Wilmington, DE (courtesy nytimes.com)

“’The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,’ the report said. ‘Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.'” – When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. [via nytimes.com]

Recommended For You

36 Responses to Quote of the Day: The New York Times Wants Federal Funding for “Gun Violence” Research that Delivers Insights Like This . . .

  1. “…integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”

    Is the “data system” going to travel back in time to give the person a stronger parental figure in their life?

  2. Sounds like a colossal waste of money. No amount of research is going to fix the world. How exactly do they plan to proceed once someone is identified? I mean isn’t the criminal justice system already supposed to be geared toward reforming people to live as law abiding citizens?

    • Umm, no. Parents are supposed to do that. You know, a Mom and Dad. DAD. FATHER. A strong male role model in the family. Sadly, the inner city black community knows not of which I speak. There; I said it so no one else has to.

        • Hey Fred!(in my best Barney Rubble voice). If 50 women accused ME of rape I would be a rapist. Quit idolizing someone who should be executed…and I sure ain’t no liberal.

  3. Teach a man to fish, he learns to feed and care for his family; he stands proud of his accomplishments and acceptance of responsibility. Addict him to free handouts in exchange for votes in order to keep him under your thumb and because you think he is less capable, well, you get what we have in the inner city.

  4. Um, people…

    The argument has been: “It ain’t the guns, it’s the people.” Well, the article referenced above sounds like the gun-banner’s main marketing channel just said exactly that. It ain’t the guns, it’s the people. People prone to violence, who have been violent before.

    So, pocket that win. Keep that link handy for every “Ban the evil guns!” spasm.

    That much said, do indeed help them alienate more of their prior supporters. Like this:

    “Yeah, folks, the people in charge – Top.Men. – want more “studies” with your money, justifying labeling you as the problem, on which they’ll impose more “help”.

    “Help” like the help so far.

    Any questions?”

    • Yes. How is this a win? From the original article:

      “’However, the C.D.C. report is not meant to be an operational plan for reaching those individuals and turning their lives around,’ Ms. Landgraf said, adding that she planned to lead a community advisory board on intervention. Local leaders are also calling for a renewed focus on intervention.”

      Ultimately, these people want to use tax money for official sounding studies that will justify their use of even more tax money to intervene in people’s lives. If you think that “intervention” won’t include further efforts at civilian disarmament and indoctrination that a State monopoly on firearms is good, then you haven’t been paying attention. This is just a Trojan horse.

    • I didn’t read every word, but I did not see any reference to gangs, drugs, welfare queens, or a culture of dependence mixed with a culture of entitlement. What I did gather was that the CDC deliberately wriggled their way around clear instructions from Congress, and then bragged about it. Cut their funding by 10%.

      • Oh, you’re right. Yeah, they weaseled around going to the actual conclusions. And yes, cut their funding.

        But, having asserted the facts they did, the open questions are delicious:

        “Really, so given what you found, ‘more funding for more studies’ helps how?”

        “Really, so given what you found, what might we do, say stuff that doesn’t involve more funding for you to do more admin and studies?”

        “Explain to me why we need to know more, in order to do something based on what you found?”

        “So, your study says need more study. So, it didn’t work? We don’t know stuff to do? Yet, you’re asking for more money for more studying because … the study you just did didn’t tell us anything actionable.”

        It’s too much to expect them to state out loud the useful conclusions, when those conclusions run counter to their agenda. Luckily, having said “right is better” then suggested turning left (metaphorically, of course), that very article is so inconsistent it’s nearly endless fodder.

        So, pocket the win. They stupidly said out loud a bunch of facts the anti-gun argument tries to deny. They’re well, and deliciously hooked on a pile of contradictions.

        “So, ‘It’s the guns.’, means your study is wrong, which makes you … kinda useless? Or why are we talking about ‘gun violence’ if it’s something else?”

        “So, it’s not the guns, so what are you on about about more studies of “gun violence” as a public health issue.”

        “So, it seems like the problem is violence, not specific to guns, but specific to particular individuals … or didn’t you mean to say that?”

        “Really, individuals with a history of violence. What do we do about that?”

        Baby steps. They only make great, floating leaps in the direction the wind blows them. Going the other way is inches. And takes prodding.

        I’m enjoying this one in a “Wag the Dog” / “They Didn’t Think It Through” kind of way…

  5. ‘Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.’

    Translation: give us (Centers for Disease Control) more money.

    • The study concluded that we need more funding for more studies.

      Kinda reminds me of the government agency thing.

      We have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing. Additionally, we all get a raise.

      • All the studies conclude they need more money for more studies. After all, the people who just did the study are now unemployed and need a job.

  6. “Gun violence is more often than not perpetrated by violent people with a well documented history of violence using other tools as well.”

    No “shark” Sherlock. Wonder how many Vets got bumped down the VA treatment list to pay for that insight.

    • Yeah, I would love for them to push forward one of their “researchers”, after telling us how much he/she was paid, to look directly into the camera and claim these “findings” were not well known to literally everyone involved before the “study” began.

  7. The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime

    … [C.D.C can] help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement. — Centers for Disease Control

    So, a bureaucracy of the Almighty State™ claims that it can replace a stable family whose core purpose is to nurture and raise responsible children who respect human life. Got it.

    Color me surprised.

  8. Why do you think the government wants to take over every aspect of health care? Because once every problem is defined as a “disease”, they can control every aspect of your existence.

  9. The only “comprehensive help … these individuals” need is lengthy, unbargained sentences, and capital punishment when first-degree murder or rape is involved. Let them fear actual consequences for their crimes, and I bet some long-lost self-control is suddenly found.

  10. I was born in that city and the driving force behind the violence is the drug trade. Entire swaths of the city are open air drug markets and the police basically don’t care. Wilmington is what happens when the police ignore drug dealing in the streets. Most of the time it is quiet but when a turf war flares up it is like Beirut.

  11. These are the fruits of the Democratic Party’s welfare state which rewards young men and women for making terrible choices: that is having a child out of wedlock. Raised in unstable, single parent families, the young men are much more likely to grow up into criminals. (Read Olasky’s “The Tragedy of American Compassion.”)

    This is why a majority of murders and violent crimes occur in these communities.

    And what do the liberal politicians who run these cities do? Essentially nothing. Even this CDC study in Wilmington admits it won’t actually bring any resources to address the problem.

    The left has no problems with these neighborhoods rotting and these people surrendering their human potential for a government check as long as the residents of those neighborhoods pull the right lever at election time.

  12. Criminals engaged in criminal endeavors with criminal histories are responsible for violent crime? So, it’s the INDIVIDUAL and their DECISIONS, NOT THE GUN? Maybe we should fund this if they are going to make our case!

  13. Isnt this the same as the definition of insanity?? We already know why there is inner city gun use. Also by what group of individuals for the most part.
    You want me to help pay for more research on an already known answer. I don’t think so.
    But if youd like to donate to my future retirement fund?? Id gladly accept it, Same waste of money I may add.

  14. Give the CDC some props. After completely screwing up during the Ebola outbreak in 2014, it’s now on to bigger and better things.

  15. ‘Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.’”
    It takes a village to raise a child.
    So where are the parents in all of this? Uh-huh.

  16. Talk about over thinking a simple problem. We already know that 80% of all violent crime is committed by a whooping 10% of the criminals. Since most offenders have multiple felonies already on their records. The solution is self evident. Quit letting these scum bags out of jail. keep them in there until their full sentence is served.
    Our officials have already had the chance to protect us and have chosen not too.
    Duhhhh…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *