This is what the gun control law should be in the US.

I already did, and respond to them. We've moved past those responses, and on to the one you don't want to address:

I asked -you- why -you- thought the mention of the 1994 AWB was interesting, after -you- brought it up.
Apparently, you can't tell me.

Good to see you now know there was a standard-capacity magazine ban from 1994-2004.
How did you not know that before today?

And so, as I said, you aren't -really- interested in doing "everything in our power".
That said, why do you make such a statement?

 

Authoritarian fascists are afraid of the truth.

 

Another anti exposed for their real intentions.

 

Like your false tagline is truthful.

 

For the simple reason that locations such as banks, or any other business entity that handles large transactions of cash, possess armed security. Thus suggesting money is regarded as being of greater importance than the lives of children by comparison, as facilities of learning are left unguarded and unprotected.

 

The entire citation on the part of yourself is predicated completely on a falsehood. The dickey amendment specified in clear and concise terms that the CDC was forbidden from advocating or promoting firearm-related restrictions. They are free to research the matter to whatever extent they wish, but they absolutely cannot engage in political advocacy on the subject for any reason.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

Provided further, That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may
be used to advocate or promote gun control

That is the extent of what the dickey amendment specifies. In plain, clear, and concise language. No hidden meanings, no double-talk, nothing that would suggest firearms-related research is legally forbidden. Anyone who claims otherwise is engaged in deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

 

I think it is more a matter of probability. A cost/benefit calculation.

Dickey was "the self-described “point man” in the House for the National Rifle Association"...
"The Dickey Amendment, as it became known, was little noticed at the time, but it had a far-reaching effect. Although it did not explicitly forbid research on gun violence, CDC has not authorized any significant study on the subject of violence since. ".
“I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time,” Mr. Dickey told the Huffington Post in 2015. “I have regrets.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...aff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.530b3421a439

 

Thus meaning the lives of children and school students are held to a lower regard of importance than money.

The citation on the part of yourself admits that no firearm-related research has been forbidden by the dickey amendment, meaning the NRA has not prohibited anything. It is only political advocacy on the part of the CDC that is prohibited, and such is being admitted to on the part of yourself above.

 

But, a piece of evidence, apart from the text of the intent of the Dickey Amendment, is that under Obama, funding, around 10mil, was provided to the CDC by executive order, for research that resulted in the report they published in 2013 which unfortunately didn’t serve to support the narrative his Admin was pushing on gun control.

 

You mean:

 

All we needed to see. Your claim: false.
Were you ignorant of the particulars, or did you choose to mislead us?

 

I read the report and am betting you didn’t. I read it as I read and critically most of the articles/books I comment on anti or pro. If I haven’t read a source I don’t comment on it, and though, a civil and individual right’s advocate, I don’t form my opinion from that of others; most of mine have been formulated over 60+ years of direct experience, education, observation, of not only guns but deep reasearch and experimentation with human culture and behavior.
As for your post, my post was regarding the lie that the CDC was/is prevented from doing gun related research. Regardless of the opinion of gun rights advocates, “Gun rights supporters argue the CDC shouldn't get involved. The agency should stick to controlling and preventing disease, they say.”, reading the text of the DICKEY reveals what the amendment prohibits and the fact that a study was performed and results released in 2013 shows the amendment does’t prohibit the CDC from research on guns, but is specific about using public funds to advocate for gun control contradicts the narrative the left pushes. The article does not address any issue relative to what some gun right’s advocates ‘completely misunderstand’. Rather, it primarily does is to attemp to cast doubt on DGU estimates without any more evidence than saying some studies disagree with the estimates with no discussion of the veracity of the other studies.
Then, the article goes on to say,
“Another point gun-rights activists make about the National Academies's report is that "the key finding the president was no doubt seeking — that more laws would result in less crime — was missing."
A fact, no such finding was prevented.
Then, the article concludes by saying,
“And they're right. The key finding is missing. But that's because we don't know the answer -- one way or the other.

That, some would say, is exactly why the CDC needs to conduct research.”
That despite a number of hints at what the study did find which challenge some of the narratives of gun control advocate.
The article suggests to me, we didn’t get the right answer so we need to continue research to get the ‘answer’ that gun control advocates know must be true.
What is also missing is any discussion of the mid 2000 national study that was consistent with the 2013 study.
So, there are two topics open here. Was the CDC prevented from gun related research. Only if it was to advocate for an anti gun policy and they were not prevented from supporting the 2012-3 study. Second, those accepting the NYT article as some credible objection to it’s interpretation by gun rights advocates, has not read the 2013 report nor done a true comparative discussion of the specifics of gun rights advocates ‘misunderstandings’...probably because they would have had to reveal some of the actual findings that were reported.
I have posted the links before many times to the 2003 govt study and the 2013 study. I am willing to bet few, if any read them, but rather chose to read the summaries provided by favored biased sources. So, CDC question answered... want to argue about the 2013 report and interpretations? Open a thread, I’s be happy to accommodate.

 

You mentioned it, not me. Further, if the gun-rights advocates can't understand the report perhaps they should stop referring to it. That would solve the problem.

 

My apologies with my

Well now, let’s see... neighter Frankle nor you have shown gun rights advocates can’t/don’t understand the report.
Perhaps the problem is that narrative is based on the same level of distortion and deception as the narrative about the NRA compelling congress to prohibit the CDC from doing gun related research.

 

"...the agency essentially stopped studying the issue in 1996 after the NRA accused the CDC of advocating for gun control. The resulting research ban caused a steep decline in firearms studies nationwide." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...erstand/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f458919388e5

In June, the House Appropriations Committee approved a Dickey amendment cutting $2.6 million out of the NCIPC's budget – the precise amount it was spending on firearms research of all kinds. The Senate eventually restored the money, but earmarked it for traumatic brain injury surveillance. And the CDC was prohibited from using injury prevention and control funds "to advocate or promote gun control."

This didn't necessarily mean that it couldn't do any firearms work. After all, the CDC had never believed that it was advocating or promoting gun control in the first place. But there was no money. Other programs would have had to be killed to keep the firearms research going. And there was always the risk, if the CDC pushed too hard, that Congress would strike again. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/trigger/trigger5.htm It is a good article on the NRA's CDC attack dogs.

 

I don't think so. There may be some organizations in the US more dishonest than the NRA, besides the Mafia, but I can't think of any. Oh, yes I can. Trump University.

 

So I'm having trouble understanding what it is you want. Are you advocating for more federal gun control laws?

 

Not necessarily. I'm arguing for a return to common sense.

 

Okay. So you’re not arguing for more federal gun control laws. Got it.

 

As you said:
"Although it did not explicitly forbid research on gun violence..."

As previously said:
The Dickey amendment specified in clear and concise terms that the CDC was forbidden from advocating or promoting firearm-related restrictions. They are free to research the matter to whatever extent they wish, but they absolutely cannot engage in political advocacy on the subject for any reason.
Were you ignorant of the particulars, or did you choose to mislead us?

And, to follow up:
I asked -you- why -you- thought the mention of the 1994 AWB was interesting, after -you- brought it up.
Apparently, you can't tell me.

Good to see you now know there was a standard-capacity magazine ban from 1994-2004.
How did you not know that before today?

And so, as I said, you aren't -really- interested in doing "everything in our power".
That said, why do you make such a statement?

 

Wait... did you -really- just suggest the repeal of the 2nd Amendment?

 

Prove it?

 

anti gun advocates are

 

No.

 

his posts suggest he is bitter that Pro gun voters have opposed the candidates he wants elected.