Let's research gun violence.

[Direckshun]

I've said this in a couple other threads, but I don't believe that gun control is going to get any traction in Congress. Some Democrats will push for it, some other Republicans will table it, some pro-gun control folks like myself will cry foul, and yet another Congress will pass without any gun control measures seeing the light of day.

But here's one thing that maybe we can start doing: better educate ourselves on gun violence, so we can stop stabbing in the dark as to what we can better do to mitigate it.

The problem is that for a couple decades now, the government has not been able to produce any information on gun violence because the NRA has been threatening war if Congress failed to choke off all funding for gun-related research.

The CDC and NIH used to conduct research for decades, but around the time of the late 90s, the NRA became so powerful it was able to prevent these agencies from granting funds to researchers on those topics. McClatchy DC:

The CDC and NIH award billions in grants. They fund research into cancer, brain injury, tobacco use, obesity, AIDS, abortion, hearing loss, allergies, infectious diseases, back pain and virtually everything else related to human health. But gun violence is the one area that carries that specific language. The effect has been to limit federal funding into research that could be used to shape policy.

This is irresponsible. We pass hundreds of gun-related laws across the country every few years. Like all laws, we should be able to research the impact of the laws we pass, so we can make decisions based on more than pure ideology.

Anyway, there's a ton of stories on this, but here's a really good one from last year in the Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: January 25, 2011

In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.

“We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,” said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.

Chris Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones.

“Our concern is not with legitimate medical science,” Mr. Cox said. “Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.”

The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of “putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,” said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

“It’s really simple with me,” Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.”

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.

In the end, researchers said, even though it is murky what exactly is allowed under this provision and what is not, the upshot is clear inside the centers: the agency should tread in this area only at its own peril.

“They had a near-death experience,” said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, whose study on the risks versus the benefits of having guns in the home became a focal point of attack by the N.R.A.

In the years since, the C.D.C. has been exceedingly wary of financing research focused on firearms. In its annual requests for proposals, for example, firearms research has been notably absent. Gail Hayes, spokeswoman for the centers, confirmed that since 1996, while the agency has issued requests for proposals that include the study of violence, which may include gun violence, it had not sent out any specifically on firearms.

“For policy to be effective, it needs to be based on evidence,” said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, who had his C.D.C. financing cut in 1996. “The National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have largely succeeded in choking off the development of evidence upon which that policy could be based.”

Private foundations initially stepped into the breach, but their attention tends to wax and wane, researchers said. They are also much more interested in work that leads to immediate results and less willing to finance basic epidemiological research that scientists say is necessary to establishing a foundation of knowledge about the connection between guns and violence, or the lack thereof.

The National Institute of Justice, part of the Justice Department, also used to finance firearms research, researchers said, but that money has also petered out in recent years. (Institute officials said they hoped to reinvigorate financing in this area.)

Stephen Teret, founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, estimated that the amount of money available for firearms research was a quarter of what it used to be. With so much uncertainty about financing, Mr. Teret said, the circle of academics who study the phenomenon has fallen off significantly.

After the centers’ clash with the N.R.A., Mr. Teret said he was asked by C.D.C. officials to “curtail some things I was saying about guns and gun policy.”

Mr. Teret objected, saying his public comments about gun policy did not come while he was on the “C.D.C. meter.” After he threatened to file a lawsuit against the agency, Mr. Teret said, the officials backed down and gave him “a little bit more leeway.”

C.D.C. financing for research on gun violence has not stopped completely, but it is now mostly limited to work in which firearms are only a component.

The centers also ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the N.R.A. as a courtesy, said Thomas Skinner, a spokesman for the centers.

Invariably, researchers said, whenever their work touches upon firearms, the C.D.C. becomes squeamish. In the end, they said, it is often simply easier to avoid the topic if they want to continue to be in the agency’s good graces.

Dr. Stephen Hargarten, professor and chairman of emergency medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, used to direct a research center, financed by the C.D.C., that focused on gun violence, but he said he had now shifted his attention to other issues.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

This has been widely reported (check the OP), it's not something I've invented out of thin air. You're claiming there's a conspiracy afoot.

The problem is that the NRA has snuffed out tons of research, not just research that would ostensibly promote gun control. The NRA has demanded that be interpreted as anything that would reveal information that would be remotely beneficial to gun control policy.

I'm not claiming a conspiracy, I'm claiming that leftist asshats like you are making up a conspiracy.

You then back up my assertion with a completely unsubstantiated claim that the NRA somehow has total control over CDC grants. That's ridiculous... and sounds a hell of a lot more like a "conspiracy" than anything I have stated.

Here is the simple core issue... You and others like you don't like the NRA and feel that their bullying(there is no doubt they are a bully, anyone with any sense can see that) needs to be countered by an equal measure of anti-gun rhetoric. Fine. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that your ilk thinks it's ok to steal from me to get to that end. The NRA is a private group, privately funded, that pushes its agenda... yet you somehow think it's ok to make a government agency your own personal lobbyist for your agenda. The CDC funds plenty of gun violence research based on objective facts and figures. What you and the other whiners are upset about is that they don't fund gun control propaganda research.

I for one am happy that the CDC isn't allow to push your bullshit agenda. Stop relying on the government and start funding a PRIVATE group to do the spurious research you want pushed.

You're far worse than someone who wants to take away people's guns... you want them to pay for the propaganda you'll use to do it as well.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I'm not claiming a conspiracy, I'm claiming that leftist asshats like you are making up a conspiracy.

Swing and a miss, strike one.

Exerting political influence to prevent certain research from being conducted is not a conspiracy, nor have I claimed that it is.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You then back up my assertion with a completely unsubstantiated claim that the NRA somehow has total control over CDC grants. That's ridiculous...

Swing and a miss, strike two.

It should sound ridiculous, and if I had claimed that, it would be ridiculous. But of course I have not claimed that. Instead I'm arguing that the NRA, like the AARP, AIPAC, and a few other select interest groups, has such immense influence over what lawmakers do that if they claim they want the kabash on certain studies, lawmakers are often happy to oblige.

That doesn't give them total control, however. That's a strawman on your behalf.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

yet you somehow think it's ok to make a government agency your own personal lobbyist for your agenda. The CDC funds plenty of gun violence research based on objective facts and figures. What you and the other whiners are upset about is that they don't fund gun control propaganda research.

Swing and a miss, strike three.

There are plenty of pro-gun control lobbies, though none of them, even put together, have the push that the NRA does.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I for one am happy that the CDC isn't allow to push your bullshit agenda.

Strike four. Honestly, this is pathetic.

Is there any evidence that CDC is/was conducting research that is overtly slanted to the pro-gun control point of view? Anything?

I'll say this... it's really hard to get anything done in the way of conversation when you repeatedly, blatantly, and probably intentionally misrepresent my point of view, AC.

It's evidence of either disingenuousness, or (my guess) your typical hyper-emotional posting style.

Either way, it's just wheels spinning in mud.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by luv

I hadn't considered the sport of it, or maybe I was lumping it in with "hunting". Either way, I simply think that not everyone has the right to own a gun.

Sure, you can't say that everyone who commits a crime with a gun is mentally unstable or has a history of being in trouble. You also won't stop people who want guns from getting them. IMO, those are not valid enough reasons to go without regulations. I think the government has an obligation to protect its citizens as much as citizens have the right to defend themselves.

That last part wasn't necessarily geared toward you as much as it's just me sharing what's on my mind.

Can you coalesce your thoughts into something a little more specific? Saying you think people should be able to have guns for sport and for self defense but at the same time not everyone has a right to own a gun means pretty much zero until you can actually bring yourself to draw a line. There's no way for us to magically determine whether a person wants a gun for the purposes you consider legitimate or for nefarious purposes like armed robbery or murder.

[Direckshun]

I'll say this, the NRA has now, over the past year, withdrawn its Twitter and Facebook accounts, in the wake of multiple mass shootings.

If it cannot find a way to make ground with the upcoming generations, then we may be (praise jesus) witnessing the apex of its political power, and it could be downhill from here for a while.

As usual, it's a long game.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

@ anyone who thinks Waco was a massacre or some kind of conspiracy. ****ing defend child molesters

pedo talk

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I'm not claiming a conspiracy, I'm claiming that leftist asshats like you are making up a conspiracy.

You then back up my assertion with a completely unsubstantiated claim that the NRA somehow has total control over CDC grants. That's ridiculous... and sounds a hell of a lot more like a "conspiracy" than anything I have stated.

Here is the simple core issue... You and others like you don't like the NRA and feel that their bullying(there is no doubt they are a bully, anyone with any sense can see that) needs to be countered by an equal measure of anti-gun rhetoric. Fine. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that your ilk thinks it's ok to steal from me to get to that end. The NRA is a private group, privately funded, that pushes its agenda... yet you somehow think it's ok to make a government agency your own personal lobbyist for your agenda. The CDC funds plenty of gun violence research based on objective facts and figures. What you and the other whiners are upset about is that they don't fund gun control propaganda research.

I for one am happy that the CDC isn't allow to push your bullshit agenda. Stop relying on the government and start funding a PRIVATE group to do the spurious research you want pushed.

You're far worse than someone who wants to take away people's guns... you want them to pay for the propaganda you'll use to do it as well.

[King_Chief_Fan]

no, lets research violent people who mis use guns.

[patteeu]

Let's reduce spending and let others fund research into these areas. We're not facing a crisis here, but we *are* facing a spending crisis (which is much bigger than the immediate concern over the deficit, the debt ceiling, or the so-called fiscal cliff).

[Bwana]

Record gun sales.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...icut-massacre/

[FishingRod]

The natural reaction to horrific incidents like this is a call for action. We simply must do something! Murdered children create an emotion response, it would speak poorly of us all if it did not.
The problem is that when we react emotionally we often, find ourselves enacting “feel good” measures that create additional bureaucracy, additional government control, additional taxes and a curtailing of personal freedoms that far too often do nothing to address the problem or in some cases exacerbate it.
Those on the left side of the isle might pause and consider the emotion of 9-11 and the responses that might have been better, if dealt with in a less emotional way. I have found the media’s 24/7 wailing, and pathetic attempts to make their selves part of the story disgusting. I suspect that in the end our honorable congress people will shove through legislation much like the previous one that will deal more with how some firearms look than their actual function or capabilities.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Let's reduce spending and let others fund research into these areas. We're not facing a crisis here, but we *are* facing a spending crisis (which is much bigger than the immediate concern over the deficit, the debt ceiling, or the so-called fiscal cliff).

Define crisis.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'll say this, the NRA has now, over the past year, withdrawn its Twitter and Facebook accounts, in the wake of multiple mass shootings.

If it cannot find a way to make ground with the upcoming generations, then we may be (praise jesus) witnessing the apex of its political power, and it could be downhill from here for a while.

As usual, it's a long game.

Boohoo. Perhaps they just got tired of getting spammed to death by a bunch of stupid, panicky sheep whipped into frenzy over isolated incidents by the media.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'll say this, the NRA has now, over the past year, withdrawn its Twitter and Facebook accounts, in the wake of multiple mass shootings.

If it cannot find a way to make ground with the upcoming generations, then we may be (praise jesus) witnessing the apex of its political power, and it could be downhill from here for a while.

As usual, it's a long game.

Considering the veritable explosion of gun sales and new NRA memberships I’m thinking that you’re going to be sorely disappointed (praise Jesus).

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Bwana

Record gun sales.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...icut-massacre/

I read that today.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Considering the veritable explosion of gun sales and new NRA memberships I’m thinking that you’re going to be sorely disappointed (praise Jesus).

Apparently this only counts if you tweet about it.