That's what he said (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc) regarding the quotation.
Even if we assume he was misquoted, my point was that is part of what drove this regulation. Again, just trying to explain why we have the regulation, I'm not arguing that it was the right decision.
See, the problem with this whole line of reasoning is that you're attacking the person and not the argument. If you think that they're doing bad science, prove it. Discredit the work, not the person.
Yes, I'm aware of what an ideal world looks like. Then again I'd be pretty pissed if the CDC was giving vocal racists funds to study race, or vocal anti-vaxxers funds to study vaccines. Let them pay for their own research.
Sure, we could give them the money then spend more money disproving it, but why would we?
There's no 'And yet' here. You can't draw conclusions about what wasn't studied by a report. That's like me pointing to the same report and saying that they're obviously Donald Trump supporters because they didn't mention that he's an idiot. It's not a reasonable argument to make.
I'm not drawing conclusions about whether restrictions are effective or not. I'm saying they didn't look at restricting firearm ownership, AND YET they were able to find other ways to combat the problems. That indicates that restricting firearms is not our only option here, so I'd prefer to try out some of those methods.
The general gist of their report seems to indicate that giving people incentives and resources to do the right things might be better than trying to prevent them from doing the wrong things. Seems reasonable to me.
This study wasn't intended to provide solutions but to identify factors and potential problems related to guns. Debate about restrictions are only one small part of a solution, not a panacea. The document clearly spells out other pieces, including the need for better record keeping by law enforcement (currently legislated to ridiculous non-searchable paper or microfilm documents), the issues with ease of access to guns by criminals due to personal sale loopholes, etc.
Agreed. I'm fine with looking at these ideas, and have discussed them many times on these forums. I'm glad we agree that restrictions are only a small part of a solution, and for me they're pretty low on the priority list.
Yep. That's another aspect that needs to be looked at closely. My main concern is that from what I see, there is plenty of interest in pointing out these problems that need to be worked on . . . but there seems to be little interest on the side of pro gun folks when it comes to actually proposing solutions or passing plans that will help in these areas. They're merely brought up as a tactic to avoid discussing the particular parts of the issue (typically related to registration, regulation, and enforcement of current regulation) that they're uncomfortable with.
Yeah I'm not too happy about that myself. I'm not too big on the whole personal freedom crowd legislating women's bodies or supporting for profit prisons either. I really wish the Democrats would take a friendlier stance on guns, it might draw some of us middle of the road folks more in that direction. Our political system just sucks (granted, I can't think of a better one) if you like multiple things from different parties.