N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say

[RamboLiberal]

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 agree in saying that the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.

“We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,” said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.

Chris Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?hp

[X_Digger]

1. Poor, poor Kellerman, Wintermute, Branas, et al..

Can't treat guns as germs on a doorknob anymore.

:nopity:

[villager]

2. unrecc'd by the reliably programmed NRA apologists for whom the motto is:

"Any discussion is too threatening of a discussion!"

[cleanhippie]

12. Who said that? Or did you just make that up?

[baldguy]

3. Stalin would be proud of the NRA.

Disallowing & burying research that may be politically inconvenient.

[DissedByBush]

5. NRA members would be the first against the wall

Stalin established strict gun control as a prerequisite to consolidating his power.

In fact, prohibition of private ownership of guns is pretty much a hallmark of repressive governments.

[baldguy]

8. NRA members would be supporting Stalin.

Being ready, able & willing to kill your political enemies is pretty much a hallmark of repressive governments.

[DissedByBush]

16. Only the state gets to do it

Stalin absolutely would have the NRA leadership and many members shot because they would support the people, rather than only the state, owning weapons.

Stripping people of their personal armament is a hallmark of repressive governments.

Having a well-armed internal police and is also a requirement.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. I don't see any gun control groups funding any research. I hope they do.

Without hiding the complete data sets this time around.....

[DissedByBush]

4. Boo hoo, the government won't fund our anti-gun agenda

And it's the NRA's fault!

[Hoopla Phil]

6. IMO the National Firearm Act has done the most to stymie US firearms development.

John Browning would not have been able to work under the current firearms laws unless he was a "company man". I cannot tell you how many times I've seen discussions on gun boards about someone coming up with a new design - only to be told to not proceed beyond the drawing board cause he'd be in violation of some such law.

[Euromutt]

7. This is hardly news; it's a 15 year-old story warmed over

By way of reference, see "Public Health Pot Shots" in the April 1997 issue of Reason http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots
You don't have to agree with everything the article says to still conclude that the research the NCICP opted to fund was heavily skewed toward a predetermined conclusion that Guns Are Bad.

I choked on this in particular:

Consider a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study that, according to press reports, "showed that keeping a gun in the home nearly triples the likelihood that someone in the household will be slain there." This claim cannot be verified because Kellerman will not release the data. Relying on independent sources to fill gaps in the published data, SUNY-Buffalo's Lawrence Southwick has speculated that Kellermann's full data set would actually vindicate defensive gun ownership. Such issues cannot be resolved without Kellermann's cooperation, but the CDC has refused to require its researchers to part with their data as a condition for taxpayer funding.

(emphases mine)

As a taxpayer, I already have a problem with publicly funded research only being available in journals that charge $30 to read a single article (even though the journal doesn't pay the authors or reviewers a dime). Funding behavior like Kellermann's is simply unacceptable, both from a government spending standpoint, and at least as importantly, from a standpoint of scientific honesty. There is no valid scientific reason to refuse to share the data on which your findings are supposedly based; it's denying others the means to verify that you aren't just making shit up.

And speaking of duplicitous sons of bitches, Mark Rosenberg's claim that "we’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions" is a load of hooey. As far as Rosenberg was concerned, "the basic questions" were answered 24 years ago. What he and others have been stopped from doing is using taxpayer funds to gin up the junk science to support his predetermined conclusion.

[Atypical Liberal]

9. I have mixed feelings.

I have mixed feelings about the research angle.

On one hand, I would welcome research on firearm use in this country, as I'm pretty certain you will find that the vast majority of firearms, and firearm owners, are not involved in crime.

On the other hand, I don't want to see the government using taxpayer dollars to fund a health agency to do work on social problems.

Also, I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the NRA has "choked off money for such work". Anyone could fund this independently. Why doesn't the Brady group, or the VPC, or any of the other anti-firearm groups fund this research?

[lawodevolution]

11. "Why doesn't the Brady group,or the VPC, or any of the other anti-firearm groups fund this research"

Because they like to take your money and then use it to take away your rights. The Brady group and VPC want the government money so they can do their junk science and engineer the results of their studies.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. Why not use private money?

If anti-firearm groups held such popular sway with the people, they should have no problem raising funds for firearm violence research.

[lawodevolution]

10. in a similar way, who is blocking the KKK from getting govt money

to research the difference in crime rates in black vs white neighborhoods?

I don't want bigots researching anything that has to do with my culture and heritage esp if their goal is to censor or abolish it.

Go cry somewhere else about it. We wouldn't grant government money to the neo-NAZI's to research jewish issues either.

[lawodevolution]

14. another thing to consider is that it is not within the best interested of the NRA for

gun control to be crushed by scientific research. They bring in lots of money thanks to the brady campaign.

[DonP]

17. If guns in the home were really dangerous ...

... you can be damned sure the insurance companies would demand a higher premium for life insurance, homeowners policies and anything else they can think of.

Has anyone here ever had an insurance agent ask you if you had guns in your home? Anyone ever hear of an insurance firm demanding a higher premium for life or homeowners insurance becasue they owned guns, or reloaded etc?

Oh and why has the NY Times all of a sudden become a trusted journal? I guess as long as they are anti gun some people will believe them.

[slackmaster]

18. I asked my insurance agent if my homeowner's policy covered firearms

She said they would be included in "unscheduled personal property" for casualty or theft loss, but recommended that I document them and get a rider if the value exceeded some particular amount.

No insurance company offers a "gun-free home" discount. If there is an elevated risk from having firearms in the home, it's too small for the insurance companies to bother calculating and complicating the premium structure over.