Ban on research into gun violence must be repealed

[BainsBane]

From that bastion of liberal gun grabbing, Arizona.

SENSELESS LAWS ARE TYING HANDS OF POLICE AND PROSECUTORS, KEEPING US ALL IN THE DARK

How do criminals get their guns? Are there observable patterns to gun crime? Who is at the greatest risk of injury, or causing injury to others, from firearm use? Which gun-safety practices are most effective at preventing accidental injury?

The answers to these and other basic questions remain difficult and obscure in part thanks to a senseless ban, on the books for a decade, that limits research on gun violence and denies researchers and even police and prosecutors access to federal gun data. The laws prohibit the public disclosure of a gun's sales history, make that data inadmissible in court, require the Justice Department to destroy background-check records within 24 hours and prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from requiring gun dealers to check their inventories annually for theft.

A recent report from the Institute of Medicine, an independent, nonprofit research organization, details just how thoroughly Americans are in the dark. The report, commissioned by President Obama after the massacre of 26 students and educators in Newtown, Conn., underscores how little even serious scholars know about gun violence and shows how such ignorance jeopardizes public safety and health.

A better understanding of the "characteristics of firearm violence," the "risk and preventative factors" for gun-related injuries, and the "impact of gun-safety technology," the report says, would undoubtedly help save lives. By making reliable gun data scarce, the research ban has hamstrung police, prosecutors and public health officials in their response to an onslaught of 30,000 gun deaths a year.

Congressional opposition to gun data, which advances the anti-research agenda of the National Rifle Association, isn't merely a policy position. The lack of information has successfully restricted public debate itself. Healthy democracies do not resolve conflicts by stifling inconvenient evidence. Imagine banning doctors from studying cancer cells or requiring radiologists to destroy X-ray records within 24 hours.

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/ban-on-research-into-gun-violence-must-be-repealed/article_92ab48d7-f8dc-51fb-813b-21c23de41a62.html

[BainsBane]

1. kick

[GreenStormCloud]

2. The CDC is NOT banned from doing gun research.

They are banned from doing gun-control advocacy.

The CDC has been, and is still, biased on the topic.

For example, they don't admit that the category "justified homicide" exists. Check out the CDC satistics site: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

According ot them, self-defense doesn't exist. They substitute a category call "undetermined intent". The numbers of firearms fatalities in UI closely matches the FBI's number of justified homicides.

I would like more objective data. I posted a thread a few days ago describing a gun study that I would like to see done, tht ai think would give a lot of good information.

[booley]

9. of course gun research is gun control advocacy

since advocacy means any research that could be used to advance gun control.

This isn't about "bad studies" because the way around that is to do MORE studies, not cut the funding of the CDC by the exact amount of a study one doesn't like and leave vague warning not to "advocate"

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347#.UcRXPxy4In8

It's not like the CDC is the only agency this tactic has been done too. It's just among the more successful cases.

[BainsBane]

13. Let's pretend for a moment you're not completely uninformed about

science and social science research. Major universities do research. NIH and NSF fund them.

[rrneck]

43. I think "legal intervention" would be justifiable homicide. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

44. "Legal intervention" is only done by law-enforcement.

Justifiable, but not done by an ordinary armed citizen. They do not have a category for that, but call it "undertermined intent".

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/fatal/help/definitions.htm#mortality

Homicide - injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill, by any means. Excludes injuries due to legal intervention and operations of war. Justifiable homicide is not identified in WISQARS.

Legal Intervention - injuries inflicted by the police or other law-enforcing agents, including military on duty, in the course of arresting or attempting to arrest lawbreakers, suppressing disturbances, maintaining order, and other legal actions. Excludes injuries caused by civil insurrections.

[rrneck]

46. You got me there. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

47. We're pretty much on the same side on guns. N/T

[aikoaiko]

3. There is no explicit ban on gun research.

Last edited Fri Jun 21, 2013, 08:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Just propaganda.

[BainsBane]

7. a ban on federal funding is a ban

As anyone with a casual knowledge of scientific and academic research in the nation. Obviously like the NRA, you're afraid of the results, so once again you support a denial of constitutional rights.

[booley]

11. it's a bit more clever then that

you see there really isnt' an "explicit" ban on gun research.

That is true.

What the NRA did was cut CDC funding the exact amount they were using for gun research and then say the CDC cant'
advocate for gun control" Of course if a study contradicts what the NRA wants to hear, that can be said to be advocacy and the Republicans threatened to cut the funding even more.

Any researcher with half a brain could figure out gun research was career suicide.

The claim that gun research isn't banned is such a beautiful lie because on the surface it appears to be true.

[BainsBane]

14. Thanks for sharing that

excellent points.

[aikoaiko]

16. It is not a lie at all.

The CDC could do gun research funded with federal money and let the data speak for themselves.

Plus there are foundations with deep pockets itching to fund academic research that supports gun control.

There is no explicit ban on gun research.

I'm fine with removing the advocacy prohibition.

[booley]

21. and how would they do that without money?

last I heard to do research required money.

Money for the CDC has to be approved by Congress.

Congress cut the funding of the CDC by the exact amount it used to research gun violence.

And promised to do it again if any more research the GOP didn't like came out.

Thats what makes it such a beautiful lie.

There is indeed no explicit ban on gun research.

But there is a long standing ban on gun research.

I'm fine with removing the advocacy prohibition.

Awesome. As you are not in congress it is in no way relevant and has no effect upon the fact that such a prohibition is in effect.

But awesome.

[aikoaiko]

29. If the CDC thought it was important, they could do it through their foundation

Their foundation can accept private funds and they are some deep anti-gun pockets out there.

And the CDC is not the only way research gets done. Agencies, companies, and academics can solicit funding through NIH grants and private foundation.

[booley]

60. maybe you missed it

the congress cut the funding for the CDC by the exact amount they were using for gun research.

And promised to do it again.

And no research is not only done by government agencies. But a lot of it is. Private research often follows publically funded one.

[aikoaiko]

62. As I understand it, the CDC Foundation is based on private partnerships for funding.

And not subject to congressional approval or oversight.

[booley]

63. then you would be wrong

because my point is even if this went through the foundation, the CDC as an an agency could still be and would be punished for it

Remember what I said about the beautiful lie. They appear true on the surface.

I mean seriously, you can't say there was no ban and then go on about how people could have gotten around the ban you said wasn't there.

But I have a crazy idea. Instead of pulling stuff from our ass, how about we look stuff up to see what the reality was...

this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

When the research was banned, Dr. Arther Kellermann had been working on CDC-funded research on whether home gun possession had potentially protective or hazardous effects on health. Nonprofit organizations helped fund the remainder of the project, but as the years went on, fewer and fewer nonprofits stepped up.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347

[former9thward]

57. What about Bloomberg?

He has billions. I'm sure he could afford a few million to research something he hates.

[booley]

61. This has been going on for years

.... long before Bloomberg got involved in this

The researchers had to move on, the data is all old and has to be recollected. And there's the still the stigma, that anybody who devotes themselves to this kind of research is throwing their carer away.

And some information is easier for a public institution to collect.

Even bloom berg can't undo that with a wave of his check book.

What gets me is how so many are claiming there is no ban on public funding for gun research.. at the same time justifying/minimizing it.

[aikoaiko]

19. Actually very little published research is federally funded.

It's true. Gun violence isn't particular expensive because it depends on data collected for other reasons or survey research.

[booley]

22. cost can depend on type of research

But as been shown in numerous other cases, private research funding often follows government research funding.

And in some cases it's purposely excluded from other research like surveys to avoid irking the gun lobby.

Except for a handful of think tanks, there's just no funding for this. Researchers know if they want to have careers, they need to avoid gun research.

[BainsBane]

32. That's absurd

I work in academic research. Don't even try this nonsense.

As for how research is carried out, there are many different aspects that could be researched, including technological innovation. Any research requires time. Art historians and philosophers whose research is far less expensive than science apply for grants to fund travel and get course relief in order to have time to do that research.


What are you so afraid of finding out? Your opposition here is very revealing.

[aikoaiko]

33. I do too and most publications are not funded by federal dollars.

There's a great big publishing world out there.

I have never said I was opposed to research. I think its telling that you think I do.

[BainsBane]

34. You are here arguing against it

It's obvious.

[aikoaiko]

36. Once again, I'm puzzled by your conclusion.

Correcting your misstatements is not arguing against something.

[BainsBane]

35. I can tell you that my university would no longer exist

without federally funded research. Some schools apply ONLY to federal funders like NSF and NIH. That funding is 25% of annual expenditures at the university, more than we get from the state legislature.

[aikoaiko]

38. Sure, but choosing to soft fund researchers is not the same things as

most research being supported by federal dollars. Most universities are not as dependent as you claim yours to be.

[BainsBane]

39. True. We are a research 1 university

and are among the top grant recipients in the country. I've worked at regional schools and a liberal arts college where obviously that wasn't the case, but ours is a major research institution. Most major research is done at institutions like ours.
Of course, if someone is a leading scientist, they don't work at minor universities, since they don't have the infrastructure to support their research.

[aikoaiko]

40. Maybe we're close to a point of agreement.

I agree that the NRA supported legislation language that discouraged gun violence research, but I cannot say it is a ban on that research.

It can be funded through private foundations and even the indirects of the grants that are funded should it be an issue worth pursuing.

I'm fine with the language in that discourages CDC research be dropped.

[BainsBane]

50. So what about the Bush ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research

Were you fine with that? Do you remember that discussion?
Private foundations could support research, which is why Bloomberg started one. You all hate him with a vengeance because he makes an effort to counter the blood money that flows from the NRA to the GOP pols who support guns over human life.

Your little games are transparent. You're not fooling anyone. I don't know why you bother.

[former9thward]

58. So why isn't Bloomberg funding it?

He has billions. Why can't he give a few million for research? Or he is all talk and no action?

[BainsBane]

37. When was the last time you saw a publication in Science

that wasn't funded with federal grants? A good number of faculty lines in medicine and science have half of their salaries paid for by federal grants, which is why success in winning certain categories of NSF and NIH awards (as opposed to any federal grant) are a requirement for tenure in those disciplines.

[Pelican]

4. Background checks results and a gun registry....

... in thehands of an anti-gun advocacy group.

No way that could go wrong. Nope. Can't imagine how.... Nuh uh

[99Forever]

5. Good to see the NRA gun fringe apologists are up early...

... to reply with :

Nu uh... is not!

[Pelican]

6. I think you meant...

Nuh uh... and here's why...

[99Forever]

48. Thank you Officer Spelling Cop.

What would we do without you?

[Pelican]

54. I don't know about Officer Spelling Cop

You can refer to me as Captain Context if you like...

[99Forever]

55. Nope.

It's Officer Spelling Cop. Important job you've got there. Impressive too.

[Pelican]

56. Still not sure what you are referring to...

... seeing as how I don't give a crap about anyone's spelling.

Unless you are going to the relatively new anti-gun tactic of "just making shit up."

Good example was when one of my favorites said that anyone with a CCC was just itching to get to a minority neighborhood to kill people of color, women and children. When asked about it she said "Oh, well I don't have a source"

It really is about the context I guess...

[BainsBane]

8. It does show that truth is meaningless to them

as are constitutional rights.

[NutmegYankee]

23. What right is being violated?

There is no Constitutional right to funding.

[BainsBane]

42. There is a constitutional right to free speech

With the NRA has systematically eroded by prohibited doctors from asking patients about guns or, in ACA, writing down anything about guns. When you tell people they can't write something, that's a violation of their First Amendment rights.
The NRA has also worked to impose gag orders to make it illegal to say anything bad about guns.

It also shows how gun forces are desperate to censor the public's access to knowledge. They oppose research because they don't what knowledge that challenges their power. They can then make cynical comments like there is no proof or this or that after doing everything in their power to suppress that proof.

Then there is the fact that a bunch of people who claim to be liberals rallying around a corporate lobby's effort to silence the American public's access to knowledge is hypocritical and shows a complete lack of concern for openness, freedom of speech and truth.

[GreenStormCloud]

45. There is NOT a constitutional right to funding.

All of the researchers still have their right of personal free speech. They just have to pay for it themselves or secure other funding.

[hack89]

24. Constitutonal rights are very important

which is why they all need to be defended with equal vigor. What Constitutional rights do you think pro-gun Dems are ignoring?

[BainsBane]

49. The First Amendment

All the efforts by the NRA to squash free speech, going as far as supporting gag rules that criminalize anti-gun speech. They have enacted a law in FL that makes it a felony for a doctor to ask a patient about guns in the home. In ACA, they made it illegal for doctors to write down anything about guns.

[hack89]

52. That Florida law was declared unconstitutional in Federal court

the system worked it should.

[Bazinga]

10. You're absolutely right, but why do you have to poison the well with half truths.

There is no ban on research, only a lack of funding. As someone who does research to feed his family, I understand as well as anyone what reduced funding does for research. And the truth is we need to invest in the truth in order to find solutions to the problem of violence.

But you do yourself no favors by starting the conversation on anything but an honest premise.

[BainsBane]

12. This is an editorial

I didn't write it. As anyone with any knowledge of research knows, a ban on federal funding means no research. Remember the entire stem cell controversy?
That you have no understanding of scientific and academic research is no one's fault but your own.

[aikoaiko]

17. Not true at all. There are private foundation that could fund projects

[Bazinga]

20. And there was nothing in the editorial that is untrue.

That was the half of the half-truth that was true.

Your post title, on the other hand, has some obvious factual difficulties. Since this has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, one can only assume that you're intent was to mislead for emotional effect.

"a ban on federal funding means no research."

More accurately, a lack of funding means extremely limited research.

I agree with you that research should be funded. Any data that can be collected while respecting the rights and privacy those studied should be available to help solve our problems.

What I don't agree with is dishonesty and misrepresentation as a means to dehumanize those who disagree with you.

[BainsBane]

41. My post title is the title of the editorial

complain to the newspaper. Dehumanize? Give me a fucking break. I've never seen any group of adults feel so sorry for themselves as you gunners. Obviously your hurt feelings are so much more important than lives exterminated through gun violence. You people clearly believe so.

So write the paper and tell them to censor what they write so as not to hurt your itty bitty wittle feelings.

[Paladin]

15. Pro-gunners, your fear is palpable on this thread.

How refreshing, to see an instance of your constant paranoia actually being justified.

Call it research, call it funding, either way it should be implemented ASAP. Oh, yeah: The ATF has been without a director for seven years, for the same reason that this research has been squelched. We want that taken care of, as well.

[aikoaiko]

18. I'm fine with appointing a decent director for ATF

But are you suggesting the curren interim isn't doing what he should be doing?

[Paladin]

28. A "decent director"? Spare us any further details, OK? (nt)

[hack89]

25. "We want"

ok. We want some things too. Perhaps we can do a little horse trading so both sides go home happy.

Fear? We have had n othing to fear from the gun control movement for a very long time.

[Eleanors38]

26. Fear again. Well I'm gonna take a fearful nap, followed

by grilled jumbo pink shrimp, cooked -2 blks away from St. Augustine Beach. Probably followed by another fearful nap as a pleasant thunderhead rumbles through with only Saturday to look forward to.

[hack89]

27. I am spending a fearful day at the beach

not sure how much more I can stand.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. I'm going to make a fearful run to the drugstore for my cats' meds.

After which I will have a fearful supper...

[Eleanors38]

53. Corn-on-the-cob, pasta salad, tossed salad, marinated shrimp,

biscotti, sitting around farting like horses -- a veritable and fearful cloud descended on A1A. We like to share the fear.

[Lizzie Poppet]

31. Oh, right...I'm absolutely fuckin' terrified.

Oh, and I've been calling for such funding for years...

[Pelican]

59. I wish you guys would make up your mind...

Is the NRA the all powerful mega lobby with ability to squash 1st amendment right with a mere phone call from LaPierre's office?

or

Are they shaking in their oversized boots because of the tongue lashing that they receive on an internet forum and they know their days are numbered?

Mutually exclusivity...

[Just Saying]

51. Reliable information is not available in part due to certain laws.

Find out more here :

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml

It's high time we start using common sense when it comes to firearms legislation. And if gun advocates really can't get behind stopping dealers who sell to criminals and background checks to keep criminals and the mentally ill from buying deadly weapons, then they and the manufacturers need to be seen as the radicals they are.

Your right to bear arms doesn't trump everything else.