Skip to main content

Newtown logo with a black ribbon
The Journal of the American Medical Association takes on the gun lobby and the members of Congress who do its bidding.
The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research. [...]

When other agencies funded high-quality research, similar action was taken. In 2009, Branas et al published the results of a case-control study that examined whether carrying a gun increases or decreases the risk of firearm assault. In contrast to earlier research, this particular study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Two years later, Congress extended the restrictive language it had previously applied to the CDC to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health.

These are not the only efforts to keep important health information from the public and patients. For example, in 1997, Cummings et al used state-level data from Washington to study the association between purchase of a handgun and the subsequent risk of homicide or suicide. Similar studies could not be conducted today because Washington State's firearm registration files are no longer accessible.

When the gun lobby and the members of Congress bought off by it try to change the subject from the obscene availability of automatic and assault weapons to the state of our health system and how we need to focus on that, remember that they have systematically shut down the necessary research to do just that.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:00 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Why would they want to shut down fact finding ? (37+ / 0-)

    Do they fear the truth ?
    Are they hiding something ?
    Or do they just hate knowledge ?

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:05:23 PM PST

    •  D. All of the above. (14+ / 0-)

      "I'm totally pro-choice in the matter of abortion. But of course I'm also so radically pro-life that I think every person from birth onward must have full and affordable access to healthcare." - Gail Collins

      by gritsngumbo on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:19:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  why would you think? (0+ / 0-)

      Could it be related to the fact that these studies were (perceived to be) designed to produce anti-gun findings?

      Paid-for research is ugly, regardless who pays the bill.

      ______
      "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

      by cris0000 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:53:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I did not know that ! (6+ / 0-)
        Paid-for research is ugly, regardless who pays the bill.
        http://www.nasa.gov/...
        The Langley Research Center, established in 1917, was the first U.S. national laboratory devoted to the advancement of the science of flight. Long before the space program, scientists and engineers at Langley incubated the ideas and hatched the technology that made American aviation take off and fly. For 75 years now, information from the laboratory's wind tunnels and other unique research facilities has played a vital role in advancing American performance in the air.

        Langley gave birth to key components of the U.S. space program. As early as 1952, Langley researchers explored seriously the possibilities of manned flight into space. Out of these pioneering studies grew the NASA Space Task Group that conceived and directed Project Mercury, America's original man-in-space program. Langley provided much of the knowledge and know-how basic to the development of the Mercury spacecraft and its related systems, as well as to the creation of the worldwide tracking net-work that monitored the first space shots. Furthermore, it was at Langley where the original team of NASA astronauts (Alan Shepard, Virgil "Gus" Grissom, John Glenn, Scott Carpenter, Donald "Deke" Slayton, Walter Schirra and Gordon Cooper) received their basic training.

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:02:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is there such a thing as (6+ / 0-)

          unpaid-for research? All research, save for "facts" pulled out of one's nether regions, is going to be paid for by someone or other.

          •  Fund my research (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            beltane, CHUDLEIGH

            and I will find you an answer ?

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:09:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nope. Not for me anyway. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wader, Helpless, Skipbidder

            I manage research projects in substance abuse and HIV prevention and early intervention. I love my job, but I've grown fond of food, clothing, and shelter. So I'm not doing it for free.

            Just because you're not a drummer doesn't mean that you don't have to keep time. -- T. Monk

            by susanala on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 08:43:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  this is not about working for free (0+ / 0-)

              This is about unbiased research requiring the total absence of someone demanding specific results.

              Something we see less and less of every day.

              ______
              "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

              by cris0000 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:15:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  yes (0+ / 0-)

            thje classical university research (ivory tower) model is that the scientists is permanently well funded and can do whatever interests him.

            "Academic Freedom" - you know, this concept by which modern science came to be in the first place.

            I had CS professor, decades ago, who refused to even seek (the local equivalent of) NSF grants. Every grant, he argued, limits your view to the granter's objectives and negatively impacts the quality of your research.

            ______
            "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

            by cris0000 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:11:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please direct me to anywhere this utopia exists (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              indycam, Skipbidder

              I work in a public health school at a major research university. I am required to raise all funds necessary for my research, including 70% of my own salary. I am no tenured, but I am on tenure-track, and all of our tenured faculty face the same expectations.

              This is the standard business model at the vast majority of public health schools in this country, including many publicly funded schools. I had an offer from a public university in another state a few years ago. The offer letter specified that I was expected to bring in research money -- preferably from Federal sources which pay large overheads to the universities -- and that I was expected to bring in 65% of my salary. It specified, in detail, exactly how my salary would be cut if my two year rolling average of externally supported salary ever fell below 65%

              Public health researchers not on tenure-track often have it much worse, as generally 95% to 100% of salary is to come from external sources. I have colleagues at my university who have worked essentially full time for 50% pay waiting for the next grant to come in.

              I would love nothing more than to write what I want, with even a modest budget available to me for research. I have yet to discover such a place in this country.

              Even my colleagues overseas, for example at Medical Research Councils in the British diaspora, who DO work with full salary coverage from their employers (and does that ever help a LOT!) have to raise money for research from somewhere.

              Public health and medical research are expensive.

              Find me somewhere I can do it with a no-strings free-flowing budget and I will create a new religion in your honor. Seriously.

      •  should researchers work for free? (7+ / 0-)

        Why would I think? I think that these are people who are affecting the way that our government helps fund research. Some of them have no real interest or understanding of an honest research process.

        All research is "paid-for". None of us does research for free.

        Industry-sponsored research is rightfully scrutinized. Sometimes the skepticism regarding such research is insufficient.

        Any credible journal publishing will have funding source and conflict of interest reporting requirements.

        Are you asserting that you believe that the previously funded studies were manipulated in some way? That is what you are implying. If it isn't what you actually want to be implying, you may want to rephrase.

        The plural of anecdote is not data.

        by Skipbidder on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:04:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gun building good , research bad . (4+ / 0-)

          Me go hunt now .

          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

          by indycam on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:24:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Nope (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn

          they should be independently salaried (tenured) and permanently equipped with appropriate budgets to do good research.

          Only that produces unbiased research.

          ______
          "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

          by cris0000 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:18:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have been on industry funded organizations that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Skipbidder, TKO333

            dispersed research funds. Never was any topic so narrowly defined that results could be predicted, never did the funders demand specific research methods or protocols,  and never did unwelcome results result in banning of the researchers for future funding. Most of the members of the funding committees were scientists themselves and aware of possible conflicts.
            cris0000  sounds like life in a libertarian world is the same as it ever was (know nothing).

            I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. The TSA would put Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad on the no-fly list.

            by OHdog on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:22:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you are deluding yourself (0+ / 0-)

              "industry funded research" exists for exactly one reason: to produce the results industry wishes to produce.

              Any leeway you may perceive to have there is illusionary.

              And history shows industry gets what it wants from this research.

              ______
              "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

              by cris0000 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:55:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe for big tobacco and other sleazy industries (0+ / 0-)

                like big oil but your view of how research should be funded is so illogical, unworkable, and stupid that you may be beyond any attempt to understand reality.

                I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. The TSA would put Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad on the no-fly list.

                by OHdog on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:03:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It has worked for a few centuries (0+ / 0-)

                  ... nothing unworkable here.

                  You fund a University, give tenure to excellent scientists, and give them budgets to do their job.

                  You may occasionally not like the results - but that is how fundamental research works.

                  It is none of the things you ascribe to it, neither illogical nor unworkable nor stupid; your post is a single smear without any explanation. Actually, it is one big attack against academic research. One wonders why you would do that.

                  ______
                  "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

                  by cris0000 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 01:42:04 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  From the mid 1950s onward science has become too (0+ / 0-)

                    expensive for a school only funded budget. Federal and private funding has been the rule ever since. Scientists now are in the midst of a debate on how can science research be improved and how funding and the over competition can be improved.

                    I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. The TSA would put Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad on the no-fly list.

                    by OHdog on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 05:09:25 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  There is no unbiased research (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cris0000

            You will have very little medical research at all then.

            Half of all medical schools do not currently offer real salary-supported tenure for their clinical faculty. They are "tenure-of-title" only. (About 40% have this same arrangement for their basic science faculty as well.)

            Where does the money come from? From tuition, of course, but also from government grants. One of the goals for the NIH is to help shield researchers from the pressures that are associated with grants from groups with agendas.

            I am tenure-of-title faculty at a medical school. I am salaried. I see patients. I teach. I do a little clinical research. I'd do more (clinical) research if I had salary support/protection for research. You have to apply for these things. They are competitive. Everyone, including the government, has an idea about what sorts of research they want to fund. If you aren't writing your proposals in such a way that indicates that your research will potentially be of interest to the group you are pitching, then you aren't getting any approvals.

            I don't have a problem with the government deciding what research to fund. I just have a problem with this particular, transparently-politically-motivated decision.

            I am salaried. I am not tenured in the traditional sense. It is very clear that my job is, in order: 1) teach medical students and resident (and fellows), 2) see patients, 3) publish.

            There is no unbiased research. All research has bias. The best we can do is try to lower that bias and make sure that it is as transparent as possible.  

            I appreciate your worry about industry-sponsored research. Part of what I am responsible for teaching is how to appraise the scientific literature. Recognizing the funding source and the potential for bias introduced by that funding source is an important part of the appraisal process. Eliminating any sponsored trials means that you quickly have nothing left but case reports.

            I've read one study in depth this morning. It was regarding vitamin D and calcium and their effects on memory problems in women. Funding was provided by multiple sources. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services. Various authors had their own work supported individually, through grants through the VA or the NIH as well. Notice that this is all government money, and that it would be subject to the rules described by the diarist. This is a study which you would suggest that I reject outright, based on the fact that it was funded?

            The plural of anecdote is not data.

            by Skipbidder on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:46:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  As I replied to your comment above (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Skipbidder

            Please please show me anywhere that this is actually possible.

            And bear in mind that typical budgets (I'm working on a proposal right not) for even a public health project that involves data collection can run to 6-figures per year (it would be less without salaries, but still a lot), and most research takes multiple years to complete.

            Most schools don't have multiple millions of dollars to let everyone on the faculty do whatever they want. And honestly, it wouldn't be a great idea anyway. A fair number of faculty are jerks and idiots and highly unethical (trust me on this).

            Accountability structures are required, especially for health and medical research

            •  It isn't possible (0+ / 0-)

              What is being suggested is a complete change in the way that research is conducted, which has no currently plausible funding method. It was a completely non-germane interjection.

              And in the case of medical schools and research, if they even have a traditional tenure-salary connection (which is no longer the case at most schools), the school still gets government grant money.

              The plural of anecdote is not data.

              by Skipbidder on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 10:16:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am beginneing to understand... (0+ / 0-)

                ... what European scientists mean when they occasionally caution of an "americanization of the educational system".

                But thanks for the insight.

                ______
                "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

                by cris0000 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 01:57:39 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  They are probably right to caution (0+ / 0-)

                  By the way, I don't actually disagree with your underlying hypothesis that funding sources introduce bias. I think it is true and important to bear in mind when evaluating this research.

                  Your position is similar to a friend of mine, who strongly argues that all industry-sponsored research should be considered "preliminary" and subject to the need for confirmation before acting on it. He is a well-established and famous researcher, however. It differs in that he will take government funding.

                  I just think it isn't possible to eliminate this bias. Better to try to make it as open as possible.

                  I'm not sure that the Europeans have as much shielding against this as you might think either (at least not in the medical clinical research realm).

                  I've corresponded with researchers in Italy, The Netherlands, and Britain about research they've done. All of them have had funding from sources I suspect you would consider to introduce bias.

                  The plural of anecdote is not data.

                  by Skipbidder on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:51:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Wow (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, wader, Skipbidder

        - bring on the false equivalence.

    •  And it's not just guns. Environmental (9+ / 0-)

      research is also made extremely difficult by corporate control of government. And, they do control it. We don't.

      For instance, there are some 80,000 chemicals in use right now. But due to "trade secrets" legislation, the EPA can not look into even the contents of 20,000 of them. It is prohibited from even finding out what they are, much less their effects on humans and nature.

      Dozens of industries have created these prohibitions on research, with the gun lobby being among the worst and most dangerous. Many even prohibit talking publicly about the hazardous effects of these products. You can't even talk about it without fearing major lawsuits -- and this obviously handcuffs journalists as well as good government.

      Seems like while the right clings to the 2nd Amendment like a leech, as if it were holy writ, it couldn't care less about the 1st.

  •  I asked these questions at another diary (16+ / 0-)

    I read somewhere years ago that most murder victims know their murderer.  Is this so?

    How often are guns in the home, bought for protection, used to shoot family members, accidentally or intentionally, or other innocent people?

    How often are gunshot wounds inflicted as a result of domestic arguments?  As much as I hate domestic violence, intervention is needed to protect and remove the abused spouse or girfriend.  Neither the wife/girlfriend victim, nor the abusive husband/boyfriend, should have to die.

    Is the answer to all these questions - we don't know?

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:05:31 PM PST

    •  A friend of mine ask me to help a freind of hers , (9+ / 0-)

      she said the man of the house pointed a gun at the lady of the house . She asked me to help the lady of the house leave . My friend and I drove over to the other side of the island and picked up everything the lady of the house wanted to take with her , we did it PDQ because the man of the house could return at any moment and he might have a gun with him . That's some real good motivation to shake a leg .

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:13:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Two incidents when I was a deputy DA (16+ / 0-)

        Way back in the 1980's:

        First, a man left a loaded shotgun, safety off, by his door, and it wasn't anywhere near hunting season.  His 8 year old son picked it up and he and the 8 year old boy next door went into the back yard to play with it and the gun owner's son wound up killing the neighbor's boy.  I told the police not to arrest the gun owner but to question him after reading the Miranda rights and notify him he was under investigation for negligent homicide.  That was on a Saturday.  Monday morning my boss, the elected district attorney, yelled at me, asked me if I wanted him to lose the next election, and wrote a letter to the man apologizing for my behavior.

        Second, an abused girlfriend, who regularly sought shelter in the House of Ruth only to return to her absusive "boy friend", was being abused one Saturday evening by her drunken "boy friend" until he passed out drunk in his underwear  on the floor.  She left, went to a gun shop where she bought a gun and ammo, then returned and shot her "boy friend", still passed out on the floor, dead.  Once I intruded into a RKBA diary and mentioned this and they thought he got what he deserved, but I would beg to differ - there are far better outcomes.  

        "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

        by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:22:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wild ! (0+ / 0-)

          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

          by indycam on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:26:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  And another incident from my time as deputy DA (9+ / 0-)

          After the attempted murder of a policeman, wounding him in the neck, the assailant threw his gun onto the shoulder of the nearby interstate, where it was later found and the police retrieved it.   The police matched the gun to the bullet removed from the officer, then discovered who the purchaser of the gun was by matching the gun sale to the sales records gun store owners were then required to keep.  If there were no records of gun sales and who purchased them, we would never have discovered who the assailant was, much less get a conviction - I tried the case.

          I have no idea if the identity of gun purchasers must continue to be recorded nowadays, or if the NRA was successful in getting rid of this requirement.

          "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

          by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:38:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Diary? Book? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wader

            Anecdata is not proof, but it is useful in pushing politicians. They understand stories better than statistics!

            We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

            by Urban Owl on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:55:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, there is a record. Not difficult at all to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Navy Vet Terp

            trace purchases from the manufacturer/distributor all the way to the first purchase from the FFL.  After that? Not always easy.

        •  In the United States (6+ / 0-)

          gun ownership confers a certain right to avoid any and all legal consequences for one's actions.  We have created a society where owning a gun means having the absolute right to be as negligent as one wants, a right that is especially notable in light of the fact that the US criminal justice system is very quick to lock the door and throw away the key for every other conceivable infraction of the law.

          •  Can you give an example... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn

            ...of an instance that reduces the penalty for doing something with a firearm vs. a baseball bat or knife?

            I can't think of any, but I can think of instances that the use of a gun makes the penalty significantly higher.

            In fact, just having a firearm (not even using it in any way) can add a lot of years to your sentence in some cases. See, for example, mandatory minimums for some Federal crimes arising from the possession, use, or brandishing of a firearm.

        •  about the abused woman shooting the passed out (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Navy Vet Terp, orlbucfan

          boyfriend... I too have had a different view than one or two of my fellow RKBAers on this issue. I'm always of the opinion to let the law do it's thing, but I  have to admit some folks have seen lots of hard things that I haven't, and those things have informed their opinion. I can understand even if I don't agree. I  too loath the wife beater, but I haven't had to see that kind of thing regularly.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:58:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  My view would be... (0+ / 0-)

          ... justified homicide after she was repeatedly beaten up by the oaf.

          She should have broken off the relationship with the first threat of violence or first violent incident which I'm sure probably happened shortly after they started dating.  [It's possible she tried, he kept coming after her and begging her to take him back, or threatened the lives of her or her family or friends or pets which coerced her into staying..., but in an ideal world, she should have broken that relationship off loooong before it got to the stage it did.

          I have NO idea why some women stay with their abusers year after year after dreary year (they keep hoping he'll change and he never does)..., but the fact is, they do.  I've heard the various reasons: lack of money, isolation, identifying with the abuser, "for the sake of the kids," etc.  On rare occasions, once they've had enough, a woman will snap.

          Read a short story called A Jury of Her Peers by Susan Glaspell.  It's loosely based on a true story.

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:58:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting question (9+ / 0-)

      The only time I ever witnessed one person shooting another (people accidentally shooting themselves, a whole other issue) was when I worked at California Department of Health Services in Downtown Sacramento.  At about 9:00 a.m.ish down in the parking lot (I was on the 10th floor) a truck came flying into the lot, a guy jumped out of the truck, he pulled out a shotgun, shot the woman standing there, and threw some papers on her prone form.

      It turned out that it was her estranged husband and the papers were the restraining order that she had taken out on him.

      "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

      by Sychotic1 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:31:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's terrible! n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

        by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:12:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes it was (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Navy Vet Terp, NonnyO

          Over the years there have been some awful things happen around my office, but that was the only one I actually witness firsthand.  It was like you don't know what you are seeing until you have already seen it.  It happens so fast and it was so outside of anything one is used to that the mind doesn't process it at first.

          "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

          by Sychotic1 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:53:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yes.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TKO333
      I read somewhere years ago that most murder victims know their murderer.  Is this so?
      There have been scientific studies done on this, so they have all these things broken down by various classifications, chiefly sex and race and sometimes circumstances (mass murderers are apparently not taken into account for some of these statistics because they rarely know their victims - as awful and shocking as these episodes are because of the high numbers of innocent victims, in the larger scheme of things and total numbers of people killed, the victims of mass murderers only account for one or two percent of the total number of people killed).

      In just a quick glance over a few things on a Google search for "percent of murder victims know their killers," I'm gleaning broad numbers of 70-80% of victims know their killers.  Here's a finding on a Google Books page that breaks down some of the categories.  The killer is a spouse, family member or someone the victim knew, and more often than not the perpetrator is a male.  Yes, females kill, too, just not as often as males.

      I don't know how to take out the variables..., but I do remember from some long ago art show I attended that was dedicated to women who had been killed where stats were quoted that when women are murdered, most often it's a spouse or significant other or family member who kills them.

      The most recent woman killed was a police officer in Wauwatuosa, WI - her ex-Marine husband was arrested (he had PTSD, played violent video games to relieve stress).  She was on duty, in uniform, and armed.  The shots fired were up close and personal.  She was shot five times in the head and apparently never drew her weapon.  One online news story has this:

      The criminal complaint against her husband says she told a colleague her husband had put a gun to her head earlier this month.
      Riiiiight.  How's an armed officer going to defend against an intimate killer like a spouse when she's not expecting 'the love of her life' to kill her..., even though she's already aware of his jealousy and his capacity for violence...?  The only mystery that remains is why she stayed with him after he so blatantly showed his capacity for violence.

      It doesn't matter if it's personal violence (sexual assault, rape) or murder, most often the perpetrators are not the strangers we're told to be afraid of.  Most often the perpetrators are family members, relatives, friends of the family, or acquaintances the victim knows.

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:36:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cowards (16+ / 0-)

    is a reasonable description.

    What were they scared of??

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:05:56 PM PST

  •  actually its no different than the AMA (9+ / 0-)

    working against single payer for the past 30 years, so it's all of a piece about special interests versus the common good (insert Hot Fuzz joke here)

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:08:22 PM PST

    •  For the last 40 years at least (9+ / 0-)

      The Canadian system started in 1966 with the passage of the Medical Care Act under the Pearson government, and both Canadian and US doctors were bitterly opposed to this trend. The Canadian doctors "lost", and the American doctors (the AMA) "won" -- which is why the US now has the worst medical system of all developed countries. It was, originally, the greed of doctors.

      Now the the greed of doctors has been overtaken by the even greater greed of insurance companies and Big Pharma, we tend to forget the history.

    •  I'd hate to compare figures and see who has (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli

      killed more.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:01:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  very different (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Urban Owl, hester, orlbucfan, cany, dharmadyke

      It's extraordinarily different.

      The AMA is not deciding how the US spends its research funding. The Congress is.

      The AMA is not representative of doctors. Something in the neighborhood of 20% of doctors belong, and this is often for non issue related reasons (usually discounts on insurance for established docs or free or discounted educational materials for medical students and residents).

      JAMA is NOT the AMA. I realize that sounds strange. However, most of us who do research in a medical field would be thrilled to have something accepted for JAMA, even if we don't in any way care for the AMA. Steffie Woolhandler and
      David Himmelstein, who are probably our best physician advocates for single payer, have been published in JAMA multiple times.

      The plural of anecdote is not data.

      by Skipbidder on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:19:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  peer review Journals are like that in terms of (0+ / 0-)

        their associations. John Lott Jr. (PhD UCLA) of "more guns less crime" is probably a member of AEA

        yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

        by annieli on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:29:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Mandated ignorance (14+ / 0-)

    So the memes of "more guns = less crime" and "guns=freedom" can't be refuted by facts, because we aren't allowed to do the research.

    Republicans do not believe in science and facts, just more money for the gun-industry, the war industry, and the financiers of both.

    Thanks for the diary.

    We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

    by Urban Owl on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:08:42 PM PST

  •  add liability (5+ / 0-)

    Gun Manufacturers Liability Bill never seems to be discussed.

    "The only person sure of himself is the man who wishes to leave things as they are, and he dreams of an impossibility" -George M. Wrong.

    by statsone on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:08:44 PM PST

    •  Because they are protected, under law. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beltane, TKO333

      But just ask McDonald's about hot coffee... the REAL instrument of death.

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

      by cany on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:53:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, instrument of pain and mutilation (6+ / 0-)

        You might want to look up the FACTS about the McDonalds "hot coffee" case (third degree burns, requiring skin grafts) and consider that the plaintiff originally just wanted McDonalds to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds not only refused, they were rudely dismissive - and the whole thing escalated.

        If it's
        Not your body,
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        And it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:14:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not saying that McDonalds should (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          i love san fran, TKO333

          have gotten off. But that wasn't death. And here we have an entire industry that producing a tool to kill and they can't be sued.

          I'm sorry if I made my comment sound like McDonald's shouldn't have had to be responsible for their failure.

          202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

          by cany on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 08:50:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think people are so sensitive to this case (0+ / 0-)

            because it is one that was deliberately adopted by the insurance industry (and RW think tanks) to absolutely gut tort law throughout the nation. Which leaves other more sympathetic victims without recourse. By twisting th facts of the McDonalds coffee case there are now many fewer incentives for corporations to abide by legal protections to keep children from being horribly burned by their own clothes or toys.  

            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

            by stellaluna on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:09:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Can't let facts get in the way (9+ / 0-)

    of gun industry profits....

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:10:28 PM PST

  •  I believe gun lovers are cowards (6+ / 0-)

    Not everyone who owns a gun, but the spittle spraying gun worshipers who think they are made safe by a hunk of metal.

    As to the Congress members who vote to shut off research, well, they are just whores.

    •  I was reading a comment thread in WaPo today (0+ / 0-)

      that cited 3 different studies quantifying the number of times per year that a firearm was used to prevent a crime.

      I'll try to go back and find the references if the thread is still active.

      From memory, I remember that 1.5 million was the point estimate of the final study and that a prior study produced a larger number.

      You are free to believe what you want to believe, of course, but I fail to see where you have and FACTS to support your belief.

      •  any Facts. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CHUDLEIGH

        Here is the WaPo references.  I haven't read the study yet, but I will.

        There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.  

        Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.  

        http://www.guncite.com/...

        •  Kleck and his work have been thoughly (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boris49, dharmadyke, CHUDLEIGH, TKO333

          debunked in other studies. See Henningers work for the Harvard School of Public Health who points out the methodological errors in Kleck's work. Massive errors that make that study worthless. Not based on a bias against guns but rather a complete anaylsis of Kleck's methods.

          The DGU work is in poor state because of the ban on research paid for by the CDC. The actual reported figures to the DOJ of incidents reported to law enforcement is significantly lower.

          "Self-defense with firearms

          *38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
          the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
          weapon.

          *A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
          suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
          themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
          Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
          of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
          circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
          injury outcomes.

          About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
          self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92

                                Average annual number of victimizations
                                in which victims used firearms to defend
                                themselves or their property                
                                _____________
                                              Attacked       Threatened
                                Total         offender         offender    
                                _
          ______________
            All crimes          82,500         30,600           51,900  
          Total violent crime   62,200         25,500           36,700

             With injury        12,100          7,300            4,900
             Without injury     50,000         18,200           31,800

          Theft, burglary,
          motor vehicle theft   20,300          5,100           15,200

          Note:  Detail may not add to total because of rounding.  Includes
          victimizations in which offenders were unarmed.  Excludes
          homicides.

          *In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
          their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
          or armed with weapons other than firearms.  On average between 1987
          and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime
          victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who
          also had a firearm.  (Because the NCVS collects victimization data
          on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
          self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms.
          Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit
          separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)"

          Source :  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/...

          •  Kleck' work relies on phone surveys. Not that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boris49, TKO333

            phones surveys are worthless but what Kleck extrapolates is worthless. Kleck argues that hundreds of thousands of people scared off an attacker with a gun and then did not bother to report this to the police.

          •  OK. Thanks. Good to know. (0+ / 0-)

            In any event the data is old and at a period when violence associated with crack was extremely high.

            We should have better and newer data.  Nothing like facts to get in the way of positions on both sides of the issue.

  •  Money and power, public safety, public health, (3+ / 0-)

    public welfare be damned.  This appears to be the Republican Party's motto, as far as guns are concerned.

    Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

    by sjburnman on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:18:11 PM PST

  •  Shutting down fact-finding and reporting ... (10+ / 0-)

    ... and refusing to allow a head of the ATF, the agency in charge of firearms, to be appointed for six years removes all credibility the gun lobby might have on their eagerness to deal with violence using guns.

    The NRA simply will not stand down. So we'll have to change the paradigm.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:23:07 PM PST

    •  exactly! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cany, TKO333

      it's why there are more devices like these since the ban ended

      yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

      by annieli on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:38:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  25 rounds in 3 seconds is a machine gun. (0+ / 0-)

        Ye Gods.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:38:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a 22. Big deal. Ammo waster. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, annieli

          This might appeal to a 15 year old shooting at the local dump, but not for long.  Even 22LR ammo is expensive nowadays.

          This device is legal because it still requires the trigger to be "pulled" between each shot.  

          I would save your "shock" for real auto weapons.  This device is a product in search of a market.  Sort of the ShamWow of gun shows.

          •  Are you actually arguing that 25 rounds ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... in 3 seconds doesn't constitute a dangerous weapon?

            Listen to yourself. You say it's insignificant - "ShamWow" so let's look elsewhere - because there are so many more powerful guns? Because ammo costs 15 year olds too much for us to worry about their fire power?

            It's legal, so you argue it's OK? "Legal" doesn't make it OK. I hope we're better than that. But even if not, we are going to make some guns and ammo magazines illegal. Again. And we are going to get some more statistics and honest reporting about the prevalence and use of guns. Will that stanch the availability of guns to be used as weapons? Somewhat. But just because we can't cure everything doesn't mean we can't address anything.

            The gun crowd can scare themselves and try to scare the rest of us, but we will have some sensible legislation, so sensible that I'm confident that a lot of responsible gun owners will agree with it.

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:29:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. That is what I am arguing. This is a stupid (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annieli

              toy.

              Kids do stupid things....like fireworks, C02 cartridge match bombs, etc.  Certainly someone could get hurt with any of those things, but I doubt you'd see one show up at a crime.

              Have you?  Do you have any proof?

              As to the firing rate...lots of lead with no accuracy is a waste of expensive ammunition.

              Take a look at youtube cowboy action shooters.  They can fire 2 revolvers (10 shots) drawn from holsters in less than 2.5 seconds.

              Revolver Record

              And, while I'm not the fastest guy on the block, I can fire 4 shots from an empty double barrel shotgun, and hit the targets, in less than 5 seconds.

              The device you see above is stupid.  Like a 3 foot long dildo.  Who needs one?

              •  Well, many states do regulate fireworks based... (0+ / 0-)

                ... on demonstrable safety issues. Still, and predictably, some burn hands, lose eyes and even the professionals have accidents. But we limit those occurrences - as best we can - by regulations in many jurisdictions. There is proof on that.

                As for proof that the gun crank device was involved in any shootings of people, you know how aggressively the gun lobby has used Federal law to repress collection of statistics, reporting on guns and gun use and fully staffing the ATF agency. With this past track record of the gun industry - and the likelihood this will be one of the more obvious conclusions of the Biden task force - arguing the absence of "proof" proves the need.

                When you speak of fast fire rates and low accuracy, I think of a crowded theatre in Aurora, Colorado. Someone bent on mayhem might well choose a more powerful and accurate weapon, but I wouldn't bank on that and the result could well be the same.

                Although I see the point you make about "cowboy action shooters," you gotta realize that "cowboy" is a term sometimes used to describe a Wild West, free for all, gun totin' mentality.

                As for the dildo, there are those who say gun huggers are compensating for something. (I'd be fascinated to hear what Wayne LaPierre's recommendations for regulating that area might be.)

                2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:34:39 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh Puhhhleeeze. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annieli

                  Over 8000 injuries due to fireworks each year that result in hospital visits.  That doesnt' account for all the injured folks who don't go to hospital for their stupidity on July 4.

                  The device is not a big seller, because not many people know of it and those that do don't find it worth the money.  A product in search of a market.

                  A 22LR, which this rifle is, is not necessarily the best weapon for homicide.  Low bullet weight, low velocity.  Yes, it can kill, but in a crowded theatre?  Not effective.  Plus, after 3 seconds the shooter needs to reload.  I'm sure someone would have tackled him in that case.

                  You really know nothing about sport shooting, so you might want to educate yourself before you comment.  These folks are active shooters, expend millions of rounds per weekend and are in all 50 states, plus Europe, Australia and New Zealand.  They are generally very mature.  Average age is over 50.  They vote.

                  •  Stupidity can't be an excuse. Neither, frankly,... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TKO333

                    .. can the near certainty that anyone who shoots up a crowd of people is anything but a psychopath. But we can't cure stupidity or all mental illness.

                    But I don't get that a 22 that can kill is "not effective?"

                    And are you seriously arguing that a shooter who can make 25 shots in 3 seconds will be tackled that fast? (I'd be surprised if people would have time to duck.)

                    I have done some limited sport shooting, because I think it's good to have some feel for what I'm talking about. But I concede, it's been limited to an old Colt revolver (one shot, from my Dad's gun from his South Dakota sheep herding days), a 22, a Glock handgun (at a range, after training, with my daughter) and a rifle the calibre of which I do not recall. The hunters and other "sport shooting" enthusiasts I know - with possibly one exception - are mature and several are not over 50.

                    I'm not "going for their guns" and they know it. I am going for:

                    -  Registration and licensing (my friends have zero problems with that).
                    -  Registering every sale, transfer and disposition of a firearm (big database; no problem to input, minimal expense; no objections, though concern over cost).
                    -  Restricting gun show purchases, including delaying purchases for suitable registration and checks. If that means the end of gun shows, so be it (again, even for my more rural friends, no problem).
                    -  Banning guns and magazines with more than a 10 round capacity except for law enforcement and not neighborhood so-called security (a few have problems; the rest shrug, perhaps thinking it will never happen). Realistically, this is politically problematic, but at least let's have a reasoned and objective discussion of it in light of Columbine, Tucson, Aurora and Newtown, to name just a few massacres.
                    - Banning the manufacture, sale and trade of semi-automatics, broadly defined (same; inconvenient). The definition is troublesome, but a lot of law is that way, particularly when diehards seek to exploit the law's niches. If  law-making stops because definitions are difficult, nothing would get done.
                    -  Putting the ATF back into the Justice Department, appointing a head, increasing its staff, vastly increasing the collection of stats on guns - production, sales, transfers, use in crimes, etc.

                    I understand that many of these proposals will aggravate gun collectors/hobbyists, industrial-strength sport shooters, gun manufacturers and others, including some hunters who like hi-cap guns. To them, I say bring the cases to the Supreme Court. Let's test what constitutes acceptable regulation under the Second Amendment.

                    Let's face it. Gun owners and users know guns are dangerous and they keep and store them accordingly. Mrs. Lanza proved to us that wasn't enough.

                    Gun culture in America has gone too far for a civilized society.

                    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                    by TRPChicago on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 10:35:47 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm with you on federal background checks for (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      annieli

                      all sales, transfers and gifts.  The registration required by the dealer on a 4473 form filed by the transferee is sufficient to meet the "registration" requirement if all firearms require background checks.  So, I don't think we have any disagreement there.

                      As to magazines, there are solutions that would meet the needs of most competitors, sportsmen and hunters.  Eliminating the aftermarket drum mags is an easy first step.

                      I could also go with proof of a safe for all semi-auto firearms not in the direct control of the authorized user.  Lanza's massacre could have been prevented if the mother was required to lock all the guns in a safe AND not give her son the combination.

                      •  Maybe I'm naive - and realistic - but these are... (0+ / 0-)

                        ... the kinds of things I'd hope advocates on both/all sides could perfect and legislate. Where there's room to talk objectively, there's room for reason to prevail.

                        We'll disagree, it appears, on semi-automatics and I don't know enough about "drum mags" yet.

                        I also have concerns with your observations about Mrs. Lanza. Even if she kept her guns in a locked safe and thought she was keeping the combination from her son, if he got ahold of guns and magazines, his first act was to put her beyond responsibility and retribution, even if it could be made for the lives of 26 people.

                        And the idea of a gun "in the direct control of the authorized gun user" (does your term "user" mean "owner"?) might not be enough for a big teenager able to overcome or outsmart Mom or Dad. Even so, is a gun in one's home - if required to be locked in a safe and/or protected with a trigger lock - sufficiently available for self defense under Scalia's teaching in the DC gun case?

                        I ask because I do think there's room for Second Amendment protection, although I believe Scalia wrote his opinion a lot larger than some read it.

                        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                        by TRPChicago on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:28:01 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It's a semi-automatic world. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          annieli

                          I don't think we'll likely ever go back to revolvers.  Semi-auto pistols have been around for 100 years.

                          When I was in the military, we only had 20 round magazines.  30 round mags came later and had problems prior to re-engineering the followers.  Frankly, 20 round mags are sufficient for almost any legitimate purpose.  I know people would like to see smaller mags, and maybe that will happen, maybe not.

                          Lanza is hindsight now.  In the future, safes prevent a lot of accidents, theft and bravado.  'Authorized user' could be someone you trust in your household.  Your spouse.  Perhaps a young adult who has been trained.  If a home invasion is in process, anyone with training should be legally allowed to respond.  The idea here is that you don't leave a gun laying around.  It has to be within reach and in your control. If not, put it in the safe.

                          If Biden stops here, he has a chance of proposing legislation that may pass.  Much farther and there will be too big of a backlash to get anything done.

                          •  Thanks for the conversation: insightful! (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Boris49, annieli

                            Some questions ...

                            Is there anything between between revolvers and semi-automatic handguns?

                            (Oh, the nostalgia! Only in the 1980's and later in many areas, did police departments switch away from revolvers. I recall the debate in Chicago, which focused on the arguments that beat officers were outclassed by gang members who had semi-automatic weapons but that much of the action was going to be in situations where there bystanders at risk no matter who was firing.)

                            And an observation: this will be a hackuvan area for adroit strategy. As you say, seek legislation that's too sweeping and it could be toast from the get go. On the other hand, however moderate the "ask" may seem to gun control advocates, the NRA is highly likely to go, well, ballistic.

                            And, given the variety of interests at stake - manufacturers, the NRA, gun users of various kinds, police, sheriffs and big city mayors, etc. - who can sit at the table and make a deal that will stick? Until the real parties in interest are (1) at the table and (2) willing to negotiate, the chances for a good constructive compromise are zilch and the incentive is high to bluster and reach for extreme, seemingly more defensible positions.

                            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                            by TRPChicago on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:27:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Many gunowners have been very unhappy with the (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TRPChicago, annieli

                            NRA for a long time.  It's really a diary in and of itself, but let me just say that of the 4 million NRA members, many would go along with much of what I proposed above.  In addition, there are probably 80+ million other gun owners who might side with the NRA and be "hard core"...but I reckon not.  I think the majority would go along if they considered the proposals "sensible".

                            I don't have a good understanding of why police departments switched other than the 38 special is a weak load and the .357 magnum is intimidating to many.  A lot of the changeover transitioned during the years associated with the increase in drug crime.  At the same time, Glocks came into the market and they really are accurate, don't need a lot of maintenance and hold much more ammo.  Rate of fire in engagements became a plus for law enforcement, so it was inevitable.

                            There is no intermediate step between a revolver and a semi-automatic.  

  •  This is what we've become ... our shame n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wayward Wind
  •  It's worth reading the whole JAMA article. (7+ / 0-)

    It was written by my old boss :)

    20 innocent children were slaughtered. The gun lobby and NRA bear responsibility and it is time to fight back! http://www.csgv.org/index.php

    by the dogs sockpuppet on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:27:18 PM PST

    •  Yes, it is! We should all say ENOUGH (9+ / 0-)

      http://jama.jamanetwork.com/...

      excerpt: In 2011, Florida's legislature passed and Governor Scott signed HB 155, which subjects the state's health care practitioners to possible sanctions, including loss of license, if they discuss or record information about firearm safety that a medical board later determines was not “relevant” or was “unnecessarily harassing.” A US district judge has since issued a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of this law, but the matter is still in litigation. Similar bills have been proposed in 7 other states.

      The US military is grappling with an increase in suicides within its ranks. Earlier this month, an article by 2 retired generals—a former chief and a vice chief of staff of the US Army— asked Congress to lift a little-noticed provision in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act that prevents military commanders and noncommissioned officers from being able to talk to service members about their private weapons, even in cases in which a leader believes that a service member may be suicidal.9

      When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

      by msmacgyver on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:51:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The article overlooked something (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, i love san fran
      Efforts to place legal restrictions on what physicians and other health care practitioners can and cannot say to their patients crosses an even more important line. Yet this is precisely what Florida and some other states are seeking to do.
      Correction: this is what the UShas required (off and on) internationally for decades. It was only a matter of time before gag rules would come home to roost on whatever matter some powerful entity did not want to see discussed.

      The "global gag rule" is currently suspended. Now we need to get rid of the domestic gags.

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:51:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Title could more accurately say firearm violence (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tom Seaview, annieli

    research, I mean it was just research that might reflect negatively on firearms, not all research on violence right?

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:50:58 PM PST

    •  Ban applied to any study that might conclude (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skipbidder

      or recommend more gun control. The ban is applied before the study is done or results known. If there is a possibility that a study might imply more gun control then federal funding is banned.

  •  Check out Dem support for gun mfg subsidies (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    newpioneer, annieli, orlbucfan

    With so much shit like this, and the endless, painful stupidity in DC, it gets harder and harder for me to justify staying in the Democratic party.

    Key excerpts:

    ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York state has spent nearly $6 million over the past three years on subsidies for a two-century-old upstate factory that makes firearms including semiautomatic rifles used by the military and police and like those used in the recent mass killings in Connecticut and Webster, N.Y...

    Though several elected leaders in this tough-on-guns state want tighter restrictions on those military-style weapons, none say it’s time to stop supporting Remington Arms Co. and risk the nearly 1,000 jobs it provides in the central New York community of Ilion. The gunmaker has plenty of defenders, particularly those who support the continued manufacture of weapons used by the military or police...

    In 2010, Empire State Development, the agency that works with private companies to attract and retain jobs, announced $2.5 million in grants and subsidies to help Remington bring its Marlin lever-action gun production from Connecticut to Ilion and add 100 jobs. That followed two grants in 2009 worth $3 million for renovations and machinery...

    A spokeswoman for U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer said he has consistently said that he believes it’s appropriate for lawmakers to support production of semiautomatic assault-style weapons for military and law enforcement use, but that the guns don’t belong in the hands of civilians. Schumer, who has helped Remington secure Army contracts including an $8.9 million award in 2011 to produce 1,212 M24 sniper rifles, joined the company at last year’s event announcing the move of Bushmaster to Ilion.

    Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

    by Minerva on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:58:29 PM PST

  •  The Webster shooting, more than Newtown (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevej, orlbucfan

    ought to put an end to this nonsense from the NRA.  If a complete breakdown in the safeguards against guns falling into the hands of felons doesn't prove we need more research into gun violence, I don't know what will.

    Romney-Ryan: America's Rollback Team

    by Christian Dem in NC on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:59:58 PM PST

  •  Just do the research anyway... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, stevej, cany

    It seems to me President Obama could simply order the relevant federal agencies to do the research anyway, and find the authority to do so under Homeland Security. I imagine there's some sort of clause somewhere in that legislations that could be used to authorize collecting data on insecurity from unregulated distribution of cop-killing ordenance and ammunition. And even if there isn't, just do it anyway and issue a signing statement.

    •  He could probably (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cany

      create an executive order - all he would need to do is attach it to some previous public good type legislation.

    •  You are assuming that Obama is a supporter (0+ / 0-)

      of gun control. He is not. Told me in person back in 2003. In an audience of gun control supporters. The homeland security laws apply to foreign terrorism, not domestic terrorism. That is the job of the FBI. Who have not been willing to do in depth research. Try to find gun use statistics on the DOJ site. Very difficult to find much after 1994 on DGU (defensive gun use).

    •  The work would still require a budget (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn

      and that comes from Congress.

      Most public health faculty like me are required to fund raise the bulk of our own salaries, even if tenured. We don't get to work on things unless someone has given us a grant.

  •  good to know, thanks. /nt (0+ / 0-)

    "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

    by kj in missouri on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:01:42 PM PST

  •  Excellent bit of info to send out to the public! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri
  •  All the funding has shifted to bullying even (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orlbucfan, Egalitare

    though experts and anti-violence organization'ss statements in response to the shooting show they believe this research and other research is important and has already been causally linked to our homicide rate.

    Terrific article!  

  •  Against registration of firearms? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare

    Then, you directly support the NRA's long-term view of keeping weapons manufacturers safe from any sort of federal (or state, in many cases) oversight.

    Has nothing to do with "freedom", tyranny, black helicopters or compiling a list for the government to confiscate your precious guns.

    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

    by wader on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 08:56:28 PM PST

  •  American gun fascists know that science will (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Skipbidder

    condemn them as major threats to the health of the nation.  That is why they have shut down research and made laws forbidding doctors from asking patients  about  guns in their houses.  

  •  The American motto (0+ / 0-)

    "Stupid is us".  From evolution to climate change, ignorance is the American way.  I got news: Americans are going to have their lunches eaten by countries that know how to do two things Americans don't: 1) think and 2) work cooperatively as a society.  

    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

    by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:31:29 AM PST

  •  PHYSICIANS V. GUNS (1+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn
    Hidden by:
    Beelzebud, Skipbidder

    Let’s look at the statistics:
    Physicians vs. Gun Owners
    Physicians:
    (1)  The number of physicians in the U.S. is 853,187
    (2)  Physicians  admit to killing a total to 250,000 individuals per year from "IATROGENIC" causes!* What does the word "IATROGENIC" mean?  This term is defined as: “induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy.”
    And, you can bet the rent money, if doctors will admit to 250,000 KILLED, the real figure is a whole lot higher.  
    *From the Journal of the American Medical Association:
    DOCTORS ARE THE THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE U.S.,
    causing 250,000 deaths every year, according to Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health.

    (3)  "IATROGENIC" deaths per physician = .29 deaths per physician.

    In additionm, , , , ,
    there are 237,000 MDs in the National Practitioner Data Bank
    referred to by The Health Research Group as either
    "Dangerous" or Questionable."

    Pathetic, disgusting and horrible. Where's the outrage ?

    It's the same number as if two (2) jumbo passenger jets crashed
    every day, throughout the year, and NO ONE survived.
    (350 X 2 X 365 = 255,500) . . . . . . . Where's the outrage ?

    Now think about this . . . . . . .
    Guns
    (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
    (Yes, that's 80 million)
    (B) In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220.
    (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000008
    (Statistics courtesy of FBI)

    So, statistically, doctors are approximately
    36,250 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    Remember, “Guns don't kill people, doctors do.”

    FACT: Not everyone has a gun,
    however,
    almost everyone has at least one doctor.

    This means you are over 36,250 times more likely to be killed by a doctor then a gun owner.
    (Please Google,
    DOCTORS ARE THE THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE U.S.
    for reference.)

  •  oh puhleeze (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000
    When the gun lobby and the members of Congress bought off by it try to change the subject from the obscene availability of automatic and assault weapons to the state of our health system and how we need to focus on that, remember that they have systematically shut down the necessary research to do just that.
    we don't need funded research to establish that strengthening our mental health system is a good thing.

    all we need do is look at the fact that suicides are the majority of u.s. gun deaths.

    no further research needed.  hello?  buehler?

    acting like we need paid research to "know" improving mental health services would impact (gun) violence just hands power right on over to the research-defunding GOP:  "oops, no research, we can't know.  so sad, oh well.  no improved counseling services for you, because we don't have research determining it matters."

    versus "research shmeesearch, it is patently obvious that improving mental health services is a good and desirable thing that would have beneficial effects all across the u.s., not just on the question of guns."

    that's the position we need to have, not whining that the GOP won't fund research to tell us what death stats already do.

    it's also true that most gun violence involves handguns.  so focusing on one type of gun used in, like, 2% of gun deaths, is not the way to go about effective gun policy.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:56:03 AM PST

  •  Interesting juxtaposition... (0+ / 0-)

    ...of this and what appears to be suppression (via indefinite delay until "caught") of completed research on GMO salmon by the current administration.

    Both are alarming, but at least one (blocking research into gun violence) was open and voted on by elected officials (and, certainly, legal).

  •  Pen is mightier than the sword. (0+ / 0-)

    Quick, someone ban the pen.  

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:20:54 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site