Skip to comments.N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
Posted on 01/26/2011 4:53:38 AM PST by Pharmboy
In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?
The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.
Weve been stopped from answering the basic questions, said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, ... Chris Cox, the N.R.A.s chief lobbyist, said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones.
Our concern is not with legitimate medical science, Mr. Cox said. Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
With patriots trusting government “scientists” about as much as they trust Osama Bin Laden, this is a totally clueless article.
Yep...when they put “scientists” in the headline, whether they support gun control or global warming, the point is that they make it look unanimous. We have them figured out by now, though...
The “research” has been done and the results are clear!
When the citizens of any community have been allowed to arm themselves, after a long period of being restrained, the violent crime goes down, in large numbers.
In communities where citizens have been disarmed, the violent crime is highest in the nation.
There is nothing stopping the anti-US crowd that wants to infringe on our rights from funding their own studies.
Sounds like a bunch of people clamoring for tax payer’s money, while wanting to manufacture a bunch of bullshit statistics.
We all saw where that got us when “climate scientists” got our money......
I notice they aren’t trying to do “research” on whether the First Amendment is “harmful”, or if communities are less safe where freedom of speech or religion is tolerated. Absurd? Of course. And so is so-called “research” on the Second Amendment.
And in DC (I live in Maryland, just about 5 miles from the DC line), since it has become easier to own a gun (Heller decision), violent crime has decreased.
Time to stop using the word “scientist” when referring to sociologists, psychologists and the like. Whatever is going on is not “science”.
You haven't been stopped from anything - pay for it on your own dime. Methinks Mr. Rosenbery is more concerned that he can't get a fat govt. paycheck (in the for of research grants) for pursuing his political agenda. Boo-hoo
It is at best a collection of imperfect data by a bunch of sociology PhDs who then stare at the goat innards and declare certainty in what it all means, not just deductively, but what it means we must do to address what they have pronounced. In actuality, it is a bunch of Leftists using government grant money to dress up their political views with spreadsheets.
We already know what would have prevented the Tuscon shootings, i.e. effective handling of the mentally ill. But losing the mentally ill vote would destroy the Democratic Party.
Sorry, Times, but the studies HAVE been done. And done. And re-done. Ask John Lott.
But, ever true to leftist form, when the results don’t deliver the agenda you want, ignore them and feign ignorance.
When the scientists have reached their conclusions prior to doing the research, as the article’s premises suggest, the conclusions are inevitable: “Yes large capacity magazines cause more crime.” “No, people who live in high gun ownership areas aren’t safer.” “Yes, auto emissions and industry cause global warming.”
They are not fooling anybody in their attempt to pretend to present both sides of any issue. They are rabidly liberal and simply trying to couch every call for more gun control as the latest “reasonable” measure.
Even the “scientific study” they point to as proof that concealed carry doesn’t reduce crime is nothing more than a bunch of academics arguing over which data should be skewed to support their preconceived point of view.
It’s typical liberal tactic of “when the facts don’t fit, let’s change which facts we ignore to fit our conclusions”.
Nothing HAS stopped anti-gun groups like the The Joyce Foundation and others from funding studies that miraculously "prove" their point of view.
During the Clinton years even the United States Center for Disease Control was used in this manner.
If you see the results of an anti-gun study follow the money trail back to the anti-gun groups who paid for it.
The NRA has lists of individuals and groups that are anti-gun, see their web site.
The left in recent times has used the terms “science” and “scientists” to push their agenda
far too often for me to trust them at all.
Then there’s this little gem:
1 Tim 6:20
Timothy, guard what God has entrusted to you. Avoid godless, foolish discussions with those who oppose you with their so-called knowledge.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Typical, really. They want gun ownership defined as a mental disease that must be eradicated.
Now go out and make the science to support it!
The book “More guns, less crime” is a well-documented and researched answer to this question, moron. Of course they know that, but just don’t like the answer.