Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Woman uses 2 guns to shoot at would-be home invasion robber [View all]Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)79. Republicans defunded/blocked it again, try to keep up.
"But today the CDC still avoids gun-violence research, demonstrating what many see as the depth of its fear about returning to one of the countrys most divisive debates. The agency recently was asked by The Washington Post why it was still sitting on the sidelines of firearms studies. It declined to make an official available for an interview but responded with a statement noting it had commissioned an agenda of possible research goals but still lacked the dedicated funding to pursue it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
92 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"I'm betting the perp realized pretty quickly that he had picked on the wrong household."
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2015
#3
I was thinking because of that and the fact she went to retrieve a second gun maybe she
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2015
#7
If they had only kept the door locked, nobody would have fired a shot, but that wouldn't be news. nt
Electric Monk
Jan 2015
#14
You obvously didn't read the link, but your choosing to remain ignorant doesn't surprise me. nt
Electric Monk
Jan 2015
#39
Firearms are *sometimes* lawfully employed to save the lives of innocent victims, true.
Electric Monk
Jan 2015
#45
Is it, then, your position that if a thing brings more harm than good it should be banned?
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2015
#50
The criminal came to the door asking for a third party as part of a ruse.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2015
#33
If the perp saw cameras, an alarm system, and re-inforced doors and locks
Electric Monk
Jan 2015
#46
"don't you think it's more likely they'd just move along and find an easier target"
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2015
#47
Sigh, no, that is not what I'm saying. It's not black and white.Defending yourself should be allowed
Electric Monk
Jan 2015
#52
"She'd have done just as well with a sound-track of gunfire, with less danger to others"
friendly_iconoclast
Jan 2015
#88
In that particular situation what I said is the truth, even though you hate to admit it. nt
Electric Monk
Jan 2015
#90
Scientific studies not your thing? One incident is all you got? Not even a very good one.
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#65
Scientific studies are my thing. That article isn't about a scientific study
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2015
#66
Let's talk about the pain you feel at the thought of people defending themselves.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2015
#71
The studies suck, that is the point of the whole article you folks are apoplectic about.
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#75
Controllers have been bitching that the NRA has been blocking the CDC from studying guns.
hack89
Jan 2015
#76
Don't believe the myth that the government does not study gun violence, it's simply untrue.
branford
Jan 2015
#81
The gun-averse have a visceral hatred towards those who employ armed self-defense:
friendly_iconoclast
Jan 2015
#87