On 10/7/2013 9:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 October 2013 16:36, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
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: 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
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
even if I had money to do the research, it would be a crime to talk
That assumes the result of the research would imply gun control. Would the
consider the possibility of armed revolt against and oppressive government
the original motivation for the 2nd amendment? Would he consider the value
recreational hunting? I think not. I think the researcher had already
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
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
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,
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.