the majority would simply cave to your political ideals. i have read nothing but excuses. the funny thing is there is obvious conflict in your stance. you dont advocate the elimination of weapons. you advocate the cetralization of them. Keep the smug attitude up though, its working wonders for elitists everywhere…

                  • dave

                    “There is no intelligence in the claim that there is no intelligence in my statement.” – Bullpucky. There was no intelligence in your statement.

                    “most antigun fanatics like yourself see nothing but the narrow statistics you want to see, again to confirm your POLITICAL stance on the issue.” – You are confused. I am not an “antigun fanatic”. I have lots of relatives that hunt. You can widen the statistics as wide as you want, and they do not change. You are wrong on both counts.

                    “its a political term to target specific instances of violence in society as if a massive problem can be solved if the majority would simply cave to your political ideals.” – This is completely wrong and based on ignorance. America has a gun problem. If you fail to see that fact, it is you who are blind.

                    “the funny thing is there is obvious conflict in your stance. you dont advocate the elimination of weapons. you advocate the cetralization of them.” – That is because you simply don’t understand. I advocate for the strong regulation of firearms. I advocate for the computerization of firearm records. You know nothing.

                    “Keep the smug attitude up though, its working wonders for elitists everywhere…” – To a conservative, an elitist is anyone with an education. Get over yourself.

                    • cheechio

                      lol dude keep going… computerized firearm records would do what? it had done wonders for Canada, correct? millions of dollars on a system that statistically aided in solving neglible amounts of crimes. thats why they gave it up. you guys dont think anything through, you spend tons of money on idiotic methods of criminalizing and marginalizing legit firearms use, then wonder why “guns are a problem”… guns ARENT THE PROBLEM. Your failed solutions are.

                      • dave

                        “computerized firearm records would do what?” – The same thing that computerized records do for every other industry.

                        “it had done wonders for Canada, correct?” – Don’t know, and irrelevant. We are not Canada.

                        “millions of dollars on a system that statistically aided in solving neglible amounts of crimes.” – Again, apples and oranges.

                        ‘you guys dont think anything through” – Who is “you guys”?

                        “you spend tons of money on idiotic methods of criminalizing and marginalizing legit firearms use” – Bullshit. This statement shows zero facts and no reality.

                        ‘then wonder why “guns are a problem”‘ – Nope, no wondering involved.

                        You have shown zero verifiable facts, dubious reasoning, and complete ignorance on too many subjects. You are an ammosexual. WTF are yo so afraid of?

                      • cheechio

                        “computerized firearm records would do what?” – The same thing that computerized records do for every other industry.” which is “save lives”, correct? your goal with these laws? or is it a false cover for something else… a registry wouldnt save lives and everyone knows it, you wont get one, so keep pounding sand…

                        your right we arent canada – theres no guarantee to the right to keep and bear arms up there, like there is here… again pound sand…
                        “you guys” refers to you people keep proposing “assault weapons bans” and registries… bloomberg, etc etc – something that has shown to do nothing to prevent violence and murder.
                        “you spend tons of money on idiotic methods of criminalizing and marginalizing legit firearms use” – Bullshit. This statement shows zero facts and no reality.” another decree by the all intelligent dave – bow down to his wittyness and greater knowledge. actually it IS factual. look at the results of laws in california and NY… record high shootings since their post sandy hook nonsense was enacted. 14% maximum compliance with an “assault weapon” registry in the state of NY. that means 86% in violation of the law. so again make your demands, and expect compliance, but when you have criminalized a portion of the firearms community dont claim it a lie.
                        keep going man, i have shown plenty of what the reality of the situation is… you have shown what your gun free world dream is – pandoras box is opened, keep your head in the sand though…

                      • dave

                        “a registry wouldnt save lives and everyone knows it, you wont get one, so keep pounding sand” – So you’ve decided, huh? You’ve shown no reason that it would not work, and you’ve shown no one except yourself who believes that a registry is a bad idea. You’ve got nothing, and you know it.

                        “your right we arent canada – theres no guarantee to the right to keep and bear arms up there, like there is here… again pound sand…” – And their firearm homicide rate is much lower. You’ve proved nothing and only demonstrated that you cannot have a rational conversation on the issue.

                        ‘”you guys” refers to you people keep proposing “assault weapons bans” and registries… bloomberg, etc etc – something that has shown to do nothing to prevent violence and murder.’ – A bull$h1t statement that you cannot backup with evidence. Shocking…

                        “another decree by the all intelligent dave – bow down to his wittyness and greater knowledge.” – Please do so, as you are only making an a$$ of yourself.

                        “actually it IS factual. look at the results of laws in california and NY” – Nope, and your saying so doesn’t change the facts.

                        “… record high shootings since their post sandy hook nonsense was enacted. 14% maximum compliance with an “assault weapon” registry in the state of NY. that means 86% in violation of the law. so again make your demands, and expect compliance, but when you have criminalized a portion of the firearms community dont claim it a lie.” – I’m sure that, in your ignorant mind, you think you’ve written something intelligent, yet you have not. Additionally, your sentence lacks meaning.

                        “keep going man, i have shown plenty of what the reality of the situation is.” – So sad that you think you’ve actually said/proved something. All you’ve proved is that you use dumba$$ arguments, shown no proof that they are correct, and claimed yourself the winner. You are pathetic.

                        “you have shown what your gun free world dream is – pandoras box is opened, keep your head in the sand though…” – This comment has zero to do with reality.

                        Face it, you are constantly fearful and a firearm makes you feel safe/manly. Maybe you are poorly endowed, and you now have your extension. Maybe you are just a naturally fearful person. Lots of us Americans who are not fearful and feel no need to be armed. The only thing I fear is “good guys with guns” who literally look no different than “bad guys with guns”, and can accidentally/emotionally shoot an innocent person, and suddenly becomes a “bad guy with a gun”.

                        You remain pathetic.

                      • cheechio

                        pathetic is the guy who cant accept he might be wrong. his name is dave. check him out hes been trolling me a few days now.

                      • dave

                        Sorry, bub, but I am far from wrong. You, an ammosexual afraid to leave his own house without a firearm, and the definition of pathetic. Live with it.