A week after the gun massacre in Newtown, Conn., the National Rifle Association is speaking out. As well it should. If only the NRA believed in the right to free speech as fervently as it believes in the right to bear arms.
Faced with government-funded research that contradicts NRA claims on gun safety, the gun lobby moved to defund the research and silence the researchers. When news reporters tried to learn which gun shops repeatedly supply violent criminals with firearms, the NRA lobbied to have gun-trace data exempted from the Freedom of Information Act. When advocates of transparency in campaign finance proposed the Disclose Act in Congress to require disclosure of top donors to political advertising campaigns, the NRA once again marched to the beat of its own 100-round drum: The organization obtained an exemption to keep its information secret.
The list goes on. The NRA-backed Tiahrt Amendment requires the Justice Department to destroy records after gun-purchase background checks, making it harder to identify and catch straw buyers who work for criminals. As part of its war on information, the gun lobby has blocked efforts to put sales records into an integrated database, making the data more difficult for law enforcement officers to retrieve and organize, and complicating efforts to analyze gun trafficking patterns. After visiting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' National Tracing Center in West Virginia, which is the nation's sole facility tracing guns used in crimes, Washington Post reporter James Grimaldi described the place as "something like out of the movie 'Brazil,' where you could literally see boxes and boxes of documents that pile up."
You might think, as we do, that the gun lobby's aversion to information, and its success in securing congressional support for secrecy, poses a threat to public health and law enforcement (not to mention democracy). There is surely a case to be made to that effect. Yet it's harder to document that argument thanks to the successful suppression of information.
That, of course, is the point. In a study published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that the presence of a gun in a home significantly increased the risks of homicide and suicide. (A finding seemingly borne out in the case of Nancy Lanza, the mother of the Newtown killer, who was murdered with her own gun.) The study was compelling, thought-provoking and attention-grabbing. Was it conclusive? Hardly. But rather than trust in scientific principle and a free marketplace of ideas to sort through the data, the gun lobby mobilized to snuff out such research altogether.
The effort was remarkably successful. In 1996, Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas pushed an amendment cutting $2.6 million from the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The import of the amendment was lost on no one. The CDC had spent $2.6 million on gun research the year before. Thereafter, the CDC was expressly prohibited from using funds to "advocate or promote gun control." A subsequent effort, by Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana, applied similar restrictions to the National Institutes of Health.
These are the results of the gun lobby's storied political muscle. They are not, however, the actions of a political movement confident that history, data or reason itself can support its agenda. Truth doesn't fear information.
The Newtown massacre may mark a turning point in America's tragic gun politics. Yet even under the most optimistic scenario, the quest for reasonable gun laws will be a lengthy, difficult battle. It's best if all sides are well-armed with facts.
Opinion
EDITORIAL: Why is the NRA so afraid of the truth about gun violence?
- Opinion
-
-
COMMENTARY: How Nonprofits Came to Acquire Their Tax-Exempt Status
The uproar over allegations of politically motivated investigations by the Internal Revenue Service shouldn't be surprising given Americans' long love affair with nonprofits and their strong disdain of partisanship, especially within bureaucracies.
-
Editorial: Seizure of AP phone records insult to independent press
This amounts to spying on an American news organization -- common practice in dictatorships but scary conduct in a democratic system that prizes the public value of an independent watchdog press.
-
EDITORIAL: The IRS' Turn to Answer Questions
Washington is now sinking its teeth into a real scandal: the Internal Revenue Service using ideological criteria to choose the targets of its attention.
-
COMMENTARY: Slate: There Is Only One Kermit Gosnell
Kermit Gosnell, the notorious Philadelphia late-term abortionist, has been convicted.
-
COMMENTARY: Liberals Fulfilling Caricature in Flextime Fight
It didn't get a lot of attention. It happened the same day as hearings on the Benghazi attacks and the announcement of a verdict in the Jodi Arias trial.
-
COMMENTARY: Slate: Let Nurse Practitioners Do Primary Care on Their Own
As of early April, you can walk into Walgreens in 18 states (plus D.C.), and along with a gallon of skim milk, a pair of photo mugs, a six-pack of toilet paper, and a flu shot, you can meet your new primary care provider, get your cholesterol checked, pick up your statin, and schedule a return visit.
-
COMMENTARY: Slate - The basketball bully
The firing Wednesday of Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice, for shoving players around, firing basketballs at them and screaming that they were "faggots" and "fairies," reflects universal condemnation.
-
COMMENTARY: Who's to blame for our politics? Don't ask
There is a classic "Doonesbury" cartoon, published soon after the Vietnam War ended, in which the antiwar activist Mark Slackmeyer is arguing with his pro-war father.
-
COMMENTARY: Healthful Logic Leads to Paid Sick Days
Ian Rizzio was a 24-year-old mechanical engineering student in Portland, Ore., managing a sandwich shop to pay his tuition. One day he woke up sick but went to work anyway, as he later testified to the Portland City Council.
-
COMMENTARY: Slate: Marry young
These days, young married couples are an anomaly.
- More Opinion Headlines
-
COMMENTARY: How Nonprofits Came to Acquire Their Tax-Exempt Status



