In the discussion thread: Reports and statistics for discussing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense. [View all]
Response to jody (Original post)
Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:58 PM
russ1943 (581 posts)
10. Task force said more research is necessary so..................
............................The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)...........
Some gun enthusiasts have quoted this finding just as they are warned not to, as if firearms laws have been deemed to be ineffective.
Most importantly, in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Why? Because the CDC was funding research into a variety of causes of violence and demonstrating the size and scope of firearm related death and injury. Whoa, the NRA can’t have that, so their minions in Congress cut their funding. They failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “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.” The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way. When other agencies funded high-quality research, similar action was taken. In 2009, Branas et al published the results of a case-control study that examined whether carrying a gun increases or decreases the risk of firearm assault. In contrast to earlier research, this particular study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Two years later, Congress extended the restrictive language it had previously applied to the CDC to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health.
In 2011, Florida's legislature passed and Governor Scott signed HB 155, which subjects the state's health care practitioners to possible sanctions, including loss of license, if they discuss or record information about firearm safety that a medical board later determines was not “relevant” or was “unnecessarily harassing.” IIRC that one failed in court.
N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/10304721.html#ixzz2G1SMLPcH http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/nra-asks-wheres-evidence
It’s an example of how the NRA gets its way. Killing the messenger is one of many tactics they use.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Task force said more research is necessary so..................
|jimmy the one||Jan 2013||#19|
Please login to view edit histories.