about the fact that they not willing to do anything.

The only reason the gun lobby is as powerful as it is, is because money runs our politics. If we had public financing of campaigns then the views of all voters would be heard not just those who can afford to buy support.

That is why I like the fact that Bernie is not accepting over-sized donations or support from Super-Pacs.

We have to prove that a candidate can be elected without taking all that potential bribery.

Hard to know whether a candidate is being bribed when so much money is being slushed into his or her campaign funds, charitable organizations and personal coffers.

Hard to know at least for those of us who don't know the candidate personally -- and that includes most voters.

disgusting but I guess being in Congress is the only job many of the R idiots can get

Fight for and win Publicly Funded Elections. Campaign contributions (bribes) are the ROOT PROBLEM for almost all of the problems that we face!

The fact that our corporate media won't even talk about it and our Chief Justice, John Roberts, denies there is ANY influence (Quid Pro Quo political rewarding donor) demonstrates how widespread and insidious all of that influence peddling through campaign donations has become!

We should be asking Congress to fund this legislation so that we know what kind of gun legislation if any is really needed.

We think we know the answers, but we may not, and we certainly won't get the legislation we need unless we have all the facts about the issue. We don't have them now.

I know allocating money for the CDC studies doesn't sound as sexy as just banning guns, but we may not be able to get appropriate legislation and may not even be able to know just what appropriate legislation looks like until we know more about gun owners, gun use and just what the factors are that lead to gun abuse.

So this law should pass first.

that Marijuana should be removed from Schedule 1... so we can really study it!

Cheers. K&R.

has been a secret not mentioned by the mainstream media in 19 years of covering mass firearm violence, often against young children.

and less mindless stupidity.

who only care for money and power and will do anything to keep it coming on strong. They don't give a shit that folks die, it's not them so they fucking don't care one bit. They don't care about Americans getting killed unless it's to promote that via profitable (for the 1%) wars. Yes, they shriek about terrorists who haven't caused one death here in 14 years, but it's OK that children kill more people every year with guns (think it was 327?) than the number of cops that get killed. The ONLY way this will ever change is for a very prominent Repug or their family to get gunned down. Then maybe they'd care enough to tighten up the laws and stop the killing sprees.

I have no fear of the CDC studying gun violence.

If they follow their PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE in very short order both sides will be disgruntled. That would tell me they are on the right track.

Did you notice that this authoritative document was put together by the National Research Council, that evidently private foundations provided most of the funging (though there apppears toi have been some CDC money), and that NO CDC-affiliated scholars appear in the list of board members?

The document even addresses legislative bans on firearms research and data collection, on page 23:

'Impact of Existing Federal Restrictions on Firearm Violence Research

There are many legal and responsible uses for guns; an individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller15 and McDonald v. City of Chicago.(16) However, the scarcity of research on firearm-related violence limits policy makers’ ability to propose evidence-based policies that reduce injuries and deaths and maximize safety while recognizing Second Amendment rights. Since the 1960s, a number of state and federal laws and regulations have been enacted that restrict government’s ability to collect and share information about gun sales, ownership, and possession, which has limited data collection and collation relevant to firearm violence prevention research. Among these are the amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968,(17) which prohibits the federal government from establishing an electronic database of the names of gun purchasers and requires gun dealers to conduct annual inventories of their firearms.

In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection, congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advocate or promote gun control.”(18) In 2011, Congress enacted similar restrictions affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.(19) The net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and effects of firearm violence.
_________________
16 16561 U.S. 3025 (2010).
17 Public Law 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213 (October 22, 1968).
18 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Public Law 104-208, 104th Cong., 110 Stat. 3009, p. 244 (September 30, 1996).
19 Consolidated Appropriations Act 2012, Public Law 112-74, 112th Cong., 125 Stat. 786, Sec. 218, p. 1085 (December 23, 2011).'

which is not unusual for the CDC to have others do preliminary work IIRC.

If you peruse the backgrounds of those listed as board members, it is quite a diverse crowd. Pro- and anti- views are well represented along with presumably neutral scholars.

I have read the entire thing and noted it torpedoes some favorite arguments seen coming from both camps. Funding should be given to further develop and validate the studies in considered in making this report.

Please don't bother to reread the report--just tell me what you thin, off the top of your head.

"guns are often used in self defense" and "carry laws have no effect on deterring crime"

They shoot down the favored arguments of guns are useless for protection and the more guns equal less crime.

It shows that there is a balance in between the extremes. To borrow a phrase, I would like "fair and balanced" research into the risk/benefits of gun ownership. The current data is very suspect, much like Fox News. Without truly knowing the risks, we cannot develop actions to mitigate the risks.

Also I recall many questions about community environment and values. While true, poor areas tend to have more crime, the values of the community have major influence on the crime rate. We need to identify and emphasize positive factors and lower the negative
Side benefit- reducing crime reduces the number of self defense situations reducing need for firearms... Reversing the proliferation spiral.

IIRC many real researchers have demolished and failed to reproduce the findings of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". Nonetheless, the last place I heard Lott had wangled a faculty appointment was Yale.

Many "guns deter crime" findings I believe come mainly from ambiguously-worded survey questions. I've wondered whether some of the "crime deterrence" reported really instead was successful use of handguns to intimidate nonthreatening people whom the respondent did not like or disagreed with.

I'm intrigued by findings from gun tracing studies that a very small minority of licensed retail firearm dealers are responsible for having sold most guns used in crimes. If I remember the statistics correctly, in a given year, no crime guns can be traced back to 86 percent of retailers. However, 57 percent of crime guns trace back to just 1.2 percent of retail firearms dealers. IMO, if the ATF had the resources to monitor and straw-purchase-test those 1.2 percent, firearms crime might be cut in half pretty quickly.

The answer is more GOD! I read that on facebook. More mental health care or gun regulations won't work. We just need to get out of this Godless society.

It's beyond disgraceful.

We need a public posted list of situations like this that the MSM cannot ignore, kinda like the doomsday clock.

Pursue their activities and publish it where it will be seen, like it has happened with ALEC.

Sold her soul for perpetual youth, as long as she keeps playing the attack dog for Ailes and the Murdochs...they'll keep providing her the blood of virgins to bathe in!!!

'cause it didn't work.

Her mind needs botox.

ample research relating to firearms. However, to no ones great surprise, it's conducted primarily by the Department of Justice.

One need simply peruse the websites of the National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and FBI for a sampling.

Moreover, nothing is stopping the great deal of academic and other private research into the issue. There's nothing magical about the CDC or government research, and if the CDC didn't use their original funding for transparent and blatant anti-gun political advocacy, rather than anything approaching objective research, they would have never lost their funding.

A long list of eminent scholars assembled by the National Research Council two years ago disagree strongly with your assessment of "adequacy" of research and data on the public health implications of firearms violence. See sarisataka's great liink at http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 and get back to us.

Are you a "gun humper"?

researching firearms and other issues, and have never owned a firearm in my life.

What's your background and qualifications?

I also don't know if you realize this, but the study you linked from 2013 was sponsored by the CDC,

Your browsing of the NRC report seems to have been quite selective.

Did you even get as far as page 23, which I copied to post #19 above?

This research is just not coming from one executive department (HHS) that previously abused its authority and budget by engaging in blatant political advocacy, and the privacy and rights of gun owners are protected by legislation. Gun control researchers, both favoring control and expanded rights, will just have to work a little bit harder. A note from researchers that they want more government money and more access to private information, whether the subject is guns or anything else, is hardly noteworthy.

You also conspicuously didn't address anything else in my post.

to have gotten completely through even the first sentence of sarisataka's authoritative NRC link (at http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 ):

This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness
Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor.

It also changes absolutely nothing about my prior comments.

There is still ample government (and private) originated and sponsored firearm-related research, the funding for the NRC study was still sponsored through the CDC, the CDC is not necessary for "public health" research concerning firearms, the HHS and CDC only lost funding because they abused it for political purposes, and as made clear by your directed cite to page 23 of the the NRC study, the CDC and HHS may actually still conduct firearm-related research, but their political advocacy has been properly curtailed.

The criticisms about the CDC are still little more than complaints that a previously large source of gun control advocacy money was cut-off and has not returned. It's a weak excuse offered to explain the failures of gun control in both the courts and popular opinion. It's not meaningfully different than blaming the NRA for these same defeats.


EDIT: I see that you might have been referring to Sarisataka's post #22 concerning potential research on whether "guns are often used in self defense" and "carry laws have no effect on deterring crime."

Those areas are indeed valuable areas of study, and can more than adequately be performed within the purview and remit of the Department of Justice or through private channels.

Note that my issue have never been what is studied, only that the CDC restrictions somehow make studying firearm-related issues near impossible.

And it summarized old studies. It is no evidence that CDC is doing studies into the causes of gun violence.
The paper suggests it be cited as a "Summary" not a Report. The title of the document is "Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013."

As it clearly explains in the beginning of the Summary:

I'd imagine an issue may be perceived from more then simply one perspective; and a research paper which focuses on guns vis-a-vis justice is a wholly different concept than a research paper which focuses on gun vis-a-vis health issue. No doubt, the irrational and the biased will maintain the pretense that a study on vehicles and health is better served by a study on vehicles and traffic flow.

However, I'd pretend as such too if it interfered with my own personal biases.

The government does indeed engage in and sponsor a great deal of firearms-related research, studies of firearm "public health" matters in ongoing at many venues (including the CDC - see my post #23), and the CDC is not required to initiate or continue such research, and the CDC has only itself to blame for the repercussions of using federal research dollars for blatant and impermissible political advocacy.

As for the claim of ignoring research because of personal biases, it's so astounding in its level of hypocrisy that it's hardly worth derailing the entire thread.

Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Same with the FBI. They and the Bureau of Justice Statistics do just that, collect some statistics, as you've been told many times on this board.

And you're plainly wrong that "nothing is stopping the great deal of academic and other private research on the issue." Money is stopping it. As in lack thereof. Also, going into this line of research is very detrimental to your career as a researcher, and potentially your life.

The GOP's ban on CDC research on gun violence has caused lasting damage. Once the ban took effect in 1996 and has stayed in effect for decades, researchers moved on to other specialties.

his students to pursue careers in gun violence research'.

Most psychologists tell people "the facts are friendly", and trying to hide from possibly disturbing realities never is a good strategy. But the NRA evidently does not feel that way, and "the facts" evidently can ruin researchers' careers and/or even get them assassinated through the influence of the NRA.

The DOJ, FBI, and other law enforcement entities can only take statistics on gun crime. Its not their job to assess the origin of gun violence, but rather the aftermath of gun violence. The CDC would be able to figure out the underlying causes, give statistics on those causes, and give out tips on gun safety. We have statistics on fireworks but very few on firearms.

There is something very wrong when we have to rely on private funding or research for something that is a public health risk. BTW those guys are just as afraid of the NRA as the government is.

you should be excoriating them for violating the trust (and budget) provided by Congress when they blatantly used their research money for political advocacy. If the data supported gun control, it would speak for itself. The DOJ and all its departments manage to meet this minimal threshold, and there was no excusable reason why HHS could not as well.

In fact, the CDC (and HHS) is still technically permitted to gather much of the data you want.** They choose not to because without the political component they obviously desire, they know their limited budget would be more prudently applied elsewhere.

**http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 (see page 23)

Page 23 does not address that the CDC used its funding for political advocacy. If anything it addresses that certain types of data (for example weapon types) cannot be collected. "That 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" is a big time leash. For example if they made a correlation between hand guns and suicides it would count as advocating for gun control. Same thing would be true if they found a correlation between rifles and mass shootings. Heck, even if they found that the amount of guns on the street leads to a higher chance of getting shot would be seen as promoting gun control.

In short simply reporting facts that people get hurt or die from guns can easily be seen as gun control advocacy. Congress needs to stop the gag order on truth telling and advocate for us for a change.

Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 04:14 AM - Edit history (1)

He's one of the reasons why the CDC got into its funding mess.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/

researchers tried to refute these CDC findings? If the risk of homicide does not triple when firearms are present in a home, as reported in the NEJM, what do you claim is the 'correct' risk factor, and where are the references to prestigious public health journal articles?

Or, since the NRA bribed politicians to cut off funding for such public health research, do you maintain that facts and evidence are irrelevant?

clearly as "opinion" rather than an "article". And it doues not address my question about CDC findings that the presence of a firearm in the household raises the risk of homicide threefold.

That Forbes op-ed focuses instead on myths about "defensive gun use", spread mainly by a discredited sociologist named Gary Kleck. Here's what a long Washington Post Magazine article has to say about Kleck. It bears out my comments
on that issue in my post number 37 above:

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/trigger/trigger5.htm

'Kleck's work is the scientific heart of the NRA's attack on the public health approach to guns …

Kleck's finding has been called "an enormous overestimate" and "the gun debate's new mythical number," and it has been sharply attacked from a variety of angles. It makes no sense, its critics say, because it is wildly out of sync with what researchers know about how often crimes are committed. Defensive use is impossible to measure, they say, because it has never been properly defined. And even if you did define it carefully, it would remain such a rare event, statistically speaking, that a tiny number of "false positives" could – and almost certainly would – skew the results drastically.

"Using surveys to estimate rare events typically leads to overestimates," wrote David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health, the chief proponent of this critique, last year.'

If the CDC were free to say this it would turn a lot of heads! Especially since most mass shootings happen in the home.

and does far more than just record statistics. As I indicated before, I should know, I actually worked there researching firearm issues and a whole lot more (my primary area was the efficacy of alternatives to incarceration like boot camps).

or was it given a quiet death through some sort of procedure so Congress critters wouldn't have to go on the record as opposing the gathering of critical information?

say about them.

may they, and all the gun apologists, ammosexual, gunnutters, etc., know every single minute of the pain, the loss, the destroyed lives, that their love of these wmd causes.

My opinion is that Republicans are a bunch of motherfuckers - WHO FUCK THEIR MOTHERS.

They are stupid, ignorant, reprehensible slimebags who'll throw out the baby with the bathwater to keep their agenda intact. They are the biggest bunch of hypocrites and waste of breathing air the country has ever seen.

There was a post recently where someone said they'd reached the point where they genuinely hated all Republicans and the conservative movement to some absolute level, and to a point that it seemed unhealthy to them, but they couldn't talk themselves out of the hate. I'm there right now.

I disagree with every single thing they do. They seem genuinely mean-spirited and lacking in any sort of empathy or respect for people or things that don't comport with their worldview. They are absolutists...every single thing must go their way, or they're going to obstruct and scorch the earth to get it. Banning something as benign as the simple gathering of data is evidence of their willingness to destroy people and country unless it conforms to their way of thinking.

I'm fed up. I'm fed up that the Democratic party isn't countering them more forcefully. Dems need to entertain the notion of an ongoing "public service announcement" style of public presence where - even outside of election periods - they run occasional advertisements outlining their more enlightened plan for America. These PSA's would be non-combative types of ads and more "feel-good" pieces. Can a super pac do this? I'm almost ready go give up my career for something like this. This is something that MoveOn.org could transform into.

republicans just want to get on the gravy train and suck all the money they can
they have no desire to actually govern anything
they care nothing of the people they deem beneath them

was on "This Week with Stephanopoulos" rather than MTP.

See http://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/tv/article37706211.html

I know it wasn't "Face the nation", because football preempted it Sunday

This Week, evidently with a video transcript at http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/break-cycle-mass-shootings-34239109 .

For some reason, this video would not play for me, though you may have better luck.

That goes for both the perpetrators and their supporters.

benefits of mmj to cancer patients. This study shows benefits in animals:

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq#link/stoc_h2_3

As a cancer patient I have been trying to get human studies of mmj on cancer but no, marijuana is a Class 1 drug and thus has "no medical benefit."

There is promising research being done in Europe and elsewhere. If you live in a state that has legalized mmj you can at least get it. It is a terrible shame that this drug which shows so much promise not only for the treatment of cancer--by far its most important possible use--but also for the alleviation of pain and other medical conditions. I do think that eventually the evidence will become impossible to ignore and the laws will change to reflect this, but it is a frustratingly slow process. My prayers are with you.

which I attribute to fabulous surgeons, an organic diet and mmj. I also did chemo. Well, who knows what the most important part of my maintenance prog. is, but mmj def helps my mental state, sleep, and it got me through chemo which I was obsessed about in a negative way.

And glad that you can get mmj where you live! Hang in there!

works in mysterious ways.

"But after Congress seemingly retaliated against the CDC for publishing ..."

occurred, and it did, that was the people's research facility. If they don't understand that enough to stand up a few million people and tell congress to stand down, a mere government agency against congress is unlikely to be able to generate enough of a defense.

That's too bad, people no longer seem to value what has been invaluable to them.

We don't need our Federal agencies pushing gun control propaganda.

inconvenient (for the NRA) facts, data, and correlations?

You will only accept studies and researchers who validate your own opinions, just like the absolutists on the other side. The difference is your opponents are winning and growing stronger.

Neither side is really convincing the other about anything (heck, support for gun rights increased after Sandy Hook!), most people made up their minds on this culture war issue long ago, and since gun rights advocates have greater numbers, better political organization and determination, and recent substantial legal victories, and with the little momentum and indecision favoring gun rights, the results in the courts and legislatures generally speak for themselves. Arguing about old individual studies is little more than a distraction at this point.

The only way there will ever be any national firearm restrictions in anything close to the near future is if both sides actually respectfully speak to one another, try to build trust, and then compromise. The gun control side, particularly since they have virtually no leverage, also have to realize that compromise is not demanding strict gun control, but only accepting some restrictions. That's a demand for partial surrender and explains the current predicament..

I thought you claimed to be a "researcher".

I worked at the National Institute of Justice shortly before I attended law school many moons ago. As I indicated, I'm litigation attorney in NYC.

To the extent I didn't already know, working at the DOJ (and NLRB, but that's another story) certainly cemented the understanding that attempting to politicize research or use your government position for political advocacy is unacceptable (and often illegal). A belief that you're doing "important work" to "save lives" or similar self-righteous nonsense doesn't change this fact. To this day, the DOJ and its various department manage to successfully engage in fairly objective firearms research, with the proof being that they provide ammunition to both sides of the firearm debate. At best, the CDC pushed the advocacy envelope, and the Congressional reaction totally unsurprising about such a contentious topic. Note also the CDC is still permitted to engage is a great deal of firearms research, but the very clear political limitations and obvious scrutiny usually results in them directing resources to more pressing and less controversial issues.

You also missed the point of my post. Absolutists like yourself and the NRA don't care about any studies, and refuse to acknowledge data and research that doesn't fit preconceived notions. When a study or researched doesn't toe the ideological line, it's not longer "scientific," but "propaganda."

You can read the threads here and know the wider public debate as well as I. Minds and opinions are already decided, and arguments over any particular research is essentially useless in resolving any issues relating to firearms in this country.

As I stated before, the only way actual firearm "safety" will be addressed is with compromise by both sides in this debate. Given the shrill tones and lack of trust, I do not expect this to happen any time soon. However, as the gun rights side clearly has the legal and electoral advantages, at best the status quo will be maintained, or more likely, they will continue to prevail in legislatures and the courts.

time.

I oppose military service members or civil service employees being used to bolster political issues. My objection in this regard doesn't draw distinctions between blue or red issues. There are no shortage of non-governmental advocates on issues.

Hatred of science is the closest I can get to an objective definition of Evil.

Their fear is well-justified, in my opinion.