Balanserad info gällande vapen och våldsbrott?

[2Sharp]

Tack för klargörandet

[kipphebel3]

Nu har vi i varjefall en delförklaring till saknad forskning:

Legislating Ignorance

Anti-science legislation prohibits research into gun safety

So just how is this an example of anti-science legislation? The tragic irony is that another piece of anti-science legislation, specifically developed to block research on gun safety, prevents us from gathering and analyzing the data to adequately answer this question. In the 1990s, NRA-backed lawmakers inserted into The Consolidated Appropriations Act, (P.L. 112-74, Section 503, Division F, Title V) language prohibiting the CDC from using funds to promote:

any activity to advocate or promote … any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product, including its sale or marketing, including but not limited to the advocacy or promotion of gun control.

Additional Requirement 13 adds the following language,

None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.

In 2011, Congress extended this restriction to include not just the CDC, but also the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services.

It is the main reason we do not have answers to some very important and basic gun safety questions such as:

What is the overall number of accidental gun deaths?
How many children are behind the trigger in gun-related injuries and fatalities?
How many children are the victims of accidental shootings?

[Moridin]

Varför är ett förbud mot att statliga pengar används för att förespråka vapenkontroll ett hot mot forskningen?

[2Sharp]

Jag ser inte problemet, de goda råden kan ju givetvis förmedlas oavsett om man frågar om det finns vapen i hushållet eller inte.

Jag förstår absolut att man inte vill ha in informationen om att hushåll äger vapen i ett register, det är ju en av stöttepelarna att vapenägande inte skall registreras.
Andra tillägget är ju som en grundlag, det är inte raketforskning att man inte bara kan resonera bort den lite enkelt.

Det är ju uppenbart att artikelskrivaren är vapennegativ, jag uppfattar det inte som speciellt konstruktivt resonemang och att poängen missas.

Intressant att denna tråden poppade upp igen

[kipphebel3]

Varför är ett förbud mot att statliga pengar används för att förespråka vapenkontroll ett hot mot forskningen?

Förbudet gäller att samla in information för att få en tillförlitlig statistik.

Det är ju uppenbart att artikelskrivaren är vapennegativ

Läkare är ofta det.

[Moridin]

Varför är ett förbud mot att statliga pengar används för att förespråka vapenkontroll ett hot mot forskningen?

Förbudet gäller att samla in information för att få en tillförlitlig statistik.

Ingenstans i lagcitaten från det du citerade står det att det är förbud mot att samla statistik.

[kipphebel3]

Det är förbjudet för sjukvårdspersonal att göra det.

Anti-science legislation prohibits research into gun safety

So just how is this an example of anti-science legislation? The tragic irony is that another piece of anti-science legislation, specifically developed to block research on gun safety, prevents us from gathering and analyzing the data to adequately answer this question. In the 1990s, NRA-backed lawmakers inserted into The Consolidated Appropriations Act, (P.L. 112-74, Section 503, Division F, Title V) language prohibiting the CDC from using funds to promote:

any activity to advocate or promote … any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product, including its sale or marketing, including but not limited to the advocacy or promotion of gun control.

Additional Requirement 13 adds the following language,

None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.

In 2011, Congress extended this restriction to include not just the CDC, but also the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services.

While at first glance this language may not seem to explicitly prohibit these agencies from funding studies on gun related injuries, deaths, and gun safety, the fact that such research could be used to lobby Congress has blocked them from doing so. No such restrictions apply to the study of obesity, heart disease, or overall accident and injury prevention even though these areas of research could also be used to lobby for changes to policy. Yet because of the political reach of the gun lobby, an entire line of scientific inquiry has been effectively halted, with far-reaching and profound consequences for public health and safety. It is the main reason we do not have answers to some very important and basic gun safety questions such as:

[Moridin]

Det är förbjudet för sjukvårdspersonal att göra det.

Anti-science legislation prohibits research into gun safety

So just how is this an example of anti-science legislation? The tragic irony is that another piece of anti-science legislation, specifically developed to block research on gun safety, prevents us from gathering and analyzing the data to adequately answer this question. In the 1990s, NRA-backed lawmakers inserted into The Consolidated Appropriations Act, (P.L. 112-74, Section 503, Division F, Title V) language prohibiting the CDC from using funds to promote:

any activity to advocate or promote … any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product, including its sale or marketing, including but not limited to the advocacy or promotion of gun control.

Additional Requirement 13 adds the following language,

None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.

In 2011, Congress extended this restriction to include not just the CDC, but also the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services.

While at first glance this language may not seem to explicitly prohibit these agencies from funding studies on gun related injuries, deaths, and gun safety, the fact that such research could be used to lobby Congress has blocked them from doing so. No such restrictions apply to the study of obesity, heart disease, or overall accident and injury prevention even though these areas of research could also be used to lobby for changes to policy. Yet because of the political reach of the gun lobby, an entire line of scientific inquiry has been effectively halted, with far-reaching and profound consequences for public health and safety. It is the main reason we do not have answers to some very important and basic gun safety questions such as:

Det finns inget där som förbjuder sjukvårdspersonal att samla in statistik. Att samla in och analysera statistik är inte samma sak som att "advocate or promote gun control".

[kipphebel3]

Tydligen anser Nra att blotta insamlingen räknas som "promote". Kansme för att datat sedan kan användas som argument.

[Moridin]

Tydligen anser Nra att blotta insamlingen räknas som "promote". Kansme för att datat sedan kan användas som argument.

Så vitt jag kan se finns inget juridiskt förbud mot att samla in statistik. Kan du visa på detta?

[2Sharp]

Tydligen anser Nra att blotta insamlingen räknas som "promote". Kansme för att datat sedan kan användas som argument.

Jag tolkar det som att registreringen av uppgifterna är problemet, inte att informationen ev. kan användas som argument.

Många hängivna anhängare av andra tillägget hävdar att registrering är ett av de första stegen till konfiskering [av vapnen].

[kipphebel3]

Så vitt jag kan se finns inget juridiskt förbud mot att samla in statistik. Kan du visa på detta?

Nu brukar SBM vara ganska vederhäftifa, men jag skall be dem förtydliga. Kommer dock att ta ett tag att splöja igenom kommentarerna.

Och ja, jag är synnerligen medveten om "slippery slope" argumentet.

Edit: Jag har en god vän i USA som är republikan och dessutom religiös. Han anser att NRA definitivt har tappat fokus. En gång i tiden sysslade de med information om att hantera vapen ansvarsfullt. Numera sysslar de med lobbying för att förhindra varje försök till att få till lagstiftning gällande vapen.

[kipphebel3]

Hittade även denna:

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.

To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”4

Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up. Even today, 17 years after this legislative action, the CDC's website lacks specific links to information about preventing firearm-related violence.

Så, nej, det finns ingen lag som explicit förbjuder denna forskning, men väl en policy som gör det.