Hacker News Reader

Comment by inlined | Hacker News Reader

I think there's a perceived difference with non profits. E.g. I enjoy alcohol but would still feel the same way if this happened with MADD vs Jonny Walker

View on HN

The NRA doesn't sell guns.

pre-emptive edit in case someone finds some place where this isn't true: I mean generally. They are not a gun manufacturer or seller generally.

Furthermore, the NRA is pro-gun safety. I can't speak for the NRA, but myself and other members will be wearing orange on June 2nd. It's not like the NRA is going to run a "BUY MORE GUNS!" advertisement... it'll likely be something tasteful. Then again, I have been disappointed by the NRA's taste in the past.

The NRA has lobbied to block federally funded scientific research on gun violence and safety[1], so I wouldn't say they're pro gun safety, at a macro level at least.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-re...

The Dickey Amendment only banned political advocacy, not research. The problem is that the CDC was producing research that was thinly veiled political advocacy.

The purpose of CDC research on public health problems is largely to identify and support policy responses to those problems.

Patrick O'Carroll, one of the major researchers involved with the CDC's efforts in question, infamously wrote that, "We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths." Doing research to support a predetermined conclusion is not good science. It was political advocacy wearing the mantle of science.

And that is a huge issue with people that don't understand science backing away from and outright rejecting science. That is the whole problem with "Science" today is once you inject advocacy in one little area and it is exposed people throw the baby out with the bath water.

Take environmental sciences for example, the CRU and other leaks where scientist where exposed colluding with other scientist to blackball legitimate skeptics tainted the whole industry. Now we are seeing an wholesale rejection of environmental sciences and the gutting of the EPA. In a manner this is good, because there was obvious collusion and political advocacy and intent to stifle real science. On the other had, we also got a wholesale rejection by the voting majority which is now set to put clean energy back decades.

I personally put the blame squarely on the scientist of the CRU and the NOAA pause buster scientists (they are a disgrace to the title). They cost us dearly by trying to advance their agenda. When you compromise the integrity of science the cost is just too great.

When the logging industry finds certain invasive species on land it owns it clear cuts, chips and burns a few square miles just to be on the safe side.

I have no problem with science taking that approach. At least it keeps it fairly pure.

Do you feel the same about the science rejecting portion of the population?

Science 'rejects' the behavior choices of individuals all the time. Should we ignore the obesity epidemic because it 'rejects' those suffering from it?

Science isn't about making feel comfortable, it's about following the scientific method. It often presents ugly or inconvenient truths.

I meant people rejecting science. I could've been more clear.

I think it's naïve to think that the agenda is only held by the person who accidentally exposed it. I think a research team where a member can speak broadly about their group "we're going to.." versus "I'm going to" is tainted. What about the way people characterize the paid faux research commissioned by the tobacco industry? Generally it is bad enough that they paid for it, it tainted all the results of the study.

I think it's bad enough if one researcher says that they and their entire team ("we're") are committed to corrupting the results of the study to reach a foregone conclusion.

The state does not like citizens having guns, the state owns and operates the CDC and decides its budget and staffing. In a way, the research is about matters which the state has a vested interest in. If this were a private company, we would be ready to write it off entirely.

If the evidence at that point was damning he wouldn't have been biased (don't know enough, but I suspect I very well could have been) rather than operating from the evidence.

The cool thing about science is that regardless of your beliefs, you have to show your work, and it must stand up to scrutiny. The process filters advocacy. When there's ample data that suggests causal relationships (which there is in this case), you go out and try to prove a cause and reject the null hypothesis.

Certainly the scientific community is prone to coming to broader conclusions than the findings suggest, but every scientific paper's discussion section can be prone to this. And, that isn't where the conversation ends, as follow-on research will often pick apart those conclusions.

Meanwhile, the NRA has effectively bullied the CDC into not doing any research at all related to guns, as you can tell from how they respond to the NRA:

> Following the January 2011 shootings in Tucson, Ariz., (in which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was injured), the New York Times published an article reporting that the CDC went so far as to “ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the NRA as a courtesy.” In response to this report, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence sent a letter (PDF, 647) in March 2011 to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius expressing concern that the agency was giving the NRA a “preferred position,” and urging that the NRA not be given the opportunity to exercise special influence over CDC’s firearms-related research.

> 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. [1]

In what other domain do we tip toe around research like this?

I think its pretty clear the NRA is simply afraid of the implications of such research - the hard question that comes up when liberties and their societal costs intersect. Maybe we choose liberties, but we have to go into that conversation with our eyes open.

[1] http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as...

sounds like both the NRA and CDC as well as the other parties you name, are all actively encouraging publication bias.

they should all be called out for acting anti-science.

For those who weren't paying attention during the time this occurred (you can hardly be faulted) -- this is perhaps the best summation of how I recall it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/31/cdc-researc...

Only because it's impossible to trust the CDC to be professional in this regard.

Which is exactly why the auto insurance industry heavily funds MADD, to the point of driving MADD's agenda: the credit people give nonprofit advocacy groups with a superficially socially responsible purposes makes them a very good tool for industry.

NRA is also a non-profit :)

Ya, a non profit sorta like how the NFL was :) It's more or less an industry advocacy group, so it's a bit different than a typical nonprofit advocacy group.

Err, no. The NRA is not an industry association non-profit like the NFL was (the NFL is no longer a 501(c)(6) since 2015)

It's only an industry advocacy group in the sense that there is an industry that happens to have goals that align with the people who fund it.

That's not an industry advocacy group, in the same way the various brady groups are not industry advocacy groups simply because there is an industry (trigger-locks, non-lethal weaponry, etc) that happens to have goals that align with the people who fund that.

I meant it as a bit of a tongue in cheek response, and indeed I used 'was' to indicate the NFLs former status.

Nevertheless, I don't think its as simple as goals happening to align with industry, nor do I see equivalence in the industry relationships to brady groups (though admittedly I haven't researched that).

Given the NRA's closely held governance structure and the large individual donations from manufacturers, one does not need a great deal of money (and certainly not majority of $) to influence direction toward industry ends that may not be in the interest of individual members as much as industry members and NRA leadership. That's honestly the best kind of influence to have, as your goals appear to be those of the large passionate group of individuals.

I agree though 'more or less' overstates that relationship, I was wrong. I'll amend that to: the industry has influence over the policies the NRA advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base.

FWIW I'm not opposed to the NRA per se, in fact a group for teaching responsible gun use is great. I'm just opposed to the current incarnation of the organization.

"and the large individual donations from manufacturers," This, FWIW, is in fact the case with the brady groups as well.

Honestly: It's just that companies tend to donate more to individuals. That seems normal.

"I agree though 'more or less' overstates that relationship, I was wrong. I'll amend that to: the industry has influence over the policies the NRA advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base. " I think you have the arrow of causation backwards. How do you now know that it isn't "NRA individual members want to make sure industry does not get screwed, so NRA works with industry to formulate policies that help the industries, to help their members" ?

Cause otherwise, i could argue the same thing about the brady groups. "The non-lethal weapon industry has influence over the policies the various brady groups advocate, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base"

(substitute non-lethal-weapons from any of a number of industries that benefit here. there are plenty on both sides of this coin :P)

I believe, without evidence otherwise, that the arrow of causation is "members want industry to survive and thrive, so mother org works with industry policy wise".

Note that your arrow of causation is applicable to roughly any major org.

IE industry donates heavily to EFF, in large amounts (though not, AFAIK, larger than user base, much like the NRA). Therefore "industry has influence over the policies EFF advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base".

(as you can see, this argument line can be applied to any association accepting corporate contribution :P)

Not at all. The NRA gets most of its money from individual donors. More importantly, the NRA's power doesn't come from the money at their disposal. It comes from the fact that they control a large bloc of single-issue voters.

If you make or sponsor a gun control bill, the NRA will tell every member in your district to vote you out of office... and they will. This means that the only legislators who can safely support such legislation are those who are completely entrenched. Everyone else makes slight nods of approval at the Diane Feinsteins while refraining from committing totally; they can't afford to piss off thousands of very reliable, very energetic voters.

You're correct that their power comes from the large bloc of single-issue voters.

Though I disagree that there is no relationship, see other comment above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com