Why is there so little information about gun violence? It’s simple. Because the National Rifle Association and its friends in Congress don’t want us to know that guns are the key to gun violence. Beginning in the early 1990s, researchers examined whether having a gun in the home was more likely to protect occupants from crime (e.g., self-defense) or more likely to increase their risk of violent crime. Several studies showed that individuals with guns in the home were nearly three times more likely to die from homicide or suicide than those who did not.
This research was so damning that the NRA sent its lobbyists to strong-arm politicians in Congress to stop it. Since several of those early studies had been funded by the National Institutes of Health, the NRA demanded that Congress eliminate all funding for gun violence research from the NIH budget. They succeeded, but only in curtailing NIH research.
CDC continued to fund studies despite pressure from pro-gun groups. Again, the gun lobbyists descended on lawmakers and convinced them to put the industry’s profits first. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, which effectively banned the CDC from funding any research on gun violence as a public health issue. In the 22 years since, more than 600,000 Americans have died from gun violence.

Finally some help from the NRA here. I've been a member for years. They haven't done much for the state until recently.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340

I notice that the journalist provided quotes from three different proponents of the initiative petitions, but none from spokespersons for the opponents. This is what passes for journalism these days. Not to mention proofreading: "To delay IP 43, gun control advocates sent over 1,000 comments to the Oregon Secretary of State’s office." Wrong! Those were OPPONENTS, who actively voiced their objections by sending the 1000 comments.

I was going to be upset that another journalist was misrepresenting the actual truth, but then I saw this was the Mercury and remembered that it's not a collection of journalists but a collection of former Tumblr posters that share things they find regardless of their inaccuracies.

I’m so thankful to the NRA for helping take down these dishonest attacks on our civil rights. Now, if only we could get honest reporting on the issue rather than the trash I read here.

I'm glad the NRA is around to advocate for those of us who actually believe in personal responsibility and know that the state cannot save us from an imminent threat.

I think the fact that gun nuts (as above) come out of the woodwork en masse any time these measures get mentioned - whether it's here, wweek, or the misanthropic ammosexual circle jerk of underbaked white males that is /r/portland - means we are on the right track! Whether these measures win or lose, I'm genuinely excited for this to be put to the test of direct democracy. Even from a pure research standpoint it would be fascinating to see what such a large swath of people think on this contentious issue. Just another way in which we ballot measure states can be leading the nation.

@EverydayPeople,

Your hate-speech is just one reason measures get opposed. Did you even consider that maybe a lot of people have a good understanding, and valid reasons to oppose ballots like IP43?

To vilify a group of people and paint them as dangerous, with no proof whatsoever, is just plain wrong. Calling them 'ammosexuals' just reveals your maturity about the subject. Although it is a good example that shows how gun-control logic isn't that much different from the thought process of the homophobs from the 1980's. I hope you are able to educate yourself and evolve past your lack of understanding about the subject.

@ochwill

The research you refer to that was so 'damning' was a great example of politics over science. The report by a Mr. Kellerman (funded by the CDC) was sold to politicians and the public as proof that owning a gun in the home was very dangerous. He released the report to great fanfare PRIOR to peer review.

What happened during peer review? His peers found that he didn't perform a study that covered the USA, and average households. Rather, his data was restricted to 4 very urban areas with above average crime rates. There was a very high percentage of households with drug dealers, gang members, domestic violence, ex-felons in illegal possession, criminal activity, etc. Heck, one of the examples he used the resident was killed by a gun brought IN by the non-resident criminal!

There is actually quite a bit more that was covered during the hearings that lead up to the CDC having their funds restricted from research performed solely to promote a gun control agenda (vs real science). Oh, and it only covered the CDC. The Justice Department (FBI) has released plenty of research, along with many other universities and groups. People seem to skip that rather important step in order to jump right to the twitter-length meme "The NRA banned government research" for some reason. The public deserves to know the truth.