The Republican Fear of Facts on Guns

[SecularMotion]

The three rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination showed enough sense of responsibility in their debate on Saturday to freely discuss the nation’s epidemic of gun violence. Unfortunately, this was only half the debate voters deserve. The Republican candidates are callously ducking the issue. Among the recent casualties of such silence was a bill in Congress that would have lifted a ban on basic federal research into gun violence and its toll on public health.

For nearly two decades, Congress has banned needed research on gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last week, Congress, doing the bidding of the gun industry, quietly killed a provision in the omnibus spending bill that would have reversed that ban.

In so doing, it left intact an anti-science smoke screen that has helped the industry and its lobbyists deny and dispute the facts of the gun violence that takes more than 30,000 lives a year.

Imagine if the tobacco industry had been similarly favored by Congress with a ban on federal research about cigarette deaths. Imagine, too, if the auto industry had such a shield during the years when the government successfully fought unsafe cars in the cause of public health.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/opinion/the-republican-fear-of-facts-on-guns.html

[Duckhunter935]

1. posting the lie again

Research was not banned and the president just had the CDC do some. What is banned is advocating for any side on the issue. Of course Bloomberg and his billions can fund some.

[flamin lib]

19. You are absolutely right! Research not banned, only its funding. nt

[Duckhunter935]

22. no it is advocating

Research was just done under President Obama. You guys always forget as it did not fit your narrative.

[DonP]

2. "Epidemic of Violence" = Half the violent "gun crime" of the 90's and still falling

No wonder the times is going broke, if they use the bean counters for their sales that they do to keep track of violent crime.

[benEzra]

3. The "fear of facts on guns" is mostly on the gun-control-advocacy side, in my observation.

I have yet to see any acknowledgement from the gun control side that their top legislative priority for a quarter-century----namely, the war on "assault weapons"----targets the least misused class of guns in America (yet the most popular rifles in U.S. homes), and their war on vetted carry-license holders targets the most responsible owners.

I also don't see much acknowledgement that the U.S. gun violence rate has fallen by half since 1991 or so, and is lower than it has been since the 1950's or 1960's, coincident with much higher ownership rates, much greater CCW licensure, and the dramatic shift toward small-caliber semiauto rifles in lieu of lever-actions and larger-caliber bolt-actions.

A lot of good Federally funded gun violence research is done, and funded, by experts in the field (that's what criminologists study). The "research" that led to the Federal funding restriction was junk-science "advocacy papers" written mostly by people writing outside their field of expertise, subject to little or no peer review, and full of egregious factual or logical blunders (e.g. the paper in J. Trauma that said that low-velocity bullets have higher velocity than high-velocity bullets, or the Kellerman et al papers in JAMA). But those aren't where you'd go for good data anyway.

Even the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, and the Law Enforcement Killed and Assaulted reports, are treasure troves of good information that are studiously ignored by gun-prohibition advocates, because they undermine their fearmongering.

[flamin lib]

20. Yeah, you're right. Ban all pistols, the most abused firearms in America.nt

[DonP]

21. Please do, start the petition drive today

Or are you just going to post about it "seriously" again?

C'mon, let's see some of that renowned Activism at work.

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. You should consider selecting spam that at least isn't utter bullshit.

Not that you care about credibility, but still...posting ignorant, false-to-fact twaddle like that does your cause no good.

[SecularMotion]

5. It's only spam in the eyes of those drunk on NRA Kool-Aid™

[GGJohn]

7. False, it's spam to those of us that know the truth

and haven't drunk the Kool-Aid from those such as yourself.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. Demonstrably false and transparently ad hominem in nature (begin to see the pattern yet...?).

Do your homework (for a change). That "Congress is preventing gun violence research" lie has been conclusively demonstrated to be false. The law in question prohibits advocacy (as well it should), and the feds have been funding countless gun-crime-related studies all along. The restriction has existed since 1996...yet the most recent CDC-finded major study was published in 2013. This was a bullshit, dishonest talking point, and you fell for it.

Be selective. Do your research. Post responsibly.

[SecularMotion]

9. Don't try to deny that Congress is preventing gun violence research.

Congress passed the law and funding stopped. You can quibble over the what the law prohibits, but the end result is no funding.

Stop the NRA lies and obfuscation.

[Lizzie Poppet]

10. Right...that 2013 CDC study totally never happened.

You don't really put much actual effort into your Googledumping, do you? Like...actually vetting the crap you spam the group with. The fact is that while that law does indeed prevent some research, lots of federally-funded research into gun violence has been taking place all along.

Oh, and I have virtually no contact with the NRA, save for some unavoidable non-political contact because I'm a competitive shooter. I'm quite probably a fair bit more leftist than you are, and I despise that organization for it's lavish funding of GOP candidates. So cork that bullshit slander, too, m'kay...?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. It's interesting how often the same tactic is repeated

And, when all else fails, run away... run away... run away...

[Duckhunter935]

17. yep, so true

[Duckhunter935]

16. like the Google dump spam

He dropped about a shooting in new Zealand, lol. He does not even read them and hopes we are to stupid to notice his bull.

[DonP]

18. "He does not even read them..." Or check the dates

He's gotten better about not posting Google dumps that are over a year or two old lately.

But sometimes gun control fans get desperate and hopes no one will notice a 3 or 5 year old story.

Just like they're all still using the 30+ year old Kellerman study as if it's fact and ignoring the much more recent CDC study on the Effectiveness of Gun Control" by pretending the CDC cant do actual research on guns or gun violence.

[DonP]

11. Sorry, that's just not true and it's been shown to you multiple times

It's a Brady/Bloomberg talking Point that's pure BS. Banning advocacy is just not the same as banning research.

The 2013 study is just one example of the research on guns the CDC continue to do. You just don't like the results of the 2013 "Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws" study.

But in the meantime, there's nothing stopping Bloomberg or even avid Gun Control supporters like you from crowd funding a study, is there?

Well, other than gun control fans never actually spend their own money on what they supposedly "believe in". Aaaand they don't join any gun control organizations that have dues or ask for a commitment of your time. But aside from that they are really serious about it, when it's convenient.

That's why gun control continues to be such a loser, full of part time people that aren't really involved and can't grasp reality and deal with the other side of the discussion.

Until your side learns that, you'll continue to consider things like a refusal of Cert by SCOTUS a major "victory".

Pssst, do you know how many cases SCOTUS refused Cert on before taking Heller and McDonald? You may not want to get those "Winning" sweatshirts printed up quite yet.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. "(T)here's nothing stopping Bloomberg or even avid Gun Control supporters like you from...

...crowd funding a study, is there?"

Their notorious and oft-noted combination of stinginess and laziness.

They'll do nothing that involves spending their own money, or doing anything more energetic than recycling memes and cartoons scraped online.

[DonP]

13. Now see. I was trying to be nice and kind at Yuletide.

And you just said what I was actually thinking.

Yeah, I've noticed they are all in a bunch over the CDC/Government not funding their beloved advocacy "studies", but never reach for their checkbooks, even though Bloomers gave them $50 million for 2015 alone.

Easier to scream "Fuck the NRA" 20 or so times online than send in $20 bucks out of their own pocket to a gun control organization.

[GGJohn]

6. Why do you keep posting this lie?

You've been correctied several times yet, you insist on posting threads that perpetuate this lie.
The CDC is free to do all the studies on firearm violence they want, what they're banned from doing is advocating for gun control.

[ileus]

14. They of course meant anti-gun smoke screen.