WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

Forums: Politics, Guns, Death Data, Nih
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The NIH was relieved of its past responsibilities for collecting and analyzing gun death data in the US during the GWB II regime. Why do rabid gun owners want to fight the return of this authority??

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 18 • Views: 12,897 • Replies: 273

[+6] - CalamityJane - 01/05/2016THis doesn't make sense. 9/11 Terrorists were anti-American and chose a horrendous act of terror to make it known. Yet, this has nothing to do with your 2nd Amendment, nor does it have...
[+5] - farmerman - 01/05/2016with what certainty of knowledge do you state that. I use NIH data for water contamination data near sulfide mines and Id hate to think that they are deliberately lying to us.
[+5] - farmerman - 01/05/2016NIH was disallowed to collect ANY data on gun deaths and to not do any stats on the problem. The NIH was relieved of that responsibility by Congressional action back about 2005? What reason? The...
[+5] - Setanta - 01/07/2016The constitution does not protect your right to carry guns whenever you go about in public. Those are statutory rights, and vary from state to state. The constitution protects your right to keep...
[+5] - revelette2 - 01/10/2016I know when the elderly become too dangerous to drive, in some States, they can't get their license renewed. A doctor doesn't make that decision but the state. Doctors can make referrals but the...
[+4] - farmerman - 01/05/2016And noone is "abridging" that right. Im a big-time gun owner. I carry on my job when Im up in the woods among the bears and coyotes. I see nothing except a few political malcontents...
[+4] - farmerman - 01/05/2016[quote][quote] I wonder if the 9/11 hijackers also thought that people who valued freedom had mental health problems. [/quote][/quote] Yeh, opening fire with a 357 or a...
[+4] - edgarblythe - 01/07/2016Emphasis on 'well regulated.'
[+4] - Robert Gentel - 01/08/2016I personally disagree, and think that as long as it's on the state level it is essentially not going to make much of a difference (which may be the point for the opposite side of this argument)....
[+4] - farmerman - 01/09/2016interestingly, e have no way to even study the correctness of your last statement because the Congress has relieved the NIH from collecting such data. Stop the "Around the barn" trips...

Their souls must be the property of the gun lobby.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

"I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time," Dickey, an Arkansas Republican, told the Huffington Post in an interview. "I have regrets."

Good summary in the entire article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf

2 Replies

@JPB,

good piece. I hope everyone in Congress can get behind some of these things without all the partisan rancor and finger-pointing.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The NIH was relieved of its past responsibilities for collecting and analyzing gun death data in the US during the GWB II regime. Why do rabid gun owners want to fight the return of this authority??

We do not trust them to provide accurate data. We expect them to be a source of misleading and bogus claims.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

with what certainty of knowledge do you state that. I use NIH data for water contamination data near sulfide mines and Id hate to think that they are deliberately lying to us.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Who is "we" you clown?
It's people like you who hold this country back to its 1776 roots. None of you have evolved and never will until your brain is oozing out from a self inflicted gunshot wound.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

with what certainty of knowledge do you state that.

Well, there are no end of nonsensical claims about guns from medical studies. For example, the bogus claim that "having a gun in your house makes you more likely to shoot a relative than shoot an intruder" comes from some sort of medical study.

I have no idea how many, if any, of these studies are linked to NIH.

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

Who is "we" you clown?
It's people like you who hold this country back to its 1776 roots. None of you have evolved and never will until your brain is oozing out from a self inflicted gunshot wound.

I'm glad the Republicans have the power to protect me from you.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

NIH was disallowed to collect ANY data on gun deaths and to not do any stats on the problem. The NIH was relieved of that responsibility by Congressional action back about 2005? What reason? The article above states that the bills prime sponsor in the Senate regrets proposing and leading that legislation.

I think we are just aweee bit paranoid. The newspapers seem to get the stories of the mass shootings and the NIH would most likely be focuing on the much larger number where kids kill each other each weekend in revenge, little spats, drive-bys, and accidental shootings.
So you dont want to know? Is that your way of handling this issue, just make believe it doesnt happen?

I was over at the Hardware store earlier and theres a HUGE line of camo accoutered "patriots" were looking to buy Ar 15's and other semi autos .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

What reason?

We were tired of all the bogus statistical claims coming from "medical studies".

farmerman wrote:

So you dont want to know? Is that your way of handling this issue, just make believe it doesnt happen?

Primarily the motivation is opposition to fraudulent claims.

However, the data isn't terribly relevant even when accurate. Even if there were accurate data showing some sort of problem, the Second Amendment would still trump all.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

THis in itself is a statement that shows your mental abilities.
--------

Farmerman, the same people who oppose an analysis of gun death data
by the NIH, are the same ones who sit in an abandoned government building and cry for Cheetos, never mind oralloy.

THese people walk around in blinders and hope that reality is not catching up with them. They throw their wives and children under the bus in order to hold a gun. If they only would point it at themselves - it never happens though!

1 Reply

Quote:

the Second Amendment would still trump all. Signature

WTF does that even mean? the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the nation and the people , it clearly states that in the opening phrase.

1 Reply

Don't ask! I will never understand why anyone is so hung up on the 2nd Amendment. I don't want to even go down this road of hollow, but it never ceases to amaze me, how the biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment are the same ones whose mental health is severely challenged. That's the scary part, like playing Russian Roulette with an entire nation - never knowing when the bullet hits.

2 Replies

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

THis in itself is a statement that shows your mental abilities.

Not really. What is shows is my gratitude to the Republicans for protecting me. I can't wait until their coming victory so they can stack the Supreme Court with right-wing justices.

Probably the first to go will be all that Roe v Wade/PP v Casey type of stuff. The pro-lifers are a big part of the Republican base after all. But it will not be long before the Supreme Court starts enforcing our Second Amendment rights.

CalamityJane wrote:

If they only would point it at themselves - it never happens though!

That's not very nice. Why are you freedom haters always so mean spirited? Sheesh!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

WTF does that even mean? the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the nation and the people , it clearly states that in the opening phrase.

It means that even if there were reliable data indicating that gun ownership were harmful, the Constitution would still protect our right to carry guns whenever we go about in public.

2 Replies

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

it never ceases to amaze me, how the biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment are the same ones whose mental health is severely challenged.

I wonder if the 9/11 hijackers also thought that people who valued freedom had mental health problems.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

THis doesn't make sense. 9/11 Terrorists were anti-American and chose a horrendous act of terror to make it known.

Yet, this has nothing to do with your 2nd Amendment, nor does it have anything to do with your so called freedom. You don't even know what freedom is. Just because you can hold a gun and are allowed to do so without percussion, doesn't mean you have freedom.

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

THis doesn't make sense. 9/11 Terrorists were anti-American and chose a horrendous act of terror to make it known.

The 9/11 hijackers attacked America because they hated our freedom.

CalamityJane wrote:

Yet, this has nothing to do with your 2nd Amendment, nor does it have anything to do with your so called freedom.

Gun control advocates hate our freedom too, just like the 9/11 hijackers.

CalamityJane wrote:

You don't even know what freedom is. Just because you can hold a gun and are allowed to do so without percussion, doesn't mean you have freedom.

Free people have the right to carry guns when they go about in public. People who lack freedom, don't.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

And noone is "abridging" that right. Im a big-time gun owner. I carry on my job when Im up in the woods among the bears and coyotes. I see nothing except a few political malcontents and paranoid delusionists.

You can have the last word,
Ill just tlk around you unless you start being insulting

1 Reply

WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know