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

That's a hard one to answer. Depends on the quality and/or bias in it. Many of the studies by gun control advocates are so twisted that it makes me wary. For example, many of them ignore that suicides constitute a significant portion of gun deaths and add them in as justification for more gun laws. That doesn't seem valid.

Leadfoot wrote:
"That's a hard one to answer. Depends on the quality and/or bias in it. Many of the studies by gun control advocates are so twisted that it makes me wary. For example, many of them ignore that suicides constitute a significant portion of gun deaths and add them in as justification for more gun laws. That doesn't seem valid."


Why? I mean, to me that's the biggest reason to do it (statistically). I can provide my justifications and can guess at yours but do you really not want to reduce suicide

It also creeps me out when I go for a physical and my doctor asks me about my gun habits. Other than that, I'm not terribly interested in the NIH angle. The Constitutional issue was what lured me into commenting.

The US constitution does not make you immune to owning a poor political position.

Again, using it as the axiom to base your opinions is your choice.

If you are honest with yourself you will simply admit that you personally value those things more than the other things people that disagree with you value.

You judge the additional risk from gun violence (whatever it may be measured to be) as acceptable.

And reasonable people can disagree about that. Nobody owns the truth on this, and everything boils down to an axiom at its core that is supported by nothing else than it being the selection one chooses.

If someone decides to value the influence on the mortality rate more than all else they may reach a different conclusion.

But your "immunity" for your arguments just stems from what you selected as your axiomatic truth and won't necessarily resolve in the same direction for others who have a different axiom guiding their own moral compass.

You and oralloy have produced some of the lesser convincing arguments for disallowing NIH to resume collection and analyses of gun statistics.

why then, did several congressmen who were behind the law say that today they would , not sponsor the legislation that removed the authority from CDC/NIH?.

I think its because they saw that there was no reason for the action other than protecting the revenue stream of the gun industry.

it could be that they were lying in order to alleviate pressure from the Freedom Haters

Foofie, you may be onto something regarding the alcohol - there is no other way to explain the utter idiocy of some of these people here.

Gun control doesn't necessarily mean you cannot own them. What is needed is a thorough homeland security like scrutinizing gun control that involves background check, NSA tapes, fico scores, liability insurances - the whole works!! No one is better than the US government to keep tap on people, why not put these skills to better use for the welfare of our beloved citizens?

If Jack **** has gone through all this and needs a gun to grow some balls,
let him have it!

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??

Mission and Goals

NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.

The goals of the agency are:

-to foster fundamental creative discoveries, innovative research strategies, and their applications as a basis for ultimately protecting and improving health;
-to develop, maintain, and renew scientific human and physical resources that will ensure the Nation's capability to prevent disease;
-to expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the Nation's economic well-being and ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research; and
-to exemplify and promote the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science.

In realizing these goals, the NIH provides leadership and direction to programs designed to improve the health of the Nation by conducting and supporting research:

-in the causes, diagnosis, prevention, and cure of human diseases;
- in the processes of human growth and development;
- in the biological effects of environmental contaminants;
- in the understanding of mental, addictive and physical disorders; and
- in directing programs for the collection, dissemination, and exchange of information in medicine and health, including the development and support of medical libraries and the training of medical librarians and other health information specialists.

Philosophically, I'm opposed to the government 'protecting us from ourselves'

protecting the revenue stream of the gun industry.

Actually it does. If the majority is against me, the Constitution trumps the majority.

It isn't so much that I base my opinions around it, as it is a powerful weapon to defend my opinions with. The ability to nullify the will of the majority is quite potent.

My opinions are based around love of freedom and civil rights.

Robert Gentel wrote:

If you are honest with yourself you will simply admit that you personally value those things more than the other things people that disagree with you value.

You judge the additional risk from gun violence (whatever it may be measured to be) as acceptable.

And reasonable people can disagree about that. Nobody owns the truth on this, and everything boils down to an axiom at its core that is supported by nothing else than it being the selection one chooses.

I realize that there are people out there who hate our freedom, but I find their views abhorrent.

Most of the mortality claims regarding guns are statistical nonsense.

The Constitution is an instrument of actual power, like the will of the majority. Only it is more powerful than the will of the majority.

Philosophically, I'm opposed to the government 'protecting us from ourselves' regardless of what any 'statistical' measurement might show. Critics will reply with the absurdity that I probably oppose 'stop signs' on that principle but I won't go there.