Gun Research Ban Question

[jfisch]

OK, so something I've been coming across lately has me a little confused so I figured I'd ask some questions and post a few articles about it.
Up until recently (since around 1990ish) certain federal health agencies were banned from conducting research into gun violence.
Why was this ban in place originally? Why isn't anyone concerned about it now?
A few articles I've found on it can be read below but if anyone has any insight into this please feel free to speak up.
With so much focus on what might get banned and such I have a horrible feeling like something major might be slipping under the radar here.
Link Removed
Gun violence research: NRA and Congress blocked gun-control studies at CDC. - Slate Magazine
Debate Rages On Even As Research Ban On Gun Violence Ends : Shots - Health News : NPR
I tried to find stories from a few sources so if you can find others post them as well.
I can't seem to figure out why the NRA was against this in the first place. Some of the articles I've read say that it seems like it might be a back door to subvert gun ownership... basically what they're afraid of (as far as I can tell) is that if "science" says guns are bad then we have to accept that they need to be taken away.
Thoughts? Comments? Sarcasm?

 

[blarg]

Considering the source (NPR) I'm willing to bet some kind of leftist agenda is at work.

The government stands to gain a lot if they can prove guns are bad. Look at what happened when there was power to be had in proving that people cause global warming.

It is also illegal for government agencies to do any research that might show affirmative action isn't working or collect crime statistics by race.

It is also a misdirection and an attempt to reframe the gun debate on liberal terms. Statistics don't matter. It's a constitutional right to have guns. Not because the founders thought they were safe, but because they guaranteed our freedom from a tyrannical government. What if statistics showed that forcing people to incriminate themselves made the rest of us safer? Or being able to station troops or law enforcement officers in citizens' homes?

 

[jfisch]

Considering the source (NPR) I'm willing to bet some kind of leftist agenda is at work.

That's why I posted 2 other articles from other sources. I'm sure the NPR and Slate articles are left.
Here's another short one:
House Dems release guns proposal - POLITICO.com
I'll quote from it.

The 15-point proposal includes most of the legislation that is already being discussed in Congress. It also suggests addressing the “glorification of violence seen and heard though our movie screens, television shows, music and video games,” an issue that has seen minimal attention as Congress begins to weigh mental health and gun legislation.

“Congress should fund scientific research on the relationship between popular culture and gun violence, while ensuring that parents have access to the information they need to make informed decisions about what their families watch, listen to, and play,” the report recommends.

 

[blarg]

They oppose tax money being spent so that an organization that is likely to skew their results to support a leftist agenda and then legislate based on those skewed results. Again this isn't about research ans science. It's about blocking the manufacturing of false "facts". It's the same reason that leftists would oppose any government research into the effects on families and individual after abortions.

 

[BluesStringer]

So you're asking why gun-owners generally, whether N R A members or not, oppose "scientific research" that is clearly intended to build a foundation for further usurpations of their constitutional rights? And you can't "figure out" why that might be?

First of all, I don't have anything against science per se, but government-funded science is never free of political agenda, or else they would never get the money in the first place.

Secondly, the government has no business taking a scientist's word as being superior or more valid than a common citizen just arguing for his rights. Though there may be a handful of doctors and other practitioners of science in elected government, generally speaking, Congress, the President or the courts are no more capable of discerning between solid scientific methodology and just some shlub with a degree or three in his hip pocket spewing agenda-driven tripe with no scientific basis at all backing it up. Or maybe they were called upon to "inform" Congress or courts specifically for that reason, that they can be presented as scientists because of their educational background, but are only there to push some political meme that they have never done any of their own research on. It's a way to "hide the decline" in congressional hearing integrity that's used constantly, as evidenced by the fact that the "scientists" involved in the emails containing that quote are still working and whose "science" is still the basis for much of the usurpative legislation on environmental issues to this day.

You found the links. Did you read them? Did you follow any links from those pages?

Your first link to the Gun Rights Examiner is unambiguous as to why CDC influence over gun issues is dangerous to our rights. But you do have to read David Codrea's piece, as well as follow at least some of the several links contained in it.

The Slate Magazine interview with Dr. Wintemute has fewer links and is an easier read, but only easier to read if you either have a leftist bent going in, or if you really enjoy having hidden agendas left unexposed and are unwilling to consider the source. In the piece you linked to, Wintemute claims that, "There is a wanted poster on the Internet" for him. Did you follow that link? It goes to another Codrea site called "The War on Guns" and instead of a "wanted poster," there is a picture of the man with a warning to gun-show attendees that the guy is going undercover at gun shows, making surreptitious recordings and taking pictures/videos with hidden cameras, while trying to spy on all the nefarious happenings he imagines take place there. The link is proof of Wintemute's own dishonesty and his rabidly anti-gun agenda, so why he posted the link himself is rather baffling, but why he called it a "wanted poster" isn't. He's a lying hack. It's that simple. And we already have a Congress full to the brim with lying hacks. Why do we need another one, or a whole bureaucracy filled with them, advising Congress on "scientifically-arrived-at" justifications for taking our rights away? Lying hacks advising lying hacks is going to always enure to usurpative legislation that is based on nothing more than agenda-driven "research" and "science."

Does that start to answer your question?

Blues

ETA: As to the question of why nobody is talking about this issue around here, it's a dead issue. The law is clear for the time being, no CDC research into whether or not our rights need "scientific" research to justify or nullify them, whichever the case may be. They are natural rights. Science isn't authorized by the Constitution to confirm or refute that in an "official" study.

 

[blarg]

Rights do not require justification through data or scientific research.

 

[Danieljoe1]

And lets face the fact, with any data given, it can be twisted. Lets take my small town for example... There have been no murders in the time I have been alive. So a headline could read "Small town Safe" or it could be twisted into "Killer so good no one knows they are there" Something more realistic is Piers Morgans "100,00 people die from guns each year" That also includes officer involved shootings and law abiding citizens protecting themselves. Maybe Im just cynical, but when I hear polls, or statistics, I want to know the other side of the story.

 

[blarg]

In Danieljoes example above, that 100000 number also includes suicides.

In some more extreme cases (maybe even the one above) ANY death of a gun owner or immediate family is counted. For example if a gun owner died in a car accident or drowned it would still be considered a "gun related death".

The same academic dishonesty was employed in creating inflated "smoking related deaths" numbers which were then used to beat smokers and tobacco companies into submission (I'm not a smoker so I don't care but it's wrong).

I wonder if the OP was a troll... You know post some misleading information and lead us to the conclusion they would like us to arrive at.

 

[UATKP]

I believe that even if the Congress or Oboyimanutjob do anything to strike down our Second Amendment (which they can't), it still will not affect my right keep and bear arms. Since my right comes from my Creator, they can't take that away.
I suggest that everybody educate themselves on what the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is all about. It explains that the people held conventions to get the first ten amendments inserted into the Constitution as The Bill of Rights, and a good explanation of the preamble's first sentence may be found at:
Preamble to the ?Bill of Rights? « Adask's law , among other very interesting and relevant information.
Contrary to what the genetic-deficient libtards and Oboyimanutjob say, I am still a free man as are they. Which also means they are free (even if not legal) to come to my house and attempt to confiscate my firearms.

 

[UATKP]

(snip) I wonder if the OP was a troll... You know post some misleading information and lead us to the conclusion they would like us to arrive at.

Nope. He isn't. He's curious and learning, just like all of us.

 

[BluesStringer]

I wonder if the OP was a troll... You know post some misleading information and lead us to the conclusion they would like us to arrive at.

To be fair, he didn't post misleading information (David Codrea is about as far from anti-gun as you can get). He gave varied sources and asked people's opinions on the subject. At least that's what I read when I responded.

Blues

 

[jfisch]

I wonder if the OP was a troll... You know post some misleading information and lead us to the conclusion they would like us to arrive at.

No far from it. I'm no troll... but I'll do my best not to take offense by the comment. You don't know me but I assure you there is no hidden agenda here. Someone simply asking a question shouldn't be automatically labeled.
Blues has it right I'm just trying to get an idea of what others think about it. I was curious because I wasn't seeing a lot of discussion on this aspect of the ignorant changes the government seems hell bent to implement. I tried to post several sources (the scientist in me requires this) and sadly 2 of them were from leftish sources. There isn't a lot of coverage on it and most of it is coming from the "mainstream" media.
One thing that confused me is that the NRA specifically says video games are one of the many causes of the recent violence. One thing they want to do with this is check and see if there is a correlation. I agree that this is bad news. Our fundamental rights aren't based on science but as a young(er) adult who grew up with video games I personally think the correlation is BS. Unless the person is already prone to violence I don't think video games are going to spark this in a completely sane person that can tell reality from fiction. Sure we're glorifying violence to a level that when you take a step back can be disturbing but I don't think this is the key. Bad people were doing bad things long before video games were even conceived as possible. I'm sure they'll skew the results like many of you have suggested but I would love to see them come forward and say there is no correlation between video games and sane people committing violence. There is no magic scapegoat for insanity, murder, violence, etc.
I think with this magnifying glass placed over the 2nd amendment we're all focusing on what will be or won't be banned and I think this may be the key to their approach. Get us all riled up over losing things while they sneak in these small things that on the surface mean little to us but a few years down the road to may lead to the ban they're shouting about now. I'm sure it's been mentioned many times before but the government isn't exactly up front with all their plans.
I'm sure this has also been mentioned before as well but what really scares me the most is that it seems like they're testing the water with what they perceive as the "weakest" or "most easily manipulated" amendment. If they succeed in changing the interpretation of the 2nd amendment what's to stop them from reinterpreting the rest of them as well. Speech, religion, search and seizure, trial by jury, etc. could all be in jeopardy. It's not just about guns here.
The most common thing I've heard from anti-gun people is that "The 2nd amendment was written at a different time and they had no idea the kind of guns or security we have now." Ok, yeah probably not but they were saying it's a fundamental right regardless. I'm pretty sure the rest of the Bill of Rights was written at the same time but they never use that as an argument against free speech. Funny isn't it?
:sarcastic:

 

[father-of-three]

It looks like three more attempts to try to demonize the National Rifle Association.

 

[blarg]

O

No far from it. I'm no troll... but I'll do my best not to take offense by the comment. You don't know me but I assure you there is no hidden agenda here. Someone simply asking a question shouldn't be automatically labeled.


The most common thing I've heard from anti-gun people is that "The 2nd amendment was written at a different time and they had no idea the kind of guns or security we have now." Ok, yeah probably not but they were saying it's a fundamental right regardless. I'm pretty sure the rest of the Bill of Rights was written at the same time but they never use that as an argument against free speech. Funny isn't it?
:sarcastic:

Ok... Point taken and I withdraw my troll comment.

Whenever someone brings up the whole "the 2nd amendment was written at a different time" I point out that so was the first... When there was no Internet or radio or video games or TV or abortions or high speed presses and overnight distribution of newspapers.

I don't believe that video games cause violent behavior directly (I grew up on them too) but I have seen video games make bad parenting and bad tendencies worse. Like everything else, some people are capable of handling it and some people are not and it's not up to a beurocrat to make that call.

 

[Oregano]

It looks like three more attempts to try to demonize the National Rifle Association.

I'll be the "troll" then and point out that your very well reasoned attempt at a logical conversation is completely in the wrong forum. I'm a gun lover that's pretty disgusted with this place.. take a look around.. any sort of discussion with any logic or reason just leads to a pile of people jumping in saying, "you are taking my rights", or "you are a troll, you don't even own guns". blah blah blah.. bunch of nitwits that have no concept of logic or reasonable gentlemanly discussion. Welcome back to grade school.

 

[jfisch]

Ok... Point taken and I withdraw my troll comment.

I don't believe that video games causes violent behavior directly (I grew up on them too) but I have seen video games make bad parenting and bad tendencies worse. Like everything else, some people are capable of handling it and some people are not and it's not up to a beurocrat to make that call.

Thanks, I appreciate your consideration. Not much going around these days.
I agree that kids being placed in front of a tv and giving them the remote or a controller is no alternative for real parenting.

I'll be the "troll" then and point out that your very well reasoned attempt at a logical conversation is completely in the wrong forum. I'm a gun lover that's pretty disgusted with this place.. take a look around.. any sort of discussion with any logic or reason just leads to a pile of people jumping in saying, "you are taking my rights", or "you are a troll, you don't even own guns". blah blah blah.. bunch of nitwits that have no concept of logic or reasonable gentlemanly discussion. Welcome back to grade school.

Thanks for you attempt at defending me but I am fully aware of what goes on here. In fact I have been guilty of the very thing you point out. With less than 10 posts to your name I am not sure you really should speak about the validity of this forum and its members. Me with less than 100 post I am not even comfortable with drawing any conclusions. That being said the troll comment was taken back so let's move on and remain on topic. Thanks.

 

[BluesStringer]

It looks like three more attempts to try to demonize the National Rifle Association.

I have to wonder if you even know who David Codrea (jfisch's first link in his OP) is first of all. Hint: He broke the story of Fast & Furious and is responsible for exposing the story to every single person who has ever heard of it. You can verify that for yourself by reading his voluminous original research on it in these links:

Project Gunwalker Scandal Resources
David Codrea's Journalist Guides:
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed

If you didn't know who Codrea was before you claimed that the link was intended to "demonize" the N R A, I suggest you read it again with an eye to understanding that Codrea is one of the most well-read, well-spoken advocates for 2nd Amendment rights anywhere in this country. Is he "anti-N R A?" I don't even know to tell you the truth. I know without a doubt though, that the article you claimed was nothing more than an attempt to "demonize" the N R A is anything but. You really should read it again and try this time to understand what you're reading.

Blues

 

[father-of-three]

I have to wonder if you even know who David Codrea (jfisch's first link in his OP) is first of all. Hint: He broke the story of Fast & Furious and is responsible for exposing the story to every single person who has ever heard of it. You can verify that for yourself by reading his voluminous original research on it in these links:

Project Gunwalker Scandal Resources
David Codrea's Journalist Guides:
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed

If you didn't know who Codrea was before you claimed that the link was intended to "demonize" the N R A, I suggest you read it again with an eye to understanding that Codrea is one of the most well-read, well-spoken advocates for 2nd Amendment rights anywhere in this country. Is he "anti-N R A?" I don't even know to tell you the truth. I know without a doubt though, that the article you claimed was nothing more than an attempt to "demonize" the N R A is anything but. You really should read it again and try this time to understand what you're reading.

Blues

I apologize for inappropriately grouping the three articles together with no explanation. I understand your point and agree with it regarding the Codrea article. He himself is not the one criticizing, or demonizing as I called it, but pointing out that it is occuring. The other 2 articles are more critical on the issue, hence my concern for the demonizong. Sorry about the mis-step on my part.