Home | About | Donate

What Does Research That NRA Doesn't Want Funded Show? That Gun Restrictions Save Lives


#1

What Does Research That NRA Doesn't Want Funded Show? That Gun Restrictions Save Lives

Julia Conley, staff writer

The non-partisan RAND Corporation's sweeping new analysis on gun policy in the U.S. reveals that gun violence would be reduced with stricter laws restricting access to firearms—but also stresses that efforts to complete research on the issue have often been stymied by a lack of resources, due to a funding freeze that was pushed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) decades ago.


#2

As I recall this, the CDC was actually writing reports on the harm being done
to our societies by the NRA/guns for everyone programs.

The NRA complained to GOP Congress and that ended the CDC reports.


#3

Fuckers (NRA).


#4

The CDC was funding methodologically flawed and biased “research”.

Not exactly. The Dickey Amendment provided:

That 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.


#5

RAND?
Why would anyone listen to them, Julia? You use the word “nonpartisan” as though you means unbiased. They are not the same thing. RAND began as the instrument to continue war in the IUS. Look who sits on their board. I can’t see them managing to present any topic evenhandedly in the realm of violence.


#7

What the NRA is really saying (admitting) is that they believe (without research) that this research would show that gun control does save lives and that gun control is needed. Otherwise, why would they NRA bother to restrict research? If they really believed in their speil they would want as much research as possible in order to show they are right.
That doesn’t even say whether this is true or not, only that the NRA is acting on their own (real) beliefs about gun control and the results of research into the matter.


#8

Logicus –

No – the CDC was writing reports about the HARM being done to our societies by
guns …and was making that HARM quite clear.

The NRA presented their complain to the GOP about the CDC based in their reports
being interpreted by the NRA as … if I recall correctly … “propaganda campaign against guns.”

In other words, the NRA was worried that if the public became aware of the CDC’s very
negative reports on guns and what they were doing to our societies, they the campaign against
guns would heat up and guns would be gone and so would the NRA.

GOP ordered the CDC to stop studying guns and gun violence in US.


#9

Cite the reports you claim they were writing.

The CDC was creating biased and methodologically flawed “studies” about firearms. The bias was evident.

Rosenberg was the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention at the National Centers for Disease Control. In the article SICK PEOPLE WITH GUNS by William Raspberry in the Washington Post Rosenberg is quoted:

We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol – cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly – and banned.

That’s pretty blatantly biased.

Cites to support your recollection?

The CDC has no business pushing false information with the goal of influencing political debate. That’s what the Dickey Amendment stopped.

The GOP can’t order the CDC to do anything. That requires an act of Congress either signed by the President or passed over his veto.

Cite the law banning the CDC from studying guns and gun violence.


#10

Logicuz –

If you want to speak out against “gun control” please do it openly and clearly…

At one time the CDC did study effects of guns and gun violence on our communities in the US.
The resulting findings of course showed a need for “gun control” but the CDC was not permitted
to advocate for gun control. None the less, the GOP right wingers saw the research and reports
as what they called “propaganda” against the gun industry/NRA and they wanted it stopped.
So the GOP stopped it for them. More clearly, the NRA felt threatened by the research and it
was stopped for them by the GOP.

Here – take your pick from these articles –

Why gun violence research has been shut down for 20 years - The…
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/

Republicans plan to keep restrictions on gun research in place…
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-plan-keep-restrictions-gun-research-place

Why Can’t the U.S. Treat Guns as a Public-Health Problem? - The…


Feb 15, 2018 … A 1996 bill has had a chilling effect on the CDC’s ability to research firearms. … While motor-vehicle deaths are tracked in minute detail in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, no such comparable database exists for gun deaths. Basic questions like … The GOP’s Tax-Cut Narrative Is Already Unraveling.

Key GOP lawmaker: ‘Unlikely’ Congress lifts CDC gun research limits
The provision in question does not actually ban research at the CDC on gun violence_, it only prevents advocacy by the CDC for gun control. But Democrats argue that the provision has had a chilling effect even on research._

A day after the shooting, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he thought **Congress should reexamine the policy that bars the CDC from studying gun violence as a public health issue.**

“If it relates to mental health, that certainly should be done,” Goodlatte, a staunch Second Amendment advocate, said during an appearance on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers."
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/375797-key-lawmaker-unlikely-congress-lifts-cdc-gun-research-limits

There was no bias in either the reports or the reality of the effects of guns on our communities and citizens … and the NRA and the GOP understood that the public also understood the need for gun control.

And this sounds like a quote from the NRA …
The CDC was creating biased and methodologically flawed “studies” about firearms. The bias was evident.

Actually, the CDC allegedly exists to protect the health of Americans –

In the comments below by Rosenberg, I don’t see any call for “gun control” … :slight_smile:

Rosenberg was the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention at the National Centers for Disease Control. In the article SICK PEOPLE WITH GUNS by William Raspberry in the Washington Post Rosenberg is quoted:

We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol – cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly – and banned.

That’s pretty blatantly biased.

Nor do I see any “bias” … I see an absolutely honest reporting of the truth and the need for rethinking guns.

Greenwich: In other words, the NRA was worried that if the public became aware of the CDC’s very negative reports on guns and what they were doing to our societies, they the campaign against guns would heat up and guns would be gone and so would the NRA.

The CDC has no business pushing false information with the goal of influencing political debate. That’s what the Dickey Amendment stopped.

You’re calling for game-playing which the GOP has carried out for you and the NRA.

However, it’s a mistake for the public and our communities.
How many more murders do you need to see before you give up pushing the NRA and guns?

https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=CDC+reports+on+guns+stopped+by+GOP&fr=ush-mailn&fr2=p%3Aml%2Cm%3Asb

Eventually, the GOP will probably move Wayne La Pierre in as head of the CDC to take care of things for them more directly.


#11

The first step is to dispel the bogus claims of the gun control proponents.

From your first link:

The National Rifle Association accused the CDC of promoting gun control. As a result, the CDC stopped funding gun-control research

Your own sources says the CDC stopped funding gun control research. It wasn’t studying gun violence, it was funding gun control efforts. That confirms my point.

Your second link quotes Politico:

Republicans are intent on preserving the so-called Dickey amendment, which prohibits the CDC from advocating on gun control, POLITICO’s Jennifer Haberkorn reports

This also states that the CDC was prohibited from advocating gun control. Political advocacy using federal money is properly prohibited.

From your third link:

The actual amendment sponsored by Jay Dickey, a congressman from Arkansas, did not explicitly forbid research into gun-related deaths, just advocacy.

Again supporting my point, To be fair it follows that with:

But the Congress also lowered the CDC’s budget by the exact amount it spent on such research. Message received. It’s had a chilling effect on the entire field for decades.

What the article doesn’t say is that the funds were restored to the CDC for a different purpose. The funds were redirected due the to poor quality of the “research”.

Of course you don’t. What you see is an opinion, not truth.

Negative and flawed.

I’m calling for a discussion based on fact and reason, not lies and emotion.

Again opinion not fact.

Appeal to Emotion fallacy, And sorry, I’m not affiliated with the NRA. I just have a preference for truth, reason, and fidelity to the Constitution.

Hyperbole much?

I also note that you didn’t cite any CDC reports, nor did you cite a law banning the CDC from studying guns and gun violence, just articles from popular media that actually support my point when you get into the details.


#12

Logicus_Prime

If you want to speak out against “gun control” please do it openly and clearly…

Logicus: The first step is to dispel the bogus claims of the gun control proponents.

NO … the first step is to be honest about who you are and what you support and don’t support.
If you’re here to support and speak for the NRA, at least be honest about it.

The CDC’s reports on guns and their negative effect on our societies repeatedly made clear that they are a danger to the lives and mental health of the public – and needed to be rethought.

Comparisons are made over and again between parallel arguments of the Tobacco corporations and the
gun lobbyists and NRA.

As a matter of fact, the dangers to our society are underrated and largely under acknowledged by our corrupt government representatives who are owned and controlled by large corporations/Elites by bribery.
This also states that the CDC was prohibited from advocating gun control. Political advocacy using federal money is properly prohibited.

The public has been deprived of RESEARCH which should be carried out by our government for the protection of the public. The turning off of research at the CDC on guns and gun violence in the US was simply a cover up for the benefit of the NRA which contributed 30 MILLION $$ to Trump.

There is no hyperbole in my reference to Trump putting Corporate Officials in charge of our government agencies. Trump has done it over and over again.

FDA has for decades, in fact, been called Monsanto’s FDA … nothing new.

The actual amendment sponsored by Jay Dickey, a congressman from Arkansas, did not explicitly forbid research into gun-related deaths, just advocacy.

As you and I both know – and as the Dem Party has made clear – the amendment was intended to put a “chill” on research which they did accomplish … as you’ve confirmed.


:












#13

Actually, I am:

And sorry, I’m not affiliated with the NRA. I just have a preference for truth, reason, and fidelity to the Constitution.

Work on your reading skills.

Yeah, you keep repeating your opinion, but you haven’t cited the reports you’re talking about.

The comparison is faulty. The tobacco companies hid their research showing that they knew the risks of smoking and lied about it to Congress and everyone else.

Actually, that’s your opinion, not a demonstrated fact.

If the research is unbiased, methodologically sound, and within the area of expertise of the researchers I have no problem with it. However, that’s not what happened. Provide those cites to the reports you keep mentioning and we can go into that.

This all started way before Trump. Take off that tinfoil hat.

If it’s been going on for decades then it’s hardly something new with Trump, just business as usual. What’s your point?

Yeah, funny how the CDC “chilled” the research when it couldn’t use the results for political advocacy. Coincidence? Unlikely.

I’ll also note that the Democratic Party didn’t do anything about it when it had control of both Congress and the White House.


#14

Logi –

So, it’s just coincidental that you’re here advocating for the NRA and against information which shows the dangers of guns – which, of course, comes from all sources.

This has especially become an issue women should focus on where they now have an 11X greater risk of being murdered by a male with a gun than women in other wealthy nations thanks to the NRA and Koch.

Constitutionally . . .

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? | The New Yorker
Dec 17, 2012 … For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. … In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a …

Amendment’s text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Clauses cannot be disappeared – and “bear arms” is a reference to military.

If you don’t bother to follow links I give you, you won’t see anything but what you suggest is my opinion – followed, of course, only by your opinion.

The comparison of the NRA to the Tobacco Industry is linked in lack of concern for citizens health and well-being, nationally.

The ban on the CDC prevents them for “advocating for gun control” despite the reality that they exist to support the nation’s health and well-being. This only benefits the NRA and gun manufacturers and their profits – not our communities - the nation from gun violence.

What’s my point about NRA buying government representatives and presidents? ROFL
It used to be called bribery … now it’s called “Citizens United.”

The GOP and the Dem Party are both owned by the same Elite/wealthy/corporations –
the Dem Party are basically junior partners to the GOP.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#59217c282de1


PS: The background to this inane discussion from an anti-gun control article at Forbes …
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#59217c282de1

Obama: "While year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it.”

Perhaps the president has forgotten that the CDC has previously been funded, then later defunded, regarding medical research for gun violence. His directive, if funded again by Congress, would end a virtual 17 year ban which stipulates, quite appropriately, that none of CDC’s federal financing can be used to advocate or promote gun control…exactly what CDC was originally doing.

In 1996, the Congress axed $2.6 million allocated for gun research from the CDC out of its $2.2 billion budget, charging that its studies were being driven by anti-gun prejudice. While that funding was later reinstated, it was re-designated for medical research on traumatic brain injuries.

So the NRA/GOP complaint against CDC studies was …
“that its studies were being driven by anti-gun prejudice.”

I’d say all Americans and our Police Departments, parents, communities - the nation – are “prejudiced against guns and their violence.” And wisely so!








#15

Actually, yes. I found a BS article from Common Dreams in my Flipboard feed and decided to look around.

Actually, firearms are the best way for women to negate the physical advantage that men generally have over them.

I find that the words are least clear to those who don’t like what they say.

According to the Supreme Court? Let’s take a look at the majority opinion in United States v. Cruikshank (1875):

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Nothing about militias there. The militias are organizations created by the Constitution. Organizations and groups don’t have rights. Individuals do.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution nor dependent on it for its existence. The 2nd Amendment does, however, protect that right against government infringement.

The article makes the mistake of conflating “militia” (an organization) with “the people” (individuals) with no basis in either the Constitution or English grammar.

Yeah, I know the 2nd Amendment, and what you quoted isn’t what was ratified by the states. That version only has one comma, after “free State”.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states that the Bill of Rights consists of declaratory and restrictive (on the government) clauses. The militia clause is a declaratory clause. The remainder of the sentence, which is an independent clause that can and does stand alone without the militia clause, is a restrictive clause. It restricts the government from infringing on the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms.

I’m not disappearing the militia clause, I just understand its role.

The 2nd Amendment does not empower the government to restrict the bearing of arms to the military or militia. When the Constitution grants powers it does so to specific branches and there’s no branch of government specified in the 2nd Amendment and no power granted.

And you’re wrong about bearing arms being a reference to the military. It was also used to refer to personal use of arms. From the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state

(emphasis added)

You link to articles in popular media, not to CDC reports. I’ve read those articles. How else do you think I provided quotations from them earlier?

That doesn’t include indulging their own personal biases or representing flawed studies as valid, objective research, however.

What part of “Congress shall make no law…” are you having trouble with?

You neglected to mention the Democratic Party ownership by Big Labor, just to round out your assertion. Not that I endorse it. I have a different solution to the influence problem, but you wouldn’t like it. It’s also irrelevant to the topic of discussion so I won’t go into details.

That’s pretty consistent with my understanding.

Not to mention methodologically flawed. The CDC wasn’t doing what it was supposed to be doing. Bias has no place in research. The goal of research is to determine truths, not support a political agenda.

Another problem with the CDC’s “studies” is that they didn’t concern themselves with any medical or psychological causes for violence. They were focused on statistical criminological approaches. That’s hardly the domain for medical researchers.

You apparently have no problem with that.

I’d say you’re wrong. No one is in favor of the violence that results from the criminal use of firearms, but there are many who are not prejudiced against guns. Some people assign responsibility to the conscious acts of people, others blame inanimate objects.


#16

Logi –

Your alleged disagreement with the CDC is that they advocated against guns: I am saying to you that it is the prejudice of the NRA which profits from the continuing manufacture and purchase of guns that should in reality be advocated against …

but that is not happening because of bribery of our representatives. The CDC is rightly concerned with the physical and mental health of the nation and they should be entitled to ADVOCATE against guns which are doing immense harm to the peace of our communities and well-being of our citizens murdered by guns.

Your response to the reality that women in the US have 11X the risk of being murdered here by a man with a gun is that women should get guns and return the violence. That’s sad and inane.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Those words were disappeared ONLY by bribery of representatives.
And, obviously, those are also the words you most dislike in your desire for guns and violence.
Again, to “bear arms” is a common reference to military.

Long ago, it was decided that guns represented violence and murder and were a disturbance to the peace of our societies. And for more than 100 years that enlightenment was upheld by the Supreme Court.

True – there are restrictions on government because it is an instrument which was created to serve the needs of the citizens. And, also true … our rights are inalienable and not limited by government EXCEPT as it serves the needs of society. That’s why government is empowered to regulate corporations at any time there is a need to do so. And there are constant needs to regulate not only corporations but capitalism.
Those regulations are founded in common sense and reason and are to be carried out by presidents and elected officials. We elect those officials and allegedly as long as they serve the sane and reasonable needs of the public they remain in office. Bribery changes all of that.

Today’s societies are being disrupted by the violence of guns. The majority of our citizens and our police departments want “gun control” returned to the nation. And this is beyond AR15’s … this is a majority demand that we return to a time when it was rare for any citizen to have a gun – and when it was based only in a compelling need for a gun, followed by application for permit and license.

Again – the government is free to limit, to regulate any product made by corporations at any time … according to the needs of society and the will of the people.

It is your opinion only that there is “personal biases” involved in the CDC advocating for “gun control” …
Actually the CDC was CONFIRMING the need and will of the people for “gun control” to return peace to our societies.

The NRA is biased towards gun violence which is doing harm to the nation and our communities.
This needs to be stopped as is being made clear by the majority of Americans.

The world of NRA gun violence is on the front pages of our “news” every day for all to see and judge.
The NRA gun violence has been fought by our communities for decades in pleas to State and Federal Courts for “gun control.” The CDC was confirming that need.

The insanity of the NRA’s bribery of officials and the insanity of their profiting from this violence by gun is something which must be overturned. Not partially – totally.

Guns are not “inanimate objects” … they are created for the sole purpose of doing violence to others.






#17

In your opinion.

Actually, I advocate that they stop the violence by defending themselves since there’s no guarantee that anybody else will be around to protect them. The police certainly have no obligation to do so.

They weren’t disappeared. You just don’t like what they mean when understood in context.

More ignorant assertions.

Again, you’re wrong, as I showed.

What 100 years are you talking about?

I’d love to see you try to point to where that “EXCEPT as it serves the needs of society” is mentioned in the Constitution.

Exactly where in the Constitution do you find the government being given the power to regulate corporations?

Nope. There’s an explicit prohibition in the Constitution on that for arms and no grant of power to do so for any other product.

Where are you reading about the NRA committing gun violence? The checkout line at the grocery store?

Bribery has a legal definition. You might check that out.

That explains much. We’re through here. I don’t argue with people who can’t or won’t acknowledge reality.


#18

Logi –

You’ve described yourself in your comment …

I don’t argue with people who can’t or won’t acknowledge reality.

The debate over the NRA, guns and violence is over if my trust in the American people is accurate.