On 8 October 2013 16:36, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 10/7/2013 8:15 PM, LizR wrote:
>   Oops, silly me, it was in the very same article. I missed it when I
> skimmed through to check...
>  *TO: After recent mass shootings, hasn't funding for gun violence
>> research received more attention?*
>> *GM:* There is a proposal in Congress to allow for $10 million in
>> research funding. But I suspect it essentially has no chance of making it.
>> Even if it did, our Department of Health and Human Services prohibits
>> any of the funds from being 
>> used<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html>,
>> and I'm quoting directly here, “to advocate or promote gun 
>> control<http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CE-07-001.html>.”
>> That means even if I had money to do the research, it would be a crime to
>> talk about the policy implications.
> That assumes the result of the research would imply gun control.  Would
> the research consider the possibility of armed revolt against and
> oppressive government which was the original motivation for the 2nd
> amendment?  Would he consider the value of recreational hunting?  I think
> not.  I think the researcher had already assumed his conclusion.  Just
> because a certain device results in people being killed and injured is not
> sufficient reason for banning it.  I'm sure there would be fewer deaths per
> year if motorcycles were banned, ditto for sky diving, swimming, skiing,
> and drinking beer.
> That wasn't the impression I got. I assumed he was saying that *if* that
was the case, then he'd be gagged. (But anyway, this does show that there
are legal constraints on reporting some possible results, which is all he
said, and wha I quoted.)

>     I'm not sure whether a technical report of research would count as
> advocacy or political action or not.  But the reason is obvious.  Congress
> doesn't want the CDC going around them to advocate for legislation.  And in
> any case the Supreme court has ruled that owning a gun is a
> Constitutionally guaranteed individual right, subject only to "reasonable
> restrictions".
> Well, if it wouldn't be advocacy then he's OK to report whatever he sees
fit. Personally I would think it shouldn't be considered advocacy, but he's
closer to the whole thing and he seems to think it would.

> The Anti-Lobbying rule has been around a long time and wasn't motivated by
> gun control issues.
> You're telling me *no one* is allowed to lobby the US govt???

Oh well, anyway .... I suppose I shouldn't make so much fuss, although as I
said I find the child deaths horrifying (as I do the millions of
unnecessary child deaths worldwide, most caused by diseases even more
preventable than US firearm deaths). But if adult Americans want to shoot
one another, I guess that's their business. I don't live there, thank God!

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to