Government Scientists Aren't Even Allowed to Study Gun Violence – The Reason Is Disturbing

The ban brings to light a bigger issue. 

On the Wednesday of the shooting in San Bernardino, California, only a few hours before the event took place, doctors went to Capitol Hill asking Congress to end the ban on gun violence research. They presented a petition signed by over 2,000 doctors nationwide, protesting a 1996 ban that prevents the Center For Disease Control from studying gun violence.

The ban was made after a CDC-funded study revealed that having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide and suicide. The NRA convinced Congress that the CDC was using its power to advocate gun control, and Congress quickly cut funding for gun-related research. It wasn’t exactly a ban on all research, per se, but the amendment was worded in such a confusing and vague way that no one knew for certain what was permitted. This created a climate of fear and intimidation with CDC researchers, where “no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out” if they could study gun violence. But why would the CDC want to study gun violence, anyway?

Freakanomics author Stephen J. Dubner explains why this is such a problem:

The “disease” in Center for Disease Control is a slight misnomer. The CDC exists, as per its website, “to protect America from health, safety and security threats ... whether human error or deliberate attack,” and “conducts critical science” as a response to health threats. That can be everything from Ebola to car safety, anything that could be potentially lethal to Americans that isn’t naturally occurring. CDC research has helped states with seatbelt laws and has done intensive research on tobacco. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner evidently does not know what this organization does (or he was just being facetious). He has said, “The CDC is there to look at diseases ... a gun is not a disease. Guns don’t kill people, people do.” Cars are also not disease, nor are cigarettes, and both are equally unlikely to kill people on their own. Yet the CDC is permitted to study their inherent health and safety risks.

Emotions are intense on this topic, as well they should be. We’re talking about an issue that involves about 300,000 deaths in the past decade, and how we reconcile that with certain rights. There’s not an easy answer; it’s not black and white. Still, how is it that tensions are so high we can’t allow research to be done by a non-partisan organization that is, by all accounts, purely concerned about public safety?

What struck me as most profoundly disturbing about the ban wasn’t that it happened — if elected officials who are chosen by the people make a decision they feel is in the best interest of the people, we have to live with that even if we disagree. But the chilling truth is that a lobbyist organization could have this type of influence over Congress. They aren’t elected by the American public, and yet they have control over our government. Their power resulted in a ban that prevents us from educating ourselves about ourselves, our country, and any risks that guns might present. The hashtag #endtheban is trending, but is it possible that our congressmen and congresswomen could be more intimidated by their constituents than whichever lobbyist has the most muscle? It’s an issue about guns, yes, but it also brings to light an equally big issue about who is really making laws on Capitol Hill.



LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

26 ultra-rich people own as much as the world's 3.8 billion poorest

The Oxfam report prompted Anand Giridharadas to tweet: "Don't be Pinkered into everything's-getting-better complacency."

Getty Images and Wikimedia Commons
Politics & Current Affairs
  • A new report by Oxfam argues that wealth inequality is causing poverty and misery around the world.
  • In the last year, the world's billionaires saw their wealth increase by 12%, while the poorest 3.8 billion people on the planet lost 11% of their wealth.
  • The report prompted Anand Giridharadas to tweet: "Don't be Pinkered into everything's-getting-better complacency." We explain what Steven Pinker's got to do with it.
Keep reading Show less

People who constantly complain are harmful to your health

Moans, groans, and gripes release stress hormones in the brain.

Photo credit: Getty Images / Stringer

Could you give up complaining for a whole month? That's the crux of this interesting piece by Jessica Hullinger over at Fast Company. Hullinger explores the reasons why humans are so predisposed to griping and why, despite these predispositions, we should all try to complain less. As for no complaining for a month, that was the goal for people enrolled in the Complaint Restraint project.

Participants sought to go the entirety of February without so much as a moan, groan, or bellyache.

Keep reading Show less
  • Facebook and Google began as companies with supposedly noble purposes.
  • Creating a more connected world and indexing the world's information: what could be better than that?
  • But pressure to return value to shareholders came at the expense of their own users.
Keep reading Show less