• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Lobby Blocks Medical Research

JackA said:
So why not make gun injuries as deadly as possible? The cry babies should shut up and let guns do their thing.

The gun lobby restricts medical research, too.
Click to expand...

Before we hear the "that's just Salon" rebuttal, your article has a good reference:
Frozen Funding on Firearm Research: “Doing Nothing Is No Longer an Acceptable Solution”

...
Since then, the NIH has funded three studies explicitly related to firearm injury,4 and the National Institute of Justice awarded nearly $2 million in funding for firearms-related research in 2014.5 Yet Congress has continued to quietly – and sometimes not so quietly – block additional funds for firearm research and restrict the CDC’s budget to limit activities related to firearm violence.

Though his amendment remains in force, Rep. Dickey’s views have changed. In December 2015, he published an open letter to Congress urging action on firearm injuries and lamenting the way his intent (to avoid federal funding for politicized gun control advocacy) was distorted to obstruct scientific and public health progress. “Research could have been continued on gun violence without infringing on the rights of gun owners, in the same fashion that the highway industry continued its research without eliminating the automobile,” he wrote. “It is my position that somehow or someway we should slowly but methodically fund such research until a solution is reached. Doing nothing is no longer an acceptable solution.”6
...
Click to expand...
 
There is nothing preventing the AMA from conducting their own studies, nor is there anything preventing medical unions from compiling data on mass casualty response. Nothing. The ONLY obstacle is federal funding for the CDC where the CDC would become engaged in political measures. "No CDC funds may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

If this is such a 'valuable' endeavor, why is it not funded by the AMA through research grants? I'm certain hey could get the funding from Gates, Bezos, or Zuckerman.
 
JackA said:
So why not make gun injuries as deadly as possible? The cry babies should shut up and let guns do their thing.

The gun lobby restricts medical research, too.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. It’s the NRA’s fault that Congress doesn’t adequately fund research on gunshot injuries to this guy’s liking. What kind of research is missing? Isn’t it medical/surgical intervention research that’s needed? And I’m not even sure it’s needed there either. The CDC keeps records on gun deaths, gun suicides, gun-involved crimes. What research is this article referring to that the NRA has blocked? Which, unless they are voting on bills in Congress they can’t do anyway?

We have tons of research on how to treat gunshot injuries. Just ask our military.

All hospitals are not trauma centers, a very special kind of emergency room designed to accept the casualties like we saw in LV. The City of Chicago, as an example, has eight. The whole state of Nevada has four. What’s the problem again?
 
VanceMack said:
There is nothing preventing the AMA from conducting their own studies, nor is there anything preventing medical unions from compiling data on mass casualty response. Nothing. The ONLY obstacle is federal funding for the CDC where the CDC would become engaged in political measures. "No CDC funds may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

If this is such a 'valuable' endeavor, why is it not funded by the AMA through research grants? I'm certain hey could get the funding from Gates, Bezos, or Zuckerman.
Click to expand...

How is research into medical treatment for gun injuries advocacy for gun control? It's not unless your position is that gun injuries are results to be welcomed. The advocacy obviously is for better medical outcomes after getting shot.
 
VanceMack said:
There is nothing preventing the AMA from conducting their own studies, nor is there anything preventing medical unions from compiling data on mass casualty response. Nothing. The ONLY obstacle is federal funding for the CDC where the CDC would become engaged in political measures. "No CDC funds may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

If this is such a 'valuable' endeavor, why is it not funded by the AMA through research grants? I'm certain hey could get the funding from Gates, Bezos, or Zuckerman.
Click to expand...

Lol...but we must use government money to fund our political machine and fund our "experts" to confirm our views.
 
JackA said:
How is research into medical treatment for gun injuries advocacy for gun control? It's not unless your position is that gun injuries are results to be welcomed. The advocacy obviously is for better medical outcomes after getting shot.
Click to expand...

Why can't it be privately funded? Why does the CDC HAVE to be the one to do it?
 
JackA said:
How is research into medical treatment for gun injuries advocacy for gun control? It's not unless your position is that gun injuries are results to be welcomed. The advocacy obviously is for better medical outcomes after getting shot.
Click to expand...

Medics on the battlefield get better training than any gvmt “research” could engender. This is just a lot of nonsense. Just another let’s bash the right. Let’s bash the NRA piece.
 
JackA said:
How is research into medical treatment for gun injuries advocacy for gun control? It's not unless your position is that gun injuries are results to be welcomed. The advocacy obviously is for better medical outcomes after getting shot.
Click to expand...

The same way research into vehicle injuries resulted in many government mandates to make safer vehicles. The difference, of course, is that a vehicle can be made safer without a drastic effect on its main function (to provide transportation for people and goods). If a gun's main function is to incapacitate its target(s) (threats of immediate serious injury or death), which most of us can agree is the case, then anything that impairs that function for the cause of target safety (ability to remain a threat?) is counterproductive.
 
All these libertarian argument work to do away with the CDC entirely.
I think the CDC does important work for the nation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The same way research into vehicle injuries resulted in many government mandates to make safer vehicles. The difference, of course, is that a vehicle can be made safer without a drastic effect on its main function (to provide transportation for people and goods). If a gun's main function is to incapacitate its target(s) (threats of immediate serious injury or death), which most of us can agree is the case, then anything that impairs that function for the cause of target safety (ability to remain a threat?) is counterproductive.
Click to expand...

The article talked about medical responses. But I understand your point that knowledge can be used when debating legislation.
 
JackA said:
How is research into medical treatment for gun injuries advocacy for gun control? It's not unless your position is that gun injuries are results to be welcomed. The advocacy obviously is for better medical outcomes after getting shot.
Click to expand...
I believe that is the point. The only restrictions listed under the amendment is that the CDC essentially NOT be used as a tool for political gain. Now...read the article you cited and tell me honestly you dont see a political slant...and due to that slant, a reason whereby they might not receive federal funding.

That being said...why do you need federal funding to conduct this research?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom