CDC---they're baaaack

And you don’t necessarily need to call it Eddy Eagle. You can still use the same principles.

Encouraging, coaching and supporting a High School trap team is a good way to introduce our progeny to safe firearms handling.

We moved to a rural area in the mountains a five years ago from a multimillion person megopolis. Our last one did his last year of high school in the closest town to us. Most of the young men and some of the young ladies bring their deer rifles to school and leave them in their vehicles during deer season so they can head straight to the stand after school is over.

Culture has a lot to do with it. I gave witnessed the shift of our society from agrarian to urban. Generations have never even held a firearm much less shot one. They’ll believe anything from the likes of Dr. Walensky.

It’s up to us to change the culture one soul at a time. Recent events have many considering gun ownership. It might surprise you.
 
Quote:
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.
Click to expand...
When I read that all I can think is "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"

Yeah.... we already did that. The background check system and the penalties for attempting to violate it were part of the bargain, and now the penalties are just ignored.

So, I'm gonna pass on the whole "have a conversation" (again!) with the government.
 
I’ve spent a couple hours researching specifically this question about funding for research into gun violence. I’m sure there is a lot more information out there.

According to the National Review, a conservative news outlet, “In the 1990s, the NRA successfully lobbied Congress to cut most of the CDC funding for gun violence research.” That quote is repeated in the Patriot Gun News, plus a bunch of other news sites.

A former director of the CDC, 25 years ago, tried to use CDC research to promote gun control. It’s quite possible that Walensky now sees that the people will not accept that use of government-funded research. It's possible that she is sincere when she says, “We cannot understand the research of firearm violence, firearm injury, without embracing wholeheartedly, the firearm owning community. I really do believe that the population of people who wants to own a gun doesn’t want people hurt by them. The majority of the population does not want people hurt by them. I want them at the table.”

I do not want more gun control. I do want less gun violence. I think the gun-owning community should be trying to help solve that problem. This looks like an opportunity to do that.
 
Lima Oscar 7 said:
And you don’t necessarily need to call it Eddy Eagle. You can still use the same principles.
Click to expand...
In a previous post, I mentioned the teachers might not be willing to get certified to teach Eddy Eagle. I just checked the web site for the Eddy Eagle program:

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/program-resources/program-materials/

It looks like no certification is needed to present the Eddy Eagle materials, and they are grade/age specific for kindergarten through 4th grade.

Law enforcement agencies, schools, hospitals, daycare centers, or libraries may receive FREE program materials.
Click to expand...

The Eddy Eagle materials don't have the NRA logo on them anywhere, and the name "NRA" appears only once, toward the back of each handbook. The Eddy Eagle web site is separate from the NRA web site and use its own URL. So the reality is that schools can use the Eddy Eagle program without being concerned that they're promoting the NRA.

Beyond the fourth grade, training should transition to something more mature. My thought would be something like Home Firearms Safety, with a segment added to reinforce the Eddy Eagle message about not picking up a gun but telling an adult if you find one.
 
All of this said, even attempting to get any kind of Program of shooting in a school where I live would be impossible at this point. We are in a very heated BATTLE of another kind as it is with this school system.
The only glimmer of hope comes from my club where we sponsor Boy Scouts all summer long.
 
"It isn't a disease, but you know how it works -- repeat a lie long enough, often enough, and loud enough, and sooner or later it becomes accepted as "truth." "

What makes it even worse is so many just want it to be the "Truth". Facts or the actual truth have nothing to do with it. Just fanatics that hate guns and hate people because they own one. Common sense and personal responsibility have nothing to do with it. If they really cared, they'd be screaming that the criminals aren't being kept in jail (or even sent there at all). That alone would solve most of their problem. Of course worse now is we have an administration that agrees with them and leans on the CDC. The CDC is far from being immune to outside influence. That has been made remarkably clear over the last year and a half.
 
Glad to see you guys do that Carl. I ran many range days where we'd take the Boy Scouts shooting (both rifles and pistols too for the older scouts). A couple of ranges near us were very accommodating to the Scouts. We would always send them a nice thank you letter to post on their board. The program was good for the scouts but also for the parents. A lot of people who were uncertain about guns (or even against) saw what the sport is all about and saw gun owners in a different light. Supper big for PR.
 
I guided in a Duck Club for 7 years. I learned to cast aside my personal desire to hunt and serve others so they can have an enjoyable experience. In this role, firearms safety becomes muscle memory. I always started hunts with the white board pre-hunt safety talk. Zones of fire, trigger awareness, muzzle awareness, safety awareness, barrels to the sky when the Lab is working, etc.

When our sons were at home, I tried to take two to three new hunters each season with one of our sons. It was my mission to introduce as many new shooters to Duck Hunting as possible and keep up with them as the years passed. I still do.

Each of us can take the skill sets we have developed and share them in official and unofficial capacities to change the narrative. We don’t need the CDC to do that and we need to do it.
 
"It's for the children?". Crap. This is just a catchy phrase.

What does the esteemed Dr. Walensky say about supporting Biden's totally reckless "policy"/actions which allowed the Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda (and thousands of them freed from prison) to grab huge quantities of small arms and other weapons?

"It's...Not about the Afghan children" or foreign children stranded there.

It's Only about trying to justify the long-term, very smooth, deceptive attempts to erode the US Constitution for the law-abiding people here.
 
I consider the CDC "looking" at "gun violence" as just another example of bureaucratic empire building, along the the liberal fantasy that things are responsible for people's actions, not the people themselves.

Claiming a social and criminal problem is a MEDICAL issue only serves to dilute resources and responses away from the real causes and possible solutions. Also serves to release the guilty from blame for their actions. If you honestly think that they don't shoot people because they WANT TO (free will) that they do it because they have a disease, I don't think you should be in charge of anything, particularly any govt agency.

Of course that's just my personal opinion, I'm sure the good doctor has paper showing how she is vastly more qualified on these matters than I am. Though I expect her personal experience is viewing the problem from the top of the social scale, not the bottom as I have experienced.
That can tend to color one's point of view....
 
The COVID-19 scheme worked so well why wouldn’t they declare firearms a health issue to further their control agenda? They’ve tried to do this for years and now all the tools are in place to do the job. Their policies went a long way to creat what cities like Chicago have become. Create a problem then have the answer. It’s as old as Lucifer.
 
This is the main problem, trust. The CDC (or more accurately the individuals running it) have fed us so many wolf tickets on so many different subjects over such a long period of time, its tough to accept that they are actually telling the truth in those rare times when they do.

Another part of the problem is that the CDC director who "wants to sit down and have a conversation" already has a fixed preconception of what the problem is, and it is "guns".

This should be obvious to anyone who read her statement, and can look beyond the conversational platitude about sitting down at the table for a discussion.

Just look at what she wants to discuss which is literally, "what have you done to make your guns safe?"

To me, that starts everything out on the wrong foot.
 
So if the CDC is not to be trusted, who would you trust to do such research?
Click to expand...
First, outline the avenue of research... "Guns as a Health Problem" immediately sets up Red Herring so as to introduce administrative/medical
findings -- as opposed to legal/justified/criminal findings. i.e., Change the rules of the game while the players are on the field.

CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home
or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities
and citizens to do the same.

CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health
threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive
and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.

Whatever the eventual game, CDC doesn't play.
 
reteach said:
So if the CDC is not to be trusted, who would you trust to do such research?
Click to expand...
What is "such" research? Gun violence?

The problem today isn't "gun" violence -- the problem is violence. The problem is that people who can't (or won't expend the time and effort to) convince people to adopt their positions simply decide to use violence rather than engage in dialogue -- which may lead to compromise rather than all-out "victory." It isn't just "gun" violence. We see it in teen-agers curb stomping people for "disrespecting" them. We see it in antifa torching buildings and attacking people who don't support them with chains and bicycle locks.

If the topic of discussion includes "gun" in the title it's not a valid discussion, because the focus is going to be on the implement rather than on the people who wield the implement.
 
She starts the conversation with a misunderstanding of the tool.

Part of winning an argument is framing it to your advantage. She starts with an invalid premise that they are not safe and that we have to convince her that they have been made safe or could even be made safe. She needs to convince me that they are not safe. That's still a fundamental misunderstanding of the tool's function in the 1st place. Only bickering and political posturing can result.

If the CDC wants to fund further research, the researchers should have to state what they hope to find has changed from previous numerous research, and not just wasting money.
 
reteach:
I do not want more gun control. I do want less gun violence. I think the gun-owning community should be trying to help solve that problem. This looks like an opportunity to do that.
Click to expand...

Everyone, every community, would like to solve the violence problem. Please don't use the loaded term "gun violence".

There is a community that is about 40% of the problem, but to address it head on is taboo, so I'll quote from a lefty site's statistics and some of their description of the root problem:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-racial-double-standar_b_5957816
FTA:
States that do have racial disparities in gun death rates typically have large African-American populations concentrated in segregated inner-city poverty (i.e., Missouri, Michigan, and Illinois). Let’s not forget that, throughout history, racist government policies have contributed to poverty, unemployment and lack of mental health services in communities that are predominantly African-American. Take any racial or ethnic group and subject them to these types of conditions and the results will be similar.
Click to expand...

The CDC needs to address the pathologies in the affected communities, not attack the tools used. They're smart, they know this, it's just easier to demonize an inanimate object.
 
Sorry -- Missed this earlier

reteach said:
Does anyone here want to see more gun violence? I know that your answer is a resounding NO. A lot of you have said as much a number of times. So why not let the CDC investigate ways to reduce gun violence?
Click to expand...

Because, as I said in my response to another of your posts, the problem is not "gun" violence, the problem is violence.

How many other ways are used regularly to inflict violence on other human beings besides firearms? Think about it -- read the news.

  • Hammers
  • Knives
  • Screwdrivers
  • Rocks
  • Concrete blocks
  • Baseball bats
  • Chainsaws
  • Automobiles
  • Delivery trucks
  • Tractor-trailer rigs
  • Poisons
  • Pillows (yes, pillows -- suffocation)
  • Crowbars
  • Bicycle locks
  • [fill in the tool of your choice]

Why is there any reason whatsoever to limit the discussion about reducing or eliminating violence in society to just ONE tool, the gun? The topic should be violence, not "gun" violence. And, to whatever extent it might be considered a health problem, it's a mental health problem, not an epidemiological problem.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epidemiology

Meriam-Webster said:
epidemiology noun

ep·​i·​de·​mi·​ol·​o·​gy | \ ˌe-pə-ˌdē-mē-ˈä-lə-jē, -ˌde-mē- \

Definition of epidemiology

1 : a branch of medical science that deals with the incidence, distribution, and control of disease in a population
2 : the sum of the factors controlling the presence or absence of a disease or pathogen
Click to expand...

Firearms are neither a disease nor a pathogen. Ergo ==> not epidemiology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top