Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

GUNS

Should Obama Overturn the Ban on Gun Research?

The 'executive order the NRA should fear the most'

Next>

by Mary Noble

Senior Editor t

Image: patdollard.com

Would it surprise you to learn that government agencies are banned from gun research?

In 1996, Congress barred research by the CDC that might "advocate or promote gun control." In 2003, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was banned from providing researchers with data on gun injuries and deaths. And in 2012, the National Institutes of Health was barred from funding gun research.

Obama could overturn those bans via executive order, a step the Atlantic Wire calls the "order the NRA should fear the most." The NRA favors restrictions on gun research, and lobbied for the part of Obamacare that bars doctors from providing data on gun injuries to researchers.

Currently there is no scientific consensus on relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths. There simply aren't enough studies to know whether higher gun ownership would prevent gun deaths, or increase them. With more studies, the government might learn which gun control policies - if any - would prevent gun violence and gun-related deaths.

Overturning the CDC's gun research ban is among 19 orders that Obama is considering as part of the gun control package cooked up by Joe Biden.

Via Rachel Maddow and the Atlantic Wire.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Should Obama overturn the bans on government-funded gun research?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • DARSB
    !
    @DerivePI Only Congress and the Courts can overturn legislation. I understood the ban on firearms research was by executive order, was it not?
  • Fishbone345
    !
    @DerivePI "! Do you believe the executive should be able to overturn previous legislative actions?"
    Don't you? Romney said one of his first actions as President was going to be the repeal of Obamacare.
    Translation for Dummies: it's ok if I agree with it.
  • u
    Litdes
    !
    Well, if congress passed the law in 1996, this one rests squarely on Clinton's shoulders. I agree that the ban should be overturned. Research with this kind of limitation is useless.

  • View all 11 replies >

  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    Sure..... Why not spend a few billion on research that proves nothing other than what the researcher wanted to prove when he started? Isn't that what all our Government sponsored research programs do? Global Warming comes to mind.
  • OpEn_MiNdEd
    !
    Few billion?? Where did you get that figure?? And even if it did cost that much, a few TRILLION was spent on two fruitless wars. So why not try something that may save lives?? You're extremely arrogant to suggest that research is a waste of time and is always biased.

    It's obvious you ignore evidence you don't like e.g. Global Warming. Let me ask you something, who benefits from G.W. being fact?? No one of course. Because everyone will suffer. But who stands to lose from G.W. being fact?? Now there is a much more interesting answer...
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    @OpEn_MiNdEd HUH? ENGLISH PLEASE.

    I know it's hard to type while frothing at the mouth but if you take a deep breath and have a few sips of Kool Aid you MIGHT come out with a message that's at least legible... I'm not holding out for much more than that.
  • FenceSitter K
    Politix Diplomat
    !
    Thanks for your comments everyone. Please be mindful of posting ad hominem remarks/attacks in your posts.

    - FenceSitter
  • OpEn_MiNdEd
    !
    @Sharpshooter There is nothing wrong with my English. There may or may not be some minor grammar or spelling errors but so what?? It's definitely readable. Frothing at the mouth?? Now where did you get the silly idea that I'm enraged?? What's happening here is that made some valid points that have clearly got your underwear in a knot. You can't find any way to counter me directly, so you try to save face by changing the subject...

  • View all 34 replies >

  • Politic-n
    !
    Nope, the government already wastes enough money on useless things.

    More guns in the hands of citizens = less crime, more freedom, more safety, more independence, more people protecting themselves instead of being scared children expecting someone else to protect them.

    It was banned in the first place, by a bi-partisan effort, as it was only being manipulated by anti-American/Anti-gun extremists who want to disarm citizens for no good ends, who selectively hired "researchers" who developed skewed "studies" that were proven time and again to be contrived and false.
  • dances-weebles
    !
    @DARSB there is also evidence that when the average person attempts to meet with an intruder with a weapon, the weapon is quickly turned upon them and they are killed where they probably wouldn't have been if they hadn't been armed. this goes for knives, guns and even a baseball bat.
  • OpEn_MiNdEd
    !
    "More guns in the hands of citizens = less crime..."

    What sort of crime do you mean exactly?? Because the rate of violent crime in America doesn't follow your logic of 'more guns, less crime'. Observe...

    http://inmalafide.com/no-correlation-between-...
    "Yep, there’s basically no correlation between gun control laws and violent crime. The top five most violent states per capita, as well as seven of of the top ten most violent states, have lax gun laws. However, the five least violent states have weak laws as well, with eight of the bottom ten states placing poorly on the Brady Campaign’s scorecard.

    Strict gun control states are similarly scattered all over the place. California, number one on the Brady scorecard, is number 13 for violent crime, and other states with strong gun laws such as Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, and Illinois are at numbers 6, 9, 10, and 11 for violent crime, respectively. At the same time, several other states with strong gun laws such as Hawaii, Connecticut, and Rhode Island are quite low on violent crime, clocking in at numbers 39, 41, and 45, respectively."

    But you have to remember this is violent crime in general. Gun crime rates would be more better except we can't get any definitive data. I would of thought that 'Gun Rights' advocates would be in favor of more research, given that there may be a chance that.it could actually support their cause. But the fact that the NRA and most (if not all) GR's oppose it shows there is little confidence. What exactly do they have to hide??
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    @DARSB High percent of the time I not only agree with you, but look forward to reading your "quips". With that said, ownership of any weapon (other than guns) can increase that "likelihood of homicide and suicide in the home." Why....it's in the home!
    Heck, ownership of a marriage license in the home can increase the "likelihood of homicide and suicide in the home."
  • DARSB
    !
    @stepped_in_it In my experience owning Marriage License is closely correlated with lawn mowing, couch sleeping, and being nice to my brother-in-law (failing at #3 leads to #2).

  • View all 33 replies >

  • harold_lloyd
    !
    This sounds like the tobacco companies, suppress reearch and then deny any research exists and maintain that no action should be taken in ignorance...

    I don't care what principles people follow in their private lives, but when it comes to governing, we should insist on adherence to accepted science as espoused by the National Academy or some other equally rational group.

    That means doing the research on any relevant topic without regard to anything but obtaining objective results in accordance with the scientific method.
  • OpEn_MiNdEd
    !
    Couldn't of put it better myself. I was once arguing with a nut that believed it was impossible to tell if Gun Control would work, simply because there was no research to support this claim. No wonder he/she supported the NRA so much...
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    "In 1996, Congress barred research by the CDC that might "advocate or promote gun control." In 2003, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was banned from providing researchers with data on gun injuries and deaths. And in 2012, the National Institutes of Health was barred from funding gun research."
    HMMM....1996 = Both houses had Repub majorities >>> 2003 Both houses had Repub majorities >>> 2012 Congress repubs Senate Democrat
    "progressive liberals" ?? Are we having dreams or knightmares there?
  • u
    KyleMFb
    !
    The only thing the research programs are going to tell us is things we already know...guns kill people and the reason America has so many crazy white kids that go on shooting sprees is bc guns are pretty much handed to them...I think the billions that would be spent on useless gun research programs could be better spent
  • dances-weebles
    !
    actually, it was banned in the first place by the force of the first republican dominated house in 40 years and a republican senate. bipartisan by bleeding hemorrhoids.
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    I'm not for the government researching anything because the government is biased. However, I'm fine with a private non-partisan group researching this. It is worthwhile to have proof one way or the other of what works to make our society safer. Warning liberals, it most likely would be proven that gun ownership does indeed make society safer.
  • OpEn_MiNdEd
    !
    What happens (or should happen) is that multiple groups will do separate studies.

    "Warning liberals, it most likely would be proven that gun ownership does indeed make society safer."

    If that was true, then why is the NRA opposing it?? Must be low confidence.
  • o
    thejimbo
    !
    The "Gun Violence" and "Homicide" statistics used by the anti-gun lobby also include all justifiable, and accidental, shootings and deaths incurred Legally, by law enforcement personnel in the line of duty. If the anti gun "spin doctors" subtracted the "justifiable homicides" and "accidental" gun related injuries incurred, legally, in the line of duty, by law enforcement, or in legal "justifiable" self defense by civilians, the actual "illegal gun violence" statistics would be dramatically lower.
    But then these real facts would not be of useful service to the anti gun "male bovine fecal matter slinging" agenda. Figures don't lie, but liars manipulate figures.
  • o
    bambi33
    !
    Indeed, private research has been conducted:
    All credible research shows that guns are used (by private citizens) ten-times more often (at least) to save innocent life, than they are to murder someone. Moreover, Millions of times every year armed private citizens employ firearms to thwart crime – without ever firing a single shot in most cases. And when they do actually fire their weapons, they are more successful in stopping the criminal – with far fewer collateral casualties – than all the police put together.

    References:
    "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of self-Defense with a Gun" by Dr. Gary Kleck, Ph. D – Criminologist

    "The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9(3):249-287 " by Dr. Gary Kleck, Ph. D – Criminologist

    “Why do people support gun control?” Journal of Criminal Justice 37(5) " by Dr. Gary Kleck, Ph. D – Criminologist

    “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott, Ph. D.
  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    I really don't care if he does or doesn't I just don't want one penny of my tax money to fund this research. If the medical, scientific, research or crazy individuals or groups wanting to make a point feel as though they need this information the setup their own means of gathering, analyzing and disseminating this information. Something to consider against the funding of your favorite social program and why they always fall short.
  • dances-weebles
    !
    gee... what do you plan on doing with all your tax money, spend it invading other do nothing small countries and dumping billions of dollars into them just for fun and the profit of a few conservative peckerheads?
  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    @dances-weebles Well I see you placed a great deal of effort in that response. I have always advocated deep military cuts, never supported the past couple of wars we waged particularly to Iraq which did absolutely nothing to our nation. I was only thinking we could pay some bills that all. But by all means, please continue to toss out your emotional, flawed and not so well thought out assumption responses.
  • dances-weebles
    !
    @Buzzfriendly then i appologise for jumping to conclusions. i was ass-uming that you were speaking just like most of the mental midgets on here. can we also cut down on the corporate welfare while we're at it?
  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    @dances-weebles Apology accepted. Sure we can cut the corporate welfare. Oil and gas are profitable no reason for handouts there. Numerous holes in tax code should be fixed, eliminate funding to countries like Israel and Pakistan, close military bases outside the US and move those folks to our borders. I see no reason why a combination of tax code corrections and spending cuts can't put us on track. We are all in this debt boat together so the pain needs to be shared by us all. Picking and choosing who feels that pain causes gridlock and we all suffer from that so might as well suffer in a manner that has some benefits.
  • dances-weebles
    !
    @Buzzfriendly i do believe that those who can better shoulder the load should be more than excited to do so, however. yeah... everyone should feel it, but those who are more enured to the pain should take more of it, don't you think?

    look at it this way. if upper middle income could afford for me to live in a wonderful 3 million dollar condominium apartment in the perfect global location, to be able to travel when and where i like (except possibly to mars) take cruises, eat anywhere and anything i like and have a wonderful wine cellar, and yet i had 200 million dollars sitting in bank accounts in foreign countries and in investments, why shouldn't i be shouldn't i be willing to relinquish everything down to the upper middle income level. i'd still be able to have everything that i could ever want (except for that trip to mars...(but then again, one would think that i should try try to clean out this planet before i start thinking about moving to another, right?)

    what i'm trying to say is that there is no way on earth that the über wealthy shouldn't be more than willing to fix the problem... after all, they are the ones who have had the largest hand in creating it, i believe.

  • View all 15 replies >

  • DerivePI
    !
    Obama can overturn these legislative bans, the president can not.

    What? Now he thinks he's Andrew Jackson out killing Indians?
  • frigginhell
    !
    This is an attempt by one segment of society to impose it's will by controlling the arguement and suppriessing pertinent information. Gun deaths already look ugly the way it is. Let's see that data in a better light. As for the small government arguement, go jump in a lake. The government is not our nanny but it is there to serve our best interests. The whiners complaining the government is just trying to take our guns clearly don't realize how many bought and paif for or just plain scared of the gun lobby people actually run the government. The side complaining to keep this from happening is the same side complaining we're not having an open disucussion because we're not talking about locking up your crazy son in the nuthouse and video games are to blame.
  • tiger45638
    !
    Obama is against the second amendment for the right to bear and carry arms. He runs over the Constitution like he is some kind of king rather the president that is to protect our rights as citizens. He has appointed Czars like the old rule from nations in the past that had absolute rule over their citizens. He seems to think he is the New World Order Dictator and treats those under him in the same manner. His wife Michelle is a false prophet much like the Bible predicated and no wonder he loves the muslins and is anti-semitic.
  • OpEn_MiNdEd
    !
    Explain how Gun Control and Gun Ban are the same. That's right, they AREN'T the same are they?? No more than Birth Control being the same as a ban on sex. Is it too much to ask for the use of logic when it comes to these sorts of arguments??
  • jessejaymes
    !
    WOW!!!! You just used the same exact words that the far right used to describe Clinton. We survived Clinton, I suspect we'll survive Obama. I mean, after all we did survive (barely) GW Bush.
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    If I didn't know you were just repeating what you've heard from far right wing pundits, I would ask you to explain these ridiculous claims. But since these are not exactly your words, well, never mind. When you have put some actual thought into and formed your own opinion, get back to me, would you?
  • u
    Cheenoguy
    !
    Okay I know you are just repeating crazy sh*t you heard at church, but I would love to hear your evidence that Mrs Obama is a false prophet.
    Oh and some evidence that he is anti-semetic.
    Oh and gun rights have increased under Obama.
    Come to think of it there isn't one thing in your diatribe that is correct.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    Boy I'm torn on this one. I think it's responsible to have accurate statistics. I don't think it's responsible for govt to pass or ban things that hide those statistics (whatever they may be) from the public. At the same time anyone with a "cause" can make a reasonable sounding case for that cause but we are BROKE. And the standard response is "this is just a drop in the bucket financially". True. But enough drops in a bucket and pretty soon the bucket is overflowing. I'm torn.
  • u
    CommonSense
    !
    Yes, let the truth speak for itself which ever way it may fall.
    Also as the article points out there's no scientific consensus so what are we doing rushing to bans?
    Let's let the research speak first instead of doing something "just to do something". No solution is still better than a solution that does nothing but wastes or even backfires.
  • Medicinebow
    !
    We need to spend untold millions to find out what exactly? That guns in the wrong hands can be dangerous? That we can make safer guns? That criminals use them sometimes? So that the gov't can tell us we don't need the 2nd amendment?
  • R Load more comments...