CDC collecting gun data again

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by artabr, Oct 19, 2009.

  1. artabr

    artabr New Member

    U.S., after long ban, quietly begins to study gun safety. :rolleyes: :mad:

    By Jim McElhatton

    More than a decade after Congress cut funding for firearms research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another federal health agency has been spending millions of dollars to study such topics as whether teenagers who carry firearms run a different risk of getting shot compared with suffering other sorts of injuries.

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also has been financing research to investigate whether having many liquor stores in a neighborhood puts people at greater risk of getting shot.

    Such studies are coming under sharp scrutiny by Republican lawmakers who question whether the money could be better spent on biomedical research at a time of increasing competition for NIH funding. They're also leery of NIH research relating to firearms in general, recalling how 13 years ago the House voted to cut CDC funding when critics complained that the agency was trying to win public support for gun control.

    "It's almost as if someone's been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago," Rep. Joe L. Barton, Texas Republican, said of one of the NIH studies. "But it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then."

    The NIH, which administers more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds for medical research, defended the grants.

    "Gun related violence is a public health problem - it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH," Don Ralbovsky, NIH spokesman, wrote in an e-mail responding to questions about the grants.

    "These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances involved in many violent crimes, especially how alcohol policy may reduce the public health burden from gun-related injury and death," he said.

    Mr. Barton and Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the ranking member on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, respectively, first questioned the NIH about the gun-related grants in a letter Friday to NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins.

    The letter sought information about grants for current projects and for others starting as far back as 2002, totaling nearly $5 million. The lawmakers called the study of criminal behavior "a laudable endeavor which consistently benefits the American people, often in ways that people do not see."

    "And yet we have trouble understanding the administration's desire to spend, for example, $642,561 in taxpayer funds to learn how inner-city teenagers whose friends, acquaintances and peers carry firearms and drink alcohol on street corners could show up in emergency rooms with gunshot wounds.

    "The day-follows-night quality of this question and its potential answer simply do not seem to justify the expense that would be borne by people who work and pay their taxes," the lawmakers wrote.

    Special interests on both sides of the gun-control issue differ on the question of whether the NIH ought to be conducting firearms-related research.

    "This kind of research does concern us, and we're going to be watching it closely," said Erich Pratt, a spokesman for the Gun Owners Association of America. "You'd think that after the CDC had their money revoked, we wouldn't be dealing with this."

    But Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Republican lawmakers were "blaming the messenger" by criticizing the research.

    "Burying the evidence is what the gun lobby is best at," he said. "Whether the members of Congress like it or not, gun violence is a public health problem in America today."

    NIH records show that one study being questioned by lawmakers aimed to "investigate whether adolescents who consume alcohol and/or carry firearms, and/or whose daily activities occur in surroundings rich in alcohol and/or firearms, face a differential risk of being shot with a firearm or injured in a non-gun assault."

    A separate study on child safety looked at the decision-making process by couples on whether to own firearms, in part trying to identify whether women are less supportive of firearms compared with their partners.

    The questions about whether the NIH should fund such research are being raised more than a decade after the House voted against restoring $2.6 million to the CDC's budget, money that the agency was spending on gun studies. The move, backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), was made after Republicans and some Democrats complained that the CDC was pushing for gun control.

    The money was eventually restored to the CDC budget but with a spending restriction that has remained in place ever since, mandating that funds cannot be used "in whole or in part to advocate or promote gun control."

    Mr. Barton and Mr. Walden, both of whom have received political contributions from the NRA over the years, requested more information on the NIH firearms research funding a month after they separately raised questions about several other NIH grants.

    Their earlier letter to the NIH cited questions about grants that "do not seem to be of the highest scientific rigor," including one on whether participating on dragon-boat paddling teams helped cancer survivors more than taking part in an organized walking program.

    Last edited: Oct 19, 2009
  2. Interesting timing:rolleyes: They'll concoct some crap "statistics" about how guns are a "health risk" and use it as an excuse to deny people healthcare under the forthcoming AdolfCare. You'll be required to have health insurance, but if you have guns you'll be denined, thus making you in violation of the law and liable to the IRS for fines or being charged as a felon:rolleyes::mad::mad:

    These socialist scumbags aren't fooling anyone, except the brainwashed liberal Obamites:rolleyes:

  3. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico

    Hey, be nice to walien. :cool:
  4. :D:D:D

    Just remember, he's not the only one:rolleyes:
  5. 40CalJoe

    40CalJoe New Member

    Jun 28, 2009
    In the middle
    Yea, but Hussein Obama didn't go after gun rights. In their thinking more than one way to skin a gun owner.
  6. Terry_P

    Terry_P New Member

    Mar 23, 2008
    I suspect what they will do is put a surcharge on per gun. That will require registration and then the loop is closed.
  7. 22WRF

    22WRF Well-Known Member

    May 10, 2004
    Glen Beck had it all laid out today
  8. He was probably going to go after them, until he saw how many people rushed out and bought guns and ammo after his emaculate, I mean, I mean election. When he found out how many new guns were in circulation, he and his closet commie friends probably started dropping bricks in their pants. So now, enter the "gun violence epidemic" as a way to "nudge" people (to use Sunstein's terminology and methodology) into making the "correct choice" about owning guns:mad::mad:
  9. dbrodin

    dbrodin New Member

    Apr 15, 2009
    Duluth MN
    $642,561to study whether drunk gang bangers carrying guns are more likely to be shot than say, stabbed? I'll tell them the results for half the money! :D:D

    Our tax dollars at work to improve your life!!
  10. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    The purpose has nothing to do with gangbangers. It's part of a full court press to disarm the public. Mao said, "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun". They understand that and can not proceed past a certain point safely without a disarmed population. Look to be nudged.
  11. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico

    I'll even endorse your findings if you cut me in on some of the profits LOL :eek::D


    Trouble, we all know you are right with your statement. This administration is a threat to freedom.
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2009
  12. dbrodin

    dbrodin New Member

    Apr 15, 2009
    Duluth MN
    Very true. But they will study the bang gangers so they can get the skewed data they need to prove guns are bad.
  13. GMFWoodchuck

    GMFWoodchuck New Member

    Oct 9, 2008
    Binghamton, NY
    I fully expect the "no duh" results soon. Results like you're more likely to get shot by your own gun if you own one. Much like your more likely to get into a car accident if your in a car.

    No duh. Statistics skewered by need of particular data is as old as (wo)man's oldest profession.
  14. DebS

    DebS New Member

    Jun 13, 2009
    North Carolina
    "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

    Thomas Jefferson
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr NRA Supported Sharing Mental Health Data with NICS, Funds Not Appropriated May 26, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Sen. Rand Paul sues oBo over NSA data collection Feb 12, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr O'Barfy isn't anywhere in the national databases..... Dec 26, 2013
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Obummers data base on everyone Feb 8, 2013
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr EU-U.S. Data Privacy and Protection Agreement by Attorney General Eric Holder Jun 21, 2012