4 ms·

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 aspect

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
rallison 4y ago
When people reference the CDC not being able to study gun violence, they're referring to the Dickey Amendment of 1996. With the ambiguity in interpretation of "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control" coupled with an earmark that shifted the exact amount the CDC had allocated to gun violence research to something unrelated, it ended up being, at minimum, a de facto ban on gun violence research (with a strongly implied threat of funding cuts for breaking the ban). There were exceptions to the de facto ban when they had marching orders from elsewhere, e.g. Obama's directive after Parkland. That said, 2018 finally saw an interpretation of the Dickey Amendment codified that allowed, unambiguously, research into gun violence. And 2020 finally saw funding allocated for gun violence research. So, after over two decades, the CDC finally regained both the go ahead and the funding. Given the above, I think it's still reasonable for people to use the shorthand of saying the CDC had been banned from doing gun violence research. Softening the language to be slightly less absolute would help, but I'd consider people to be in the ballpark of correct when they call it a ban on research. And it's also correct that that's no longer the case, thankfully.

giantg2 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.

rallison 4y ago

When people reference the CDC not being able to study gun violence, they're referring to the Dickey Amendment of 1996. With the ambiguity in interpretation of "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control" coupled with an earmark that shifted the exact amount the CDC had allocated to gun violence research to something unrelated, it ended up being, at minimum, a de facto ban on gun violence research (with a strongly implied threat of funding cuts for breaking the ban). There were exceptions to the de facto ban when they had marching orders from elsewhere, e.g. Obama's directive after Parkland. That said, 2018 finally saw an interpretation of the Dickey Amendment codified that allowed, unambiguously, research into gun violence. And 2020 finally saw funding allocated for gun violence research. So, after over two decades, the CDC finally regained both the go ahead and the funding. Given the above, I think it's still reasonable for people to use the shorthand of saying the CDC had been banned from doing gun violence research. Softening the language to be slightly less absolute would help, but I'd consider people to be in the ballpark of correct when they call it a ban on research. And it's also correct that that's no longer the case, thankfully.