Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Peer Review [View all]TPaine7
(4,286 posts)4. LOL! You need the rest of the story. Something else happened in the mid 90s...
I had to purchase this article years ago, so I cannot post a link. If I could, you'd probably have to pay for it.
Sick People With Guns
The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Washington, D.C. Author: William Raspberry Date: Oct 19, 1994 Start Page: a.23 Section: OP/ED Text Word Count: 703
My first thought was to recall Abraham Maslow's aphorism: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails." Now I'm beginning to wonder if Mark Rosenberg's notion isn't worth a second thought.
Rosenberg's weird-sounding (at first) idea is that the way to combat criminal violence is to treat it the way we treat infectious diseases: as a public health problem amenable to causal research, therapy and prevention.
Well, of course. Rosenberg is director of the National Center for Injury Prevention, a division of the National Centers for Disease Control, and the infectious-disease approach may be the only tool he has.
...
"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol - cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly - and banned." Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.
The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Washington, D.C. Author: William Raspberry Date: Oct 19, 1994 Start Page: a.23 Section: OP/ED Text Word Count: 703
My first thought was to recall Abraham Maslow's aphorism: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails." Now I'm beginning to wonder if Mark Rosenberg's notion isn't worth a second thought.
Rosenberg's weird-sounding (at first) idea is that the way to combat criminal violence is to treat it the way we treat infectious diseases: as a public health problem amenable to causal research, therapy and prevention.
Well, of course. Rosenberg is director of the National Center for Injury Prevention, a division of the National Centers for Disease Control, and the infectious-disease approach may be the only tool he has.
...
"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol - cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly - and banned." Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.
Rosenberg announced an unscientific war on gun rights. (In science, the data drives the conclusion; Rosenberg started out knowing the answer and wanting to use "science" to support it.)
After announcing his intent to use the CDC as a propaganda vehicle to treat guns like cigarettes"dirty, deadly - and banned"he was shocked and appalled that the NRA choked off his premeditated fraud.
Thanks to the gun lobby's obstruction, questions like whether more guns actually make communities safer, whether the ready availability of high-capacity magazines increases the number of gun-related deaths, or whether more rigorous background checks of gun buyers make a difference, remain maddeningly unanswered.
No, Rosenberg already knew the answers to these and similar questions. He already knew the solution and had a strategy to implement his solution. All he needed was "scientific" cover at taxpayer expense.
The NRA denied him that cover. This has nothing to do with legitimate science.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
See post 4 and attempt to reply with substance, assuming that's not too much trouble. n/t
TPaine7
Jun 2012
#9
I know what he means, as well. Unfortunately for both of you- he's wrong. See post #27
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2012
#28
The genetic fallacy again, eh? It doesn't matter where it was posted, he's still wrong.
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2012
#36
Of course it matters where information comes from. Guncite is a propaganda site.
DanTex
Jun 2012
#37
And you've yet to prove me wrong. I admit Kopsch's testimony is hearsay...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2012
#38
There still are plenty of bullets available that will penetrate body armor- rifle bullets.
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2012
#40
Unfortunately for you, that source directly contradicts your claims.
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2012
#27
Yes! Do you think that valid points will stop being made because you express displeasure?
TPaine7
Jun 2012
#18
I wish he would ignore this whole group. He has already done me the favor of ignoring me and life
Tuesday Afternoon
Jun 2012
#45