Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The 2nd Amendment-- The Facts........ -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JeffA who wrote (203)	7/7/1998 8:48:00 AM
From: Turboe	Respond to of 10167

Great post 357!

To: JeffA who wrote (203)	7/7/1998 9:24:00 PM
From: w molloy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10167

>> Sensationalizing the killings at schools, restaurants,etc glorifies the deeds Compared to the coverage the Dunblane massacre garnered in the UK, I would say that the reaction of the US press to the recent school killings here is muted. I certainly don't think that the deeds have been glorified. I think it is natural and quite right for these heinous crimes to raise anti-gun sentiments. There would be something wrong with our society (and media) if such sentiments weren't raised. The key question however, is what can be done to stop it from happening again. IMHO Blaming the parents of these murderers is a cop out. Our society needs to shoulder some responsibility too. Is the answer gun control? It depends what you mean by control. I firmly believe in gun regulation. Regulation has to be done in such a way that is consistent with the 2nd Amendment and recognizes the fact that there are some 750m( correct me if I'm wrong) weapons currently in circulation. I believe there are classes of firearm that 'Joe Public' has no reason for owning, and these weapons should be banned. I also think that some form of licensing is required. This licensing should be coupled to background checks and ongoing firearm training. I know many people have a big problem with checks, and with who does them. Clearly this is a government or government agency issue. Do I trust the government? No, but like someone else has already implied, I trust them more than the NRA. w.

To: JeffA who wrote (203)	4/1/1999 7:52:00 PM
From: The Street	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10167

Subject: Oppose CDC-Funded Junk Anti-Gun Science Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 gunowners.org (Thursday, April 1, 1999) -- The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is considering a very important rule. If we win this, we can expose all the phony science used to justify many restrictions on firearms ownership. This rule would directly impact on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC has often helped to finance anti-gun 'junk science.' Many of these findings have found their way into popular medical journals-- such as the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the New England Journal of Medicine-- and from these sources, into the mainstream media. Unfortunately, the research behind their data seldom gets turned over to the public for validation by other researchers. Adoption of the rule would force the Federal government to turn over all the data and research behind the "studies" used to support Federal intervention in our private lives. BUT COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN THIS MONDAY, APRIL 5. See the attached letter, then send your letter or e-mail your comments. Below is contact information. F. James Charney, Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget Room 6025, New Executive Office Building Washington, D.C. 20503 Email comments to: fcharney@omb.eop.gov Phone number: 202-395-3993. *** sample letter *** April 1, 1999 Mr. F. James Charney, Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget Room 6025, New Executive Office Building Washington, D.C. 20503 Dear Mr. Charney: Last year, Senator Richard Shelby included a provision in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 1999 (PL 105-277) that would allow public access to raw data from research studies funded by the Federal Government through grants and agreements with research universities and other institutions. To implement this new law, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published in the Federal Register on February 4, 1999 a proposed revision to OMB Circular A-110 and requested public comments on that revision. I am writing to express our strong support for the Shelby provision. The new law is of critical importance to the American public. For the first time the public would be able to obtain, through the Freedom of Information Act, the raw data collected and analyzed under federal research grants and agreements. Instead of being presented with only the conclusions of research studies, the public would be able to obtain for the first time the basis for those conclusions. The importance of this provision and its ramifications for the American public cannot be overstated. The Federal government funds a significant portion of all the research conducted in this country. The results of this research have affected almost every aspect of American life, from government regulations to the public's general understanding of major public and social policy issues, including: * Social policy decisions on diverse issues such as the family, education, crime, drugs, and guns; * Environmental, health and safety regulations affecting business and the American public on a day-to day basis; * Economic policy decisions on issues such as tax rates, the Federal budget, and government spending. Without the ability to obtain the raw data from the research studies used to support these policy and regulatory decisions, the public cannot independently judge for itself the validity of the decisions. The public deserves to know the basis upon which the government makes decisions and have the ability to determine for itself whether these conclusions and the resulting policy decisions are warranted. The need for this legislation is underscored by the growing regulatory burden and the complexity of existing rules. Each year, the Federal government considers over 4,000 regulations. The total regulatory burden for the country is now estimated at over $600 billion. Unless businesses and others impacted by these rules are able to access the research data supporting the government's findings, they will be severely limited in their ability to understand the basis of the proposed rule and engage in a meaningful debate. I urge you to move expeditiously to implement the new law in a manner that reflects the rights of the American public and allows the public the broadest possible access to federally funded research data. Put simply, the taxpayers who paid for the research should be able to see it. Sincerely, **************