WASHINGTON, May 22, 2014 — Democratic Sen. Markey introduced a bill to Congress yesterday asking them to allocate money to the CDC to research methods of preventing gun violence and to promote gun safety.
In a statement posted to his website, the Senator said, “It is time we study the issue of gun violence like the public health crisis it is. If we want to prevent injury and deaths from guns, we need to know what can be done to prevent it. No one should be afraid of more non-partisan, scientific research of this issue – not Democrats, not Republicans, and not the NRA.”
According to TheBlaze.com, Senator Markey is asking for $60,000,000 over the next six years for the Center for Disease Control to study the “public health crisis” of gun violence in the United States.
Perhaps his statement deserves further analysis.
“It is time we study the issue of gun violence…”
Senator, the issue has been studied repeatedly. These studies do little to nail the coffin shut on any particular issue. If ten studies are done on a particular subject, you will most likely get ten varying results.
In fact, there has already been a study on this particular issue.
According to a story on TheNewAmerican.com, in January of 2013, not long after Sandy Hook, President Obama ordered the CDC to conduct a study on “the causes and prevention of gun violence.” The result of that study was not exactly what the President hoped it would be. In fact, one could say that it quite contradicted what he hoped it would be. The study itself is located here.
“…like the public health crisis it is…”
This is an interesting approach to gun control. One might be so inclined as to applaud Markey for his, and his allies, approach towards gun control.
Do not call it violence, call it public health. If you call it public health, you will have mothers, grandmothers, concerned aunts, and parents of every kind worried sick as to the result of the study. Public health garners the attention of the public like “missing child” does on the evening news. It is effective, it is emotional, and it makes countering and fighting the issue in the first place seem as though those who would oppose it actually care nothing about the public, or their health. The Democrats might as well have used rainbow colored puppies as the reason for gun violence; how can the Republicans hate rainbow colored puppies?
Whether or not gun violence can be considered a public health crisis is an arguable point. But if it is, that crisis is waning considering that violent crime was down in 2013, continuing for the most part the same trend it has followed over the last decade.
But should it be considered a public health issue? If we label violent crime as a public health issue, and not as criminal activity, we run the risk of labeling all crime as public health, which is a rabbit hole one does not want to see our country disappear into.
“If we want to prevent injury and deaths from guns, we need to know what can be done to prevent it.”
This is quite simple, actually. If you want to prevent injury from guns, and death from guns, there are a few ways you can do it. One way is to educate children early on how to handle firearms, instead of making them wonder how it works while you are not paying attention. Firearms education by those who carry, use, and employ firearms for their use in the first place, will help prevent accidents.
Another way to prevent deaths from guns, is to stop restricting law abiding people from arming themselves. With one exception in recent memory, every major shooting has occurred in a gun free zone. Chicago, up until recently, was also a giant urban gun free zone, and yet they were on top of the most violent city list every single year. Correlation and Causation? Perhaps, but perhaps not. But all gun free zones do is to tell a potential criminal that guns are not in this place, because the people who obey the law are obeying the law.
Education on guns does not involve telling children and adults that guns are scary, and guns are bad, nor should it. It involves telling them that they are objects and tools which are to be treated with the utmost respect. The NRA, NAGR, National Gun Owners Association, and many other gun groups, who the left demonizes as the evil “Gun Lobby,” are the same groups who offer gun safety training classes. The people of the United States should want to seek gun safety training, they should want to know what to do in a situation where a loaded gun is present. Sticking your head in the sand just gets you a swift kick in the rear.
“No one should be afraid of more non-partisan, scientific research of this issue – not Democrats, not Republicans, and not the NRA.”
This is another good move. He is calling out the other side and daring them to come out against “bi-partisan, scientific research…” They may as well come out against sunshine and happiness. Working together on science is about as good as it gets in the spectrum of political cooperation. Let’s all dig in, and get the job done!
Don’t be fooled, it is his way of saying “to go against this is will hurt you politically.” And at this point, with this level of political tension and divisiveness, one party could come out against breathing and the other party would hammer them for it.
As mentioned above, the NRA is one of the only groups actually teaching gun safety, and attempting to educate the public on properly handling firearms. Groups such as Every Town for Gun Safety preach “education” about guns, and then tell people to lock them in a safe and don’t ever touch it, or worse yet, they have no plan to teach safety at all. That is not teaching gun safety, that is preaching ignorance.
In the end, this is a political hand grenade thrown out there by the Democrats right before an incredibly important election cycle. If it passes, the Democrats get their study, and they could care less about the results. They can say that they faced down the NRA, and gain points with their constituency. If it fails, they can bang their swords on their shields and shout “I tried! Give me a cookie!” And go on with their lives.
To Republicans, this is not so much a lose, lose situation as it is an annoyance. Spending sixty million dollars over the course of six years on a study which the CDC already put out should be enough for them to squash this. But of course if they vote against it they hate candy and butterflies, and want everyone in the country to succumb to the surge in incidents of violent crime/public health. If they vote for it, the Democrats get to sneer at them for caving in, and they look soft on over spending and gun rights to their constituents.
Either way it was a good play by Sen. Markey, despite the fact that such a study has already been completed and stored away because they did not like what it said. Look to see the Liberal media take shots at the Republicans for any opposition to this. Also look for more grandstanding by any cosponsor to the bill who comes on who will probably denounce Republicans for not caring about “public health.” Who knows, the Republicans may look at the last study and say “go ahead, it’ll turn out like the last one.” But it won’t matter, because the Democrats would have gotten the win, and the findings of the study will have never mattered to begin with.
That is what $60,000,000 buys you in Washington.
Take our survey, do you support the CDC funding for research on gun violence? (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NYPQMLN)
Read, share, follow @bckprchpolitics on Twitter, and Back Porch Politics on Facebook.