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:
Another one of our citizen's rights has just taken a step back and it won't be long and it will be all together. Gun control isn't the problem people. PEOPLE are the problem.
Then why suppress research into the issue?
Hmmm, that sounds familiar. Now where have I heard that before?
www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/138332.Joseph_Stalin
“When there's a person, there's a problem. When there's no person, there's no problem.
Josef Stalin”
I find it ironic that you would echo Stalin's quote.
@Jackhammer, the article is biased and you were manipulated into asking that question as if it were legitimate. It's not. The statistics cited came from a CDC study (Kellerman, 1993) which was thoroughly debunked by criminologists, not the NRA. It is not "suppression" to expose bad, biased science, and then to say that a medical organization which routinely produced bad, biased science on a subject outside their area of expertise should engage in it no more. Other organizations are better suited for such studies, like the National Academy of Sciences, several criminological organizations, and no one is suppressing their research.
Don't need any research - this is a total waste of money. The problem is criminals and mental patients. what is so hard to figure out here? People on drugs don't need guns - very simple, anybody who is prescribed certain medications must surrender any guns in the household. and the whole criminal element is because our justice system continues to let these evil people go free with only a slap on the wrist. If our government would just take on those 2 issues, we would all be in much better shape. You are not going to stop 100% of gun violence, just like you are not going to stop 100% of any kind of violence, so you need to give up on that idea. But letting people out of prison just because the prisons are overcrowded is just plain wrong. If our society would get tougher on those IN these prisons, maybe it just might make prisons somewhere that these people don't WANT TO GO. Take away all their rights, give them a mat in a 6x6 cell in total isolation and give them soup, water, and bread twice a day. Yes, take away their TV time and sports and weight lifting - I'm totally fed up with America's criminal justice system - it isn't working.
If these 2 things were done, the rest of us wouldn't need our guns.
I agree. People on "Medical Marijuana" should be prohibited from buying guns!! Liberal left, what say you??
BKCOLORADO---A very good point. Obama says that chasing down Marijuana Crimes is a waste of money.
I guess this doesn't count.
Center for Disease Control, Center for Disease Control, Center for Disease Control. Since when is a bullet a disease?? What are they going to recommend?? Don't get shot??
John-2877560----I thought that this agency was suppose to protect us from the Flu!!!!! The Flu, if not studied, will kill more people than guns will, in an epidemic like we are starting to see right now in just about every State.
Since the governments has dipped their grubby little fingers into the Federal Employees retirement fund now wasting more money is possible.The powers that be won't be satisfied until this country becomes another Greece.Now people should be skeptical on all of these gun control issues.We are too populated to govern the masses and that is what our government is afraid of as they are spending us and governing us into oblivion.
Guns don't causes diseases. People do!! Already, I feel so much safer. Maybe those sanitary wipes for the grocery carts will keep me from catching gun violence.
I'm thinking the CDC will come up with a gun prophylactic to prevent unwanted discharge or maybe a vaccine or maybe we can quarantine the inner city to prevent the spread of infection...one can only dream.
John -
The logical, final conclusion will be, anyone who owns a gun is ill.
Brian-1075075---Brian, that would make this whole country, from it's conception, a country of lunatics? That's something to think about the Founding Fathers all armed themselves. Maybe this has been passed down the line to all of us. Maybe Obama should call in the EPA, the cause could be in the ground.
I'm not being sarcastic just adding to your comments.
"We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from not knowing the science from this epidemic of violence"
Good first step. Why wouldn't everyone support this? I have hear the pro-gun side say that gun violence is a matter of video games, movies, etc. Okay, let's see if the data backs it up.
Common thread is "Drugs" either legal or illegal. Just sayin'!
Dear Mr. President Barack H. Obama:
Now that we're on the subject of "gun control?" Let's reach an important agreement here! The murderers of Jeffery Curley, a "First Responder's" son, belonged to what? An International Porno Ring! Which means "pornography" not only causes "violence," it initiates', young men into "pedophilia" and "murder!" This is lack of "self-control" or "gun control," also inducing rape and once again murder.
I'm sick of being called: "mentally ill," when in fact I studied and practiced, Our Lord and Savior's, Bible Law: "that this one is conquered with prayer and fasting" and tried to end pornography, from February 1984 till October of 1984. After nine months I became emaciated, after leaving a six month "spying" stint at Atlas News Distributors or Hudson County News. I have witnesses I prayed and fasted, that later in October of 1984 visited me at Worcester State Hospital, that I weighed in at 135 lbs, but had earlier descended to 126 lbs. I do not labor in vain for Irish: Jeffrey Curley or Model: Jon Bonnet Ramsey.
You desire to curb violence, without altering the Second Amendment, then I suggest you end the exploitation of women and the masturbatory initiation of youth, and lack of self-control, or puberty, or join Kinsey in your sloppy "gun control" laws! By the way: none of you know how to read the Second Amendment or "right to bear arms." That is only a right in thee event of warfare, against all enemies, foreign and domestic = that is foreign enemies on foreign soil and foreign enemies on domestic soil = "one if by land, two if by sea." There is no such thing as domestic terrorists, or "United We Stand" in brotherly love!
Like Thomas Jefferson when he wrote The Declaration of Independence, locked in a room, while his wife was dying (note: I prayed and fasted, one year after Karen Carpenter died, this year is her 30th anniversary, and began fasting the same time Karen Elizabeth Dudley died, thee inflatable doll, in the back of porno books, and one the cover of The Telegram & Gazette when she died, this is her 29th anniversary, celebrated on February 2nd at St. Mary's in Jefferson MA.). Also it (Feb. 2nd) is Farrah Fawcett's birthday. Checkmate!
(What about "pills" and feigns Media? "Is the head dead yet!") I know about: "Love American Style" and "The Love Boat" and twice being suicidal for people without weekend dates. Twice?
Wooooow Tin foil hat time!
In CDC, the "D" stands for disease. Tell me precisely which microorganism or toxin causes "gun violence?" Unfortunately, the CDC has soundly demonstrated an inability to conduct unbiased research, so any conclusions they might reach will automatically be suspect. I would prefer the CDC spend their resources conducting research within fields for which they have competency - like cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc. Because of their political bias, I couldn't trust any conclusions they provide on political agenda items. I don't need a doctor making judgements in an area in which he has no knowledge, training, expertise, or common sense. If a doctor asks me whether I have a gun at home, I'll have to respond that it is simply none of his business.
Please, since I'm apparently uninformed, give me some examples of the CDC's political bias.
How about the Kellermann studies of which the article quotes the 1993 study? Kellerman was so thoroughly debunked by criminologists (not the NRA), that the NRA successfully pressured Congress to defund any effort by the CDC to advocate or promote gun control. That basically put an end to CDC research on the subject. The article portrays that effort as "suppression of research", when in fact it was suppression of bad, biased, junk science. Other organizations are far better suited to do that kind of research, including the National Academy of Sciences and several criminological organizations.
There has been ample research done on this issue. And the results were obvious and no brainer. Research on gun ownership, availability and accessibility shows that 90% of deaths, due to marital abuse, spousal battery and family violence, were caused by guns.
The number of injuries and disabilities caused by gun shots are also high...both in homes where guns are available and domestic disputes, or passionate argument, can lead to use of guns, and random violence in our communities.
One Black activist noted, "Only 10% of deaths in the US due to guns are caused by mass shootings and assault weapons. This whole issue from Congress is a white man's issue and priority...banning assault weapons. Most poor, working class, middle class and black Americans cannot afford assault weapons or machine guns. They cost $700 to $2000. More than 90% of deaths due to guns are caused by handguns and other firearms that will never ever be banned by this Congress...made up of upper class whites who own a lot of the guns they have conveniently left out of the bill! It is those that they have left out that will kill us...the poor people and blacks in this country!"
"We have enough research on this matter to have passed the right comprehensive bill more than twenty years ago. This White boy Congress is taking the money and giving to other white men, with Obama doing whatever is needed to please these guys so he could get other things down. The money stays in those elite circles and we the ordinary people get killed in ever larger numbers, while the rich boys get to keep their assault weapons with all kinds of loopholes. We need a comprehensive bill that bans a lot of guns...not just these assault weapons that 5% only can afford! Who is talking about that?"
Interesting!
What do you guys and gals think?
I'm not sure what your point is. All the research shows that guns don't cause violence, people do and they do it with every type of weapon.
So, tell me, why do Chicago, DC, Detroit, LA, and every other large city with strict gun laws have the highest rates of gun violence? Because the guns will still come from somewhere.
Even if you could ban every gun across the country, how are you going to stop them from coming across the Mexican border? Our government can't even stop drugs from coming across, what makes you think it can make guns just magically disappear? Hope?
Until you can get every gun out of the hands of the gang bangers, drug dealers, carjacker, rapist, pedophile and your basic street thug, stop trying to take away mine. None of what your boy did today will stop any type of violence
You should read your post again. It made no sense.
I think that if you were asked what caused a man's cardiac arrest, you would first say that his heart stopped beating, and if pressed to think more deeply, you would say his arteries were blocked. Yes, the cause of his cardiac arrest was blocked arteries. And, that is why doctors and the CDC should not be studying areas outside their expertise. This is a subject area for criminologists or multidisciplinary teams to study, not doctors.
This is a good deal. The CDC will finally prove through qualified research that guns don't leave their owner's property and stalk people before they discharge a bullet without any human interaction.
Their findings will show that people using (insert any weapon: gun, knife, fork, club, etc.) actually are the responsible party for the violence, and the weapon did not initiate the violence.
And why was the study flawed? Because you had political oppointees in charge of the research. That's why CDC funding was killed in the first place. Obama has basically directed his CDC to come up with data to support his policies.
This article doesn't even talk about why funding was cut, it just blames the NRA over and over and over and over and over.......sad commentary on our propaganda media.
The NRA (National Right to Assault) is truly an evil organization by resorting to suppressing good scientific data.
rhscnative----So you would like to share with your Doctor whether you have a gun or not. How do you think they will get this information? Do you have Medicare? If you do would you tell your official Obama-Care appointed Doctor about what you have in the way of fire arms. That's about as crazy as it gets. The NRA Terrorist, is another crazy statement.
Maybe Obama and friends should be concentrating on the real terrorist around the world.
There you go. What better evidence do you need than to know that the NRA was on point to stop gathering any information about Gun Violence, be it good or bad. They don't care for anyone but their gun maker buddies.
Its getting to the point where I'm beginning to think the NRA should be banned.
Will our leaders admit that the primary cause of gun violence is Tricky Dick Nixon'x "War on Drugs". Fighting for a corner from which to sell crack is a dangerous occupation. If you aren't involved in the recreational drug trade and don't live in an area with strict infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, such as New York City, Chicago, or Washington D.C. the odds of your being shot are very low.
Let's see, I'm going to the doctor at the end of the month, so maybe my doctor will ask me if I have a gun in my house, to add to my medical files? That would be great. My doctor might prescribe me, say another aspirin a day to improve my health?
The thing that scares me more is that this information alone with health information, will be spread across this country and at the finger tips at any medical institute. Since Obama-Care will contain all of this information that should make Uncle Sam feel better? With all of the frequent breaches of computer security systems we see, well we can just imagine what a criminal can do with that information. No I don't think my doctor would ever find out if I don't think my doctor will find out anything.
I'm glad the NRA's over-reaching is finally coming to the attention of the public. They've been bullying elected officials for far too long. It's almost unbelievable that they were able to suppress research at the CDC. The NRA needs to grow up and learn how to behave in a democracy. Here's a hint: Give and take.
Cars,hammers,baseball bats,ladders etc were not designed to kill as guns were. Using gun nut logic the Pentagon should issue Buicks to all soldiers because they kill more people. Cadillacs would too expensive and not cost effective though.
NRA logic is illogical,just insane gun rational.
The NRAs one and only priority is to push guns so their gun manufacture brethren can sell more guns. Their hands are awash in blood money.
TonyWarVet..........
What the hell are you talking about? Why don't you include some facts?
My fact is that even though I don't have a rifle, I went online last week and joined the N.R.A. just to piss off Emperor Obama.
Oh, goody! More spending. Who needs another study? Will someone wise up this dumbass in the White House?
1. guns kill
2 guns still kill where strict gun laws exist (Chicago!)
Beangrinder-895293---I think Obama is trying to help his old buddy out. Rahm Emanuel is having a hard time up there in Chicago. I thought New Orleans was bad, I was mistaken.
That's not surprising. Why would the NRA support any studies that prove them wrong? Hitler, Stalin and Mao used similar tactics to suppress research and control the dissemination of information.
Yeah it's kinda like the Oil Lobby and Climate Change, tobacco companies and lung cancer.
I support the 2nd, but these NRA a$$holes are so intellectually dishonest that you can't trust a single "fact" they ever say.
The study cited in the article was debunked, not by the NRA, but by criminologists. It was junk science. As are many medical studies when doctors venture outside their areas of expertise.
So, before mouthing platitudes, at least make sure they are true first.
JoNel, Rosenberg, and NBC, you lie, lie, lie.
The CDC study you cited was the one of the Kellerman studies, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993. Dr Gary Kleck in his book, POINT BLANK, and many others have debunked the Kellerman studies. Dr Kleck also received the Michael Hindelang Award in 1993, the highest award that the American Society of Criminologists gives for his work. His book was reviewed by Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, perhaps the nation's most prestigious criminologist, and he declared it be accurate, well-researched and that he would rely on Kleck's conclusions.
You are all repeating tired, biased, debunked gun control propaganda. Shame on you. The motivation to "suppress such information" was that it was bad science and its conclusions were wrong.
The author obviously knows nothing about the Kellermann study which he cited in the article, which was bad science, and which had no merit or relevance whatsoever with respect to the gun control issue. The conclusions were thoroughly debunked by respected criminologists, not the NRA. And, the study was typical of studies by doctors in areas outside their areas of expertise, which is why the CDC should not have been studying firearms violence in the first place, and should not study it now. The National Academy of Sciences and many criminological organizations are far better suited to study the topic, but the CDC is sure to produce more flawed, biased, and just plain wrong studies.
Kellermann did not even know how to pose his study question in a meaningful way, which is why his conclusions were so ridiculous and irrelevant. He essentially asked how many households in which a person was killed by a gun, had a family member who owned a gun? Not surprisingly, he found that households where a family member was killed by a gun was much more likely to contain a family member that owned a gun than the average household.
What Kellerman failed to discern was that owning a gun was not a significant causal factor in the deaths. The cause of the deaths was the fact that most households that suffered such a death contained: felons, drug dealers, wife beaters, etc. Such people are more likely to own guns. And, they are much more likely than normal households to suffer deaths by firearms. The study was so badly designed that it didn't even differentiate between deaths caused by intruders who brought a gun into the household and deaths which were caused by a household member using his own gun.
It seems to me, that the government has the authority and an obligation to regulate the Militia. It is logical that the type of firearms allowed to the Militia (people) is within that authority. Further, the right of the people is to keep and bear Arms within the role of the Militia. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. However, it is also not about people having the right to own an arsenal. It is the right of the people to bear arms in the militia (military, national guard, etc.) and to keep their Militia weapon in their home for personal, local, and national defense.
It is about time that the government funded studies on firearms and firearm safety. The NRA has done some good with their safety programs, but they are the gun lobby! We need unbiased studies.
Dale,
The 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to defend themselves from
"A well regulated Militia" should the Government turn to tyranny and use our
own military against "We the people" ... You and others are trying to take part
of the "Bill of Rights" and the Constitution out of context, Not a good thing..
Need an example? Obama attended a fundraiser June 13, 2008 and said
"bring a gun.”
And that is a fact he said it! Now go find the full context of what he said and it
changes things.