Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by clearconscience, Jan 26, 2011.

  1. clearconscience

    clearconscience Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,586
    Likes Received:
    7,120
    Read this today in the local paper. Made me laugh. Then cringe.
    What would a world be like with truth???

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?_r=1&hp

    In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?



    Rich Addicks for The New York Times
    Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, in his office in Decatur, Ga.

    Related
    In Firearms Research, Cause Is Often the Missing Element (January 26, 2011)
    Times Topics: Arizona Shooting | National Rifle Association
    Related in Opinion
    Room For Debate: More Guns, Less Crime? The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.

    “We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,” said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.

    Chris Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones.

    “Our concern is not with legitimate medical science,” Mr. Cox said. “Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.”

    The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.

    The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

    Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of “putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,” said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

    Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

    “It’s really simple with me,” Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.”

    The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “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.”

    The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.

    In the end, researchers said, even though it is murky what exactly is allowed under this provision and what is not, the upshot is clear inside the centers: the agency should tread in this area only at its own peril.

    “They had a near-death experience,” said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, whose study on the risks versus the benefits of having guns in the home became a focal point of attack by the N.R.A.

    In the years since, the C.D.C. has been exceedingly wary of financing research focused on firearms. In its annual requests for proposals, for example, firearms research has been notably absent. Gail Hayes, spokeswoman for the centers, confirmed that since 1996, while the agency has issued requests for proposals that include the study of violence, which may include gun violence, it had not sent out any specifically on firearms.
     
  2. pchewn

    pchewn Beaverton Oregon USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    289
    Well I'll bet there's not much research on the quality of life where women have the vote vs just men, or on the rate of crime where free speech is allowed vs where there is no free speech or ....... You see, those RIGHTS are not being investigated because even if some research showed some benefit to taking away the women's vote, or free speech, or religious freedom -- there is no way they will be "reasonably regulated". I really don't care about how much research shows that guns are dangerous -- they are still a RIGHT for us to own and bear. So research away.
     
  3. Grunwald

    Grunwald Out of that nut job colony of Seattle, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    1,175
    Someone should tell the New York Times that you do not begin a sentence with the word "And".
     
  4. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Yep, I posted this a couple hours earlier.

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    The "Feedback Score" is low by 4, not everyone posts it I guess.

    Deen
    NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
    WAC member
    SWWAC member
     
  5. CarlMc

    CarlMc Safely north of Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    97
    Snipped from the article:
    Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “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.”

    Can you imagine if the CDC were investigating any "free speech" subject?