The NRA Killed Gun Violence Research

[Osiris]

With all our gun debating I wondered why it was so hard to find good stats on gun violence. Apparently this is why:

 

How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research

WALTER HICKEY

 

More than 100 scientists from universities in the United States lobbied Vice President Joe Biden, asking him to allow the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to once again fund research into the public health impacts of guns.

The scientists signed a letter to Biden last week, urging him to consider making "direct investments in unbiased, scientific research and data infrastructure" related to firearm safety.

 

The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association.

 

As a result of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters.

 

Prior to 1996, the Center for Disease Control funded research into the causes of firearm-related deaths. After a series of articles finding that increased prevalence of guns lead to increased incidents of gun violence, Republicans sought to remove all federal funding for research into gun deaths.

 

In 1996, Republican Rep. Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the CDC budget the precise amount the CDC spent on gun research in 1995 at a time when the center was conducting more studies into gun-related deaths as a "public health phenomenon," according to The New York Times. The NRA and some pro-gun Congressmen perceived this as more of an attack.

 

Here's an excerpt of a 1997 article in Reason about the fight to kill gun science:

 

Since 1985 the CDC has funded scores of firearm studies, all reaching conclusions that favor stricter gun control. But CDC officials insist they are not pursuing an anti-gun agenda. In a 1996 interview with the Times-Picayune, CDC spokeswoman Mary Fenley adamantly denied that the agency is "trying to eliminate guns."

 

At the behest of the NRA, Congressional Republicans successfully removed all federal funding to the Center for Disease Control that would have gone into researching the effect of guns and the root causes of gun violence.

 

That funding was eventually reinstated, but has been decreasing since, and the CDC re-designated the money to conduct research on traumatic brain injuries.

 

The current law reads: 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.

 

Because of the NRA's successful campaign to eliminate the scientific research into the public health effect of firearms, very few researchers specialize in the field anymore, University of California, Davis, professor Garen Wintemute told Reuters. He said there isn't enough money to sustain research.

 

Since there is a lack of funding for independent research, the gun debate has been lacking in unimpeachable statistics that could effect a change in the status quo.

 

As it stands, the main available statistics regarding the gun debate are raw gun homicide and suicide stats collected through the FBI, international data and data from groups with a direct stake in the gun debate for instance, pro-gun stats from the NRA and pro-gun control stats from the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.

 

The scientists writing the letter to Biden wrote that, effectively, the NRA has successfully hamstrung a credible gun control conversation. When the only statistics available are imperfect, it becomes that much easier to disregard them.

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1

[Legacy Fan]

The FBI has a stake in the gun control debate?

[Osiris]

The FBI has a stake in the gun control debate?

No. From the article:

 

As it stands, the main available statistics regarding the gun debate are raw gun homicide and suicide stats collected through the FBI, international data AND data from groups with a direct stake in the gun debate for instance, pro-gun stats from the NRA and pro-gun control stats from the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.

[calfoxwc]

Except this gov is already anti-gun in the worst way,

and they lie out their arses.

 

The gov has no business investing in political witchhunts against

those who aren't on board.

 

Like the Tea party, gun owners, veterans, donors to conservative causes,

donors to the Republican party, etc.

 

Everybody here knows the gov report would be skewed in a bad way for the left's agenda.

[gftChris]

Except this gov is already anti-gun in the worst way,

and they lie out their arses.

 

The gov has no business investing in political witchhunts against

those who aren't on board.

 

Like the Tea party, gun owners, veterans, donors to conservative causes,

donors to the Republican party, etc.

 

Everybody here knows the gov report would be skewed in a bad way for the left's agenda.

Whether or not you think the govt would influence the results to show things fitting their agenda, making it illegal for the CDC to do any kind of research that might show things in a bad light seems very dodgy.

 

Surely if the NRA were so sure that guns weren't the problem they'd be encouraging independent studies that would inevitably prove their point? Crazy thoughts, I know.

[Legacy Fan]

No. From the article:

 

As it stands, the main available statistics regarding the gun debate are raw gun homicide and suicide stats collected through the FBI, international data AND data from groups with a direct stake in the gun debate for instance, pro-gun stats from the NRA and pro-gun control stats from the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.

It was rhetorical. The data I post is from the FBI or sourced from/ linked to it.

[calfoxwc]

Whether or not you think the govt would influence the results to show things fitting their agenda, making it illegal for the CDC to do any kind of research that might show things in a bad light seems very dodgy.

Surely if the NRA were so sure that guns weren't the problem they'd be encouraging independent studies that would inevitably prove their point? Crazy thoughts, I know. Chris

**************************************************************

Seriously? Fast and furiour scandal, Benghazi lies and coverup scandal, the trading of the worst

terrorists scandal, all the Obamao lies and misdirection and subterfuge of the truth, stonewalling....

??? That IS the point, Chris. They would be nearly guaranteed to not be independent. I know you're British,

but can you stop listening to John Lennon's "Imagine" song for a bit?

[MLD Woody]

If any study ever reaches a conclusion Cal disagrees with, it wasn't independent or fair. Especially if it was funded by the govt

[calfoxwc]

woodypeckerhead pecks again.

 

I disagree with anything that doesn't make sense in terms

of the reasons' legitimacy, or not, that allegedly underlie

opinions.

 

you on the left love to say stupid, really wrong catchphrases that

are just emotional inventions to justify your bigotry.

 

Stupid things, like saying that "we need to do SOMETHING to stop gun crime",

like nothing has been accomplished. Like insisting we need background checks

because people at gun shows buy guns from gun dealers, and don't have to have background checks..

It's completely a lie.

 

The only drawback is, that private citizens selling guns at gun shows, they don't.

You want to make it illegal to have private sellers at gun shows (I think some shows do have them)..

I'm happy with that. You want to make ALL private transfers and sales require background checks?

No. Because that is across the board gun registration, the gov, and obviously the left, will

know then where all guns are. and that leads to bans and confiscation.

 

We HAVE background checks. At gun shows from dealers, at auctions, ...I don't actually

know about mail order...

 

The left has made it impossible, with the hostility, and admitted evil intentions on the subject,

to get with the right, and all gun owners and the NRA to increase the background checks

to include, required by law, all those who are not allowed to own guns because of mental

disability, or previous felony convictions.

 

Hate doesn't get bipartisan, genuine solutions. All it does, is alienate all those who would

have listened and helped work towards legit goals of stopping these gun murders.

 

Certain posters on this board have railed against the NRA in irrational ways. The NRA is gun owners, and gun rights supporters. Millions of them. All walks of life, all colors, male, female, republicans, independents,

democrats...what the sense can it possibly make to put down the NRA because you think

they are all one age, one politic, one sex, one personality, ....??? None.

 

What we NEED to do, is legally demand that persons who are legitimately documented

as having mental disabilities, and felony convictions red-flagged into the background check

system.

 

But you know the left - you shoot groundhogs, and some gun hating lefty org will sue

to put those wild animal murders on the list, etc. And because that is pretty much true,

it puts the onus of nothing getting accomplished at this point... on the irrational hate of the left.

 

all the way up to the dishonest, corrupt leftie in our WH - saying we've done nothing at all

to try to stop gun crime.

 

then, refer to a list of Brady group inspired "stats".

 

Trouble is, the Brady group manufactured their report to reflect their political bigotry.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/shooting-back-at-the-we-ve-done-nothing-about-guns-myth

[Osiris]

A government-funded source is going to be more independent than an NRA-funded source, but Cal has no problem posting dozens of case examples from the NRA website about how a gun deterred criminals. Furthermore, the peer review process will ensure that if the study is not independent that it will be discredited. Oh, and whatever you feel about Obama's honesty, I have yet to see him don a lab coat and involve himself in any of the research going on at my or anyone else's government-funded research program.

[calfoxwc]

Wait. I have an idea. give private gun sales folks a chance to run a private background check

through a gun store's access to the background check system. Voluntary, the store runs it,

and let's the private seller know if he should approve the sale. Not perfect, but I wonder

if that would help, and work. Only the buyer's name would be given, not the sellers.

Kinda like both the seller of a used car, show up to transfer the deed.

Just that this would enable a private seller to know that he isn't selling his gun to a redflagged individual,

and still his anonymity sp? would be protected, as well as his 2nd Amendment rights.

 

The background check system is fairly quick. When I purchased our gun at a gun show, even the dealer

was surprised at how quickly my background check was approved.

 

Just a thought.

[calfoxwc]

A government-funded source is going to be more independent than an NRA-funded source, but Cal has no problem posting dozens of case examples from the NRA website about how a gun deterred criminals. Furthermore, the peer review process will ensure that if the study is not independent that it will be discredited. Oh, and whatever you feel about Obama's honesty, I have yet to see him don a lab coat and involve himself in any of the research going on at my or anyone else's government-funded research program. Os

******************************************************************

Nonsense, This gov especially. Sure, Os, go find these examples posted under the Brady anti gun campaign,

and I'll post them. Do you think those armed citizens reports are a fabrication? I even posted a video of the actual

people talking about what happened. Come on. You think msnbc or cnn will post these somewhere? You think the Whitehouse.gov

will post them, just to be honest? There's a lot of things you have yet to see obamao doing. HINT: that doesn't mean

he doesn't do them.

 

Oh, and who gets to select which "peers" get the be the reviewers? From the Brady campaign? Don't try to sell that

nonsense to me. "Peer review" failed badly in discrediting the tree ring and hockey stick frauds on mmgw. I got your

"independent" right there.

[Osiris]

It's funny that you always accuse people of arguing on an emotional basis, yet you're posts are always littered with hyperbole and emotional appeals. In any case, I have no doubt that the armed citizen reports are real, just as I have no doubt the incidence of suicide by gun, accidental gun death, and gun homicide far outweigh these incidents. As I reported on another thread, the FBI statistics show that guns are the weapon of choice in murder:

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

 

And statistics from Harvard show suicide rates increase dramatically if a gun is in the home.

 

We know you hate peer review because it leads to conclusions you disagree with, but part of the peer-review selection process, of which you have zero familiarity with and I have been involved in, is that you specifically prohibit anyone from reviewing if they have ANY conflict of interest in the study. The only nonsense here is the stuff you type.

[MLD Woody]

There's a lot of things you have yet to see obamao doing. HINT: that doesn't mean

he doesn't do them.

 

Just because I don't see Cal luring unsuspecting tourists to his farm, where he then murders them and serves them to local townsfolk in an intoxicating stew, doesn't mean he's NOT doing that

[The Cysko Kid]

Just because I don't see Cal luring unsuspecting tourists to his farm, where he then murders them and serves them to local townsfolk in an intoxicating stew, doesn't mean he's NOT doing that

Damn it cal, is that what you bring to the barn dance?

[Osiris]

Damn it cal, is that what you bring to the barn dance?

No, this is what he brings!

 

[calfoxwc]

is that you specifically prohibit anyone from reviewing if they have ANY conflict of interest in the study

*************************************************************

Really? then you should ban all the scientists who get pro mmgw grants from being "peer reviewers".

 

But you wouldn't. Hypocrite. Again, when I talk emotionalism, I'm talking about the lib penchant for lies

that are obvious lies, are proven to be lies, but let the argument get a bit heated, and you still parrot them

for effect. There's more than one lib on this board, still only one birdbrain, woodypeckerhead.

 

And, so conveniently, you want to go with Harvard? That's a freaking joke. Talk about a biased, leftist source of

"studies".

[MLD Woody]

So Osiris... Are you noticing a pattern? Lol

[Osiris]

is that you specifically prohibit anyone from reviewing if they have ANY conflict of interest in the study

*************************************************************

Really? then you should ban all the scientists who get pro mmgw grants from being "peer reviewers".

 

But you wouldn't. Hypocrite. Again, when I talk emotionalism, I'm talking about the lib penchant for lies

that are obvious lies, are proven to be lies, but let the argument get a bit heated, and you still parrot them

for effect. There's more than one lib on this board, still only one birdbrain, woodypeckerhead.

 

And, so conveniently, you want to go with Harvard? That's a freaking joke. Talk about a biased, leftist source of

"studies".

You seem to be having some basic failures of logic. A scientist who gets a grant for any study is already banned from being a peer reviewer of that study, as are others with any known bias or relationship to that scientist. That is why it's called peer-review. So yeah, what you said already happens. Anyway, I get that anyone, or any institute that produces something you disagree with must be a haven of liberalism. I see the libs here supporting their claims with statistical data far more often than you do, but I guess that's because statistics are some crazy liberal invention.

[Osiris]

So Osiris... Are you noticing a pattern? Lol

Several.

[calfoxwc]

no more than the patterns of dumbass arguments by libs on this board.

 

that is what gets you guys in trouble with discussions.

 

and, btw, calling Fox News "Faux News" is hardly scientific.

 

And, let me know what scientists who refute mmgw who are also "peer reviewers"]

 

of pro-mmgw scientific studies..

[LogicIsForSquares]

Research and basic math are liberal conspiracies created by Barack HUSSEIN Obamao!

[calfoxwc]

You forgot the word "phony"....

 

tree ring. hockey stick.

collusion emails.

blacklisting of data discovered by scientists that don't toe the line.

 

admissions by the UN that mmgw is needed for money for world projects.

 

IPCC gets everybody on board, then changes the report to reflect the leftist

political football.

[LogicIsForSquares]

You forgot the word "phony"....

 

tree ring. hockey stick.

collusion emails.

blacklisting of data discovered by scientists that don't toe the line.

 

admissions by the UN that mmgw is needed for money for world projects.

 

IPCC gets everybody on board, then changes the report to reflect the leftist

political football.

You convinced me. Where do we buy our customary tin foil hats?

[calfoxwc]

illogic translation:

 

"please, cal, post a bunch of stuff about the tree ring and hockey stick farces. I don't

believe you, because I'm dense"

[LogicIsForSquares]

illogic translation:

 

"please, cal, post a bunch of stuff about the tree ring and hockey stick farces. I don't

believe you, because I'm dense"

Cal, I tell you that I am convinced and then you turn on me. Which brand of aluminum foil did The Blaze say was good enough to deflect Obamao's brain control satellites? I don't want to get the wrong brand and be labeled a lib for differing from the party line.

[gftChris]

 

blacklisting of data discovered by scientists that don't toe the line.

 

 

What you're complaining about Obama's regime doing is exactly where this topic started, with the republicans refusing to even allow the study to be carried out, let alone blacklisting the results.

[Osiris]

What you're complaining about Obama's regime doing is exactly where this topic started, with the republicans refusing to even allow the study to be carried out, let alone blacklisting the results.

How dare you point out his hypocrisy. Clearly since he called us all hypocrites he can't be one!

[Westside Steve]

personally if I am a member of a group that is at odds with the federal government and the federal government is planning some sort of study to get evidence to use against me, warranted or not, I might be hesitant to support study.

WSS

[gftChris]

personally if I am a member of a group that is at odds with the federal government and the federal government is planning some sort of study to get evidence to use against me, warranted or not, I might be hesitant to support study.

WSS

Point is, though, it's been made illegal to produce studies that suggest guns are bad. It would be bad enough if it were banning all studies on guns, but it's specifically allowing ones that show guns in a good light? That's when it gets VERY suspect.