What We Don’t Know Is Hurting Us

So, this just happened today:

A GOP-led panel blocked a proposal Wednesday that would have reversed a nearly 20-year-old ban on funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research on gun violence.

The House Appropriations Committee voted 32-19 against ranking member Rep. Nita Lowey’s (D-N.Y.) amendment to a bill that would fund health, education and labor programs in the next fiscal year.

Wonder what they’re afraid of. The truth, perhaps? That they’ve been spreading bullshit NRA propaganda? Probably. See my May 27 post, The Last Time Science Looked At Gun Violence. I think it’s pretty crystal clear what they’re afraid of.

Well, we all know who owns the Republican Party now.


Filed under Congress, gun control, gun violence, Guns, Republicans

7 responses to “What We Don’t Know Is Hurting Us

  1. Gun humpers like to quote statistics about how many people are killed or injured by other means (chainsaws, cars, hammers), but won’t come clean about gun violence. Hmmm.

  2. I think I finally reached speechless level on this topic.

    Here;s why.

    Yes, that’s right, Gun permits for the blind.

    Money quote:””There’s no reason solely on the (basis) of blindness that a blind person shouldn’t be allowed to carry a weapon,” Danielsen said. “Presumably they’re going to have enough sense not to use a weapon in a situation where they would endanger other people, just like we would expect other people to have that common sense.””
    (Danielsen is Director of Public Relations for the National Federation for the Blind.)

    • Didn’t Iowa pass a gun permits for the blind law a couple years ago? OOPS sorry *MUST CLICK LINK BEFORE REPLYING*

    • I was going to ask a few general questions about the Americans with Disability Act, but then I showed the piece to my wife, and she cut through my babble and generalities about ‘compelling state interest’ and simply asked ‘Are blind people allowed to have driver’s licenses — and to use them for driving, not just identification?’

      (I married her 24 years ago for her brain, above all, and despite much rockiness, the decision still pays off. If only she’d actually read blogs and do her own commenting… But that seems to be too much of a hurdle.)

      Anyway, that seems to be the obvious answer. If the ADA doesn’t demand that the blind be given driver’s licenses, it can’t be a legal factor preventing the obvious prohibition.

      State law can be different, and the story mentions an Iowa law that prevents people from being refused gun permits on grounds of disability. I wonder if it could survive a court case?

      (On the other hand — and I’m not sure I entirely disagree with this if any sort of gun carrying is legal — even when NYC enforced the Sullivan Law as well as was possible, it was always almost automatic that someone who was wheelchair bound could get a license. Again, unless we could get a British/Australian type set-up here (Which almost makes me wish I could pray without total hypocrisy) I consider this a reasonable position.)

      • State law can be different, and the story mentions an Iowa law that prevents people from being refused gun permits on grounds of disability.

        Would love to know how they define “disability.” Would that include mental and emotional disability? After all the talk about making sure the mentally ill don’t have firearms do we seriously have one state where the opposite is mandated by state law?

      • Apparently the law says ‘based on physical ability’ which removes that horror from the equation.

  3. Opposition to research on public health impacts of guns is not just irrational ( http://dispol.blogspot.com/2015/05/irrational-political-assaults-on_3.html ). It harms the public interest by rendering the debate empty because real impacts are not known than therefore cannot be assessed ( http://dispol.blogspot.com/2015/06/is-debate-over-guns-pointless.html ). The really sad thing is that this situation is not unusual. It may even be the rule and not the exception.