3 ms·
In a previous discussion, user craftyguy said "The NRA would be all behind this the first time someone reports a 'suboptimal experience' when trying to access t
by andrewl 9y ago
In a previous discussion, user craftyguy said "The NRA would be all behind this the first time someone reports a 'suboptimal experience' when trying to access their site to become a member, or order ammo from some random M&P gun shop."
That's certainly possible. But they might also try to get laws passed that just benefited their own interests. Like forcing traffic to any gun-related site to be given high priority based on a convoluted reading of the second amendment concluding that doing otherwise would be a restriction of gun rights. I don't see the NRA being generally a friend of free and accessible information. They have, for instance, lobbied to prevent epidemiological research into gun violence.
- brians 9y agoAs I understand it, they’ve only lobbied to prevent biased, underhanded research: 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. CDC can discover facts and make observations all they like, but is barred from advocacy. Why did they stop all work after that? Don’t they have any work on violence and guns that was inquiry rather than advocacy?
- jogjayr 9y ago> Why did they stop all work after that? I didn't have any knowledge of this before now but apparently the answer might be "fear". The CDC (or more accurately the researchers there) think any gun violence research is a sure way to have your funding cut or career curtailed. 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/...
- Coding_Cat 9y agoIt would be consistent with the funding though. >funds made available for injury prevention and control Say that research shows that more guns => more injuries. It would be reasonable to then hypothesis that gun control could lead to less injuries (injury prevention) and that would bring research into effective methods of gun control into their scope. (and the verification that it leads to less violence).
- mturmon 9y agoThis is not a fair summary. The NRA lobbied Congress in the 1990s, and Congress reduced the CDC budget by the amount that had been used to study gun related deaths. This resulted in the CDC no longer funding research relating guns to deaths. Congress has specifically rejected amendments that would allow such work. The research that was de-funded was peer reviewed and appeared in the NEJM. https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-exte...
- krapp 9y ago>But they might also try to get laws passed that just benefited their own interests. The NRA is a gun advocacy group - that's exactly what they would try to do, because that's their purpose.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y agoIt may (hopefully) be easier for them to advocate for things that help everyone else at the same time than to try and only help themselves. One would think it would be harder to only help yourself and not help others than to just help everyone at once, but maybe not.
- craftyguy 9y agoWoah, someone quoted me! Yea, this could certainly go both ways. I picked the 'optimistic' sarcastic scenario instead of the super depressing one you bring up here.