As anyone who has been posting on discussion boards (forums) can see I am new to PF. Been lurking here for quite some time and have followed this thread since it was started. Never ceases to amaze me how people claim that the NRA has blocked CDC anti-gun research. I am under the impression that the NRA has no authority to do any such thing. Yes, Congress withdrew CDC funding to sponsor anti-gun investigations and the NRA, as well as other pro-gun organizations, did persuade our Congress critters to so. But it is Congress who withdrew the funding and blocked the CDC. The reason presented to request such action was the quality of the reports that were being presented. Quite poor actually and one of those reports which led to the funding withdrawal is one of the Kellerman works. Which a poster here has brought up and keeps referring to in spite of being informed the work cannot be supported and has been refuted. Really is amazing that people keep bringing up the Kellerman work but always fail to provide any information that might support the claims of the report. BTW I await the AnnaNoblesse promised(?) thread demonstrating that the NRA is a radical organization. Granted they have said some things at times that I wonder what prompted that but dont recall what they were since obviously I dont consider them (the remarks) to be excessively radical.
Perhaps it is appropriate to refer to studies based entirely on junk science, and political ideology, as saturday night special studies.
Oops! I intended to make a post to The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years thread and hit the wrong key. Me bad.
Lot of opinion - very little fact But then if you follow Trumps example and take a leaf out of Goebells book then if you repeat a lie often enough.... So let us look at some real facts in a real story . As a result of the National Rifle Associations lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 per cent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters. Prior to 1996, the centre 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 centre 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. Heres an excerpt of a 1997 article in Reason about the fight to kill gun science: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1 So, it was not an issue with Kellerman's article - which was peer reviewed and, since Kellerman has an extensive publishing record this allegation is nothing but blatant libel - especially since the article appeared in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine What it blatantly was, was an attempt by the NRA to silence anyone saying that guns are not good Interestingly the Congressman who sponsored the bill restricting the CDC funding has since recanted Following the mass shooting in Aurora, CO, Dickey publicly reversed his position on gun violence research, regretting that he had served as "the NRAs point person in Congress" to suppress valid and valuable work, and called for new scientific research in the field. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Dickey
Why is it necessary for the center for disease control to be given government funding to research matters pertaining to firearms? Why can they not simply receive donations from other organizations instead?
Actually, that's an example set many years before by the anti's. Link to Reuters story? LIke these CDC reports? https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf Like DOJ studies like "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" and "Victimization During Household Burglary", both published in 2010? Those types of government studies? Here's why CDC was defunded, and you've been shown this before: “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted. But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994. What, in your wildest dreams, would you expect CDC to find and what laws and Constitutional protections would be changed because of those findings? Here's the data: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm Appeal to authority fallacy. NEJOM is blatantly anti-gun. Critiques of Kellerman: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436 http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2001/The-Fallacy-of-43-to-1.htm When Kellerman allowed for guns brought into the home by an assailant to count as a "gun in the home", and counted all deaths in the home, even those not caused by guns, then any claim about the risk of a law abiding citizen keeping a gun in the home can't even be measured. Yet DOJ and NGOs continue to do gun violence studies. Why hasn't the NRA gone after them?
All of your "fact" is from 1996, and signed into law by a Democrat. If all of this is so important, why was it not reinstated 2009-2011?
Oh goodness gracious me oh my! How interesting. I said Never ceases to amaze me how people claim that the NRA has blocked CDC anti-gun research. <<snip>> But it is Congress who withdrew the funding and blocked the CDC. Perhaps Bowerbird will use his dissertation of post number 4 to show me how my statement is just opinion and not fact. For example-- Interesting statement. I do not recall mentioning governmental research in general, just the CDC. Perhaps all such government investigations have been curtailed and perhaps not but I certainly made no such statement as fact or opinion. As for the Kellerman report it and others were used to persuade Congress to tell the CDC to stop their funding of such reports. It was indeed peer reviewed after publication and shown to be in error as other posters have commented upon so to claim validity on the basis of well Kellerman has many publications is a poor practice. Also noting that the NEJM made the report public by a reprinting not a reason to believe the report. Bluntly, So What? To me this reads pretty much like conjecture on your part. Thank you Bowerbird for the welcome to Political Forum. Perhaps I will enjoy visiting the site more than I was expecting to.
Red herring. There has been plenty of research by all sides into firearm related crime by universities, private research organizations, tax exempt groups. Some universities have entire research sections devoted to gun control, such as at Harvard and Johns Hopkins. People who complain about a lack of government funded research fall into 2 categories: 1 - they falsely believe the government is objective; 2 - they are gun banners who know the govt is not objective, but they want the fig leaf of "objective govt research" in order to push their gun ban agenda.
It's the Center for Disease Control, have them get back to researching diseases and maybe AIDS, Cancer and the like could be cured. Get out of politics and stick to medicine.
What they were researching was the epidemiology of injury and the mechanisms Since firearms are a significant statistical method of injury in the USA they were researching how and why injuries occur Wouldn't it be a good idea to keep people safe?
One, they still collect the data. Two, we already know that murders are caused by someone killing someone else, suicides are self inflicted, regardless of mechanism, and unintentional firearm deaths are through negligence. CDC is free to make recommendations on these causes of deaths that don't involve new gun control laws, and in fact have done so in the past (http://www.delawareonline.com/story...ilm-target-risk-youth-more-services/75085884/). Once the proposed solution set reaches suggesting new gun control laws, then other federal agencies own that action - specifically the Department of Justice.
Pray tell why do such trivialities even matter? Once someone has made the informed decision to commit harm to another individual, to actually commit murder of another individual, why does it matter that they chose to utilize a firearm, rather than any other method? What is the meaningful, legitimate difference that could ultimately be had, from attempting to determine the thought processes of such a decision?
What is more outrageous than the Center for Disease Control not being able to increase its staff and budgets to study firearms is that the Department of Education does not have more staff and budgets so they can study and address diseases or that the Department of Defense does not have more budget and staff to study urban development. It only makes sense that every agency have full staffing and budgets to do what every other agency does. OR issues concerning guns has absolutely nothing to do with the tasks of the CDC and each agency should do its job. When the CDC has found prevention and cure for all diseases, then they can go into gun issues provided they already have the staff and budget to so. Their view of "we don't want to work on diseases, we want to get into gun issues instead" is absurd.
You deny that the largest group commiting gun crimes in this country is males? Really? Far far far more than just male minorities
Good. I thought for a minute you were going to deny that the largest group in the US commiting gun crimes is males. That would be silly. LOL
When it comes to firearms, liberals are required to lie. They are required to lie and misrepresent the truth, because none of the facts support their position. - - - Updated - - - Perhaps they should start researching gangs and illegal immigration while they're at it.
And just where is it not? However the guy that plays Captain Obvious is probably keeping his job. You really need some new material.
Not really. Meanwhile in Chicago, the 65 recorded homicides recorded almost totally involve minorities. Go figure. So much for the White male theory.
