6 ms·

They don't even have the power to study gun violence.

by colinmhayes 5y ago

chaps 5y ago
What does this have to do with anything?
- Geonode 5y ago
  The CDC declared gun violence a public health crisis and started butting into the issue with their "We are science" attitude.
Wohlf 5y ago
Probably because gun violence isn't a disease, and there's already several agencies under the DoJ for that.
- smt88 5y ago
  The DoJ is not a research institution, and the CDC doesn't only study disease. They study all threats to public health, including smoking, heat waves, and bicycle accidents.
  - sidewndr46 5y ago
    Honestly, this is one of the biggest issues I have with a government bureaucracy like the CDC. The government couldn't be bothered to study AIDS when it emerged in the US and actively denied its existence. But smoking? Do we really need to study it? It isn't even a disease. The states signed the Master Settlement Agreement. I feel like that should be the last time the government ever brings it up or spends another dollar worrying about it. The corporations were given blanket immunity in exchange for a paycheck. Any further expenditure of government on the subject is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
    - smt88 5y ago
      > But smoking? Do we really need to study it? It isn't even a disease. Addiction is considered a disease by physicians, psychiatrists, and medical researchers[1]. > I feel like that should be the last time the government ever brings it up or spends another dollar worrying about it. The CDC publishes research on things like: - second-hand smoke - preventing your children from starting to smoke - the costs to society -- not just the smoker - pros/cons of taxing tobacco in different ways Because of government-funded research, smoking is banned in a lot of places that I don't have a choice of avoiding, such as airports, government offices, and grocery stores. The government's research is to protect non-smokers from corporations that are trying to trick them into an addiction and also from smokers who fill shared air with carcinogens. And that's not even getting into the cost to society of someone dying early. They leave behind medical debts that increase all of our costs, and they potentially leave behind family members who need care. 1. https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-addiction-a-chronic-disease-not-a-moral-failing https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-...
      - sidewndr46 5y ago
        No, government research is not "to protect non-smokers from corporations that are trying to trick them into an addiction and also from smokers who fill shared air with carcinogens". This is explicitly what the Master Settlement Agreement does in 46 states. Marketing of tobacco products is nearly eliminated under the MSA. Anti smoking advocacy groups were formed. The pro-tobacco industries groups were dissolved. If the MSA is failing at that, the solution is to void the agreement and coerce the tobacco industry into another one with updated statues. Not to expand the CDC into areas like tax policy. And really - "preventing your children from starting to smoke"? There is no research that needs to be done in this area. The industry can't market to children. The industry can't sell to children. There are no shortage of smokers who shared their plight before their death (Yul Brynner comes to mind). If all that isn't enough to stop the problem, then the problem lies elsewhere in society. No more money needs to be evaporated into this "research".
        smt88 5y ago
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  sure, just saying that >virtually unlimited executive powers the CDC believes it has is not true
- sitkack 5y ago
  Can a mania be a disease? The CDC can't study gun violence using epidemiology and the DEA says there is no legitimate use of Cannabis. Both seem anti-science to me.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  The CDC isn't limited to studying disease. That was their original mission, but Congress expanded it to include a variety of health related issues, including environmental effects, dangers associated with jobsites, etc. it also is mandated to collect statistics that impact public health.
giantg2 5y ago
Actually they do. They have performed some firearms research in recent years. The restriction is just that the money cannot be spent on studies looking to support gun control. They choose to err on the side of caution and limit the studies rather than seek clarification through the courts on what would constitute supporting a policy. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-research.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-resea...
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  I think the person you are responding to knows the CDC has done studies about gun violence, but does not believe the CDC has any authority to actually do them.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "sure, just saying that >virtually unlimited executive powers the CDC believes it has is not true" This is from the same user. That and the use of "even" in the other comment makes me think they believe that the CDC can't do/fund firearm research, as that is a common media/political narrative.
ChrisLomont 5y ago
They do, they choose not to. That they cannot by some law is a myth. Obama even called them out on it. Obama also had them author a massive study on all aspects of gun violence, but the results went quite against what the Dems wanted to claim, so it got pretty quiet again. What happened is they did publish some studies, and one was quite bad (to this day the author will not release the dataset, for example), but was invoked for a lot of policy. Congress chastised them for it, banned them from advocating public policy, but they did not ban the CDC from studies (and they still do studies, very few - if you search you can find them).
- giantg2 5y ago
  Which study was the one that made everything quiet? Which one was the bad one? Other than that, I'm not sure why you're being downvoted without replies. Here are the recent CDC funded gun studies. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-resea https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-resea...
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    A 1993 Kellerman article claiming guns in the home increased homicides. From what I recall, he would not release his dataset to other researchers, and many other researchers couldnt replicate his work.
    - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
      Indeed. Kellerman’s methodology that he published among swaths of missing data included ~250 phone surveys where someone was shot in their own home and a police report was filed (nothing verified, no concern to who owned the gun or who was shot). This was FAR more representative of drug use and domestic violence than a typical gun owner - yet - it was used as a primary factor to the push assault weapon ban and Brady Bill in 94. This then directly led to the Republican blowout of 96 and likely costing Al Gore the presidency in 2000 according to Bill Clinton. Kellermann is an absolute hack who still enjoys appearances on NPR, ABC, etc as a gun violence expert.
- 5y ago
onesafari 5y ago
In January 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health. One of these orders directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18319/priorities-f...

They don't even have the power to study gun violence.

chaps 5y ago

What does this have to do with anything?

Geonode 5y ago
The CDC declared gun violence a public health crisis and started butting into the issue with their "We are science" attitude.

Wohlf 5y ago

Probably because gun violence isn't a disease, and there's already several agencies under the DoJ for that.

smt88 5y ago
The DoJ is not a research institution, and the CDC doesn't only study disease. They study all threats to public health, including smoking, heat waves, and bicycle accidents.
- sidewndr46 5y ago
  Honestly, this is one of the biggest issues I have with a government bureaucracy like the CDC. The government couldn't be bothered to study AIDS when it emerged in the US and actively denied its existence. But smoking? Do we really need to study it? It isn't even a disease. The states signed the Master Settlement Agreement. I feel like that should be the last time the government ever brings it up or spends another dollar worrying about it. The corporations were given blanket immunity in exchange for a paycheck. Any further expenditure of government on the subject is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > But smoking? Do we really need to study it? It isn't even a disease. Addiction is considered a disease by physicians, psychiatrists, and medical researchers[1]. > I feel like that should be the last time the government ever brings it up or spends another dollar worrying about it. The CDC publishes research on things like: - second-hand smoke - preventing your children from starting to smoke - the costs to society -- not just the smoker - pros/cons of taxing tobacco in different ways Because of government-funded research, smoking is banned in a lot of places that I don't have a choice of avoiding, such as airports, government offices, and grocery stores. The government's research is to protect non-smokers from corporations that are trying to trick them into an addiction and also from smokers who fill shared air with carcinogens. And that's not even getting into the cost to society of someone dying early. They leave behind medical debts that increase all of our costs, and they potentially leave behind family members who need care. 1. https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-addiction-a-chronic-disease-not-a-moral-failing https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-...
    - sidewndr46 5y ago
      No, government research is not "to protect non-smokers from corporations that are trying to trick them into an addiction and also from smokers who fill shared air with carcinogens". This is explicitly what the Master Settlement Agreement does in 46 states. Marketing of tobacco products is nearly eliminated under the MSA. Anti smoking advocacy groups were formed. The pro-tobacco industries groups were dissolved. If the MSA is failing at that, the solution is to void the agreement and coerce the tobacco industry into another one with updated statues. Not to expand the CDC into areas like tax policy. And really - "preventing your children from starting to smoke"? There is no research that needs to be done in this area. The industry can't market to children. The industry can't sell to children. There are no shortage of smokers who shared their plight before their death (Yul Brynner comes to mind). If all that isn't enough to stop the problem, then the problem lies elsewhere in society. No more money needs to be evaporated into this "research".
      - smt88 5y ago
colinmhayes 5y ago
sure, just saying that >virtually unlimited executive powers the CDC believes it has is not true
sitkack 5y ago
Can a mania be a disease? The CDC can't study gun violence using epidemiology and the DEA says there is no legitimate use of Cannabis. Both seem anti-science to me.
HWR_14 5y ago
The CDC isn't limited to studying disease. That was their original mission, but Congress expanded it to include a variety of health related issues, including environmental effects, dangers associated with jobsites, etc. it also is mandated to collect statistics that impact public health.

giantg2 5y ago

Actually they do. They have performed some firearms research in recent years. The restriction is just that the money cannot be spent on studies looking to support gun control. They choose to err on the side of caution and limit the studies rather than seek clarification through the courts on what would constitute supporting a policy. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-research.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-resea...

_-david-_ 5y ago
I think the person you are responding to knows the CDC has done studies about gun violence, but does not believe the CDC has any authority to actually do them.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "sure, just saying that >virtually unlimited executive powers the CDC believes it has is not true" This is from the same user. That and the use of "even" in the other comment makes me think they believe that the CDC can't do/fund firearm research, as that is a common media/political narrative.

ChrisLomont 5y ago

They do, they choose not to. That they cannot by some law is a myth. Obama even called them out on it. Obama also had them author a massive study on all aspects of gun violence, but the results went quite against what the Dems wanted to claim, so it got pretty quiet again. What happened is they did publish some studies, and one was quite bad (to this day the author will not release the dataset, for example), but was invoked for a lot of policy. Congress chastised them for it, banned them from advocating public policy, but they did not ban the CDC from studies (and they still do studies, very few - if you search you can find them).

giantg2 5y ago
Which study was the one that made everything quiet? Which one was the bad one? Other than that, I'm not sure why you're being downvoted without replies. Here are the recent CDC funded gun studies. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-resea https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-resea...
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  A 1993 Kellerman article claiming guns in the home increased homicides. From what I recall, he would not release his dataset to other researchers, and many other researchers couldnt replicate his work.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    Indeed. Kellerman’s methodology that he published among swaths of missing data included ~250 phone surveys where someone was shot in their own home and a police report was filed (nothing verified, no concern to who owned the gun or who was shot). This was FAR more representative of drug use and domestic violence than a typical gun owner - yet - it was used as a primary factor to the push assault weapon ban and Brady Bill in 94. This then directly led to the Republican blowout of 96 and likely costing Al Gore the presidency in 2000 according to Bill Clinton. Kellermann is an absolute hack who still enjoys appearances on NPR, ABC, etc as a gun violence expert.
5y ago

onesafari 5y ago

In January 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health. One of these orders directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18319/priorities-f...