5 ms·
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-vi
by 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 agoFrom 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 agoThat funding cut of $2.6M was restored afterwards.
- Retric 10y agoIt 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 agoI 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 agoLet 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 agoUnderstandable. 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 agoIt'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 agoCalling research advocacy does not prevent it from being research.
- gozur88 10y agoYes, but if it really is advocacy there's no reason to fund it with tax money. I have no interest in having money taken from my paycheck to generate advocacy for political positions contrary to my own. The CDC lost a lot of respect and public trust as a result of that gun "research". Respect and public trust it's going to need to carry out its actual mission, which is disease control.
- 10y ago
- mikeash 10y agoFunding 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 agoThat funding cut of $2.6M was restored afterwards.
- novembermike 10y agoIIRC 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.