[Density]

CDC can't study gun violence because they are out to ban guns.

Quote from the CDC head Mark Rosenberg from 1994: “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.”

This isn't an okay attitude for a government employee to have because the bill of rights guarantees all Americans the right to bear arms.

[dragonwriter]

> CDC can't study gun violence because they are out to ban guns.

Seems to me if that was the concern, removing the CDC head with the problem and then not appointing/confirming one with the same problem would be the solution.

I mean, that's like saying we should permanently ban the DoJ from enforcing civil rights law because of Jeff Sessions’s views.

[Density]

Sure let's weaponize all government agencies in our fight against our political rivals.

Are we really here already? I thought we'd have another decade at least. Next step political violence.

[RickJWagner]

I find it interesting that nobody seems interested in studying the characteristics of people who have trouble with guns versus those who don't.

I was born and raised in a midwest state that relies largely on tourism. The pheasant hunting season in particular is a big deal. My family, friends, and just about everybody I knew owned guns. In that context, I knew absolutely nobody who ever used a gun to hurt a human being. And I knew all these people for several decades.

Blaming the guns is just wrong. There are other factors at play here. We need to leave the framework (2nd amendment) alone and start working the root cause issues.

[contoraria]

so like, I can arm my front lawn with a nuke silo? Good to know. It's already forbidden to carry concealed, or even openly.

Maybe literal bear arms, were meant? With lawyers and legalese you never know. Please define to bear if you care to.