3 ms·

Because Republicans and the Gun Lobby have systematically shut down any attempt to collect and study any data about guns. Over the past two decades, the NRA ha

by sc68cal 14y ago

Because Republicans and the Gun Lobby have systematically shut down any attempt to collect and study any data about guns. Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “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.” http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/ http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

MrMember 14y ago
The CDC isn't allowed to conduct research into gun violence because they didn't even try to hide the fact that they were horribly biased. Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research': "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it is dirty, deadly, and banned." He had no interest in conducting unbiased research, he wanted to treat gun ownership like a disease, and did everything in his power to try and 'eradicate' it.
- sc68cal 14y ago
  >The CDC isn't allowed to conduct research into gun violence because they didn't even try to hide the fact that they were horribly biased. So just because the numbers didn't reach the conclusion that you agree with, they are automatically biased? >Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research': An out of context quote - and an ad hominem attack? As far as I can tell, your strategy at this point is to try and muddy the water. Meanwhile, here are some useful numbers to contemplate. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fa...
- meepmorp 14y ago
  Citation needed. Also, assuming that account is accurate, that's no reason for a legislative ban on such research - it's a reason to remove that person from a position of influencing the course and outcomes of said research. Unless you're of the opinion that considering firearms as dangerous is in and of itself an indication of bias, in which case you're beyond reason.

by sc68cal 14y ago

MrMember 14y ago

The CDC isn't allowed to conduct research into gun violence because they didn't even try to hide the fact that they were horribly biased. Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research': "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it is dirty, deadly, and banned." He had no interest in conducting unbiased research, he wanted to treat gun ownership like a disease, and did everything in his power to try and 'eradicate' it.

sc68cal 14y ago
>The CDC isn't allowed to conduct research into gun violence because they didn't even try to hide the fact that they were horribly biased. So just because the numbers didn't reach the conclusion that you agree with, they are automatically biased? >Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research': An out of context quote - and an ad hominem attack? As far as I can tell, your strategy at this point is to try and muddy the water. Meanwhile, here are some useful numbers to contemplate. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fa...
meepmorp 14y ago
Citation needed. Also, assuming that account is accurate, that's no reason for a legislative ban on such research - it's a reason to remove that person from a position of influencing the course and outcomes of said research. Unless you're of the opinion that considering firearms as dangerous is in and of itself an indication of bias, in which case you're beyond reason.