She invited gun owners to be part of the solution.
"Come to the table. Join us in the conversation," she said. "I want you to teach me what you have done to make your gun safe, and then I want you to teach everybody else," she added.
Come sit at my table and ask me that question and I'll tell you the honest and simple answer, though I doubt she would actually learn anything from it, since it obviously runs counter to her preconceptions and beliefs.
My guns are safe. They are inanimate objects, and do not have to ability to do anything on their own. They are as safe as the rocks in the field, or the shoes on your feet. They are as safe as the books in my house, and the chair I sit in and every other inanimate object we encounter in our daily lives.
It is the hand, and the will of MAN that creates and is responsible for all risks and dangers with firearms and nearly everything else in this world that isn't a force of nature.
Guns don't load themselves, don't aim themselves, don't pull their own triggers. Even accidents happen only because some person created the situation where they could.
I'm past the point of being fed up with the phrase "gun violence", despite it being embedded in America's popular language. It is neither accurate, nor good grammar.
It is a well crafted piece of linguistic garbage used to infer that the gun is the problem, and the reason for the violence.
The CDC wants "gun violence" to be accepted by everyone as a disease, and therefore within their purview. Follow the $$. The more things they are responsible for dealing with, the more money they get. Personal ideologies aside, it really is that simple.
Next add in ideology and the modern medical philosophy that says the responsibility of doctors is to protect us from harm (as they define it) whether we want them to or not.
Why are we concerned that as soon as the CDC starts talking about guns they are talking about and promoting gun control? Because that's what they did in the past!! To the extent that specific rules were created to prevent that, as explained in other posts here. And, as pointed out, the law does not prevent them studying the issue, it prevents political advocacy of a viewpoint. Not because of the "gun lobby" or the NRA but because NO government agency should advocate ANY political point of view. I believe that function is reserved for Congress.
Personally, I think one place they ought to spend their time studying is the effect, over lifetimes of the entertainment industry's use of guns in their product. Take a look at the "victims of gun violence" from the beginning of 20th century to present. (you can go back further but you don't need to).
Look at the fact that in the roaring 20s and the 30s, the era of Prohibition, gang wars and the "motor bandits", mass shooting were extremely unusual events. And, note how often people actual saw people getting shot.
In those days, if you were well off enough, you might go to movies, as much as once a week. Most people a lots less. You might see a western or a gangster movie with a lot of gunplay and people getting shot for an hour or two. The rest of the week was normal life. Move up to the 50s and TVs in our homes. Now you could see people being shot every day, often several times a day. AS entertainment. Jump forward another 20 years and we get 24-hour TV (for the few, at first) jump again and now we have 24hr tv for everyone and another jump takes us to 24hr TV for everyone everywhere. Your TV, your phone, tablet, computer, etc. And enough channels and content that today, you can watch people being shot for entertainment everywhere you can watch any screen every minute of every day.
I'm not going to try and quantify the effect, nor is this the place to debate the influence of it on individuals, but you cannot tell me that there is no effect.
Training films DO WORK. I don't think that is a matter for discussion, its proven fact. How well they work is open to discussion.
If its ok to ban "hate speech" because of its "impact" on people what do you do with endless multiple mass shooting on TV screens 24/7? Ignore it because its free speech? because its fiction? OK, then you should also treat all other free speech the same way, including what you disagree with. Our govt is required to do that. First Amendment.
Another point I think worthy of study concerning the problem of too many people shooting people is the effect the last half century or so's changes to our legal system has created. What seems to have gone away is the general population's (and particularly the criminal element's) belief in the certainty of harsh punishment. No one criminally shoots someone else believing they are going to be caught, but there was a time when the general belief was that if you were caught, and convicted, you were going to do hard time, or for murder, you would get the chair, the gas chamber, or be hanged.
That seems to be lacking today.
Might be worth studying why that is.
On the other hand, with what's going on today, why are we allowing them to waste their time and our money on what is a criminal problem, not a disease problem? Don't they have more than enough to do with COVID, and everything else they are already doing, (and much of it badly?)
Doctors (and especially govt ones) ruling our lives in the name of safety, is, and should be a personal choice. When its not, its just as bad as when politicians do it without using the face of a doctor to hide behind.
Pardon the rant, but his is one of my "button" issues.
Watch this closely people, I believe we are being sold a bill of goods, without any goods ever being delivered.
