GOP Congressman clueless about Surgeon General

[tyr_13]

Well, there is this group that representes the interests of a lot of gun owners called the NRA. They actively oppose research into the affects of gun ownership and use on public health. For instance, did you know they successfully lobbied to stop all gun violence research and education programs at the CDC?

Surely gun owners pooling their money and resources to oppose the collection of the these data is evidence they oppose the collection of these data.

Which is good evidence that the NRA opposes it, and that it isn't enough of a disagreement point with their membership for them to stop supporting the NRA. As I've been arguing however, it is dishonest and counterproductive to keep using the 'NRA=gun owners' shortcut. It makes it much more difficult to get any gun owners on the side of more data, and increases the mirror perception on the other side of the argument; that people for more gun control are represented by the gun-haters.

 

[sunmaster14]

I've long heard that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

If that is true, then shouldn't we study the people who kill people and try to reduce that as it is approaching epidemic proportions?

It's not approaching "epidemic proportions," whatever that means. It has been receding from it for two decades.

Shouldn't we study why and how they kill people and reasonable measures to reduce the killing? Why are we cutting off avenues of research preemptively? If one proposed to fund studies on pool safety or ebola prevention or accidental death by choking on ones foot I doubt there would be as much push back.

Because gun control is a political and social issue. There are costs and benefits to restricting access to guns (or allowing greater access), and not only is an assessment of the balance highly subjective, but the assessments of costs and benefits individually are highly subjective.

I doubt the medical community has much to offer in the way of insight into the issue, except insofar as suicide prevention is a mental health issue (and this can and should be studied without narrowing the focus to guns). Worse, getting the medical community embroiled in a political issue can impede its work in other areas. Not only does the politics distract from core competencies, but it lowers credibility in the eyes of political opponents.

 

[Ziggurat]

So the NRA, thought their influence in the GOP, cuts off funding for research into lowering gun violence. This is the fault of the Democrats, because failed to stop or undo this. That is an odd way to cast blame.

You misunderstand. I'm not blaming anyone. Rather, I'm pointing out that the Democrats don't seem to think it's much of a problem either, because if they did, they would have tried to get a more appropriate body to do the work. Which leads me to conclude they only wanted the CDC to do the work because they thought the product of the CDC would be politically useful to them.

To be clear, you think that it is a bad idea of an agency filled with public health experts

First off, the CDC is not, or at least shouldn't be, filled with "public health experts" in some universal sense. It should be filled with disease experts.

to study and educate on issues of gun violence

Gun violence is not a disease. So yes, I think it's a bad idea to make that the responsibility of an agency that should be focused on diseases.

even though most gun deaths are suicides and hundreds of accidental gun deaths happen every year.

Accidents aren't diseases either. And as for suicide, 1) that should fall under the purview of the National Institute for Mental Health, not the CDC, and 2) there's no reason to limit or focus suicide prevention efforts on just guns.

Yes, dealing with issues the kill tens of thousands of Americans annually is a bad idea.

What exactly does "dealing with" mean? What have the statistics that the CDC did collect on guns actually managed to accomplish, other than serve as fodder for political arguments? If that's what you mean by "dealing with issues", well, I'm perfectly happy to simply skip it.

If they had transferred those resources to fighting Ebola in the US, they might have been able to increase the odds of survival for the one person in the history of the country who has died from Ebola.

Oh, I see. You think ebola is the only disease problem we're facing right now where the CDC is underperforming. Well, it's not. It's only the most visible example.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And you're working real hard to make sure that stays the case. Just like the NRA. This is exactly why nothing productive gets done.

I am simply stating the situation.

I want the data. I'd rather one of the other organizations that better fit that data category collect it, but would be fine with getting it from the CDC (much like drunk driving deaths).

I do not trust that that data would be used or presented in an objective manner but the data would at least be available .

Evidence that gun owners are afraid of collecting it?

The laws blocking collecting such data.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So the NRA, thought their influence in the GOP, cuts off funding for research into lowering gun violence. This is the fault of the Democrats, because failed to stop or undo this. That is an odd way to cast blame.

To be clear, you think that it is a bad idea of an agency filled with public health experts to study and educate on issues of gun violence, even though most gun deaths are suicides and hundreds of accidental gun deaths happen every year.

No it is that those deaths are not important and no one cares about someone like that. Look at the contempt everyone showed about that weak loser Robin Williams when he killed himself recently. What a pathetic guy.

Your irresponsibility leads to one of your kids shooting the other, not my problem and clearly you have already been punished enough so there is no need to actually try to prevent that. Like letting doctors ask about safe storage of firearms. Right out that gun grabbing BS, right gun lovers?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which is good evidence that the NRA opposes it, and that it isn't enough of a disagreement point with their membership for them to stop supporting the NRA. As I've been arguing however, it is dishonest and counterproductive to keep using the 'NRA=gun owners' shortcut. It makes it much more difficult to get any gun owners on the side of more data, and increases the mirror perception on the other side of the argument; that people for more gun control are represented by the gun-haters.

Then you need a lobbying group that actually represents you. So where is such a group?

 

[Mudcat]

The OP caused the derail. Perhaps you should report it.

No, the NRA caused the derail by involving themselves in the matter. I'm still hoping someone will explain why they're doing so because I don't see the connection between the Ebola situation, the Surgeon General, and gun ownership rights. And I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Because gun control is a political and social issue.

You mean like . . . health care?

Just because it is a political or social issue means that we should not study it?

Odd approach. I thought political and social issues could use a bit of science to inform the discussion. Facts help, except with guns.

There are costs and benefits to restricting access to guns (or allowing greater access), and not only is an assessment of the balance highly subjective, but the assessments of costs and benefits individually are highly subjective.

Right, which is why we can't study gun deaths?

The CDC doesn't make laws. But, it can provide insight into the causes and nature of gun deaths in the US. And that insight can inform those who would make laws as they balance the the costs and benefits. Science allows you to quantify the likely costs or benefits of a proposal. But that requires study.

I doubt the medical community has much to offer in the way of insight into the issue, except insofar as suicide prevention is a mental health issue (and this can and should be studied without narrowing the focus to guns).

The great thing is that if you never let them look into it you don't have to question that doubt. Circular, the logic is.

Worse, getting the medical community embroiled in a political issue can impede its work in other areas.

Like abortion? Or birth control?

The medical community is not a kid with ADD. It is large and can deal with multiple issues at one time.

Not only does the politics distract from core competencies, but it lowers credibility in the eyes of political opponents.

Science has no credibility in the eyes of the GOP. It can not get lower.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So the NRA is their constituency? Those 3 to 4 million NRA members are representative of the entire country?

No, they just represent the members of the well-regulated militia, as specified in the 2nd Amended.

 

[xjx388]

What exactly is the Surgeon General or CDC supposed to do or recommend about guns, health-threat-wise? Should they be in Chicago right now to quarantine gang members and cure them of their gun-itis? Should we slap a warning label on ammo boxes: "The Surgeon General has found that guns and ammunition cause death and serious injury."

I want law enforcement and maybe Public Safety departments to address gun safety. Locally, the Texas DPS and local LE do the outreach and education on gun safety.

If the SG candidate has specifically said that he will focus on gun control as SG then he is not an appropriate candidate in my view. Obama should just find another of the thousands of doctors who would be qualified.

And for the record, I had no idea there was no SG right now. The country moves on. If anything, it ndicates that the SG is really nothing more than a symbolic post that maybe isn't really necessary.

 

[TheSapient]

You misunderstand. I'm not blaming anyone. Rather, I'm pointing out that the Democrats don't seem to think it's much of a problem either, because if they did, they would have tried to get a more appropriate body to do the work. Which leads me to conclude they only wanted the CDC to do the work because they thought the product of the CDC would be politically useful to them.

First off, the CDC is not, or at least shouldn't be, filled with "public health experts" in some universal sense. It should be filled with disease experts.

Gun violence is not a disease. So yes, I think it's a bad idea to make that the responsibility of an agency that should be focused on diseases.

Accidents aren't diseases either. And as for suicide, 1) that should fall under the purview of the National Institute for Mental Health, not the CDC, and 2) there's no reason to limit or focus suicide prevention efforts on just guns.

Yeah, I get it. You see the name Center for Disease Control, you imagine they only are supposed to deal with disease. When you discover their mission is far broader than that, you conclude their mission, not your understanding, is in error. Never mind they have the appropriate expertise and resources. Never mind that they've headed up these efforts for many decades. They have the word "Disease" in their name. What's important is that institutions limit their work that it matches their name. Having the CDC study gun deaths would be like a KFC selling coleslaw. Coleslaw that was't even fried in Kentucky. Or anywhere.

No, the appropriate place to study the affects of guns on public health is the FBI, which I guess must stand for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Public Health and Stuff.

What exactly does "dealing with" mean? What have the statistics that the CDC did collect on guns actually managed to accomplish, other than serve as fodder for political arguments? If that's what you mean by "dealing with issues", well, I'm perfectly happy to simply skip it.

People using data to inform their political views? Outrageous! What if better supported concepts made their way into policy?

 

[TheSapient]

What exactly is the Surgeon General or CDC supposed to do or recommend about guns, health-threat-wise? Should they be in Chicago right now to quarantine gang members and cure them of their gun-itis? Should we slap a warning label on ammo boxes: "The Surgeon General has found that guns and ammunition cause death and serious injury."

For example, there are around 20,000 gun suicides annually in the US. Does access to guns increase the risk of suicide, or does the rate stay the same, with just different methods? If it is the former, can we identify who is most as risk and educate them to limit their access to firearms? Are their certain kinds of firearms (e.g. pistols vs. hunting rifle) that people who suffer from depression should avoid buying? If access to guns increases suicide rates, how long should an at-risk person stay away after suicidal thoughts?

Or how do fire arms safety classes for children below a certain age affect the rates of accidental shootings in home where there are guns?

Or what programs show the greatest success in preventing at risk youth from acquiring firearms?

 

[Ziggurat]

For example, there are around 20,000 gun suicides annually in the US. Does access to guns increase the risk of suicide, or does the rate stay the same, with just different methods? If it is the former, can we identify who is most as risk and educate them to limit their access to firearms? Are their certain kinds of firearms (e.g. pistols vs. hunting rifle) that people who suffer from depression should avoid buying? If access to guns increases suicide rates, how long should an at-risk person stay away after suicidal thoughts?

And why isn't this not better suited to the National Institute of Mental Health? You have yet to say. I find that curious.

 

[TheSapient]

And why isn't this not better suited to the National Institute of Mental Health? You have yet to say. I find that curious.

What is it you find curios?

I'd say it is also appropriate to study the affects of gun access on suicide at the NIMH, and they do indeed do some of that research. But the bulk of the money to do these studies was going to the CDC, which is why the CDC was targeted. The goal was not to shuffle money and resources from the CDC to other agencies. The goal was to limit data. You yourself have admitted you oppose people have access to gun data if that data might be used to inform political discussion.

 

[xjx388]

And why isn't this not better suited to the National Institute of Mental Health? You have yet to say. I find that curious.

Or what about other research institutions? I don't see any limitations on Universitites or the various medical groups ("American Associations" of Pediatrics, Psychiatry, Family Medicine, etc) funding (even through NIH grants) and carrying out this kind of research. Maybe because those aren't particularly fruitful areas? Maybe it's much more effective to treat the causes of suicide and depression than try to tease out whether depressed people should purchase a pistol or a rifle?

 

[thaiboxerken]

What is it you find curios?

I'd say it is also appropriate to study the affects of gun access on suicide at the NIMH, and they do indeed do some of that research. But the bulk of the money to do these studies was going to the CDC, which is why the CDC was targeted. The goal was not to shuffle money and resources from the CDC to other agencies. The goal was to limit data. You yourself have admitted you oppose people have access to gun data if that data might be used to inform political discussion.

Does it surprise you at all? Conservative talk about women's health when they really are about banning abortion. They talk about voter fraud when they are actually trying to suppress voters. This instance, they talk about appropriate agencies when they want no agency to do studies on guns.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is it you find curios?

That you previously avoided the question.

I'd say it is also appropriate to study the affects of gun access on suicide at the NIMH, and they do indeed do some of that research. But the bulk of the money to do these studies was going to the CDC

Why? Why did it go to the CDC, when the NIMH is a better fit?

You yourself have admitted you oppose people have access to gun data if that data might be used to inform political discussion.

I have said no such thing. Go back and read more carefully, because you are clearly confused.

 

[3point14]

Yeah, I get it. You see the name Center for Disease Control, you imagine they only are supposed to deal with disease. When you discover their mission is far broader than that, you conclude their mission, not your understanding, is in error. Never mind they have the appropriate expertise and resources. Never mind that they've headed up these efforts for many decades. They have the word "Disease" in their name. What's important is that institutions limit their work that it matches their name. Having the CDC study gun deaths would be like a KFC selling coleslaw. Coleslaw that was't even fried in Kentucky. Or anywhere.

You guys are going to need a National Handgun Association.

 

[TheSapient]

And why isn't this not better suited to the National Institute of Mental Health? You have yet to say. I find that curious.

I should also be noted that as an agency under Health and Human Services, the NIMH also had its ability to study gun violence severely restricted.

In December 2011, Congress added language equivalent to the Dickey amendment to fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation that funded the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (PDF, 1.3MB), stating that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” The NRA’s advocacy efforts that lead to this amendment are thought to be a response to a 2009 American Journal of Public Health article by Branas et al., titled “Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault,” presenting the results of research that was funded by the NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

 

[3point14]

Why? Why did it go to the CDC, when the NIMH is a better fit?

How much time do you spend worrying about other government departments that are dealing with things that could be considred outside their remit?