• BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 days ago

    I think that this might enable them to do some meaningful research into gun violence. Meaningful research that does not exist in the US in 2024 because the NRA lobbies against anyone that attempts to publish data on the subject.

    There’s a long list of public entities that are prohibited from publishing this research. Really strange in a country where guns are so available.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        No they did not. Tons of research has come out during that time. They put a stop to funding research that held a bias. Which at the time was from the CDC wanting to make shit up to push an anti2a agenda. The head of the CDC stated during that time that they wanted to use research to prove guns are a public health crisis, no matter how the came to that conclusion. They had a ton of really flawed studies as well that were proven to be terrible studies with a major bias. In science you can’t just make studies say what you want without being criticized, and that’s what they did. It’s why the dickey amendment was passed with bipartisan support in 96.

        Edit: you can downvote me all you want, this is exactly what happened. This isn’t some fake news shit from the repubs, it’s actual history. It’s not my fault you’ve been fed a lie that the cdc was bared from studying gun violence.

        • Granbo's Holy Hotrod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          We were just entering the distopian gun fetish hell hole in 96. 2001 pushed us over the edge. Every chaw head feared terrorists and then faux news yelled them into being anxious over their neighbors and urban centers. Science has time and time again shown that faciests are bad and giving them guns is bad for everyone.

  • andrewth09@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 days ago

    I don’t see the US Surgeon General as the correct person to make meaningful changes to curve gun violence.

    I do see this as the perfect story for right-wing pundits to turn this into a “the military is gonna take your guns” dog whistle.

  • ACEUSA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    With the 2024 presidential election coming up and the surgeon general’s declaration, gun policy will certainly be discussed by the candidates, who have differing stances on the issue. President Biden makes gun control a principal issue in his administration, using executive orders, legislation, and public calls on the gun industry to help achieve his goals of reducing the amount of gun violence in the United States.

    Former President Trump has not maintained a consistent stance regarding gun policy since 2016. At times, he opposed background checks, assault weapons bans, and red flag laws. However, while in office Trump pledged his support of red flag laws, banned bump stocks, and voiced support for universal background checks.

    You can learn more about all the candidates’ positions on gun policy here: https://ace-usa.org/blog/election-2024/gun-policy-overview/

    • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      It feels right to me. People are being injured, maimed, permanently disabled, and killed. All by a particular piece of readily available technology. When we can point to the single thing that causes all those individual health emergencies, and it’s consistently happening across the country on a daily basis to many many people, in public spaces that are otherwise quite safe, that’s most definitely a public health crisis.