Sign in to follow this  
Mid

House to hold first hearing on gun violence in nearly a decade

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on gun violence prevention for the first time in eight years, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said Thursday.

Thompson, chairman of the Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, said in a statement that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) announced the committee will hold the hearing next Wednesday.

“The U.S. House of Representatives is finally taking action to prevent gun violence – our new majority is answering the call of the American people,” Thompson said.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/427790-house-to-hold-first-hearing-on-gun-violence-in-nearly-a-decade

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do some actual research, it won't be.  We need some decent numbers if a reasonable discussion is to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

It will be nice to see the CDC get the funding it needs to provide real numbers.

It in their wheelhouse gun ownership is a public health hazard.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha Ha Ha,

Nothing will change, its a complete waste of time and money.

Politicians pretending to try to do something ..anything..

to get your vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it’s better than voting for additional tax cuts.  They’ll find gods work in the upcoming investigations of the trump family and associates.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

If they do some actual research, it won't be.  We need some decent numbers if a reasonable discussion is to occur.

The numbers are out there.

Ad Nauseam.

This is just another useless political "study".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Virginia senator begins openly carrying gun as ‘deterrent’

Amanda Chase wears her gun while she presented a resolution in the State Capitol in Richmond, Virginia on Jan. 15.

Quote

Sen. Amanda Chase, a Republican freshman legislator, said she became concerned for her safety on Monday after a group of immigration activistsconfronted her colleague, state Sen. Richard H. Black, over his bill to ban sanctuary cities.

https://nypost.com/2019/01/18/virginia-senator-begins-openly-carrying-gun-as-deterrent/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the pols will start having shootouts during their meetings.

It's happened elsewhere - in countries that don't even have remotely the level of gun insanity the USA has.

And what is it with Republicans and smug smiles? Is it the overlap with religious fundamentalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Maybe the pols will start having shootouts during their meetings.

It's happened elsewhere - in countries that don't even have remotely the level of gun insanity the USA has.

And what is it with Republicans and smug smiles? Is it the overlap with religious fundamentalism?

What a stupid cow. I hope somebody steals her gun before she hurts someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does she match her shoes to the holster, or her holster to her shoes? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Keith said:

Does she match her shoes to the holster, or her holster to her shoes? 

If you're working up to "does the rug match the drapes" I'm not going there. She should wear that holster on a headband.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

President Trump getting things done again! Thanks mid.

Did you read the cite? That was a Democrat initiative, fuckwit. The Republicans are scared to lose the NRA vote. All tRump is good for is watching TV and farting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Not guilty said:
8 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Trump is a colossal sleazeball and you are a deranged little mushroom-sucker.

#Me A Gargantuan Asshole

Says it all, loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, benwynn said:

Gun Control is not a primary focus in my life. That being said, I won't be offering an opinion on assault weapons bans in every single gun thread. 


Me either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz Tries to Eject Parkland Dad From Gun Violence Hearing

Quote

The dispute began when Gaetz, a Hollywood native, stated that a border wall, not background checks, would prevent gun violence. Oliver and Fred Guttenberg, another Parkland father, shouted at Gaetz in protest, according to Mother Jones reporter Kara Voght.

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/florida-rep-matt-gaetz-tries-to-eject-parkland-dad-manuel-oliver-from-gun-violence-hearing-11075764

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

march.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 9:16 PM, badlatitude said:

It will be nice to see the CDC get the funding it needs to provide real numbers.

I'm curious BL, what numbers is the CDC missing?  

Also, be careful what you ask for..... when the CDC was tasked by Obama to look at gun violence in the wake of Newtown - the answers that came back were not terribly supportive of the gun-grabby narrative.  Which is why the report was mostly either forgotten or attacked by the left and by the press. 

Which leads to another question that most of you won't answer:  If the CDC is supposedly underfunded and banned from conducting gun research by Congress - how was Obama able to task them to produce a gun violence report with barely a peep out of a R-controlled Congress???  If he were ordering them to do something in contradiction to Law, there would have been holy hell to pay.  So can you please help me understand that disconnect?  Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm curious BL, what numbers is the CDC missing?  

Also, be careful what you ask for..... when the CDC was tasked by Obama to look at gun violence in the wake of Newtown - the answers that came back were not terribly supportive of the gun-grabby narrative.  Which is why the report was mostly either forgotten or attacked by the left and by the press. 

Which leads to another question that most of you won't answer:  If the CDC is supposedly underfunded and banned from conducting gun research by Congress - how was Obama able to task them to produce a gun violence report with barely a peep out of a R-controlled Congress???  If he were ordering them to do something in contradiction to Law, there would have been holy hell to pay.  So can you please help me understand that disconnect?  Thanks in advance.

I'll let ABC News answer for me.

<snip> "Passed in 1997 with the strong backing of the NRA, the so-called "Dickey Amendment" effectively bars the national Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from studying firearm violence -- an epidemic the American Medical Association has since dubbed "a public health crisis."

The amendment, which was first tucked into an appropriations bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, stipulates 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." A similar provision was included in the Appropriations Act of 2012.

Named for Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, a self-proclaimed "point man for the NRA" on The Hill -- the Dickey amendment does not explicitly ban CDC research on gun violence. But along with the gun control line came a $2.6 million budget cut -- the exact amount that the agency had spent on firearm research the year prior -- and a quiet wariness.

As one doctor put it, "Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear ... but no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out."

Critics argue that the government should not try to limit the collection of scientific information, which is by nature apolitical.

"Facts are facts," Amalia Corby, the American Psychological Association's senior legislative and federal affairs officer, told ABC News. "Public health researchers do not have a vested interest in the outcome."

Besides, experts say, non-partisan research could uncover a plethora of suggestions to help stem the tide of violence -- education strategies, guns storage solutions, etc. -- that don't include limiting access to guns.

"Violence prevention researchers are invested in less violence, not fewer guns," Corby said. "Their end game is not to take away guns."

Though President Obama formally directed the CDC to "the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it" shortly after the Newtown mass-murder in 2012, the chilling effect had already taken hold, and the CDC has consistently declined to allocate money to study the issue.

In fact, to this day, CDC policy states the agency "interprets" the language as a prohibition on using CDC funds to research gun issues that would be used in legislative arguments "intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms."

Thus, researchers remain "afraid to even delve into that area of research because they're afraid of having their funding pulled," Corby said."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, badlatitude said:

The amendment, which was first tucked into an appropriations bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, stipulates 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." A similar provision was included in the Appropriations Act of 2012.

I highlighted the aspect of the law that we don't like.  This stipulation, IMHO, is correct.  The CDC should not advocate or promote something that is contrary to the constitution.  That is for Congress and the courts to deal with.

But there is absolutely ZERO reason the CDC still cannot conduct dispassionate research and report facts.  Which they can and do, every day.  As evadent by the Obama directed report on gun violence after Newtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I highlighted the aspect of the law that we don't like.  This stipulation, IMHO, is correct.  The CDC should not advocate or promote something that is contrary to the constitution.  That is for Congress and the courts to deal with.

But there is absolutely ZERO reason the CDC still cannot conduct dispassionate research and report facts.  Which they can and do, every day.  As evadent by the Obama directed report on gun violence after Newtown.

What you don't get, Jeff, is that it's SO UNFAIR that badlat's yuge endowments and Bloomberg'$ $peech is just randomly spent at this point because we have no idea what kinds of guns need banning nor when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this