8 ms·

The NRA and NRA-backed politicians tend to fight even researching gun deaths, let alone trying to do anything about them. If you know that, then any gap in our

by ashark 10y ago

The NRA and NRA-backed politicians tend to fight even researching gun deaths, let alone trying to do anything about them. If you know that, then any gap in our knowledge about gun violence stops being surprising. http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-re...

geaserg34234 10y ago
I haven't seen any evidence that the NRA has fought research. They have taken a stand against the CDC advocating for gun-control policies, not performing gun-violence research. The CDC has simply refused to do this research since being banned from advocating for specific policy. The CDC is not banned from performing gun-violence research, and has even conducted such research at the specific behest of Obama. The conclusions of this research actually largely vindicated a lot of the points made by the pro-gun community.
- differentView 10y ago
  From the article: >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 center 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.
  - geaserg34234 10y ago
    That funding cut of $2.6M was restored afterwards.
    - Retric 10y ago
      It is evidence that NRA has fought research which is what you asked. Thus you have now seen evidence even if you don't agree with the conclusion.
      - geaserg34234 10y ago
        I don't agree. I see it as evidence that the NRA has fought against the CDC conducting policy advocacy. The CDC was advocating gun-control, so people got upset and cut their funding. Then a law was put on the books saying they weren't allowed to use funds for that sort of advocacy, and their funding was restored. I don't see any evidence that the research itself has ever been the target. The CDC currently has both the funding and legal ability to perform gun violence research, but choose not to. In my mind, if you want more research on this topic, you should be pressuring the CDC to resume it.
        narrowrail 10y ago
        Let me just say that I hate minutes-old HN accounts partaking in these discussions (which I believe to be off-topic for HN). However, I think you make a good point that adds to the discussion; I just wish you'd use your normal account.
        geaserg34234 10y ago
        Understandable. Comment quality does tend to be pretty low for throw-away accounts. Unfortunately I don't maintain a regular account and (perhaps naively) hope that the quality of any comment I make will speak for itself and not be bolstered or disregarded simply because of who posted it. I suppose these topics are inevitable when an article like this is posted, but I'll try to take your comment to heart and not jump down the political rabbit-hole so easily.
        grzm 10y ago
        It's not so much who posted it as much as HN strives to be a community. There's a difference between anonymity and pseudonymity; the latter allows for community, and the former is a very different type of place.
        Retric 10y ago
        Calling research advocacy does not prevent it from being research.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Funding was cut for the CDC's gun-related activities at the same time as they were banned from advocating policy. Being "allowed" to research it but not having any money to do so is pointless.
  - geaserg34234 10y ago
    That funding cut of $2.6M was restored afterwards.
  - novembermike 10y ago
    IIRC the money was restored pretty quickly. If you read the CDC research it was pretty shoddy so I have a hard time being too angry about it.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Why single out "NRA-backed politicians"? This is common in politics. The Obama justice department, for example, stopped publishing other potentially relevant characteristics of the people doing the shooting. http://gotnews.com/breaking-obamas-justice-dept-limits-publication-of-interracial-crime-stats/ http://gotnews.com/breaking-obamas-justice-dept-limits-publi... (I'm aware that the author of that piece is a known racist and not particularly accurate in general. But his facts - which are obtained mainly by reading a specific BJS webpage - check out: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2173 https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2173 ) Like it or not, whoever controls the government will try to prevent facts inconvenient to their narrative from being published.
- mikeash 10y ago
  That seems rather weak. The info is still available, you just have to put together your own summary. I'd wager there's a good chance this summary was removed for more mundane reasons, too. That 2010 table they link to only counts two possible victim races, white and black, and the only options for the offender are white, black, other, and unknown. That's awfully limited given the wide spectrum of humanity we actually have, and maybe they just didn't want to build a gigantic and unreadable table accounting for all the various possibilities.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    The census has 6 racial categories. A 7x7 table wouldn't be hard to do. And realistically, the current table is good enough since the vast majority of crime is committed by the two racial categories you mention. Hide all the information because a table might be grow from 3x3 to 7x7? Will we run out of pixels in a pdf file?
    - mikeash 10y ago
      The 2010 census questionnaire includes 15 races, and it's multiple choice, so there are 32,767 possibilities. Then there's a "hispanic origin" question which has 5 choices, for a total of about 160,000 categories. I'm sure the classifications for crimes are somewhat more coarse.
wnevets 10y ago
Last Week Tonight did a great piece last season about the circular logic the NRA and its supporters employ to prevent a rational gun control discussion. They fight tooth and nail to stop governments from collecting data related to gun deaths than use the lack of good data as the reason why we cant have a gun control debate.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  With all respect, that segment did nothing to further rational discussion. I do not see how yelling hateful things from across the isle is a 'great piece'. The way forward is finding common ground.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    If one side of the discussion is doing everything they can to prevent a discussion from even happening, what do you suggest be done?
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    Just watched the piece... didn't see any "hateful" things being yelled. Can you point out which statements you meant? What exactly is your definition of hateful? If you are personally a staffer of or one of the 5 million members of the NRA, I guess I could see how you find Oliver's rhetoric harsh... but hateful? And if you're not, why do you take personal offense on the NRA's behalf?
- tropo 10y ago
  Here is an analogy that might help you understand how the other side is feeling about your "rational gun control" ideas: http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/ http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-comprom... What can you offer them, other than a smaller piece of what is left of the cake? It's not compromise if you don't offer anything.
  - maxerickson 10y ago

by ashark 10y ago

geaserg34234 10y ago

I haven't seen any evidence that the NRA has fought research. They have taken a stand against the CDC advocating for gun-control policies, not performing gun-violence research. The CDC has simply refused to do this research since being banned from advocating for specific policy. The CDC is not banned from performing gun-violence research, and has even conducted such research at the specific behest of Obama. The conclusions of this research actually largely vindicated a lot of the points made by the pro-gun community.

differentView 10y ago
From the article: >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 center 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.
- geaserg34234 10y ago
  That funding cut of $2.6M was restored afterwards.
  - Retric 10y ago
    It is evidence that NRA has fought research which is what you asked. Thus you have now seen evidence even if you don't agree with the conclusion.
    - geaserg34234 10y ago
      I don't agree. I see it as evidence that the NRA has fought against the CDC conducting policy advocacy. The CDC was advocating gun-control, so people got upset and cut their funding. Then a law was put on the books saying they weren't allowed to use funds for that sort of advocacy, and their funding was restored. I don't see any evidence that the research itself has ever been the target. The CDC currently has both the funding and legal ability to perform gun violence research, but choose not to. In my mind, if you want more research on this topic, you should be pressuring the CDC to resume it.
      - narrowrail 10y ago
        Let me just say that I hate minutes-old HN accounts partaking in these discussions (which I believe to be off-topic for HN). However, I think you make a good point that adds to the discussion; I just wish you'd use your normal account.
        geaserg34234 10y ago
        Understandable. Comment quality does tend to be pretty low for throw-away accounts. Unfortunately I don't maintain a regular account and (perhaps naively) hope that the quality of any comment I make will speak for itself and not be bolstered or disregarded simply because of who posted it. I suppose these topics are inevitable when an article like this is posted, but I'll try to take your comment to heart and not jump down the political rabbit-hole so easily.
        grzm 10y ago
        It's not so much who posted it as much as HN strives to be a community. There's a difference between anonymity and pseudonymity; the latter allows for community, and the former is a very different type of place.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Calling research advocacy does not prevent it from being research.
mikeash 10y ago
Funding was cut for the CDC's gun-related activities at the same time as they were banned from advocating policy. Being "allowed" to research it but not having any money to do so is pointless.
- geaserg34234 10y ago
  That funding cut of $2.6M was restored afterwards.
- novembermike 10y ago
  IIRC the money was restored pretty quickly. If you read the CDC research it was pretty shoddy so I have a hard time being too angry about it.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Why single out "NRA-backed politicians"? This is common in politics. The Obama justice department, for example, stopped publishing other potentially relevant characteristics of the people doing the shooting. http://gotnews.com/breaking-obamas-justice-dept-limits-publication-of-interracial-crime-stats/ http://gotnews.com/breaking-obamas-justice-dept-limits-publi... (I'm aware that the author of that piece is a known racist and not particularly accurate in general. But his facts - which are obtained mainly by reading a specific BJS webpage - check out: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2173 https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2173 ) Like it or not, whoever controls the government will try to prevent facts inconvenient to their narrative from being published.

mikeash 10y ago
That seems rather weak. The info is still available, you just have to put together your own summary. I'd wager there's a good chance this summary was removed for more mundane reasons, too. That 2010 table they link to only counts two possible victim races, white and black, and the only options for the offender are white, black, other, and unknown. That's awfully limited given the wide spectrum of humanity we actually have, and maybe they just didn't want to build a gigantic and unreadable table accounting for all the various possibilities.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  The census has 6 racial categories. A 7x7 table wouldn't be hard to do. And realistically, the current table is good enough since the vast majority of crime is committed by the two racial categories you mention. Hide all the information because a table might be grow from 3x3 to 7x7? Will we run out of pixels in a pdf file?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    The 2010 census questionnaire includes 15 races, and it's multiple choice, so there are 32,767 possibilities. Then there's a "hispanic origin" question which has 5 choices, for a total of about 160,000 categories. I'm sure the classifications for crimes are somewhat more coarse.

wnevets 10y ago

Last Week Tonight did a great piece last season about the circular logic the NRA and its supporters employ to prevent a rational gun control discussion. They fight tooth and nail to stop governments from collecting data related to gun deaths than use the lack of good data as the reason why we cant have a gun control debate.

Neliquat 10y ago
With all respect, that segment did nothing to further rational discussion. I do not see how yelling hateful things from across the isle is a 'great piece'. The way forward is finding common ground.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  If one side of the discussion is doing everything they can to prevent a discussion from even happening, what do you suggest be done?
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  Just watched the piece... didn't see any "hateful" things being yelled. Can you point out which statements you meant? What exactly is your definition of hateful? If you are personally a staffer of or one of the 5 million members of the NRA, I guess I could see how you find Oliver's rhetoric harsh... but hateful? And if you're not, why do you take personal offense on the NRA's behalf?
tropo 10y ago
Here is an analogy that might help you understand how the other side is feeling about your "rational gun control" ideas: http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/ http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-comprom... What can you offer them, other than a smaller piece of what is left of the cake? It's not compromise if you don't offer anything.
- maxerickson 10y ago