There is no ban on CDC gun violence research...

[tortoise1956]

Contrary to what was recently posted in another group. The amendment in question is as follows:

“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.”

Notice the only restriction is on the CDC becoming an advocate for gun control. This is due in large pert to two studies that Kellerman did for the CDC, in 1986 and 1993. Both of the used flawed methodology to reach the conclusion that having a gun in the house put lives in more danger than not having one. Both of these studies have been critiqued in the past, and I will not go into detail. Suffice it to say that the bias exhibited in these studies led to the amendment being put in place.

The CDC is legally allowed to conduct gun violence research, as long as it doesn't cross the line into advocating gun control. That is a valid limit, since the CDC isn't supposed to be in the business of making policy, but instead providing policymakers with facts.

[A Little Weird]

1. Reserachers weren't willing to risk their livelihood to find out what "promoting gun control" means

So it is an "effective ban" even if it isn't an outright ban. Even the guy who put forth the amendment regrets it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_us_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf

[gejohnston]

2. given that most of the research was like the Kellerman

study, junk "advocacy research" that didn't follow the scientific method, is it really much of a loss? The DoJ still contracts criminologists and others to study the issue who do follow proper protocols.

[A Little Weird]

3. Yes it was a loss

And I have yet to see any evidence that most of the research was junk science.

[gejohnston]

5. Simply read the studies and the

writings of scholars, not activists or the media, had to say about it. Kellerman specifically refused to release his notes and data when asked by scholars for years before he relented. He was raked over the coals. Kellerman adjusted his numbers with several other "studies" that were equally bad. Here is overview of criticism by criminologists.
http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots

Any public policy should be based on impartial empirical evidence free of ideology or bias. After reading the studies, and the critiques of those studies by neutral scholars, it was "advocacy research", which is a nice way of saying shill study, start with the conclusion you want and create a study to fit the narrative.

[flamin lib]

11. Every study that you don't like because it doesn't call for more guns is junk to you. nt

[gejohnston]

14. no,

just the ones written by non-scientists, not following the scientific method, and paid for by authoritarian racist billionaires.

[flamin lib]

18. Ya mean like Kleck? nt

[gejohnston]

19. Kleck is a scientist,

in fact he is head of the criminology department and FSU. His assumptions were the opposite of the results, and his research was funded either by the university or DoJ. His question was simply how many defensive gun uses are there. The Wright Rossi study, which dovetails to Kleck's, was funded by the DoJ. Kleck's was not only published in a peer review criminology journal, his notes and data are public in book form. That book was awarded the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology.

Here is Kleck's cv from the FSU website
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcriminology.fsu.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FaddresseditKLECKVIT.51.docx

[flamin lib]

21. And he couldn't research his way out of a paperbag with a roadmap and a razorblade. nt

[gejohnston]

22. empirical truth and reality has no partisan bias.

only the non empirical does.

[Eleanors38]

13. I think the CDC itself said as much when it summarized the "research" to-date.

And that includes the so-called "pro-gun" research of John Lott.

[tortoise1956]

7. He regrets that it was over-interpreted

Which is always the problem with this topic - on both sides. The hard-core activists refuse to bend in any way. One side wants to see the removal of guns from society, which isn't practical. The other side refuses to accept any type of rational controls, no matter how effective they might be.

However, the facts are that the CDC was actively pursuing a pro-gun control agenda, which led to the amendment being put in place. If they were to simply publish facts supported by evidence, that would pass muster. The honest truth is, though, that gun violence is a murky and ill-understood subject that doesn't lend itself to easy answers. Suicide, for example, obviously doesn't depend on firearms - the UK suicide rate in 2013 was 11.9/100,000 population, in a country with very strict gun control:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_395145.pdf

The U.S. rate for the same year was 13.0:

http://www.suicidology.org/Portals/14/docs/Resources/FactSheets/2013datapgsv3.pdf

Would reducing the number of guns reduce suicides significantly? Who knows? There is no unbiased study that I know of that has looked at that on a regional/state/county/city level.

Note: Edited to compensate for failing typing skills...

[northernsouthern]

26. +1

This is what I heard to, it is the wording that is the issue. How do you run a neutral study if the results are not neutral?

[beevul]

28. I'm not sure I'd trust a researcher who couldn't define "promote" accurately. N/T

[SecularMotion]

4. Bullshit!

The Congressman Who Restricted Gun Violence Research Has Regrets

WASHINGTON — Looking back, nearly 20 years later, Jay Dickey is apologetic.

He is gone from Congress, giving him space to reflect on his namesake amendment that, to this day, continues to define the rigid politics of gun policy. When he helped pass a restriction of federal funding for gun violence research in 1996, the goal wasn’t to be so suffocating, he insisted. But the measure was just that, dampening federal research for years and discouraging researchers from entering the field.

Now, as mass shootings pile up, including last week’s killing of nine at a community college in Oregon, Dickey admitted to carrying a sense of responsibility for progress not made.

“I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time,” Dickey, an Arkansas Republican, told the Huffington Post in an interview. “I have regrets.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_us_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf

[gejohnston]

6. he said proper research

not the shit that Kellerman et al was churning out.

[DonP]

8. Gee, the control guys are really upset about this

I wonder if they are so upset they'll get out their checkbooks and do a "Go Fund Me" project and get out their own checkbooks to get some actual "research" completed?

You'd think with $50 mill a year from Bloomie, that some of it might get channeled into research, instead of paying for new clothes and travel and entertainment expenses for Shannon Watts and her posse.

And again, for the sixth time this month. How about the 2013 CDC study on gun control and it's impact on violence the President ordered and got?

Why doesn't that ever count as CDC research for the grabber contingent?

They just kind of ignore it as an example of the research they claim the CDC can't do. I guess if you don't like the results it just doesn't count as "research".

[theatre goon]

9. It's an article of faith.

As can be seen from a couple of the responses here, even though the law very specifically does not ban research into gun violence, they have an excuse for how it actually does what it quite specifically doesn't do.

For some subjects, with some people, facts just don't matter.

[flamin lib]

12. I see that a lot here. nt

[theatre goon]

16. It's really too bad...

...that we can't get the anti-rights people in general, and the anti-gun people specifically, to join the rest of us in reality.

They just keep repeating that "gun violence" is an epidemic, or that the CDC is banned from doing research, and various other fantasies, ignoring the actual facts of the matter.

Until that changes, I don't see much headway being made -- well, except for the continuing liberalization of gun-ownership and -carry laws, or the continuing decrease in violent crime rates. Those things are doing just fine, in spine of the anti-rights folks regular tantrums...

[petronius]

10. It's a bit more complicated than that, since the pointed redirection of funding

that occurred at the same time as the amendment sent a pretty clear message to CDC that they were on thin Congressional ice. Since then, they haven't chosen to test the limits--out of fear of what Congress might do--and the ban has become self-imposed. And they were probably not wrong during most of the intervening years to assume that they'd be walking into a minefield if they got too active in the gun-related arena.

That said, CDC can and has performed gun-related work and collected gun-related data. And they are not prevented from issuing an RFP for legitimate gun-related research right now if they chose.

So yes, "ban on gun violence research" is in the same accuracy category as "blanket immunity" and many other oft-repeated gun control mantras...

[Eleanors38]

15. Of course we could return to the daze of Michael A. Bellisiles' "Arming America."

Man, it showed how great research can reveal the creation by commercial interests of a gun culture! Won the Bancroft Prize for historical research, and all. Check it out on Wiki!

[DonP]

17. Well, even if it was all a lie, it "should" have been true

And sadly, for many around these parts that's all that counts. Facts and reality be damned!

I'm not sure, but I think Bellisiles is working at the Taqueria down the street now.

But on the plus side, he has tenure there.

[Eleanors38]

20. I read some of the glowing before & after blurbs on Bellisiles' book jacket...

...talk about the sense of betrayal and embarassment. The bitterness of the academics toward the author was worse than any luke warm criticism his apologists made. It may have very well marked a "turning point" for some intellectuals about any further involvement with the gun issue.

[DonP]

23. Yup, they all thought they finally had their hero

The awards, the recognition, the talk show interviews. Ahhh, fame and fortune were all his.

Then that annoying little old librarian lady in Costa County had to point out that the records he claimed to use for his "research" were all destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire.

Then piece by piece the wheels fell off. As his own peers started to look a little more closely at his claims and methodology.

Goodbye fame, goodbye tenure, goodbye teaching job, goodbye broad academic support.

Hello; 'Do you want fries with that?"

What's ironic is he was outed by other anti-gun academics before the pro-gun people ever even got to him.

Betcha that whole situation gave Hemenway nightmares for a few years.

[Eleanors38]

24. That SF earthquake fiasco was like a deus ex machina moment in bad vaudeville.

[DashOneBravo]

25. Slate article on CDC report

Here is a link to an article about the 2013 study that President Obama ordered.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html


Seems everyone forgets this one.

[DonP]

27. That's very inconvenient for some people

Especially when they take it as an article of religious faith that the CDC can't do gun related studies.

But they are sure that, boy oh boy, if they could just do studies, it would prove beyond any doubt that guns are all evil and there are far more killings than you think out there being hidden by the media an "Big Gun" makers.

I've pointed out that White House directed 2013 study several times, in threads bemoaning how evil the NRA is for stopping all gun related research.

Funny how I never get an answer from the handful of remaining gun control fans here. Just ignored or the subject changed.

They don't have an answer for that one for some odd reason. Doesn't fit their narrative I guess.

[DashOneBravo]

31. At first I just thought

People were unaware of the study. But I think a lot are just choosing to ignore it.

Maybe I'll just start sharing that link.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Sharing the truth is a great idea

"A lie makes it across the country before the truth has a chance to tie its shoes."



.....Case in point.....

[aikoaiko]

29. Not to mention that private foundations could easily fund universities and think tanks.

At the time, the CDC funding for gun violence was less than $300,000.

Almost any Research 1 could fund that type of research out of their indirect funds if there were any interest.

The CDC is not the only group who can research gun violence.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. But the CDC...

...like law enforcement, being a government entity, is always to be trusted.

It's that appeal to authority that some hold in high regard.