Getty Images
When we think about the National Rifle Association and its influence in American politics, we tend to focus on the lobbying group's ability to kill gun-control legislation. But Gary Cutting raises a related point that's nearly as important, but far less understood: the NRA can kill data collection about gun violence, too.
Remarkably, there's "no current scientific consensus about guns and violence," in large part because the NRA "has been able to neutralize empirical cases for control."
The most thorough and authoritative analysis is the 2004 report by a panel of leading experts, "Firearms and Violence," sponsored by the National Research Council. Its startling conclusion was that we simply don't know enough to make scientifically grounded judgments about which approaches -- from gun-control measures to permission-to-carry laws -- are likely to work.
The panel's primary recommendation was simply: "If policy makers are to have a solid empirical and research base for decisions about firearms and violence, the federal government needs to support a systematic program of data collection and research that specifically addresses that issue." Or, as an expert quoted in the Times article on the report said, "The main thrust of it is, we don't know anything about anything, and more research is needed."
With this in mind, one might assume that research on firearms and their use would go up, so social scientists could get a more accurate picture from which policies could be made. But since 2004, research has actually decreased, as research funding dried up.
Maybe academics focused attention elsewhere? Hardly. The NRA successfully lobbied to "choke off" research grants, working from the assumption that less data would mean less knowledge, which in turn would lead to less policymaking.
As a rule, when an organization insists ignorance is helpful to its larger ambitions, it speaks volumes about the merit of the group's ideas.
Leave a Comment:
Reminds me of our government and cannabis...
Reminds me of organized religions of old (and sometimes currently).
What also speak's Volumes is from what I have seen on Various sites, Is that 70% of NRA members are calling for Tighter Gun Restrictions, If 70% of the Dues paying Members($35-yearly, $1k Lifetime) As an NRA member, What Voice or say do YOU Really Have?? Does your 70% Majority get to Decide these Tighter Restriction's? As members, Do you Vote amongst your Organization to come up with these Idea's? If not, WHY?
More on the "choke off" phenomenon: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470
Buaahahaha! Oh that mean ol' NRA.
I think i would rather ask Obama why he killed legistration that would bring more security into our schools
Wow . . . how did I know this would end up being President Obama's fault? I must be psychic!
Eanie, meanie, chili beanie . . . the spirits are about to speak!! They're telling me that Really?-5374886 will not be able to back up his post.
The POTUS "killed legistration"? I had no idea that cranky ole combover liars like LaPierre uttering complete nonsense qualified as "legistration". Learn sometin every day...
The dreaded name + 7 numbers ....I do believe they are outsourced somewhere.
The quality of the Name +7 trolling has diminished of late ..I don't believe they are getting their faux nooze talking points in a timely manner.
Is that dreaded Name+ 7 part of the 30% Minority of the NRA or in Fairness Undecided?
Here ya go dumskippy-1635693
http://www.thegranthelpers.com/blog/bid/105064/COPS-Secure-Our-Schools-Grant-Will-Not-Be-Offered-in-2012
You do realize that no where in that article does it state that the Obama Administration killed legislation for protecting our schools, yes?
Please, please, please conservatives- you have to READ the articles you link to as "proof" of your side BEFORE you link to them.
In fact no where in the article does it state that legislation was killed for school safety period, let alone at behest of the Obama Administration.
It clearly outlines the The justice department is is responsible. The justice department is not part of Obamas regime? With his protection over Eric Holder i would have assumed they were pretty tight. My bad.
No where does it state that legislation was killed for school safety period?
"The COPS Secure Our Schools grant provides federal funding to police departments
to partner with local schools to improve school safety."
Thats in the first paragraph!
Or are you just trying to spin it to be "School safety doesnt actually mean School safety"?
The DOJ cut funding to the program because the DOJ had to contain costs. That means it was a budgetary issue and not a piece of legislation.
Was this a piece of legislation? No. Did the DOJ say not to pass a piece legislation? No. Did Obama say not to pass a piece of legislation? No.
This is referring a currently in existence program that is funded and ran by the DOJ off the DOJ's annual budget. If the DOJ budget gets cut and/or if the DOJ is told they have to trim costs then they have to do so as a result of internal operations. I find this particularly ironic because you're part of the GOP base that complain about government spending. The US Congress is the entity that tells departments to cut costs. Gee whose in control of the US House???
This is not a piece of legislation and denying funding for one specific grant is not necessarily endangering schools and is not the same as saying that it's a willful act on behalf of the administration to deny protection to schools. The article itself then goes on to state several other programs that are still grant eligible if you had bothered to read it.
No where does it state that legislation was killed for school safety or that the Obama Administration is responsible for such killing. The sentence you highlighted: the COPS Secure Our Schools grant provides federal funding to police departments to partner with local schools to improve school safety" does not, anywhere in that sentence, state that it's a piece of legislation or that the Obama Administration is responsible for the legislation not passing. Additionally this program has been cut for more than Obama's tenure, you are aware of that, yes? The article itself states as much. Why? Because it's a budgetary issue- not a department issue.
Also the Obama Administration never "protected" Eric Holder. You are erroneously confusing the fact that documentation wasn't released for an ongoing investigation without a subpoena (it is illegal to request such information while the investigation is on going without a court order, btw) with the idea that the Obama Administration was trying to protect Eric Holder form a conspiracy that did not actually exist. And, for the record, Eric Holder was found innocent of all charges as per the House GOP.
As I said- read your articles, use facts, make coherent arguments. It's not rocket science.
We should have more research on this topic. But I think we have enough evidence already to conclude that no matter what the gun laws are, they are ineffective to preventing crime, particularly when you have whole classes of people who are reduced to economic desperation.
John Lott did an extensive study on concealed carry laws, and said it reduces murder rates where it's been implemented. Of course, Lott is a nutty right winger who most certainly has an axe to grind, so I discard it entirely.
What's important is that the National Academy of Sciences looked into his work and discovered that "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Concealed_weapons_and_crime_rate
So in other words, it didn't seem to have any affect at all. BTW, this study was done in 2004.
This is just another case of gun laws not doing what their proponents say they will do. Banning guns don't seem to fix things, and allowing guns out in public don't seem to fix things either.
So maybe it's not the guns we should be focusing on.
Focusing on treating the mentally ill is important. Everyone in this country should get regular psychological evaluations, just like we all get regular physicals from our doctors.
We should focus on reducing poverty rates and reduce income inequality. It's not a surprise that most gun crimes happen in the poorest neighborhoods.
We should focus on measures that will be effective. It is what we must do if we want to save lives.
Amazing how you gun nuts turn liberal about poverty and income inequality when your guns are at risk...
Lebowsky, what makes you think I have ever NOT been a liberal?
Instead of trying to attack me personally, why don't you ask if my argument has any merit?
Alva - The study you cite has merit, but unfortunately, as recent events confirm, right to carry is not the problem. The problem is access to high capacity clips combined with auto or semi auto weapons. Neither the Brady Bill nor the Assault Weapons Ban really addressed this issue. It's not that a good bill can't get written...It just can't get written in a legislature so rife with NRA money.
There is plenty of evidence out there that reducing access to these reduces their use in capital crimes such as we saw in CT. The Austrailian response to their own mass murder (Which I'm sure you've seen on the 'net) is a pretty powerful example.
While the other steps you outline are certainly positive ones (If not entirely realistic), banning the types of rifles and clips used in both CT and the NY firefighter shooting should be the first step.
Alva: It's not an "attack" to call you a gun nut. You have consistently opposed any and every proposal or idea on these boards that in any way changes our unsustainable gun laws. Very little of what you post makes sense IMHO. You say "everyone should get psych evals just like we all get regular checkups". People don't do checkups, they can't afford them, hopefully the ACA will change that, but thats just one of the false canards and choices you constantly push.
Lebowsky, that's true, young people especially don't get regular check ups. But we should. Prevention would save us a ton of money in health care costs. This is just another form of prevention, in this case, to keep mental illness problems from just getting worse and worse and worse.
I'm not opposed to all changes in gun laws. I'm all in favor of universal registration. I'm all in favor of including psychological background checks as well as criminal background checks. I think we probably ought to ban the 5.7 round, what you might call "cop killer bullets".
The simple reality is that we're not going to replicate what Australia did. It's just not going to happen. So, what do you do that is going to be more effective and save more lives?
Large, California has a ban on high capacity clips. You can't use a pistol in California that has a clip that can hold more than 10 rounds. The result? California has the 4th highest firearm homicide rate in the nation.
Every pistol ever made since 1911 is a semi-auto weapon. Are you proposing that we ban all pistols? What makes a single stack pistol any more deadly than a revolver with an 8 round capacity? You know what the difference is between what it takes fire a revolver and a pistol? With follow up shots, you have to pull on the trigger of a revolver a little harder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCM-4xl2q48
Alva: Once again, you turn to strawman arguments to defend your guns. The homicide rate in California has nothing to do with magazine size, and nobody is claiming it is. The states with more urban areas have more gun homicides. Magazine restrictions will save lives in the random shootings that are very rare, not in the inner city gang shootings and murders. Yet you try to say "The result?" of magazine restrictions is more homicides? That either makes you dishonest or irrelevant, you can choose.
Are you for ending the gun show loophole? If so, then I take it back that you are against all reasonable ideas suggested on these boards...
Alva -- Huh? Regular psychological assessments just like those annual physical assessments?
Which delusional tracts have you been reading recently, sonny? The ones where there aren't 40-odd million Americans without health insurance (i.e., without "affordable health care")? Or the ones where there are psychologists sitting on their hands because all they need is 10 times as many patients as they have now?
Cheese. Humans are fundamentally complex, so psychology is a study of a chaotic set of chaotic individuals. By almost any measure, firearms are simple. Absent very unusual circumstances, they harm no one if no one touches them. Can't say the same about people. Fix what's fixable, and move on.
I'd like to see a 'debt clock' type of thing in a very public place. It would keep an on-going count of dead by gun, with some kind of identification, how and why. CNN did this during Iraq and Afghanistan, why not the Un-named War at Home?????
Huffpost did it for a few days. Too bad because every death in Afghanistan or Iraq gets noted . The thirty or so a day here ? Not so much .
If it was a communicable disease the CDC would be all over it and there would be panic with 4 inch headlines above the fold ......
Epidemic hits US 30 dead today.
Epidemic of gun deaths . Yawn
Oooh!! We have one of those "death clock" thingies on the news site in New Orleans! It's just for murders, however. Not all gun violence, just gun use that resulted in an intended death.
Here it is! You can see it tick up every day!
Current count this year? 184
http://www.nola.com/crime/murders/
Keeping people ignorant is in the NRA's best interests. The question is . . . did they learn that from the gop or vice versa?
I think that there is some cross-pollination going on. Or maybe the NRA is just a subset of the GOP.
assuming the same Stupid people that are running the GOP are also inbreed in the ALEC & NRA, Liberals should use their weakness of being Stupid against them...here is what i mean.
1. NRA says mental health database is the way to go --- so create one..one that doesnt allow for depressed people on depression prescriptions and pain killers to NOT have any guns, not just the Assault weapons...the Obamacare healthcare provider service can already track the prescriptions (when purchased) and how long someone is on them and the user can be red flagged and have that red flag go to the gun dealers in the form of a website - that is tied to the background check system....so if someone is on say, OXY, (like Rush Limbaugh) they cant buy a gun.,,,and if the prescriptions are for say, anti-psychotic needs - then the ATF would be warranted in going to the person's home and remove all weapons (from the entire house, even if other gun owners in the house are sane)...but getting the MHDB created and then adding depressive pills that nearly 54 million Americans already use, will create an opportunity to actually get more guns than just the assault weapons...plus no one in the house of one of these 'depressed' people can have guns either - as seen by how legally purchased guns were used to kill the sane relatives in the two shootings from the past two weeks - and that is the best backdoor cut to getting all the guns off the street.
assuming that there is at least one other person (on avg) in each household of the 'depressed 54 million', and none of those people would be allowed to keep their guns since they live with the ' depressed' people - equals 100 million people could lose their guns under a MHDB...using what the NRA offers (given that they are stupid) to us is the first step in getting all the guns...of course they will want to limit the pills on the banned list, but really who can pronounce and spell or understand exactly what drugs are what - they are not all called aspirin...they all have weird names that Stupid people would not what they are and let they get (by accident & by ignorance) on the banned to own/buy gun list...
2. no one with a brain would want to have guns everywhere, but since we are in a tight jobs market and the GOP wont spend on jobs...Obama should support the temporary job creation of 100,000 war veterans to be hired as school security (for one year only), or until the MHDB is formalized ...this is a jobs bill opportunity - this is not about putting guns into schools...think of the jobs for the non PTSS war veterans that could use the work after they come back from Afghanistan (and those unemployed since Iraq)...
to recap...use the NRA 'dumbness' against them and create a mental health databse (MHDB) and use the prescription paid system to clock who is depressed and likely to be considered 'loose to kill (use wide interpretation)'...and blame the NRA for the MHDB....the GOP wont create jobs, so how can they say, 'we want more dead children?'..they cant, so this is how Obama can create 100,000 jobs for 8Billion (one billion more than the FBI budget)...temporary only...more importantly than the jobs created for the war veterans is that the war veterans will feel reaffirmed/there is no greater good than protecting the nation's children up front and close up...no other for a soldier - so this would help with the soldier's transition 'back to the world'.
both plans can be blamed upon the NRA and they are on the record for their creation and support.(until they fire Wayne Lapierre)..all the while, DF and CS (senate) can go for the assault weapons and they will get them.
Also note that apart of the MHDB would be punishment for doctors that didnt inform the MHDB of mentals...eg. max 10yr jail term for doctor that doesnt report a mental and that mental kills someone...plus $1 milion fine for same result and offence..these offenses should be graduated on a progressive basis (but death equals max penalty and fines)...
Look, until the gun manufacturers build fingerprint firing triggers (where only the registered owner can use the weapon - see SStallone in Judge Dredd), all assault weapons should be banned...but if the NRA is willing to offer all the guns of the mentals (54 million at last count), Liberals should grab everyone of those guns and fast!
and i would use the assault weapons ban and attach it to any fiscal tax cut bill - just like the GOP did with cuts to planned parenthood...
the GOP are more worried about saving the lives of the unborn instead of the currently living children - you need to sell this to the voters and have them call the GOP on it.
for the crazies (you do get one shot at the 2ndamendment use - actual use of gun against the govt), try using the amendment against ALEC/NRA leaders and state in court, that the organzs were taking away your freedom with illegal anti-American policies and that you were using your 2ndamendment right to shoot and protect your rights against a govt that was endangering the lives of your children...but the rules is you only get one chance and dont take out any innocents - aim true and the law may set you free...there is a lot of evidence that ALEC and NRA are usurpting the laws that protect the american people (eg the creation of a MHDB)--- no one has yet to actually use the amendment as it is stated on the books...they pretend to use the right by owning the guns...but not using the guns is not the same as using the guns to protect the right to have the guns...
since the NRA has said they support a MHDB, that could create within the mindset of a 'crazy' that the NRA is trying to take away their guns - that would diminsh any capital crime if the shooter believes what i just type...mens rea must be present to go to jail.
God Bless the fighters for freedom that are willing to actually fight the wannabes (GOP House) with the wannabes' (GOP House) own words of Stupidity....
I wrote about this, too, on my blog.
President Barack Obama revealed the 'real reason' he wanted a second term as president is because his daughter Malia, age 14, is about to start dating boys.
'One of the main incentives of running was continued Secret Service protection so we can have men with guns around at all times,' the father of two joked.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253571/President-Obama-reveals-keeps-going-First-Lady--20-years-marriage.html#ixzz2GHDKMD4L
That was a joke. Former Presidents get Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives. There is a Secret Service detail on Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton right now.
Mass shootings = proof that gun regulation is necessary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_hZQPpCJ1M
I'm surprised nobody has drawn the obvious parallel with "Big Tobacco". They too "researched" and published report after report after report that tobacco was fine and we should all just keep smokin'. NRA studies suggest you should just keep packin'...? How quaint.
As with tobacco, I guess it will take the right lawyer with the right lawsuit in the context of the "right" bloody massacre.
Until then, it would appear that United States citizens still care more about second hand smoke than they do about second hand gun fire. Go figure.
Kind of a dumb analogy, don't you think? Selling a product that makes people addicted is quite different than a lobbyist group that's not even a for-profit corporation.
Alva Goldbook,
Thank you for your response. I found it most amusing.
You see, in the USA, there's this thing called the BATF, "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives", and it has an annual budget of more than 1 billion USD and employs almost 5000 people. So apparently, I'm not the only person who can see analogies between tobacco and firearms.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be arguing that the possession and use of firearms is not addictive. If that is your position, then you truly understand nothing about addiction - or firearms for that matter.
Just because you can't see something doesn't mean other people are blind.
Let me help you out with this one: it's probably the other way around.
Not a very good picture of Wayne with this blog. Sure, his hair is neatly combed and his tie is straight, but his face is visible and you can't even see the red armband with the swastika on it.
Calling a man who fights for our Freedom and Libertys a Nazi? Thats as amusing as Liberals are halfway intelligent.
You do know you spelled "liberties" incorrectly while simultaneously insulting other people's intelligence, yes? And freedom and liberties aren't capitalized- as a supposedly smart person I'd assume you'd know that. Oh and liberals isn't capitalized either. And saying "that's" requires a comma, and it's really informal use if you want to be right proper about it, and how does "halfway intelligence" relate to someone calling someone else a Nazi? Intelligence and Nazi-ism aren't interchangeable words, ya know.
But of course as an ever-so-smart-person you already knew all of this, right? So I'm going to assume then that your post is sarcasm and we should all have a good laugh at how you're mocking right wingers in your post, yes?
WoW, you be really Smart! Look kid, when your all grown up and out of college and facing the real world and become a republican because you realize the world aint all kittens and rainbows thats when i'll care about your insults.
I'm a kid at 42??? Wow! Well, my wife would actually probably agree with that. Also when I get out of college? Awww shucks and here I thought those 2 Master's Degrees were already finished. Guess I'll have to go back and complain to the Dean!
You made an insult to someone that was inherently contradictory. I then used humor to point out that it was inherently contradictory and now you're upset that I pointed it out. You then, yet again, contradict yourself by complaining about insults...while simultaneously throwing out insults towards me. Sorry that I find it humorous and you only see it as sincerity. You could just admit you were wrong and apologize, but, ya know- why exercise personal responsibility and take care of yourself when you can blame Democrats???
When I hear Wayne LaPierre say (CNN) that he and the NRA support armed security at each and every school, I wonder why not one single journalist has inquired about financial support to back his words.
It may not be realized by media journalists (yet), but in the town I live in the cost of placing an officer at our high schools are exceesive of $80k per cop - per (9 month) school term. This cost is paid from the schools own budget, thus taking funding from real education efforts by teachers. I have no doubt that in other districts the cost exceeds $100K.
Someone should point out to those who agree with LaPierre that when he says, "Schools who choose to have armed officers ..." are often only those who have an extra $100K lying around.
Paying for officers to patrol our schools requires the daily use of a patrol car in order for the officer to be correctly equipped to perform this duty, therefore it is included in the cost of the cop for hire (as it were).
Since when did protecting our school children become an equivalent to catching shoplifters at Walmart?
Question: I don't seem to recall ever seeing a gun law on any ballot, and let's just say I've been voting for more than a few years. Why is that? Is it because guns are deemed a "constitutional" right by some people? If a majority of people, including NRA members, are actually in favor or stricter laws, why don't we ever get to vote on them? That would seem like low-hanging fruit to some politicians, at least in states that aren't Texas or Arizona. And, if it is because of some sort of lame argument about the 2nd amendment, the right-wing wackadoos found a way to make it okay to let the public vote on who can and can't get married. So why can't the rest of us decide who can and can't buy guns? Just curious.
Typo: Make that "Gary *G*utting" (vs. "Cutting").
More background here: http://philosophy.nd.edu/people/faculty/gary-gutting/
You would get to vote on a constitutional ammendment modernizing the 2nd ammendment guaranteeing carry in all 50 states...It would pass easily (38 states)
A bill to repeal the 2nd might pass in 10-12 states tops....
The research on gun violence is idiotic shockingly being shot is bad for you
While the female body can't shut down a rape...a 9 mm has been proven very effective
...a 9mm has been proven very effective
Alex123etc, please provide statistics showing the number of female sexual assault victims who used a gun to successfully stop a rapist.
93,000,000+ (legal) gun owners in the U.S. did NOT commit a violent gun related act last week. However 2,500 patients die in hospitals each week due to medical malpractice and negligence by way of wrongful drug prescription or dosage. If the airlines killed 2,500 persons every week the industry would be shut down in two weeks by federal enforement. Gun ownership is not the problem as 99% of gun violence is committed by unlicensed gun owners - read that CRIMINALS.
If the guns are taken from legitimate gun owners, only criminals will have guns, and what do you think will happen to the crime rate?