|
|
|
|
|
by jadell
2486 days ago
|
|
Dickey covers the CDC and the NIH (as of 2011). And the common interpretation of that amendment[0] is that it is unclear where the line exists between research conclusions and advocating for gun-control. The CDC's entire purpose is to come up with mitigation plans for public health issues. If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership alone causes an increase in gun violence, what conclusions would the CDC be allowed to come to, and what possible mitigation could they recommend that couldn't be viewed as advocating for gun control? Their position is to avoid all such research entirely. The letter of the law seems to speak only to funding, but its effect is to shut down all research into the issue. Which, of course, was the intended effect from the beginning. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/#__sec2... |
|
If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership when isolated from the list of variables that they have controlled for, is linked by correlation to an increase in gun violence then why do you believe publishing that correlation is supportive of gun control?