More than a decade after Congress cut funding for firearms research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another federal health agency has been spending millions of dollars to study such topics as whether teenagers who carry firearms run a different risk of getting shot compared with suffering other sorts of injuries. [More]Gee, and the previous funding cut-off was not a well-justified political response to this?
And Dr. Mark Rosenberg, Director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Control and Prevention (NCIPC) in 1994 told The Washington Post: "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned."So once we repel the vampire, we should invite him back in?
We know what's going to happen--they're going to lump criminal gangbangers in with the good kids and make it seem like a toxic environment for all. The corrupt and miserable results of neoMarxist policies will not only escape analysis, the solution we'll see proposed will be to expand them. And, of course, disarm you and me.
[Via JPR9]
5 comments:
"A decorated army war veteran, this man is an avowed nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such research. He has supported restrictions on the use of asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government-determined occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products. Such advertising restrictions include: [1] not allowing tobacco use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; [2] not allowing such advertising to be directed to women; [3] not drawing attention to the low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, [4] limitations as to where such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein."
read the rest.
" ... health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans."
He has exactly the same chance of getting me to eat
soy as he does of peacefully disarming me: zero. Read the linked page and follow the links he provides and you won't eat soy nor allow any one you have responsibility for eat soy either.
And wheat isn't a whole hell of a lot better for you.
In other words- typical authoritarian scum.
I suppose that the study will completely ignore that there will (MOSTLY) only be 18 and 19 year-old teens who can legally carry guns, and that's not in every state. Most states it is 21. They are essentially trying ot directly tie guns to being shot, which it's actually crime.
"study such topics as whether teenagers who carry firearms run a different risk of getting shot compared with suffering other sorts of injuries"
Of course they are more likely to get shot. Because teens that are carrying guns are doing so ILLEGALLY. Thus they are criminals, and criminals are more likely to get shot than non-criminals
Post a Comment