Login
  • 7

Hiding facts from Americans for sake of political ideologies? When American's know the facts, I wonder if some opinions might change?

Why would the CDC do this? Has anyone sought them out for official statements? They're suppose to provide complete information to the public. Imagine if this were an outbreak?

If you recall, a prominent talking point on the left is that the GOP banned the CDC from doing research on gun violence in 1996. Their claim is only partially correct. The Dickey Amendment to the 1996 spending bill did ban the CDC from using injury prevention and control funds to promote or advocate for gun control, but it did not remove the ability of the CDC to study gun related issues. The need for a bill like this shows the inherent bias present at the CDC relating to guns, so it is not surprising that the study, that was conducted from 1996-1998 and was statistically significant in shedding positive light on the gun issue, was squashed.

Mark Rosenberg, then director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, had said in 1994, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes ... It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol—cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly—and banned.” One can easily see a possible bias in his comments, which helped lead the way to the Dickey Amendment.

2

So mainly it's the republicans' fault, what's new. However I find that analogy with smoking a bit hard to swallow. You won't escape death when you smoke and that's the truth, guns are a bit morecomplicated right like if you use it properly, it won't always default to death, it can even save lives.

I'd be curious to see the data from the CDC, or a link if anyone has one. Also, by following the links in the Daily Caller article I was taken to to this Reason page: https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o where the following quote occurs... "UPDATE: You will note the original link doesn't work right now. It was pointed out to me by Robert VerBruggen of National Review that Kleck treats the CDC's surveys discussed in this paper as if they were national in scope, as Kleck's original survey was, but they apparently were not. From VerBruggen's own looks at CDC's raw data, it seems that over the course of the three years, the following 15 states were surveyed: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. (Those states, from 2000 census data, contained around 27 percent of the U.S. population.) Informed of this, Kleck says he will recalculate the degree to which CDC's survey work indeed matches or corroborates his, and we will publish a discussion of those fresh results when they come in. But for now Kleck has pulled the original paper from the web pending his rethinking the data and his conclusions." So, according to the National Review anyway, it's still an undecided issue. Also @Jon Saltzman the Daily Caller is perhaps just a teeny weeny bit biased so take their claims with a grain of salt.

Stories