I wondered if it needed to be explained further.
The CDC does not treat guns as a disease in any inappropriate manner. The research they do on guns would be the same, using the same science whether the agency is called 'the center for disease control' or 'the center for things that kill people' or 'the center for sociological studies' or whatever name.
Of course there are APPROPRIATE comments on occassion noting the similarities between how things spread among a population - and they're good science, not some inappropriate treating of guns like a disease. You won't see any papers saying that waching your hands helps reduce gun violence. You won't see any papers seeing that dirty water is a main source of 'gun disease'.
Using disease as a metaphor for how gun violence occurs is not 'treating guns as a disease' in any inappropriate sense.
So, what IS your objection to the limited use of the 'virus' metaphor to the extend it's acccurate?
I guess your link answers that - it's politics. Not any concern with whether it's true, but the objection is 'it makes it sound bad, even if it's accurate'.
People who study gun violence do at times use a 'virus' as one of the metaphors to discuss the issue. They do not 'treat guns as a disease'.
They simply apply the science to gun violence - science which has some overlap with the spread of a virus, and is not similar in other ways - as one part of communicating.
The fact 'disease' is in the name of the agency has no bearing on the issue, and the science is just as valid (or invalid, but valid in this case) with or without that metaphor.
Saying the CDC 'insists on TREATING guns as a disease' - rather than that simply being one way they communicate some of the issue - is exaggerated and false.
There are some similarities - diseases and guns both spread and kill and share some similarities no doubt in how they affect a population.
But that's not 'INSISTING' on 'TREATING' guns AS a disease. It's an objection without substance - and as far as it is an exaggeration about nothing, it's absurd.
Right after the part of your article you quoted about the virus metaphor, it said:
"Rosenberg told the Washington Post: “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.” "
So, I guess they are guilty of 'treating guns as cigarettes' also, in some inappropriate way.
No, they're making a simple point, as they did with cigarettes and AIDS - that the public health impact is greater than the attention it gets for each of the issues at some point.
Then there's just a lot of generic insulting and name-calling of the sort done against studies someone opposes.
One minute the article claims how the ban on funding is clearly justified because of the "prejudice" against guns - the next, it quotes a CDC study saying it's unclear gun control is helping.
There are some cautions that are appropriate for how the issue gets studied there - and the article points out CDC people recognizing those limits.
I'd agree there could be some danger of the CDC being misused for political purposes - the thing is, I don't think there's one Republican in Congress who would draw the line at preventing that, while supporting legitimate research - I think any Republican who would oppose the funding would do so for their own political reasons just not liking the truth to be told, for good research either.
Even your article stoops to that sort of nonsense, dismissively saying how anything a 'study' could tell us about the public policy effects of gun control was already answered by the second amendment.
Which is complete nonsense.
The CDC does not treat guns as a disease in any inappropriate manner. The research they do on guns would be the same, using the same science whether the agency is called 'the center for disease control' or 'the center for things that kill people' or 'the center for sociological studies' or whatever name.
Of course there are APPROPRIATE comments on occassion noting the similarities between how things spread among a population - and they're good science, not some inappropriate treating of guns like a disease. You won't see any papers saying that waching your hands helps reduce gun violence. You won't see any papers seeing that dirty water is a main source of 'gun disease'.
Using disease as a metaphor for how gun violence occurs is not 'treating guns as a disease' in any inappropriate sense.
So, what IS your objection to the limited use of the 'virus' metaphor to the extend it's acccurate?
I guess your link answers that - it's politics. Not any concern with whether it's true, but the objection is 'it makes it sound bad, even if it's accurate'.
People who study gun violence do at times use a 'virus' as one of the metaphors to discuss the issue. They do not 'treat guns as a disease'.
They simply apply the science to gun violence - science which has some overlap with the spread of a virus, and is not similar in other ways - as one part of communicating.
The fact 'disease' is in the name of the agency has no bearing on the issue, and the science is just as valid (or invalid, but valid in this case) with or without that metaphor.
Saying the CDC 'insists on TREATING guns as a disease' - rather than that simply being one way they communicate some of the issue - is exaggerated and false.
There are some similarities - diseases and guns both spread and kill and share some similarities no doubt in how they affect a population.
But that's not 'INSISTING' on 'TREATING' guns AS a disease. It's an objection without substance - and as far as it is an exaggeration about nothing, it's absurd.
Right after the part of your article you quoted about the virus metaphor, it said:
"Rosenberg told the Washington Post: “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.” "
So, I guess they are guilty of 'treating guns as cigarettes' also, in some inappropriate way.
No, they're making a simple point, as they did with cigarettes and AIDS - that the public health impact is greater than the attention it gets for each of the issues at some point.
Then there's just a lot of generic insulting and name-calling of the sort done against studies someone opposes.
One minute the article claims how the ban on funding is clearly justified because of the "prejudice" against guns - the next, it quotes a CDC study saying it's unclear gun control is helping.
There are some cautions that are appropriate for how the issue gets studied there - and the article points out CDC people recognizing those limits.
I'd agree there could be some danger of the CDC being misused for political purposes - the thing is, I don't think there's one Republican in Congress who would draw the line at preventing that, while supporting legitimate research - I think any Republican who would oppose the funding would do so for their own political reasons just not liking the truth to be told, for good research either.
Even your article stoops to that sort of nonsense, dismissively saying how anything a 'study' could tell us about the public policy effects of gun control was already answered by the second amendment.
Which is complete nonsense.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter