The line between 'advocacy' and 'research' is not as clear as you suggest. There are plenty of people who will label any form of gun research by the CDC as adv

The line between 'advocacy' and 'research' is not as clear as you suggest. There are plenty of people who will label any form of gun research by the CDC as advocacy: "Timothy Wheeler, director of the group Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, said Congress had good reason to stop the CDC’s firearm inquiries. "It was what we call advocacy research," Wheeler said. "It was research done with a preordained goal, and that goal was gun control." Wheeler, voicing an opinion shared by many in the gun-rights movement, said the CDC has been "irredeemably tainted" by past controversy. "I don't have faith in them anymore," Wheeler said. [1] So it seems that CDC is avoiding gun research in order to reduce the risk of having their funding cut in other areas. From the Washington Post again: The agency recently was asked by The Washington Post why it was still sitting on the sidelines of firearms studies. It declined to make an official available for an interview but responded with a statement noting it had commissioned an agenda of possible research goals but still lacked the dedicated funding to pursue it. But Republicans aren't interested in providing funding for dedicated research: Congress has continued to block dedicated funding. Obama requested $10 million for the CDC’s gun violence research in his last two budgets. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced bills supporting the funding. Both times the Republican-controlled House of Representatives said no. If Republicans consider the CDC to be tainted, why not establish a new, independent agency to conduct research into firearms? [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...