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

[Scorpio]

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

By MICHAEL LUO
Published: January 25, 2011

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?

Rich Addicks for The New York Times

Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, in his office in Decatur, Ga.

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.”

more here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us...ml?_r=1&ref=us

[TomD]

Decatur, GA? Emory? CDC? I'm from Atlanta and any local can tell you that is the liberal trifecta. The CDC in particular has a long standing hostility to guns and used Fed money for decades compiling famously distorted "research" papers that have been long since thoroughly debunked.

In their "research" they consistently refuse to differentiate between murders, suicides and lawful uses of firearms, lumping all deaths into one category. They also refuse to include any societal benefits from the existence and/or use of firearms. An equivalent would be to weigh the auto only in light of the 30,000-40,000 deaths a year from wrecks. With no consideration of any benefit, you would have to conclude that the auto should be eliminated. Hell, in a cost/benefit analysis on anything conceivable, if you examine only cost or only benefit and neglect the other, you can prove anything you wish.

Which is precisely what National Center for Injury Control and Prevention did and precisely why their funding was cut.

[Aurumag]

CDC is certainly not synonymous with scientific facts in my book.

On the other hand, NRA = NFA.

GOA = BoR Article 2.

[Elvis]

I really don't care if they cause everything bad in the world. It's still my God-given right, and there's no law that can prevent my from exercising it.