On 10/7/2013 9:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 October 2013 16:36, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto: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 
    to check...

        *TO: After recent mass shootings, hasn't funding for gun violence 
        received more attention?*
        *GM:* There is a proposal in Congress to allow for $10 million in 
        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 
        from being used
        and I'm quoting directly here, “to advocate or promote gun control
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 
    consider the possibility of armed revolt against and oppressive government 
which was
    the original motivation for the 2nd amendment?  Would he consider the value 
    recreational hunting?  I think not.  I think the researcher had already 
assumed his
    conclusion.  Just because a certain device results in people being killed 
    injured is not sufficient reason for banning it.  I'm sure there would be 
    deaths per year if motorcycles were banned, ditto for sky diving, swimming, 
    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.

Suppose his research showed that liberalized concealed carry laws reduced gun violence (a popular argument among gun-rights advocates). Then he wouldn't be gagged. So he was assuming the opposite conclusion in order to infer reporting the study would be a crime.

(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 
    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 
    has ruled that owning a gun is a Constitutionally guaranteed individual 
    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.

Bureaucrats tend to be timid about offending Congress and may self-censor.

    The Anti-Lobbying rule has been around a long time and wasn't motivated by 
    control issues.

You're telling me /no one/ is allowed to lobby the US govt???

No, nobody who is an employee of the U.S. government is allowed to lobby it. Civil service employees and uniformed military are not allowed to campaign for any partisan candidates either (even in local elections if they are partisan).

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!

Yes, it's unfortunate that the psychology seems to be "It's dangerous out there. So I should be able to have a gun to protect myself." That's what defeated a gun ban in Brazil, which has even more shootings than the U.S., in spite of requirements to register and license all guns.


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