Skip to comments.What We Donít Know Is Killing Us
Posted on 01/27/2013 12:18:09 PM PST by Sir Napsalot
In one of the 23 executive actions on gun control signed this month, President Obama instructed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal science agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. He called on Congress to aid that effort by providing $10 million for the C.D.C. in the next budget round and $20 million to expand the federal reporting system on violent deaths to all 50 states, from the current 18.
That Mr. Obama had to make such a decree at all is a measure of the power of the gun lobby, which has effectively shut down government-financed research on gun violence for 17 years. Research on guns is crucial to any long-term effort to reduce death from guns. In other words, treat gun violence as a public health issue.
But that is precisely what the National Rifle Association and other opponents of firearms regulation do not want. .....
The research freeze began at a time when the C.D.C. was making strides in studying gun violence as a public health problem. Before that, the issue had been regarded mainly as a law enforcement challenge or as a problem of disparate acts by deranged offenders, an approach that remains in sync with the N.R.A. worldview.
The goal is to understand a health threat and identify lifesaving interventions. At their most basic, gun policy recommendations would extend beyond buying and owning a gun (say, background checks and safe storage devices) to manufacturing (childproofing and other federal safety standards) and distribution (stronger antitrafficking laws), as well as educating and enlisting parents, physicians, teachers and other community leaders to talk about the risks and responsibilities of gun ownership.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"The N.R.A. denounced the research as political opinion masquerading as medical science, and in 1996, Congress took $2.6 million intended for gun research and redirected it to traumatic brain injury. It prohibited the use of C.D.C. money to advocate or promote gun control. Since then, similar prohibitions have been imposed on other agencies, including the National Institutes of Health."
NYT Editorial ending the argument with the following: ".... Or the C.D.C. may choose to focus on data collection and leave the policy recommendations to outside researchers. That would be a sorry situation for government scientists, but an improvement over the status quo.
It is obvious that gun violence is a public health threat. A letter this month to Vice President Joseph Biden Jr.s gun violence commission from more than 100 researchers in public health and related fields pointed out that mortality rates from almost every major cause of death have declined drastically over the past half century. Motor vehicle deaths per mile driven in America have fallen by more than 80 percent. But the homicide rate in the United States, driven by guns, is almost exactly the same as it was in 1950. "
We don’t know we’re a fascist society.
We don’t know we’re $200T in debt.
We don’t know that criminals break laws.
We don’t know that law-abiding citizens will disarm themselves and become easy victims.
We don’t know that women are ill-suited to combat.
We don’t know where Obama was born.
We don’t know that Valerie Jarrett is the real president.
We don’t know how many times Hillary rehearsed her “What difference does it make?” outrage.
Let me give you another fact that is killing us;
A good guy with a gun didn’t kill 27 at Sandy Hook.
We don’t know when the New York Slimes will go bankrupt, only that it can’t happen soon enough.
Wait for owning or wanting to own a firearm to be declared a mental illness.
To confuse the NYT readers, the editorial had to point out the >100 researchers' finding - 'Motor vehicle deaths per mile driven' fell >80%, but the 'homicide rates driven by guns' is almost exactly the same as in the 50s. Notice two different 'measuring matrices' were given in their finding.
Without $$$$$ into government funding. Unlike the safety regulations, studies, etc etc into drivers and cars in motor vehicle safety.
Does anyone else wonder why CDC research (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) not NIH research? Does it make sense?
Am I reading [suspecting] too much into Obama’s moves?
The issue is of course that we can save all of the money that would be spent on research. I can give you the conclusion they will reach. Everything Chuck Schumer and the Democrats want with regard to gun control is a reasonable action, and will reduce gun violence. Everybody else is a right wing extremist.
See - a clean, simple, accurate summation of the research, and I only spent 2 minutes writing and editing it, with no tax dollars spent.
In the past honest research has been buried to further political goals. http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html
“....In 1979 the American public health community adopted the “objective to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership,” the initial target being a 25% reduction by the year 2000. Based on studies, and propelled by leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms, and eventual elimination of firearms from American life, excepting (perhaps) only a small elite of extremely wealthy collectors, hunters, or target shooters. This is the case in many European countries...” Because of this kind of kangaroo court medical research, congress banned the CDC from further research.
On the other hand if you look at the facts and are honest enough to speak the truth, then medical research could make dramatic help in reducing gun violence. About 1/3 rd of firearm violence is from 10 large metropolitan areas. If one looks at gun violence incidents, about 2/3rds involve either the victim and/or perpetrator having a criminal record. The majority are minority against minority crimes.
Honest research will show that banning firearms (of any kind)from law-abiding, job holders will not be as beneficial as creating programs where large city criminals, gang members, and those who want to be part of gang culture fear being arrested anywhere near a firearm. Good research will show that modest amount of money spent in New Orleans will have far more impact on reducing gun violence than any universal background check.
Can someone explain the difference between “gun violence”, “knife violence”, “arrow violence”, “nail bun violence”, “base ball bat, club, or crowbar violence”, “hat pin” violence, “explosives violence”, “poison violence”, “strangulation violence”, “gang kicking violence”, “drowning violence”, “domestic violence”, or “vehicle violence”?
Studying “gun violece” in the absence of other types of violence presupposes an answer - reduce access to guns.
They will never note that, even if every gun were removed from the inner cities, the gang violence would shift from guns to other types; and the way to reduce gang violence over the drug trade is to legalize drugs.
They will never note that, even though there are laws against possession of guns, they are almost never enforced — they are the first “crimes” that are eliminated during the plea bargain process. Make the mandatory “posession of a gun gets you 5 years” not subject to prosecutorial discression, send several hundred “yutes” to prison in one month, and gang related “gun violence” would quickly be replaced by another type of violence.