Omnibus Blocks Funding for CDC Gun Violence Research Aimed at Disarming Americans

1
Share

cdc guns

House and Senate Republicans have kept in place a 17-year-old ban on using any government funds for research into lessening gun violence with the intention of disarming US citizens. One of Obama’s executive orders lifted the ban but the money still isn’t specifically allocated for it.

The recently released omnibus doubled down on a congressional ban on any money for the Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health to do research into shootings, in spite of a push by House Democrats to strip it out.

Nancy Pelosi was demanding it because they intend to preordain research to help the government control guns.

In 1994, Dr. Mark Rosenberg, the former head of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, made his goal clear: “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes…. Now smoking is dirty, deadly, and banned.”

The CDC was engaging in junk science in order to create evidence for gun control.

They weren’t trying to study gun violence. They wanted to ban guns and tailored their research to reach that goal.

One of their famous and false statistics is that gun owners are 2.7x more likely to be murdered. It was the result of CDC research in the 1990s and it’s not true.

The CDC was caught funneling taxpayer money to gun control groups and organizations. They announced this at pressers and were proud of their misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Congress put this sentence in a bill: “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.”

The CDC can do gun violence research, they just can’t do it with the intention of disarming Americans so they hadn’t been doing it.

The media is not happy that the wording hasn’t been eliminated but it’s more about propaganda than reality.

Two years ago, President Obama ordered the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to get back to studying “the causes of gun violence.”

The CDC’s self-imposed ban was the direct result of congress accusing them of producing research to control guns. They threatened to strip them of their funding at the time.

“It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide,” CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard wrote, “but our resources are very limited.”

Congress has continued to block dedicated funding. Obama requested $10 million for the CDC’s gun violence research in his last two budgets.

In 1996 a Republican congressman, Jay Dickey, stripped $2.6 million from the CDC budget, the exact amount spent on gun research the previous year. Soon the funding was restored, but designated elsewhere, and wording was inserted into the CDC’s appropriations bill 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.”

Dickey was not against scientific research, he was against the political agenda behind it.

There is no need for the CDC to conduct these studies. Research is being conducted. The only reason for them to do it is to make guns into a health hazard.

Obama’s executive order mandating CDC research produced one study that didn’t come up with the results he wanted. What they found was that the vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides; stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime; gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime; interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results; mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining; and defensive uses of guns are common; armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker.

The government is looking elsewhere for their research now.

 

Share

1 COMMENT

Comments are closed.