GOP keeps in place funding ban on gun violence research

[RandySF]

A GOP-led panel blocked a proposal Wednesday that would have reversed a nearly 20-year-old ban on funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research on gun violence.

The House Appropriations Committee voted 32-19 against ranking member Rep. Nita Lowey's (D-N.Y.) amendment to a bill that would fund health, education and labor programs in the next fiscal year.

“When it comes to gun violence, my friends, this committee won’t give one dime for the CDC to conduct research on something that is killing Americans by the thousands,” Lowey said.

Lowey attempted to undo the 1996 congressional ban that was first proposed by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.). She noted that Dickey later supported lifting the prohibition on the CDC.

“I rise to oppose the amendment,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said of Lowey’s proposal. “We don’t think this place is the appropriate place for a debate over the Second Amendment.”


http://thehill.com/policy/finance/245983-gop-panel-votes-to-keep-funding-ban-for-gun-violence-research

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. What's wrong with the DOJ's Unified Crime Report?

[SunSeeker]

2. So we can't do research on gun violence because of GOP paranoia...

“The restriction is to prevent activity that would undertake activities (to include data collection) for current or future research, including under the title 'gun violence prevention,' that could be used in any manner to result in a future policy, guidelines, or recommendations to limit access to guns, ammunition, or to create a list of gun owners,” the report says.

“That convoluted argument is an insult to this committee,” Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) said. “It borders on the paranoid.”

[GGJohn]

3. They can still do research, what they can't do is be biased about it,

like they used to be.
Pres. Obama issued an EO that allowed the CDC to study firearms violence, including DGU's by gun owners, it didn't quite turn out the way the controllers wanted.

[SunSeeker]

5. Bullshit. They blocked ALL funding.

Reality has a liberal bias.

[GGJohn]

6. You can say bullshit all you want, but the reality is that Pres. Obama issued an EO

allowing the CDC to do studies that were not biased in one way or the other.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/16/obama_gun_control_executive_orders_call_for_cdc_gun_violence_research_17.html

CDC Will Now Be Free To Research Gun Violence for First Time in 17 Years

NBC News flags one of the 23 executive actions taken by President Obama this afternoon as part of his push for stricter gun control in the United States: In short, the president has effectively lifted what has been a virtual 17-year ban on basic research into the public health effects of gun violence. But while the CDC will have the freedom to resume work on that topic, it's still unclear whether it will have the funding to do so.

Here's the relevant part from the White House fact sheet, under action No. 14, titled clearly as "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence":

Conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence: The President is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and scientific agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. It is based on legal analysis that concludes such research is not prohibited by any appropriations language. The CDC will start immediately by assessing existing strategies for preventing gun violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the greatest potential public health impact. And the Administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.

Better understand how and when firearms are used in violent death: To research gun violence prevention, we also need better data. When firearms are used in homicides or suicides, the National Violent Death Reporting System collects anonymous data, including the type of firearm used, whether the firearm was stored loaded or locked, and details on youth gun access. Congress should invest an additional $20 million to expand this system from the 18 states currently participating to all 50 states, helping Americans better understand how and when firearms are used in a violent death and informing future research and prevention strategies.

You can apologize any time now.

[SunSeeker]

7. I was talking about the Republicans. THEY did not approve one dime for ANY research.

You can apologize any time.

[Shamash]

8. You really ought to keep in mind that the same committee which voted this down

Did not see any need to overturn it during the first years of the Obama administration, when said committee had a Democratic majority. THEY did not approve one dime for ANY research.

You can apologize any time.

Second, the amendment from 1996 that Lowey sought to overturn is the one with the text "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."

Not research into gun violence that is being prevented, but overt advocacy for gun control.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the CDC has done plenty of research into gun violence, including a 150 page report published in 2013 which has been discussed on DU, Kos and elsewhere.

[GGJohn]

9. Just can't admit when you're wrong can you?

That's ok, your words are here for everyone to see.

[SunSeeker]

10. I am not wrong. My words are accurate.

It was the Republicans on the committee that gave that unhinged, paranoid reason for voting down any money for CDC research. That is what I quoted, right out of the article from the OP.

[Shamash]

11. Your words were, and I quote:

"So we can't do research on gun violence because of GOP paranoia..."

And I am asking you, exactly whose fault is it this was not reversed during the period in which the Democratic Party held the House, Senate and White House? And were those people unhinged and paranoid, or was their decision a rational one? Take as much time as you want with your answer.

Oh, and FYI, Nita Lowey was on that committee in those years...

[SunSeeker]

13. The Dems had a filibuster proof majority for all of 24 working days.

And they weren't even consecutive working days. They had to pick their battles. They had an imploding economy and healthcare reform to pass.

Summary:

1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 – 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 – 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days

Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.

http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/?p=2442

Certainly after Sandy Hook, there was no longer a filibuster proof majority, as any Democrat who was paying attention knew. Funny how you didn't know that.

[Shamash]

14. Ah, so Democrats didn't think it was -worth- making Republicans filibuster against

Thank you for clarifying matters, that obviously puts Democrats on the high moral ground. Democrats could have made Republicans physically stand up on the floor of the House and waste their breath criticizing the measure, but you know, that would be difficult and they certainly aren't being paid enough to you know, actually work at being Democrats. I mean if I was only being paid 160 grand a year (plus benefits) for a part-time job, I'd certainly have no incentive to do more than show up in the morning...sometimes.

So I see your point. They just weren't motivated enough and it certainly wasn't their fault that nothing was done.

Of course, now that they are in the minority that would make it even more fruitless to try, wouldn't it?

Hmmm...don't try to pass it when you have a chance to, and then put it up for a vote when you know it has no chance? Sounds like political grandstanding aimed at impressing the gullible. Oh look!

[SunSeeker]

15. 45,000 people a year were dying without healthcare, hence healthcare reform was the priority.

Considering what little time they had with a filibuster proof majority (24 nonconsecutive working days), Dems could not do everything. It was not for lack of will or motivation.

And no, Democrats could not have made Republicans "physically stand up on the floor of the House." First of all, the filibuster applies to the Senate, not the House. And second, the filibuster rules allow the senator to filibuster anonymously and silently.

How old are you? How do you not know this?

And no, trying to pass a law that 90% of Americans support, like universal background checks, after the slaughter of 24 at an elementary school, is not "political grandstanding." It is doing the right thing. Dems should keep trying to do what they can, just like marriage equality advocates kept trying, even when it looked hopeless.

[Shamash]

16. Thank you for reminding me of the wonderful job we did on the ACA

And ahem. You were the one who brought up the filibuster-proof majority in regard to not bringing the matter we were discussing up for a vote in the House:

Certainly after Sandy Hook, there was no longer a filibuster proof majority

Now since it was a whole 68 minutes between when you wrote that and when you criticized me for commenting on it, I guess I have to ask "how old are you?" and "is there any history of Alzheimer's in your family?"

But you're right on one point. I did conflate the House and Senate in my reply (to your error) so yes, I was wrong on that. Filibuster is Senate only. You scored a point. Wooo! But as far as standing up and doing a filibuster, you probably shouldn't reference my age or I'd have to school you on what ol' Strom did back in '57.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Dems didn't even take the issue out of the committee Nita Lowey was on, much less try to put it up for a vote. Whose fault was that?

[SunSeeker]

17. You're welcome. And no, my quote that you cite never mentioned the House.

You incorrectly assumed I was referring to the House. And then you inexplicably stated that

Democrats could have made Republicans physically stand up on the floor of the House and waste their breath criticizing the measure.

[GGJohn]

12. Oh, I see,

because it was reported in the news, it must be true?

I posted a link proving that the CDC can still do research while all you've posted is, well, nothing.

[krispos42]

18. Yanno, if your side keeps trying to ban "assault weapons"...

...institute magazine capacity limits, create a gun registry (and by extension a gun-owner registry), and other things, then maybe they aren't being unhinged paranoids.

Your side is, after all, targeting tens of millions of guns owned by millions of people with the express purpose of making ownership of said guns illegal.

[SunSeeker]

19. Yanno, gun ownership is falling. Most guns are owned by gun hoarding fetishists.

Only 32 percent of households own one or more guns. This is a record low. The problem is the (mostly white and male) gun nuts keep adding to their already burgeoning stash of ever more militaristic weapons.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822

Common sense gun control does not "target" the average American. It targets criminals and the mentally ill.

The claim that the ultimate goal of gun control advocates is to "git all yer gunz" is a gun-nut paranoid fantasy fueled by the NRA.

[gejohnston]

20. a record low since the 1970s

but not the 1950s. Of course, that is only one poll. Others contradict it. What really happened, if that poll is accurate, a lot of people during the 1960s and 1970s saw the rising crime rate and bought guns, most of them sat in the sock drawer for decades unfired. Of course, people lie to pollster is accurate. If the poll is accurate, our gun ownership rate is actually lower than Canada, Finland and Norway.
Since we know from the Wright/Rossi study that criminals rarely go to gun stores and even more rarely go to gun shows, gun control only affects the average American and does not affect the criminal.
Actually, some gun control advocates have promoted confiscation, including the NY governor. Bobby Rush and others have introduced bills banning handguns. Anyone touting Australia or UK is also advocating confiscation. Funny thing about Australia, many of those registered guns confiscated from licences owners didn't make it to the smelter. Cops and contractors kept some for them selves and some were sold on the black market.
While you may support moderate controls and Coumo and some other posters here don't speak for you. Cool, but you don't speak for them either.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-guns-in-hands-of-outlaws/2007/02/09/1170524303919.html
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/16/australian-police-10-firearms-seized-homemade/

[benEzra]

22. Bans on modern-looking rifles and magazines *do* target mainstream gun owners, not criminals,

because rifles (modern-looking or not) are the *least* likely of all weapons to be used by "criminals and the mentally ill". Of course, I'm sure you already know that.

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2013 (FBI)
[font face="courier new"] Total murders...................... 12,253
Handguns............................ 5,782 (47.2%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,079 (17.0%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,622 (13.2%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,490 (12.2%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 687 (5.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 308 (2.5%)
Rifles................................ 285 (2.3%) [/font]

The trend in rifle homicide, 2005-2013 (from FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2013, Table 20, collated):

[font face="courier new"] 2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285 [/font]

I'm sure you also know that the 32-percent household ownership figure from the General Social Survey is a deep outlier, probably because it involves describing your gun ownership face to face with some stranger from Chicago over the course of an hour and a half interview, and the interview is explicitly NON-anonymous. The holes in the GSS dataset and the resulting skew compared to anonymous polls are, of course, why it's the only household-ownership number that the prohibition lobby likes to cite.

[krispos42]

23. I doubt the polls.

In light of gun sales and issuance of licences and permits it's probably higher than that. I suspect that people are simply not telling pollsters the truth.

And the issue is that your side simply assumes that what it wants is "common sense".

Which means that people that have never shot a gun and know nothing about them or how they work position themselves as knowing what is reasonable and common sense.

"Assault weapon" bans target certain kinds of rifles, shotguns, and handguns based on arbitrary features. Different people pick different arbitrary features to define "assault weapon" so there's not even a generally-accepted definition.

And you in particular don't seem to be interested in debating what should or shouldn't be allowed; I have no idea as to the depth of your knowledge but I have the distinct impression you consider yourself well informed and thus resistant to further education.

Since "assault weapons" are widely owned by regular people, your assertion that only criminals and the mentally ill would be targeted by banning them (per the "common sense" assumption) is a trolling insult on huge swathes of people.

Never mind that "only" 32% is a far larger minority than: blacks, Jews, Muslims, gays, transgendered people, Asians, atheists, lefties, or minimum-wage workers.

[oneshooter]

24. Again with the insults, do you know how to have a conversation? n/t

[gejohnston]

4. Yet the DoJ through the NIJ is doing it

Why did they lose this funding? They were giving money to ER doctors like Author Kellermann who make up junk study to push his pet gun control cause. We paid tax dollars for something that was supposed to be the basis of public policy. We got:
ER doctors and public health types with no training in the scientific method constructing biased studies
Who did not submit them to peer review or try to get them published in criminology journals. Kellermann specifically refused to give his raw data or notes to other researchers for review when asked for years. When he did, it was complete junk and invalid.
To quote Lawrance Southwick at the 1994 American Society of Criminology (where the subject was a topic of discussion):

"Generally the level of analysis done on each side is of a low quality. The papers published in the medical literature (which are uniformly anti-gun) are particularly poor science."

Basically, he said that we were paying for studies that were about as scientific as NRA propaganda.
Meanwhile, NIJ has been doing said studies during this "ban" and there have not been any issues. Of course, the results that real criminologists that publish these studies in peer review criminology journals don't get quoted by Brady or Bloomberg.
I propose for CDC to receive such funding, researchers must meet the following conditions:
--Must be done by credentialed scholars in the area being studied. No more ER doctors making a study to fit a pre determined conclusion
--The entire study, including raw data, must be made public for peer review and critique.
--Critiques and comments must also be made public, and counter studies must receive equal funding and same conditions apply.

[pablo_marmol]

21. Just one example of the CDC's gross dishonesty:

The pathetic whining re. funding for the CDC is hilarious given the fact that they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the gun restriction debate: (emphasis added)

"Understandably, the CDC Report offered no supporting reference for its claim of parallelism. However, the inventive Dr. Diane Schetky, and two equally inventive CDC writers--Gordon Smith and Henry Falk--in a separate article actually do provide purportedly supporting citations for the claim that "handguns account for only 20% of the firearms in use today, but they are involved in the majority of both criminal and unintentional firearm injuries."[265] The problems with this claim are that the claim is false in every respect and that the citations are fabrications. The purpose of the claim is to exaggerate the comparative risks of handguns vis-a-vis long guns so as to fortify the cause of handgun prohibition and avoid admitting the major problem we have already addressed--that, because handguns are innately far safer than long guns, if a handgun ban caused defensive gun owners to keep loaded long guns instead (as handgun ban advocates and experts concur would be the case), thousands more might die in fatal gun accidents annually.[266]

The only citation given by either Schetky or Smith and Falk to support their claim that handguns comprise only 20% of all guns, yet are involved in 90% of gun accidents and crime, is the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.[267] Understandably, no page citations are given, because the citations are simply falsified. As anyone familiar with the Uniform Crime Reports knows, they provide no data on gun ownership, and thus no comparative data on handgun versus long gun ownership. Nor do the Uniform Crime Reports provide data on accidents in general, thus no data on gun accidents, and thus no comparative data on the incidence of handgun accidents versus long guns accidents. Schetky, Smith, and Falk could have found data on these matters in the National Safety Council's Accident Facts, but those data would not have suited their purpose because these statistics do not support the point they sought to make.&quot p. 578)

See Section XIII -- A Critique of Overt Mendacity:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html