←back to thread

CDC data are disappearing

(www.theatlantic.com)
749 points doener | 3 comments | 01 Feb 25 11:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.425s | source
Show context
angelgonzales ◴[01 Feb 25 21:24 UTC] No.42902505[source]▶
This is very similar to when the CDC stopped recording defensive gun use statistics! The pendulum is certainly swinging, on the other hand, I think we should retain data even if it doesn’t align with the current administration. I think it’s important that people should record data that they value, independent of governments, so they can maintain a source of truth throughout time. Articles from Axios, NYT and posts on X can change or be deleted, it’s important to take snapshots to go back and check for deltas.
replies(3): >>42902542 #>>42902598 #>>42903083 #
kasey_junk ◴[01 Feb 25 22:26 UTC] No.42903083[source]▶
The Dickey amendment in 1996 made it extremely difficult to study gun violence at the federal level. That only started to change in 2013 and then was finally fixed in 2019.

This is one issue where there is no pendulum. The pro-gun lobby has owned censorship of gun research for a generation and is likely to keep it from being an active and honest research area.

replies(1): >>42903520 #
dingnuts[dead post] ◴[01 Feb 25 23:13 UTC] No.42903520[source]▶
[flagged]
1. nakajimayoshi ◴[02 Feb 25 01:33 UTC] No.42904673[source]▶
I’m not sorry, but the narrative that the 2nd amendment keeps the government in check is beyond naïve in the 21st century, its celebration of stupidity.

Perhaps in a world where armed combat between civilians and the military only involves muskets this holds true, but exactly how do you expect to “exert your second amendment rights” when a squad armed with M16s, grenade launchers, body armor, and night vision goggles shows up to your door? A 9mm pea shooter?

replies(2): >>42905013 #>>42905109 #
2. api ◴[02 Feb 25 02:19 UTC] No.42905013[source]▶
Under normal circumstances I agree. If things went really sideways… look at how well insurgencies around the world have resisted the US military in urban settings.

Loads and loads of armed angry people with home court advantage are hard to defeat unless you are willing to just flatten the city. Drones might change that calculus some, but against a large insurgency in a huge city of millions?

If we are flattening our own cities, we are so far gone we are in climbing barbed wire to get across the border (in the out direction) territory. Some of my ancestors on my dad’s side did that in WWII to escape Stalin and Hitler both. I hope to never see such things.

3. whatthesmack ◴[02 Feb 25 02:34 UTC] No.42905109[source]▶
> "its celebration of stupidity"

A large number of voters seem to think it works.

> “exert your second amendment rights”

The second amendment is a prohibition on the government, so it is not a right to be exerted, but rather a natural right that is not to be inhibited.

> [...] when a squad armed with M16s, grenade launchers, body armor, and night vision goggles shows up to your door?

Guerrilla warfare has proven time after time that you should not assume the larger-numbered, better-equipped party will automatically win this type of scenario.