Congress Poised To Keep Banning Gun Violence Research
Source: www.huffingtonpost.com
WASHINGTON -- In the wake of a school shooting in Oregon this fall, it briefly appeared that Congress was willing to reconsider its two-decade ban on the use of taxpayer dollars to research the health impact of gun violence.
There was nothing particularly different about the moment, sad as that may be. The death toll was high, with nine people murdered at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. But school shootings have happened with regularity for years. And even in the wake of worse instances of gun violence, there were no serious efforts to undo the ban that prevents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting gun-related research.
What was different this fall was that gun control advocates prioritized reversing the research ban (perhaps recognizing that their other objectives were futile). Moreover, presidential candidates as ideologically asymmetrical as Hillary Clinton and Ben Carson said it was time to reconsider it. But perhaps most symbolically, the original author of the ban, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), called on lawmakers to undo it.
I have regrets, he told The Huffington Post in October.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-gun-violence-research_5671bde3e4b0688701dbee36
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)... I just won't believe them.
It's nice that Dickey has seen the error of his ways, it's just too little too late.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)How useless.
SunSeeker
(51,522 posts)ck4829
(35,039 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)firearm violence in 2013 don't you?
The results were surprising, it had something for the pro 2A forces and something for the gun control org.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)what they're not allowed to do is use biased based stats.
The DoJ does numerous firearm violence studies without the bias, there are numerous studies you can link to.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)they're banning the use of biased based stats, either pro or con 2A, they're supposed to be neutral.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)It doesn't say anything about banning the study of the impact of firearms on the health system.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)There was no need to pass a specific law forbidding the CDC from engaging in advocacy research. The CDC (and DOJ and all other Federal agencies for that matter) are banned from supporting partisan research.
What was done to the CDC was a silencing because some of their funded research had as outcomes recommendations for increased gun control. In the same year that the CDC restrictions were passed, Congress also lowered the appropriation for the CDC by the exact amount of funding used to sponsor gun research in the prior funding cycle. Connect the dots.
DOJ looks at gun violence from a crime perspective, where CDC looks at gun violence from a public health perspective. There is a critical need to look at both of these aspects. Neutering the CDC research is bad public policy.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)anyone attempting to come to any other conclusions is being dishonest.