CDC Director wants the agency to take on firearm violence for the first time in decades: 'I'm not here about gun control'

[Dashinka 23,274]

I guess getting slapped down on evictions was not enough.

 

CDC Director wants the agency to take on firearm violence for the first time in decades: 'I'm not here about gun control'

 

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, wants her agency to establish gun violence as an urgent public health crisis. "Now is the time - it's pedal to the metal time," she told CNN in a new interview.

 

"The scope of the problem is just bigger than we're even hearing about, and when your heart wrenches every day you turn on the news, you're only hearing the tip of the iceberg," Walensky said.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cdc-director-wants-agency-firearm-144529433.html

[jg121783 3,907]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

I guess getting slapped down on evictions was not enough.

 

CDC Director wants the agency to take on firearm violence for the first time in decades: 'I'm not here about gun control'

 

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, wants her agency to establish gun violence as an urgent public health crisis. "Now is the time - it's pedal to the metal time," she told CNN in a new interview.

 

"The scope of the problem is just bigger than we're even hearing about, and when your heart wrenches every day you turn on the news, you're only hearing the tip of the iceberg," Walensky said.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cdc-director-wants-agency-firearm-144529433.html

The CDC really likes to fear monger over issues that are statistically insignificant. First over a virus with a 99.9% survival rate. Now it's gun violence when statistically guns are used more to prevent crimes than commit crimes.

[TBoneTX 43,159]

First try to cancel the Fourth Amendment (evictions), now graduate to the Second Amendment.

[jg121783 3,907]

7 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

First try to cancel the Fourth Amendment (evictions), now graduate to the Second Amendment.

The infrastructure bill gives the CDC the ability to cancel the first amendment also. The bill allows anyone who puts out information contradicting the CDC to be fined or arrested.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

The infrastructure bill gives the CDC the ability to cancel the first amendment also. The bill allows anyone who puts out information contradicting the CDC to be fined or arrested.

Where did you see this

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,316]

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

The infrastructure bill gives the CDC the ability to cancel the first amendment also. The bill allows anyone who puts out information contradicting the CDC to be fined or arrested.

that is some jacked up scary stuff

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

It's kind of on par with the TSA (Transportation Security Administration for those not familiar) mandating masks on planes, airports, trains, buses, etc.  Since when did they become a public health entity?

[laylalex 7,249]

 

2 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Where did you see this

 

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

that is some jacked up scary stuff

Scary -- if true. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I for one would like to see some of it. Where exactly in the bill does it say this?

[laylalex 7,249]

Here is HR 3684: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3684/BILLS-117hr3684pcs.pdf This is the bill that has passed the House and Senate, the "little" bill.

 

There is precisely 1 reference to the CDC in the entirety of HR 3684, on page 936, which is amending a portion of this law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/5329 And if you read them together, it's about the existing national public transportation safety plan, and requiring the plan to include "strategies to minimize the exposure of the public, personnel, and property to hazards and unsafe conditions" -- but changing the part I quoted to say: "public and personnel to injuries, assaults, fatalities, and, consistent with guidelines by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, infectious diseases, and strategies to minimize the exposure of property’’

 

I also looked for "arrest" and there are 3 references to arrests, all on page 1065. All three involve assessments of arrests resulting from drunk driving. 

 

I also looked for "fine." There are 2 references to fines on pages 1041, 1042, two of them. Both have to do with state laws prohibiting texting or otherwise using a phone while driving (other than by handsfree methods).

 

Or maybe we're talking about the "big" bill that hasn't yet passed. HR 227? Text is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/227/text

 

Nope, nothing there either. 

[Ban Hammer 12,848]

 

The Infrastructure Bill Requires New Cars To Come With Unproven Drunk Driving Detection Technology

As early as 2026, new cars will have to come equipped with "advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology."

https://reason.com/2021/08/06/the-infrastructure-bill-requires-new-cars-to-come-with-unproven-drunk-driving-detection-technology/

[Ban Hammer 12,848]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Here is HR 3684: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3684/BILLS-117hr3684pcs.pdf This is the bill that has passed the House and Senate, the "little" bill.

 

There is precisely 1 reference to the CDC in the entirety of HR 3684, on page 936, which is amending a portion of this law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/5329 And if you read them together, it's about the existing national public transportation safety plan, and requiring the plan to include "strategies to minimize the exposure of the public, personnel, and property to hazards and unsafe conditions" -- but changing the part I quoted to say: "public and personnel to injuries, assaults, fatalities, and, consistent with guidelines by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, infectious diseases, and strategies to minimize the exposure of property’’

 

I also looked for "arrest" and there are 3 references to arrests, all on page 1065. All three involve assessments of arrests resulting from drunk driving. 

 

I also looked for "fine." There are 2 references to fines on pages 1041, 1042, two of them. Both have to do with state laws prohibiting texting or otherwise using a phone while driving (other than by handsfree methods).

 

Or maybe we're talking about the "big" bill that hasn't yet passed. HR 227? Text is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/227/text

 

Nope, nothing there either. 

i wonder if this may be what is being talked about

(a) Criminal Violation.—

(1) In general.—Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute a violation of chapter 2, 10, 11B, 39, 40, 44, 111, or 113B of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), or section 46502, the second sentence of section 46504, section 46505(b)(3) or (c), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) of title 49, shall—(A)

be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

(B) if serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

(C) if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1038

Edited August 28, 2021 by Ban Hammer

[laylalex 7,249]

37 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

i wonder if this may be what is being talked about

(a) Criminal Violation.—

(1) In general.—Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute a violation of chapter 2, 10, 11B, 39, 40, 44, 111, or 113B of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), or section 46502, the second sentence of section 46504, section 46505(b)(3) or (c), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) of title 49, shall—(A)

be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

(B) if serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

(C) if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1038

Thanks for this. I have a bunch of time on my hands this afternoon so I have looked these up.

 

Working backwards, I started with the last statute mentioned: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/60123#b

Quote

 

(b)Penalty for Damaging or Destroying Facility.—

A person knowingly and willfully damaging or destroying an interstate gas pipeline facility, an interstate hazardous liquid pipeline facility, or either an intrastate gas pipeline facility or intrastate hazardous liquid pipeline facility that is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or attempting or conspiring to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

 

So it can't be that one.

Section 46502 is aircraft piracy so that's a no: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46502

 

The second sentence of section 46504 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504) which is about interfering with flight crew or attendants says: "However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life." So that's also a no.

 

Section 46505 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46505) has to do with carrying a weapon or an explosive on an aircraft, and (b)(3) and (c) seem to be about explosive devices so that's also a no I think.

 

Section 46506 is about committing crimes on an aircraft and 1038 specifically talks about homicide/attempted homicide so that's also a no.

 

Errr what else? 

Quote

section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284)

Okay, that's about sabotage of nuclear facilities/fuel so that's a no. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2284

 

Now the ones from Section 1038, which are 2 (looks like that one is about accomplices to crimes), 10 (has to do with defining commerce? I am not sure what this is about here), 11B (do not understand this either - there is no 11B), 39 (using a "traffic signal preemption transmitter" whatever that is), 40 (commercial vehicle inspections), 44 was repealed, 111 (looks like assaulting/resisting federal officials?), or 113B (doesn't exist?). 

 

And then of course it's all about false information and hoaxes about any of those crimes. So the only thing that maybe, maybe is involved here would be information about assaulting/resisting/impeding officials. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111 

 

Maybe? 🤷‍♀️ I'm just having fun playing amateur lawyer here like we all are.  Much better than what I was doing before, which was helping my mom fold fitted sheets.  

 

 

[Ban Hammer 12,848]

41 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Much better than what I was doing before, which was helping my mom fold fitted sheets.  

 

 

it is good to see an older wife passing on how to be a good wife to her children..........

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Thanks for this. I have a bunch of time on my hands this afternoon so I have looked these up.

 

Working backwards, I started with the last statute mentioned: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/60123#b

So it can't be that one.

Section 46502 is aircraft piracy so that's a no: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46502

 

The second sentence of section 46504 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504) which is about interfering with flight crew or attendants says: "However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life." So that's also a no.

 

Section 46505 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46505) has to do with carrying a weapon or an explosive on an aircraft, and (b)(3) and (c) seem to be about explosive devices so that's also a no I think.

 

Section 46506 is about committing crimes on an aircraft and 1038 specifically talks about homicide/attempted homicide so that's also a no.

 

Errr what else? 

Okay, that's about sabotage of nuclear facilities/fuel so that's a no. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2284

 

Now the ones from Section 1038, which are 2 (looks like that one is about accomplices to crimes), 10 (has to do with defining commerce? I am not sure what this is about here), 11B (do not understand this either - there is no 11B), 39 (using a "traffic signal preemption transmitter" whatever that is), 40 (commercial vehicle inspections), 44 was repealed, 111 (looks like assaulting/resisting federal officials?), or 113B (doesn't exist?). 

 

And then of course it's all about false information and hoaxes about any of those crimes. So the only thing that maybe, maybe is involved here would be information about assaulting/resisting/impeding officials. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111 

 

Maybe? 🤷‍♀️ I'm just having fun playing amateur lawyer here like we all are.  Much better than what I was doing before, which was helping my mom fold fitted sheets.  

 

 

I believe the chapters under "this title" (18) are these:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I 

[laylalex 7,249]

2 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

I believe the chapters under "this title" (18) are these:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I 

Yes, that's where I looked, Chapter 18. So I looked at 18 USC 2, 10, 11B, 39, 40, 44, 111, and 113B. 

2: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2

10: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/10

11 (no 11B): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/11

39: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39

40: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/40

111: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111

113 (no 113B -- not the same as 113(b) I believe): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/113

 

CORRECTION! I just found 113B: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113B So all of those are about terrorism.

CORRECTION 2!: I just found 11B (using the same logic): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11B And all of those are about chemical weapons.

Edited August 29, 2021 by laylalex