According to this article posted on the super-gun-friendly folks at MSN takes another jab at the NRA stating they worked at the highest levels of political power to de-fund the CDC's studies attempting to show that a gun in the house makes it 10+ times more risk of a suicide or homicide by a young person in that home.
I can't speak to the science or their findings, though I know I've heard that claim many times before. It does make me wonder if that claim takes into account guns that are locked away from young people, as they are in many homes around the country. Of course, this was taking place in 1993, when newly elected President Clinton was already working toward the assault weapons ban of 1994. I wonder??? Could there have been any political pressure from the other side on the CDC? Say from the office of the President? To get them to show 'science' that supported his need to pass the AWB???
My guess is that there are two sides to this story, but, of course, MSN (and the article's source, PRI) are probably only sharing one side. I don't know, the whole thing sounds a little more than biased. And, they're using the same old, lame tactic of saying, essentially that the CDC is just a bunch of good scientists doing good science for the betterment of mankind. Gee, I have to also wonder, are scientists free of bias?? Free of influence? I think we all know the answer to that, especially when your results are likely to garner you more funding from the government. They really must think we're all fools. Unfortunately, many of the uniformed masses are.
Read the article for yourself if you like:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gu...rs-said-then-the-nra-silenced-them/ar-AAaUFQx
I can't speak to the science or their findings, though I know I've heard that claim many times before. It does make me wonder if that claim takes into account guns that are locked away from young people, as they are in many homes around the country. Of course, this was taking place in 1993, when newly elected President Clinton was already working toward the assault weapons ban of 1994. I wonder??? Could there have been any political pressure from the other side on the CDC? Say from the office of the President? To get them to show 'science' that supported his need to pass the AWB???
My guess is that there are two sides to this story, but, of course, MSN (and the article's source, PRI) are probably only sharing one side. I don't know, the whole thing sounds a little more than biased. And, they're using the same old, lame tactic of saying, essentially that the CDC is just a bunch of good scientists doing good science for the betterment of mankind. Gee, I have to also wonder, are scientists free of bias?? Free of influence? I think we all know the answer to that, especially when your results are likely to garner you more funding from the government. They really must think we're all fools. Unfortunately, many of the uniformed masses are.
Read the article for yourself if you like:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gu...rs-said-then-the-nra-silenced-them/ar-AAaUFQx
Last Edited: