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

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

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.

"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.

"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."

The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of "putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science," said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was "redundant" and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers' budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

"It's really simple with me," Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. "We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have."

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers' appropriations bill that remains in place today: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.

In the end, researchers said, even though it is murky what exactly is allowed under this provision and what is not, the upshot is clear inside the centers: the agency should tread in this area only at its own peril.

"They had a near-death experience," said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, whose study on the risks versus the benefits of having guns in the home became a focal point of attack by the N.R.A.

In the years since, the C.D.C. has been exceedingly wary of financing research focused on firearms. In its annual requests for proposals, for example, firearms research has been notably absent. Gail Hayes, spokeswoman for the centers, confirmed that since 1996, while the agency has issued requests for proposals that include the study of violence, which may include gun violence, it had not sent out any specifically on firearms.

"For policy to be effective, it needs to be based on evidence," said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, who had his C.D.C. financing cut in 1996. "The National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have largely succeeded in choking off the development of evidence upon which that policy could be based."

Private foundations initially stepped into the breach, but their attention tends to wax and wane, researchers said. They are also much more interested in work that leads to immediate results and less willing to finance basic epidemiological research that scientists say is necessary to establishing a foundation of knowledge about the connection between guns and violence, or the lack thereof.

The National Institute of Justice, part of the Justice Department, also used to finance firearms research, researchers said, but that money has also petered out in recent years. (Institute officials said they hoped to reinvigorate financing in this area.)

Stephen Teret, founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, estimated that the amount of money available for firearms research was a quarter of what it used to be. With so much uncertainty about financing, Mr. Teret said, the circle of academics who study the phenomenon has fallen off significantly.

After the centers' clash with the N.R.A., Mr. Teret said he was asked by C.D.C. officials to "curtail some things I was saying about guns and gun policy."

Mr. Teret objected, saying his public comments about gun policy did not come while he was on the "C.D.C. meter." After he threatened to file a lawsuit against the agency, Mr. Teret said, the officials backed down and gave him "a little bit more leeway."

C.D.C. financing for research on gun violence has not stopped completely, but it is now mostly limited to work in which firearms are only a component.

The centers also ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the N.R.A. as a courtesy, said Thomas Skinner, a spokesman for the centers.

Invariably, researchers said, whenever their work touches upon firearms, the C.D.C. becomes squeamish. In the end, they said, it is often simply easier to avoid the topic if they want to continue to be in the agency's good graces.

Dr. Stephen Hargarten, professor and chairman of emergency medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, used to direct a research center, financed by the C.D.C., that focused on gun violence, but he said he had now shifted his attention to other issues.

http://www.nytimes.c.../us/26guns.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Interesting.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Whoa, the republicans have more than one overlord? Here I thought they were beholden to only one master, oil.

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was "redundant" and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers' budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

"It's really simple with me," Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. "We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have."

That is really scary that imbeciles like that can get into congress.

[natty bumppo 297]

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers' appropriations bill that remains in place today: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.

In the end, researchers said, even though it is murky what exactly is allowed under this provision and what is not, the upshot is clear inside the centers: the agency should tread in this area only at its own peril.

so there were already regulations in place that were ignored ... now stronger language is inserted to remind the CDC of the initial regulations.

[The_Dude 1,142]

so there were already regulations in place that were ignored ... now stronger language is inserted to remind the CDC of the initial regulations.

Read it again Natty......

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Good news. We do not need to fund people trying to take away our rights. Kinda like funding terrorists. Good grief.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The NRA was also the organization that backed 42 states issuing concealed carry permits, the Heller decision, the McDonald decision, the Republican takeover of the House and Senate after the 1994 so called AWB.

They are pursuing more litigation building on Heller and McDonald to roll back dozens f other unconstitutional laws. To be challenged this year...the requirement that persons be 21 years old to buy a handgun. Owning a handgun is a RIGHT (per Heller) owning a handgun is a RIGHT in all states and localities (per McDonald) You cannot deny rights to adults. 18 year olds are adults. Once it has been ruled that you cannot arbitrarily infringe on RIGHTS, the NRA will challenge state assault weapons bans, magazine capacit bans, etc. The dominoes will fall one by one.

There will be NO new firearms legislation...you know that, right? (why study it?)

I am proud to be an NRA life member since 1974

[slim 1,525]

"We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have." That's what congressmen are supposed to say!

The sad fact is that not all congressmen can read and someone has to convince them. I'm not a big fan of the NRA but one of the reasons I send them money is because they're extremely effective, politically. Unfortunately in this day and age the only way to get points across to congress is to throw money at them. NRA does that well and as long as they continue to do so, I'll continue to feed them.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Ah gun powder must effect the brains logic centers. Studying gun violence could lead to arguable facts. Pesky facts. Facts gun nuts prefer not be discerned since they could indicate their 'rights' conflict with the 'rights' of others.

Can't have that. Need more guns. Bigger guns. More ammo, larger clips, larger magazines. Need semi-auto so rapid one shooter can fill the shoes of 100 founding fathers in under a minute.

Any intimation guns can be used to cause massive, rapid, and irreversible harm is just crazy talk.

No I don't want to take your precious guns. I personally, just once, would like gun nuts to recognize guns can indeed cause harm. Perhaps actual data, real facts, might just bring that dream to light.

[luckytxn 2,264]

The CDC needs to do what they were brought into existence for and not try to be a bee all for everything. Maybe the CDC needs to be completely defunded if they are having such a hard time trying to find diseases to cure then all the diseases that were around seem to be gone.

[slim 1,525]

Studying gun violence could lead to arguable facts.

Facts like many homicides are perpetrated by criminals?

Facts like more guns = less crime?

Those are hard stats to ignore, I'll agree.

The CDC needs to do what they were brought into existence for and not try to be a bee all for everything. Maybe the CDC needs to be completely defunded if they are having such a hard time trying to find diseases to cure then all the diseases that were around seem to be gone.

I feel this way about the whole of government.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Facts like many homicides are perpetrated by criminals?

Many being first timers, angry about something at the moment, with the perfect permanent tool to settle the temporary disagreement. Those criminals?

Facts like more guns = less crime?

Those are hard stats to ignore, I'll agree.

Argue the facts you don't have? Argue the silly talking points you hope are true? Nah, best ignore those kinds of facts by avoiding research.

Below is of course your true paranoid reason for loving guns... The Guv'mt is your enemy...

Slims quote of the day:

I feel this way about the whole of government.

[The_Dude 1,142]

"We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have." That's what congressmen are supposed to say!

The sad fact is that not all congressmen can read and someone has to convince them. I'm not a big fan of the NRA but one of the reasons I send them money is because they're extremely effective, politically. Unfortunately in this day and age the only way to get points across to congress is to throw money at them. NRA does that well and as long as they continue to do so, I'll continue to feed them.

It really is sad that they let people who are too ignorant to comprehend the 2nd amendment own guns.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Facts like many homicides are perpetrated by criminals?

Facts like more guns = less crime?

Those are hard stats to ignore, I'll agree.

I feel this way about the whole of government.

Me too.

[mawilson 2,133]

Good news. We do not need to fund people trying to take away our rights. Kinda like funding terrorists. Good grief.

Note the use of the term "firearms research" to hide their true agenda.