E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA little-known kibosh on government research into the public health effects of gun violence is expected to be lifted after President Barack Obama called Wednesday for renewed scientific inquiry -- and funding -- to address the problem.
Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other scientific agencies to research the causes and prevention of gun violence -- and he called on Congress to provide $10 million to pay for it.
"We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from not knowing the science from this epidemic of violence," he said.
The move effectively reverses 17 years of what scientists say has been a virtual ban on basic federal research and is part of a package of new gun control policies aimed at reducing gun violence after tragedies such as the shootings last year in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn. It would encourage research including links between video games, media images and violence.
The action immediately was praised by scientists who said pro-gun advocates -- including the National Rifle Association -- had choked off funding for CDC firearms research starting in the mid-1990s and imposed a chilling effect on those who dared to pursue it.
"He's saying this is very important and I'm going to back you on this," said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, president of the Task Force for Global Health and director of the CDC's Center for Injury Prevention and Control from 1994 to 1999. "Basically, they've been terrorized by the NRA."
From the mid- 1980s to the mid-1990s, the CDC conducted original, peer-reviewed research into gun violence, including questions such as whether people who had guns in their homes gained protection from the weapons. (The answer, researchers found, was no. Homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without, according to a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.)
But in 1996, the NRA, with the help of Congressional leaders, moved to suppress such information and to block future federal research into gun violence, Rosenberg said.
An amendment to an appropriations bill cut $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, exactly the amount the agency’s injury prevention center had previously spent on gun research. The money was returned to the agency later, but targeted for brain injury trauma research instead.
In addition, the statute that governs CDC funding stipulated that none of the funds made available to the agency can be used in whole or in part “to advocate or promote gun control.”
While that did not specifically prohibit firearms research, the language was ambiguous enough to alarm CDC officials and stifle scientists interested in gun data, said Stephen Teret, director for the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
“CDC overreacted to that statement and became more reluctant to fund anything dealing with guns, even the traditional epidemiological research, so there was a chilling effect,” Teret said.
The NRA attacked some scientists, trying to discredit their research, endangering their jobs and even threatening their families, Rosenberg claimed.
“These were not mild campaigns,” he said. “When the NRA comes after you, they come after you with both barrels.”
Officials with the NRA did not return NBC News requests for comment.
The dearth of basic data means that policymakers and the public know little about the causes of gun violence that kills about 32,000 people in the U.S. each year. At the same time, Teret said, research into other public health problems such as automobile deaths has yielded dramatic results.
“When I first started, there were 50,000 people a year dying on the highways. Now it’s 32,000 and that’s because there’s been superb scientific research,” Teret said. “We need to be able to address gun-related injuries in the same scientific manner as highway injuries.”
Obama’s directive will immediately impact federal agencies that engage in scientific research about gun violence, said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
"We are committed to re-engaging gun violence research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health," she said in a statement.
The move may restore the will to research gun violence, but it will be up to Congress to supply the funding to carry it out, the scientists noted.
If that happens, there are talented researchers poised to pursue the projects, said Dr. Frederick Rivara, a pediatrician and editor of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
He estimated that if CDC were given the green light for research now, scientists could have meaningful results that could be used to shape public policy within a year or two.
“We’ve lost almost 20 years of really waiting around,” said Rivara. “Given how large a public health problem this is, it’s a tragedy.”
Related stories:
Leave a Comment:
Its really scary to think that the NRA had enough influence to prevent research that would have helped Americans make good decisions about owning a gun.
Just for the sake of fun, ask the NRA sometime about stats regarding gun accidents involving children and see what kind of an answer you get.
Pedestrian: the NRA will not respond to questions about how many people are killed, maimed, permanently disabled, disfigured, or even simply just injured from guns each year. They do not want you to know that the primary purpose of the weapon is to KILL and all of the other things that happen are either to them being used poorly or occasionally from failure of the weapon itself.
Exactly my point, dirp.
More people die from falling off ladders every year than guns.
More people die from heart attacks...we should ban bacon!
... if only we could ban stupidity --- it would sure clear out the comment sections after these articles.
Let us hope that Clowngress shows some backbone and funds this research so some viable data is available as policy decisions are made in the future.
If you ban stupidity...... Congress is out of a job
Elliot
For the year 2000 (which was all that I could find on short notice) 412 people died from falling off a ladder in contrast to the 10,800 people who died as a result of assult by firearm. You are 26 times more likely to die from an assult by firearms that you are from falling off a ladder.
@will
In 2010 there were 217,000 people killed in automobile accidents compared to 47,846 murdered by firearms.
Source: ABC News.
More than 4 times in Automobile accidents, People are usually the cause of these also, not the Automobile.
At least 30000 are hurt each year, and 6000 die from falling off of ladders.
Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths.
Good God Elliot, if you're going to cite statistics and least look it up and try to be close.
I think the NRA is a homegrown terrorist group and should be deeply investigated.
So, my family is sitting there on our porch, when lo and behold, a car pulls up. We knew they were up to no good as we could tell they were hiding something. Sure enough, it was a drive-by bacon and ladder attack! We barely made out with our lives. There are so many people killing OTHER people with bacon and ladders it is incredible. I mean, you see it in the headlines all the time, school baconing, a theater laddering...right Elliot and Chemack?
With your sarcasm, Spokane, you've just proven gun owners' point. Gun crimes are inherently different from dying from too much bacon or falling off a ladder, which is why the CDC shouldn't be "researching" gun crimes. Crimes committed with guns are not a disease or illness, they're usually not an accident. How would they even be able to quantify the number of lives saved with guns? The number of crimes that didn't occur because someone was armed? They couldn't, so they would simply ignore them. It would be very one-sided "research." There are no recommendations the CDC could make on the matter, other than political ones.
Consider that the majority of gun deaths are suicide. People don't just off themselves if they are fine and dandy. Therefore, that is an illness-related death, hence worthy of CDC research.
And never mind the CDC. Why isn't this kind of research being done at all? Even by agencies that are perhaps more appropriate to be conducting such research? See, the thing is, people complain that legislation is brainless, then complain when somebody says "hey, let's gather some data so we can make legislation smarter." We have vast data on nearly every way to die or get hurt except by firearms. It is time for that to change.
I didn't know the NRA funded government agencies. It's usually the politicians who decide agency budgets. With congressional approval at an all time low, how about voting out the politicians who accept lobby money and make poor decisions for our country? As long as we keep passing the blame, we will never arrive at an effective solution.
1 deleted, Chemack56-2587500 beginning the discussion by comparing the NRA to Nazis. Bad start.
If somebody "offs" himself because he is depressed, then depression is the illness. That is what should be studied by the CDC. They might also research suicide in general, since it is often the result of that illness. A gun is just the method used by some to commit suicide. I don't see why "researching" the method used is relevant. As far as I know, the CDC does not conduct any research on rope and belts (used by some to hang themselves) or razor blades (used by some to slit their wrists).
So the NRA doesn't want to solve or even explore the issue of gun violence and IN FACT did all they could to prevent scientific research. Wow. I'm not surprised in the slightest.
Ignorance is the best weapon conservatives have.
One could argue it's the only weapon they have.
And you could further state that no one has ever wielded it more effectively - to the benefit of their opposition.
Pick any object you'd like...... someone has been KILLED with it......
Steve
You are correct, pick (almost) any object some someone has been KILLED with it....
The NRA is the only group that I'm aware of that is actively trying to prevent research that would help stem the unnecessary loss of life. Every other industry is actively trying to make their products safer to end needless death.
They can't make their product safer. Guns were invented to replace bows and arrows. Their main purpose in existing is to kill. How do you spin that one? Let's make killing safer?
Explains why they're fighting so hard to keep their assault rifles.
Astounding.
My very legal semi-auto rifle has never assaulted anyone yet until someone decides to invade my home and take my right to bear arms from me. That's a promise not a threat......................:)
Ol_Doc,
But people keep saying guns can be used for other things, like target shooting!
Yes...and I'm sure they can be used as a can opener too. That doesn't change their primary purpose.
Actually the study showing 3X greater risk for gun death and 5X greater risk for suicide was deeply flawed. It turned out that the real risk factors ( Living in dangerous neighborhood-ergo the desire/inclination to own a gun in the first place and proximity to individuals involved in illicit activities and/or whom had previously convicted of serious felonies turned out to be the relevant risk factors) Gun ownership was merely incidental to those more likely causes of gun injury and gun death. But don't ever let the facts get in the way of a good emotional argument!
Anyone interested in the New England Journal of Medicine study can go to Google and search for
"Gun Ownereship as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home"
Same study found being a RENTER made you 4.4x more likely to be the victim
CDC's in Obama's pocket, because all of their federal funding...bet we really get a non-biased report out of them....Good bye America...viva La'Revolution
Will Barefoot-3114656
The research that the NRA had banned stretched from the mid-80s to the mid-90s. If you weren't an ignoramus, you might have noticed the President Obama was in college at that time. Are you suggesting that the research showing guns in homes increased the homicide rate was done by researchers in Ronnie Reagan's pocket?
Yea...those damn CDC liberals. If you ever have an Ebola outbreak, you should probably call a good conservative organization for help...like the NRA or Americans for Prosperity.
Doesn't Congress hold the purse strings?
CDC doesn't get funding from President Obama.
So, CDC would be in Congress' pocket. That might be scarier.
The more I learn about the NRA, the more evil they seem. Threatening scientists - AND THEIR FAMILIES????? Domestic terrorism at its finest.
Did they show you proof that anyone was threatened rk, or do you believe everything everyone says? Wouldn't you think a person would press charges if they had been threatened?
That is nothing but a bs comment made by an anti gun "scientist".
Or perhaps it was a scientist who didn't want his/her family murdered as retaliation for pressing charges....no witnesses, no conviction...simple problem simply solved.
Wow, 10 million dollars! More government waste. I can tell you with out spending 10 million dollars that there is nothing to be learned here except how wasteful this president is.
$10 million is a pittance compared to what 32,000 people a year, could've achieved in their lifetimes. And clearly we've learned much about how to prevent or limit the amount of vehicular accidents, given the decline over the years in such cases. Not hard to conclude that scientific research into gun violence could also help this issue. In fact, it may even take pressure off of assault style weapons, if the research indicates otherwise.
Just a thought.
"Wow, 10 million dollars! More government waste."
If the effort to discover this information is pointless, why did the NRA spend so much time, money and effort trying to suppress it?
They should pay for it by raising taxes on gun and ammunition sales and increase the cost of hunting licenses. Would you like that?
Claimed is the key word.
Next 32,000 may be correct but did you know only 11,101 were homicides? Did 19,766 of that 32,000 number were suicides?
You can not make a gun much safer which is why this is pointless research and a waste. You have to look at the people using them. 11,101 murdered with guns is a high number but many of those would have still been a statistic but in another column. Many things are lethal to human. Frankly, I think we should look at the fact that there are 38,364 suicide before wasting money on this type of research.
@GenXRush: Research into such things, could bring both homicides and suicides down, especially if they strengthen the mental health restrictions on those who seek to purchase firearms. The decline in vehicular accidents proves that it could help reduce deaths associated with firearms, whether they be suicide or homicide.
ONE F-22 Raptor costs $412 million each, you don't think 1/40 the price of ONE airplane is worth valuable research? I forget, Republican prefer ignorance anyway, anti-science, anti-sexed, anti-evolution, etc, information scares them since it questions their demented world views.
1.2 MILLION children MURDERED every year...... and Barry voted PRESENT
Well we can't let a little number like that stand. Let's order us up some Crew Serve weapons...we can triple that rate in no time.
What a stupid freaking statement...yup...if they didn't die by gunfire...sump'in else woulda killed'em. No sh!t Sherlock...something's going to kill everyone.
Frankly you'd like the whole thing to go away so long as it isn't your 6 year old daughter butchered. The whole thing kinda messes with your ideological purity doesn't it.
Steve
"1.2 MILLION children MURDERED every year...... and Barry voted PRESENT"
And Steve made a little post.....
Steve,
Where were these murders?
If gun violence is responsible for approximately 32,000 deaths in the US, that certainly is nowhere near your number and Obama can't vote about things that happen outside the US.
Or were you inserting some other agenda in this conversation?
B Murphy and yet there are still tens of thousands of fatal car accidents each year. Well studied, well funded, yet no solution yet. Interesting, there are almost the same number of automobile deaths than gun deaths. I guess it's not poor drivers killing people, it's the cars killing people. Shall we ban them now?
More people are murdered in the US every year with hammers, fists, hands (choking) than "assault rifles". 97% of all gun deaths in the US are caused by handguns. "Assault Rifles" are the current bogeyman to get people screaming for the feds to "Do something!". Yet our government is consciously murdering far more children worldwide than all of those unfortunates that the crazies here manage to kill. Are those same "leaders"really the people we want to "do something" to protect us the same way they are bringing freedom elsewhere in the world?
.
The CDC needs to start in South Chicago!
I wonder if they'll bother including the "defensive gun use" statistics, too. When Clinton had it done, they found their numbers showed on average 1.5 million per year, which they then dismissed as wrong, because it wasn't consistent with their belief that guns are evil and produce no good.
The NCVS estimates 116,000 defensive uses per year, but it is limited. I have no delusions that the number is the ridiculous 2.5 million estimated by Kleck et al, but I'd believe that there probably are 700-800,000 DGU's annually. It's not a number we can ignore.
Would you care to provide a citation for your statistics?
Also, what is "NCVS", the North Caroline Vigilante Society?
dirp funny how you spout off statics but then ask provide no citation yourself.
If the intention is to research some actual facts on the defensive use of firearms here is a excellent place to start:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
For those too disinterested or lazy to click the link, here are a few selected highlights:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=103
http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt
But please, continue. By the way, the "NCVS" is the National Crime Victimization Survey, implemented by the Dept. of Justice. But that's all right, I expect you'll reject the numbers on the basis that they don't fit into your predispositions. After all, emotion and feelings trump factual evidence.
Matt, you clearly put a lot of time and effort into your research and your posts. Obviously, this is a subject that you are quite passionate about. I may not agree with you, but I respect your opinions.
Defensive gun uses are mostly ignored by the news media and go greatly unreported to law enforcement. People need to remember that a DGU is most often a warning to the "perp" that the prospective crime victim is armed and intends to defend themselve against the criminal attack. Rapes effectuated on unarmed women occur in about 33% of attempts. That number drops to 3% when the woman is armed. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration?
Hogwash Pork spending bill......the main cause of gun violence is related to criminal drug activity. Just look at Chicago and any other big city.
I'll take a $25,000 deposit now for this answer and will give more answers when the check clears.
I thought the cause of gun violence was because of video games....
.... or the mentally ill
.... or violent movies
.... or illegal immigrants
The fact that nobody can agree on the cause, because nobody knows for sure, is why we need all this kind of information open and available... not hidden behind closed doors as the NRA would like. Let's get it out in the open! What is the NRA afraid of?
As with any statistical study, the predisposition of the researcher generally determines the outcome of the study. "Garbage in-Garbage out!" "There are Lies, Damned Lies and then there are Statistics!" Mark TWAIN
The NRA leadership needs a full impartial investigation whether it is a domestic terrorist group
Haha. Right after the feds complete their investigation of whether or not you are.
It is only totalitarian, Communist organizations that fear the freedom of the public to think and to become wise to the truth of gun violence by suppressing scientific research based on truth instead of a public kept in the dark to be manipulated and controlled. Just like tobacco companies afraid of the truth so too those who wish to control the minds of the people regarding guns have been able to suppress the truth until now.
Hopefully this study makes for an informed response to gun violence. My question to the NRA, Why stop the study? If you're so confident that more guns does not equal more violence, then let the number prove it.
I think the NRA has already concluded this isn't good for their cause.
Because the 93 study was complete BS, it was intentionally skewed to give the "3x more likely to be hurt" number by only counting among successful defensive uses of a gun cases where the assailant was killed, not when they surrendered or ran off.
The new studies will almost certainly be the same, crafted in such a way as to support the predetermined outcome
Same study found your are 4x more likely to be the victim if your RENT.........
Guess that little fact eluded the leftist agenda......
Based on what? Where is this study you guys keep talking about. I would like to see it for myself....
Was it peer reviewed?
So you are 4x more likely to be a victim if you rent? Ok, so Steve what does that have to do with any "leftist agenda"? I don't remember anyone saying anything about moving the country toward rent....
If it is true that people who rent are 4x more likely to be a victim, do you think that may be because most people who are violent criminals don't own their own home and stay in their own general area? Or is there some consipiracy of some sort by realty agents who want to sell houses??? I'm sure there is always a conspiracy somewhere, right Steve?
Robert and Steve:
The same study stated this:
The NRA is probably aware that given the predisposition/agenda of the researchers, one can accurately predict the outcome of the study. All a researcher has to do is to decide which "variables" they wish to correlate to the outcome that is desired. What the Anti-Gunners simply cannot explain is why gun violence in the US has been plummeting for the last 20 years while at the same time gun ownership is on a strong rise. (Check the Official FBI website for gun homicide incidence studies)
Ah......fear of scientific research......let's go ahead and guess which political party that idea relates to.....
No one fears FACTUAL RESEARCH.... trouble is..... the evidence has proven time and time again that the left seeks research that has ONLY the answer they desire...........
Kind of the same way they hold elections.......
If I remember correctly there were several different groups who did polling research regarding the recent election. Do you remember which side had the accurate numbers and which did not? Do you remember conservative claiming that the left was skewing the poll numbers? Do you remember the election results. You are full of it Steve. You have no substance to back up any of your partisan drivel.
So, what is the basis of your claims? Where is this evidence you speak of?
Please see the Mark Twain quote above relative to statistical studies...very appropriate here.
In the classic history of Nazi Germany, They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer writes:
“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with HITLER, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as atemporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises, and reforms, so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
Now substitute Obama for Hitler and isn't it strange how nothing changes.....
Dude, I need what you've been smoking! lmao
Boozer,
You are exactly describing the behavior of the NRA leadership in relation to its members.
There is NOTHING the NRA does behind closed doors..... can't say the same for Barry & Co......
And for those of you too young or refuse to learn from history..... you are destined to REPEAT it......
You are right Steve. We learn from history and we don't want anymore mass killings! You can stick your head in the sand, but history does not just mean ancient history. It also refers to recent history, like a month ago, a year ago, a couple years ago. We have not learned from history and that is why we have these mass killings over and over again. You history revisers need to get out of the way and let the intelligent adults take over now.
Two Hitlers still doesn't make a righty but sure as hell sounds like O and Joe.......................
So first conservatives complain that the left want too much government. But from your quote:
That sounds a lot more like the flag-waving vilification of the left by conservatives throughout the Bush years. How many people were considered unpatriotic because they didn't support the war in Iraq.
Hell, how many people are called Communists or Socialists because we support President Obama. Where is all this nationalistic rhetoric coming from?
If you're afraid of Fascism, you're looking in the wrong direction.
The CDC isn't interested in "researching gun violence". This is all about anti-gun propaganda being spread by a government agency. Why don't we give $10 million to the NRA and have them do the research? Liberals, you okay with that?
Swaying public opinion, polls and emotional "gatherings" by the President don't supersede our Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment was written, not for sport or hunting but to allow free people the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Obama and his liberal socialists are afraid of a population with AR-15's, they would much prefer them to have small, inaccurate handguns with 5 round magazines.
Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Musolini realized that before you could control the people, you had to disarm them.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly state what the militia's purpose is.
"The Congress shall have Power......
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
If this was about MURDER RATES...... the object of the left's attacks would be handguns..... 38 Smith & Wessons to be exact.........
But we know the FACTS have never made any difference to the left yet..........
Horrendous as the highly publicized killings we have seen in the US are, those are not "mass killings". Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Saddam, the Shah, the Turks, the Serbs, the Mexican drug lords, Pinochet, the Panamanian thug (whose name escapes me at the moment)... those are real mass killers. Furthermore, the US government had a hand in bringing many those mass murderers to power in the first place and then turned a blind eye to their killing. Common thread throughout though is that the people there were disarmed victims of the carnage.
The NRA membership is only 1% of the American population. They speak for a very small fraction of the population. Very small!!
1.159% to be exact.. :)
Well we round down lol
Oh so wrong my friend.... even though we make up a small percentage of the population, we stand by the Constitution & what it says....... the ACLU protects the 1st Amendment.... the NRA protects the 2nd.....
Never see liberals lash out at the ACLU for protecting criminal rights.......
lololol The Constitution does not say assault weapons or Armour piercing bullets. no guns are being taken away so I see no problem with what was purposed. I have not heard about deer or Duck fighting back so hunting will not be affected.
So you think that the purpose of a militia is to hunt deer and ducks?
And the Sandy Hook kids represent what % of the population?
Does the Freedom of Speech or Religion get the axe next if 51% to 53% of the electorate decides to vote against those rights? I think not, as the Bill of Rights is to protect each of the people against the tyranny of government as well as tyranny of the masses. I voted for Obama, but the Constitution/Bill of Rights is above the president- I'm sure you'll remember the "swearing in" part about "protect and defend the Constitution"?? It didn't say anything about: "Well, except for the Second Amendment"
Make government data available for private research, but don't waste taxpayer money trying to produce propaganda for one side or the other.
Senator Feinstein's Senate webpage about her proposed Assault Weapons Ban cites several pro-ban studies; conspicuously absent are the two primary government studies that found the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had no discernible effect on crime.
Senator Feinstein has never let the facts or truth get in the way of a good emotional argument.
Liberals Exposed: The Obama administration and his liberal media followers, are trying to con naive American’s by demonizing semi-auto rifles. How? By calling them “assault weapons” which is a lie (look up the definition). They also keep saying “assault weapons are not needed for hunting”. The real truth: the second amendment was not designed by our founding fathers for hunting (and liberals know this). This is nothing more than a con job to confuse naive American’s into following their ideological beliefs. It’s really about power and control from both liberals and the Obama administration. History shows that if you strip the guns from the people you control the people. Hopefully the liberals and government will not continue to test the power of the second amendment and push this into an ugly repeat of the past.
AMERICANS! PLEASE STOP BEING CONNED!
http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm
There is your definition of assault weapon....
Bonus points if your know which "assault weapon" characteristic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy called "the shoulder thing that goes up."
You dare not study gun violence, as it makes you incapable of grasping the larger statistical picture. John Lott knows I'm incapable of rationally discussing the NRA policy of creating an atmosphere of the Guaranteed Firefight because I've been in firefights and therefore incapable of discussing the wise policy of promoting their likelihood.
I'm waiting to hear Wayne LaPierre treat one of these school shootings as a Sacrifice for Freedom and fill the airwaves with platitudes making the casualties sound like they were KIA's on some unknown battlefield in a faraway land.
Whhhaaat? They aren't "sacrifices for freedom" but the acts of deeply disturbed individuals and suggesting that anyone would say otherwise is absurd. The real question is: "What law would you pass that would make these horrific acts impossible to be repeated?" Unless you believe in a total ban on guns and can guarantee that no one will have them, it simply isn't possible. An individual with a couple of old fashioned revolvers can recreate the very same carnage in just about the same amount of time, or at least in the time before the police arrive to take names.
For these greedy ultra-capitalists, the bottom-line capital gains column is all they're living for!! To me, anyone who suppresses scientific investigations have evil intentions!! Once all of the dots are connected in the violence paradigm, these people are OUT OF BUSINESS! That's why the opposition to sensible regulations is raging as we speak! For these people 24/7,...ITS ALL ABOUT $$!!
I applaud President Obama for showing some concern & courage, in this highly significant social issue! Its about time that the truth which science reveals, finds more respect in the body-politic of America!!!
I am always troubled when I hear the term "Sensible regulations". We have so many gun laws on the books that most District Attorneys can't explain them all, as they number in the thousands. Also I wonder, "Sensible" to whom? I remember good ol' Dick Nixon talking about the values of the silent majority and more recently GWB telling us we needed to rally round the flag while we sent our military machine off to murder hundreds of thousands of people that posed no threat to our nation nor had caused us any harm. Are those the type you trust to craft some "sensible regulations". Our Congress/President can't seem to find anyone to hold responsible for the greatest financial fraud and theft in the history of our country and yet those are the ones you are looking to for some sensible legislation? I have a better idea...you move to a state like New York or California where thay already have plenty of "sensible regulations" and see what difference it makes!
Since when does raw data equal propaganda?
Some of the NRA arguments are ridiculous...
Garbage in-Garbage out! What are your parameters for "raw data" collection? What variables do you examine or exclude? Who decides on the previous conditions for the study. Statistics cna be bent to say whatever proposition the speaker wants to promote. Question: "Why is gun violence on the decline in the US, over the last 20 years, despite the large upswing in gun ownership?" and "How can you know how many killings are prevented when you outlaw a particular weapon (particularly since criminals are by definition not inclined to follow the laws)? Answers: #1-There is no direct correlation between the number and type of guns and gun violence; and #2-You can't.
Why does it not surprise me that the NRA would block research on the causes and preventions of gun violence? God forbid if there is any kind of background checks, any law that calls for any common sense when it comes to guns, they will block it. All they care about is their right to own a gun....any kind of gun.
There are already background checks, what is next on the agenda is psychological testing. Ever read "Catch -22"? If you want a gun you won't qualify because you are paranoid/delusional. If you don't want a gun, you can qualify to get one! Thanks for asking!
The reason funding was stopped for these in the 90s is because of that 93 study and it's flaws.
That study only counted among successful uses of a gun in self defense cases where the assailant was actually killed, not when they ran off, surrendered or were incapacitated(those 3 being far more common than killed). It was a "study" designed to support a predetermined result, not an objective study designed to actually find facts.
Let's take a look at another study, rarely mentioned by the media, the 1997 National Institute of Justice study(Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, May 1997), it found that firearms in private hand STOPPED 1.5 million crimes a year, so unless the CDC study had a year where 4.5 million people were killed by firearms in the US(I think we would have heard about that) something is wrong with the method of at least one of these studies, and both of them came out of the Clinton administration.
Robert Best to go and read the National Institute of Justice survey again. They only cite 108,000 defensive uses of guns. The 1.5 million comes from the Kleck study and if you read the NIJ study you will see that there are serious questions about the conclusions in the Kleck study.
Will, I would suggest you re read it(here is a link "www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf" )
108,000 was the NCVS number, Kleck and Gertz was 2.5 million.
@Will: The NSPOF study from 1994 did indeed find 0.8% of gun owners had DGUs, equating to 1.5 million in total. The NCVS study estimates an annual number of about 100,000 (I think the estimation from 2011 was 116,000.)
Good point in the article; perhaps the N.R.A. is actually a terrorist organization. Hmmm.
The NRA is a
Place to learn firearms safety:
http://training.nra.org/
Place for Law Enforcement training and competitions:
http://le.nra.org/
Place to see the National Firearms Museum:
http://www.nramuseum.org/the-guns/featured-guns.aspx
Place to train for the Olympics:
http://www.usashooting.org/membership/youth-programs/youthrifle
Place to go to purchase a WWII M-1 Garand Rifle through the Civilian Marksmanship Program:
http://www.odcmp.com/
.
Instead of blindly bashing an organization you know nothing about, shall we have a real discussion on what seem to be the commonalities and causes of these tragedies?
Those are good thingd, Steven. But that doesn;t mean they can't do bad things too.
When the NRA was first established, it was a "responsible" organizaiton that did a lot of good for it's members and for the rest of us... Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, it's leadership turned it's focus from helping members become safe and responsible gun owners to one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington for the Gun and Ammo industry.