• Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    From the article you posted. The rest is math. They decided to do the project in 2019. Grants take anywhere from 8-20 months to get funded. It also takes time to put together the application.

    Ah, I see - you argue that a department is Biden’s for nothing more than his being President at the time.

    And since you’re being rude, for ages was clearly bullshit too. You linked an article talking about research that was conceived in 2019.

    Don’t project.

    You could argue it was exaggerating, sure. It doesn’t change the information has been available and continues to be summarily ignored by both parties.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The NRA (and GOP), have been stifling this type of research for years. So yes, I doubt the justice department under Trump would have approved their research grant.

      I forgave your hyperbole the first time, as you said, it was an exaggeration. Then you came at me like I don’t care about my son because you think I have political bias.

      I’m an anarcho-syndacalist. And I’m sure there’s a lot of other far left people down voting you. I’m not sucking the Democrats off. And acting like both sides are to blame isn’t helpful.

      The Democrats are sick of gun violence and I’m sure they’re aware of the research the justice department, under Biden, funded.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The NRA (and GOP), have been stifling this type of research for years. So yes, I doubt the justice department under Trump would have approved their research grant.

        The NRA hasn’t been doing anything but fundraising for the GOP for quite some time.

        There’s not much reason to doubt such a thing - it would be one thing if there was a clear pattern of this institution rejecting such based on the current president but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

        I forgave your hyperbole the first time, as you said, it was an exaggeration. Then you came at me like I don’t care about my son because you think I have political bias.

        I’m not sure how you interpreted my response as a criticism that you don’t care about your child, though I do understand how such would make a person defensive. To be clear, I don’t believe you understand my frustration.

        I’m an anarcho-syndacalist. And I’m sure there’s a lot of other far left people down voting you. I’m not sucking the Democrats off. And acting like both sides are to blame isn’t helpful.

        I’m somewhere around left-libertarian, not that it matters. I find much common ground with an-com and an-syn and generally find these labels to be somewhat meaningless distinctions when considering the sheer overlap of beliefs and values.

        Intentionally withholding responsibility from one of the sides present in the equation, one which continues to ignore these inputs in favor of their own wedge-issue positions, is not just not helpful but is actively harmful.

        Or do you truly believe there’s absolutely nothing blue team could or should be doing here to use such findings in addressing the root issues of the most sensationalized facet of firearm violence which quite likely overlap with the rest of firearm violence?

        The Democrats are sick of gun violence and I’m sure they’re aware of the research the justice department, under Biden, funded.

        Their complete lack of action in line with the findings of such research combined with continued action in favor of their dear bans would disagree.