The CDC has awarded $8 million in grants to study gun violence

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,923
Location
Alma Illinois
MODERATOR WARNING - Remember the posting requirements for Activism and keep focused on those when responding. If too much effort (and that's already occurred) has to go into deleting posts that have drifted too far this thread will have to be closed or moved.


So much for the 1996 law prohibiting federal funds being spent on this. You can read the list of the studies funded at this link:

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-research.html

Time to demand answers from your representative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would be interesting to see some interesting official data on...

... how many MSR or "military styled" firearms are in civilian hands versus the number that have been misused.

... how a very limited set of geographical areas account for the vast majority of "gun violence".

... the frequency of "gun violence" crimes committed by people already prohibited from firearms possession.

... the percentage of "gun violence" committed with stolen weapons.

.... the race and ethnicity of perpetrators and victims. Since that is important for EVERYTHING else right now, it can be examined without a PC filter for this topic.
 
Last edited:
CDC additional reqquirement 12 (AR12) forbids CDC from using grant money from Congress to lobby Congress on specific legislation.
CDC additional reqquirement 13 (AR13) forbids CDC from using grant money from Congress to lobby Congress on gun control, because true believers in gun control at CDC thought the justice of their cause was an exemption to AR12..

If CDC is authorizing empirical academic research, it is not a violation of AR13 as applied to AR12.

The problem is the clique at CDC that wants to apply the Germ Theory of Disease (equating guns to the polio virus, for example) rather than recognizing that gun violence fits the criminological MOM model of a person with motive to do violence exploiting opportunity and utilizing means. That's as as stupid as saying a polio victim has intent to be crippled and seeks out the virus. They have made their mind up, and advocate using grant money to produce advocacy group op-ed level "research" to promote Congress to pass gun control laws.

Katherine Christoffel, M.D.: "Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.... Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of the deaths." in "Gun Control as Immunization."

Patrick O'Carroll, Acting Section Head of the Division of Injury Control, Centers for Disease Control: "We're going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We're doing the most we can do, given the political realities."

As the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban came up for renewal in 2004, Centers for Disease Control separately from the National Research Council did an exhaustive review of academic research (of the quality that would be considered by the ASC or which would be published in a peer-reviewed law journal). Both the CDC review and the NSC review found no evidence that the AWB or any other gun control measure had a measurable impact on criminal violence. That probably won't faze the anti-gun clique at CDC.
 
Last edited:
The problem is the clique at CDC that wants to apply the Germ Theory of Disease (equating guns to the polio virus, for example) rather than recognizing that gun violence fits the criminological MOM model of a person with motive to do violence exploiting opportunity and utilizing means. That's as as stupid as saying a polio victim has intent to be crippled and seeks out the virus. They have made their mind up, and advocate using grant money to produce advocacy group op-ed level "research" to promote Congress to pass gun control laws.

Which is why we need congress to stop this.
 
But due to this prohibition on gun violence studies results in the CDC mortality database (otherwise an excellent source of data) making no distinction between murder and justifiable homicide. It also makes no distinction for LEO shootings too.

Again assuming the data is collected impartially and scientifically this data would help us more than it would hurt us, the 2A community

https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

The above is an awesome database and yet due to the restriction on the CDC you cannot filter the data by justifiable homicides. Image how powerful it would be if we could show how many of firearms related homicides were justified. If we are right the data will show it.
 
I'm sorry but if quality research is done on suicide prevention from firearms usage, nothing wrong with that. If one predicts that the outcome will be just a screed for gun banning or overreaching confiscation, that would be problematic. One would hope the efforts would be more sophisticated. When we look at firearms deaths, more than half are suicides, so it's worth a look at prevention.

It is pretty standard advice that if someone in a household shows suicidal ideation to remove the guns. Might there be substitution, yes - but slowing down faster actions methods of suicide does prevent some.

Can't ignore the problem but one hopes for something beyond just 'ban them'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
Personal I think the CDC doing these studies is a good thing assuming it's done scientifically and impartially. If done objectively, I believe this data will help the pro-2A side more than it hurts it.
But it won't be; the studies will be done by those the CDC wants to get their results from to back up their claims. They have become political and need to either be set straight as to their mission or disbanded.
 
But it won't be; the studies will be done by those the CDC wants to get their results from to back up their claims. They have become political and need to either be set straight as to their mission or disbanded.
I don't find the CDC as biased as many, its not perfect but its not as bad as some seem try to argue IMHO. I would be for setting them straight and putting proper oversight into the effort and getting the data. The CDC is one of the few with the infrastructure to get this data. Again it has to be done without bias but I am not afraid of the results. I am confident the data will do use more good than harm.
 
Nothing in the restrictions on lobbying prevents objective academic research.

https://www.cdc.gov/grants/additional-requirements/ar-12.html
https://www.cdc.gov/grants/additional-requirements/ar-13.html

Additional Requirement - 12: Lobbying Restrictions

Applicants should be aware that award recipients are prohibited from using CDC/HHS funds to engage in any lobbying activity. Specifically, no part of the federal award shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant recipient, sub-recipient, or agent acting for such recipient or sub-recipient, related to any activity designed to influence the enactment of legislation, appropriations, regulation, administrative action, or Executive order proposed or pending before the Congress or any state government, state legislature or local legislature or legislative body.

Restrictions on lobbying activities described above also specifically apply to lobbying related to any proposed, pending, or future Federal, state, or local tax increase, or 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.

This prohibition includes grass roots lobbying efforts by award recipients that are directed at inducing members of the public to contact their elected representatives to urge support of, or opposition to, proposed or pending legislation, appropriations, regulations, administrative actions, or Executive Orders (hereinafter referred to collectively as “legislation and other orders”). Further prohibited grass roots lobbying communications by award recipients using federal funds could also encompass any effort to influence legislation through an attempt to affect the opinions of the general public or any segment of the population if the communications refer to specific legislation and/or other orders, directly express a view on such legislation or other orders, and encourage the audience to take action with respect to the matter.

In accordance with applicable law, direct lobbying communications by award recipients are also prohibited. Direct lobbying includes any attempt to influence legislative or other similar deliberations at all levels of government through communications that directly express a view on proposed or pending legislation and other orders and which are directed to members, staff, or other employees of a legislative body or to government officials or employees who participate in the formulation of legislation or other orders.

Lobbying prohibitions also extend to include CDC/HHS grants and cooperative agreements that, in whole or in part, involve conferences. Federal funds cannot be used directly or indirectly to encourage participants in such conferences to impermissibly lobby.

However, these prohibitions are not intended to prohibit all interaction with the legislative or executive branches of governments, or to prohibit educational efforts pertaining to public health that are within the scope of the CDC award. For state, local, and other governmental grantees, certain activities falling within the normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships or participation by an agency or officer of a state, local, or tribal government in policymaking and administrative processes within the executive branch of that government are permissible. There are circumstances for such grantees, in the course of such a normal and recognized executive-legislative relationship, when it is permissible to provide information to the legislative branch in order to foster implementation of prevention strategies to promote public health. However, such communications cannot directly urge the decision makers to act with respect to specific legislation or expressly solicit members of the public to contact the decision makers to urge such action.

Many non-profit grantees, in order to retain their tax-exempt status, have long operated under settled definitions of “lobbying” and “influencing legislation.” These definitions are a useful benchmark for all non-government grantees, regardless of tax status. Under these definitions, grantees are permitted to (1) prepare and disseminate certain nonpartisan analysis, study, or research reports; (2) engage in examinations and discussions of broad social, economic, and similar problems in reports and at conferences; and (3) provide technical advice or assistance upon a written request by a legislative body or committee.

Award recipients should also note that using CDC/HHS funds to develop and/or disseminate materials that exhibit all three of the following characteristics are prohibited: (1) refer to specific legislation or other order; (2) reflect a point of view on that legislation or other order; and (3) contain an overt call to action.

It remains permissible for CDC/HHS grantees to use CDC funds to engage in activities to enhance prevention; collect and analyze data; publish and disseminate results of research and surveillance data; implement prevention strategies; conduct community outreach services; foster coalition building and consensus on public health initiatives; provide leadership and training, and foster safe and healthful environments.

Note also that under the provisions of 31 U.S.C. Section 1352, recipients (and their sub-tier contractors and/or funded parties) are prohibited from using appropriated Federal funds to lobby in connection with the award, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of the funding mechanism under which monetary assistance was received. In accordance with applicable regulations and law, certain covered entities must give assurances that they will not engage in prohibited activities.

CDC cautions recipients of CDC funds to be careful not to give the appearance that CDC funds are being used to carry out activities in a manner that is prohibited under Federal law. Recipients of CDC funds should give close attention to isolating and separating the appropriate use of CDC funds from non-CDC funds.

Use of federal funds inconsistent with these lobbying restrictions could result in disallowance of the cost of the activity or action found not to be in compliance as well as potentially other enforcement actions as outlined in applicable grants regulations.


Additional Requirement - 13: Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act specifies that: “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.”

Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated Federal monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for direct or indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of Congress with regard to specific Federal legislation. This prohibition includes the funding and assistance of public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence members of Congress with regard to specific legislation or appropriation by Congress.

In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC’s Appropriations Act to mean that CDC’s funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.
 
I don't see a plan here. What is the proposed plan of action? Do you want to contact the CDC, DHS, the Committee overseeing, or your individual Senators? Do you want to say "no funding for gun research" or "you're obligated to monitor the funding for firearms related research at the CDC to ensure that it is not politically motivated nor to be used for political purposes"?

Remember that this has occurred in this administration so who do you want to contact?
Who oversees CDC funding? https://www.help.senate.gov/about/issues/health The Chairman is retiring and I don't know who the new Chairman will be after the election. The current Chairman is NRA "A" scored Senator Lamar Alexander, but he may not be open to action since he's retiring. OTOH, since he doesn't need to run for election in November he may be. Reaching out to him can't hurt (as long as you remember to be polite, clear, and to the point) to express your concern. https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
CDC is part of the Dept. of Health and Human Services headed by Secretary Alex Azar so contacting him with concerns is appropriate.
What does the 2021 budget for the CDC look like? https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2021/FY-2021-CDC-congressional-justification.pdf .


Has the NRA put out any call for action or has SAF voiced a concern or filed a lawsuit?

What is our concern and what's the background? https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/ https://lockedback.com/cdc-can-research-firearms-gun-deaths/ https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340/ https://www.wired.com/story/cdc-gun-violence-research-money/ https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-cdc-isnt-studying-gun-violence#What-consequences-does-all-this-have-for-the-U.S.-public?
 
Last edited:
Which is why we need congress to stop this.
Well, it's Congress that's at fault for this, as they write the bills and appropriate the funds. This particular grant was probably directed by an appropriations bill. Congress won't stop this until we the people elect a different Congress.
 
Last edited:
Personal I think the CDC doing these studies is a good thing assuming it's done scientifically and impartially. If done objectively, I believe this data will help the pro-2A side more than it hurts it.

Since when has the CDC ever been objective about something they didn't like? o_O :uhoh: :scrutiny:
 
Since when has the CDC ever been objective about something they didn't like? o_O :uhoh: :scrutiny:

Do you trust the CDC?

I don't have to trust them, and not all of the CDC has an agenda, some of them are actual scientist and researchers after the truth. If it's done scientifically and peer reviewed then the data will be there for all of us to see and use. I want the data, the activist in the CDC can make whatever bad conclusion from the data they want. And we can make our own conclusions too. The data lets us find the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top