Congress (Thanks to Republicans) Has Prohibited Federal Research into the Effects of Gun Violence

[dlk]

Given the epidemic of mass shootings in our country, how irrational is that?

[Abnredleg]

1. Federal Research into gun violence is legal

The Dickey Amendment, passed in 1996, states "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." IOW, research is legal but advocacy is not. That's why Obama was able to direct the CDC in 2013 to research gun violence. If we regain control of Congress then the CDC would be free to do research since they wouldn't have the threat of budget cuts looming over their heads.

BTW, Dickey has since said research is OK and he regrets authoring the bill.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Patently false. Why is the question.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/cdc-funding-gun-violence-rider/

On Wednesday, Congress considered its first gun provision since the Charleston church shooting. In a party-line vote, the House Committee on Appropriations barred the Centers for Disease Control from funding research on gun violence, retaining a measure that was first attached to a spending bill by a pro-NRA Congressman nearly 20 years ago.

“Preventing research because you worry about the outcome is cowardly,” New York State Rep. Nita Lowey, a Democrat and ranking member of the appropriations committee, said as she introduced an amendment to remove the provision that was defeated 32-19. The rider, which Lowey has unsuccessfully targeted for removal throughout its existence, was initially inserted into an appropriations bill in 1996.

That year, the NRA enlisted Arkansas Rep. Jay Dickey, a life member of the gun-rights group, to submit an amendment to an appropriations bill that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the exact amount the agency had devoted to firearms research in 1995. The language he inserted read: “None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.”

[Abnredleg]

4. The key phrase is "advocate or promote gun control"

Dickey has stated that the amendment does not prohibit research, just advocacy. The problem, of course, is how do you design a "neutral" research project. None the less, the amendment didn't prevent the CDC from doing research during Obama's administration.

[Fred Sanders]

5. Gun control is a public health issue. Preventing the CDC from advocacy is an NRA dream.

Makes all the tens of millions spent by the vile NRA on promoting guns all the more effective, am I right?

[Abnredleg]

6. We're not in total disagreement

What I'm trying to say is that it should be relatively easy for the CDC to resume research if we take back Congress since all they'll have to do is provide "neutral" research. IOWs, provide the ammunition for others outside the agency to do advocacy.

As general proposition, I don't think it's a good idea for science-base organization to have an advocacy role since the premise of scientific research is that it is value neutral and your conclusions are evidence based. If the CDC is perceived as biased then the impact of their research is lessened since the NRA will just say that the research is not based on science. I think it would be better for them to be allowed to do unfettered research and let others to do the advocacy.

[sharedvalues]

3. Yup. Heres proof.

Insecure people who need guns to feel strong will tell you that your post is false. They are wrong.

Here is the proof that the GOP banned research and data on guns. They are afraid of data because they know what it will show.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=205738

That’s from a federal report a few years ago.

Excerpt

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.

[Abnredleg]

7. Those laws have more to do with gun ownerhip

And as the ACLU has pointed out, compiling lists of people exercising a constitutional right is problematic. The legislation may have an effect on research but it was motivated by fears of government using the lists to confiscate weapons, as was done in California with the SKS.