New spending bill to include provision allowing CDC to study “gun violence.” This is the first step in conspiracy of taking away your 2nd amendment rights.

by URPerfect

abcnews.go.com/Politics/spending-bill-stipulate-cdc-study-gun-violence/story?id=53920156

The main argument against such a study should be comparative to another article in the bill of rights, for example 4th amendment. Would a study into demographics of suicide bombers be beneficial for our search and seizure practices in which groups such as Muslims or Chechen widows would be subject to wire tapping without a need for a court order since they are more likely to explode on you, than lets say nuns?

Or do we limit speech for people affiliated we so called hate groups because studies have shown that they hurt feelings for a majority of non-haters?

Study by a CDC on an issue of “gun violence” is at best going to drive for more limitations on gun ownership and at worse eliminate it all together. There would be no mention of 600lbs gorilla in the room that is black-on-black violence or gang related murders. We are going to see a simple conclusion that less guns leads to less “gun related violence” and that would obviously lead to one or another above.

We already have ample data available about gun related deaths and injuries, for everyone who cares to see, readily available.

For example this study: urbanlabs.uchicago.edu/attachments/store/2435a5d4658e2ca19f4f225b810ce0dbdb9231cbdb8d702e784087469ee3/UChicagoCrimeLab+Gun+Violence+in+Chicago+2016.pdf

The above example is actually a very good one, for unbiased study by non-partisan group without a political pressure behind it. Sadly, this cant be said about future sponsored government study due to the partisan nation of the parties involved.

 

From the conclusion of the study I cited above:

Despite the uncertainty about what caused the increase in gun violence in Chicago in 2016, the city need not be paralyzed in crafting a response. The solution to a problem need not be the opposite of its cause. For example, in 1950, the U.S. experienced 22 motor vehicle fatalities for every 100,000 residents. Most of those fatalities were due to some type of driver error, such as speeding, veering into an oncoming lane, and running through stop signs or red lights. But progress in reducing auto fatalities in the U.S. did not come from eliminating all driver mistakes; instead, it came in large part from improving the safety of cars and roadways. The result is that U.S. motor vehicle fatalities per 100,000 people today are less than half what they were in 1950. This example is not intended to illustrate or endorse any particular strategy for reducing gun violence in Chicago, but rather to emphasize that the set of possible solutions the city can consider is broader than whatever turn out to be the causes of the 2016 surge in gun violence. The key lesson from the available data is that the problem does not represent a widespread change in anti-social or criminal behavior in general, but rather a narrower challenge of gun crimes committed in public places, frequently by young people—adults as well as teenagers—in our city’s most distressed neighborhoods.

Why is this study not being used by the leadership in Chicago?

 

 

Related Posts:

We truly are under attack. We need user support now more than ever! For as little as $10, you can support the IWB directly – and it only takes a minute. Thank you. 767 views
Related Posts: