Gun Control & RKBA

petronius

(26,674 posts)

10. It's a bit more complicated than that, since the pointed redirection of funding

Reply to tortoise1956 (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 06:17 PM

Apr 2016

that occurred at the same time as the amendment sent a pretty clear message to CDC that they were on thin Congressional ice. Since then, they haven't chosen to test the limits--out of fear of what Congress might do--and the ban has become self-imposed. And they were probably not wrong during most of the intervening years to assume that they'd be walking into a minefield if they got too active in the gun-related arena.

That said, CDC can and has performed gun-related work and collected gun-related data. And they are not prevented from issuing an RFP for legitimate gun-related research right now if they chose.

So yes, "ban on gun violence research" is in the same accuracy category as "blanket immunity" and many other oft-repeated gun control mantras...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There is no ban on CDC gun violence research... [View all] tortoise1956 Apr 2016 OP

Reserachers weren't willing to risk their livelihood to find out what "promoting gun control" means A Little Weird Apr 2016 #1

given that most of the research was like the Kellerman gejohnston Apr 2016 #2

Yes it was a loss A Little Weird Apr 2016 #3

Simply read the studies and the gejohnston Apr 2016 #5

Every study that you don't like because it doesn't call for more guns is junk to you. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #11

no, gejohnston Apr 2016 #14

Ya mean like Kleck? nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #18

Kleck is a scientist, gejohnston Apr 2016 #19

And he couldn't research his way out of a paperbag with a roadmap and a razorblade. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #21

empirical truth and reality has no partisan bias. gejohnston Apr 2016 #22

I think the CDC itself said as much when it summarized the "research" to-date. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #13

He regrets that it was over-interpreted tortoise1956 Apr 2016 #7

+1 northernsouthern Apr 2016 #26

I'm not sure I'd trust a researcher who couldn't define "promote" accurately. N/T beevul Apr 2016 #28

Bullshit! SecularMotion Apr 2016 #4

he said proper research gejohnston Apr 2016 #6

Gee, the control guys are really upset about this DonP Apr 2016 #8

It's an article of faith. theatre goon Apr 2016 #9

I see that a lot here. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #12

It's really too bad... theatre goon Apr 2016 #16

It's a bit more complicated than that, since the pointed redirection of funding petronius Apr 2016 #10

Of course we could return to the daze of Michael A. Bellisiles' "Arming America." Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #15

Well, even if it was all a lie, it "should" have been true DonP Apr 2016 #17

I read some of the glowing before & after blurbs on Bellisiles' book jacket... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #20

Yup, they all thought they finally had their hero DonP Apr 2016 #23

That SF earthquake fiasco was like a deus ex machina moment in bad vaudeville. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #24

Slate article on CDC report DashOneBravo Apr 2016 #25

That's very inconvenient for some people DonP Apr 2016 #27

At first I just thought DashOneBravo Apr 2016 #31

Sharing the truth is a great idea discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #32

Not to mention that private foundations could easily fund universities and think tanks. aikoaiko Apr 2016 #29

But the CDC... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #30