We have a recent report by the US government that climate change is almost certainly caused by humans. However, we don't have the same rigor in gun death statistics; instead policy debate can rely only on FBI crime statistics which aren't directly comparable year-over-year due to changing measurement methodology (see "Caution to users").
This is because the NRA put pressure on the CDC through a Republican Congress to halt this research, under the logic that it promotes the cause of gun control.
But how likely is it that this is intentional, to use the US Second Amendment as an ongoing lightning rod for public attention (in a "bread and circuses" sense) while political business continues as usual on the back end (e.g. Paradise Papers)? Obama and a Democratic congress had the opportunity to restart this, which would presumably be just as "common sense" as the actual reforms they have been promoting on this issue, since whoever was actually supported by the facts would presumably have a motivation to set the program back in motion to improve support for their proposals.
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:00AM (1 child)
Depends on who the criminal is. In the case of Hillary Clinton, people came together tonight to "scream helplessly at the sky" because we didn't make her President as a reward for breaking just about every law we have and every moral principle backing those laws.
Or if you are a stoner you have enough unofficial power to get states to ignore Federal Law and have the media praise this situation... while screaming in rage at other States having the hate to attempt enforcing Federal immigration laws.
Short version, some laws are more real than other laws, some people are more subject to laws than other people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:53PM
I thought the Rs were in favor of state rights?