So Delaware asked the Center for Disease Control to research the problem; which the CDC did.
But the New York Times (and people in Delaware) are disappointed that the CDC report covered 'violence in Delaware' rather than "GUN Violence in Delaware'.
NPR said the things that Delaware wanted to say, but the CDC couldn't report that information directly.
The New York Times: (note: unable to append the NYT video interview because of proprietary constraints it isn't available on YouTube) covered the CDC report, but focused on the disappointment that: ",.. (u)nfortunately they [the CDC] feel like they can only talk about part of the problem, they can’t talk about the gun part of the problem... ”
The Wilmington research [by the CDC] sidestepped the funding restrictions, because it was a response to a request and because “it doesn’t focus as much on the issue of guns themselves; it really focuses on these other risk factors and ways to intervene,” said. Dr. Linda Degutis, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the C.D.C. She added that it was frustrating to be unable to do an extensive study on gun violence while she was there.Shouldn't any report on "Violence" consider all forms of Violence? Unfortunately, too often news-source reporting will focus on "gun violence" rather than 'all violence'.
David Hemenway, a director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said that could be a shortcoming of an effort to look at gun violence. “Unfortunately they feel like they can only talk about part of the problem, they can’t talk about the gun part of the problem,” Dr. Hemenway said, adding, “Looking at the supply side — how do they get these destructive weapons?”
Questions remain about whether the focus on risk factors before a shooting amounts to profiling people who have not committed a crime, and how exactly to coordinate data, social, health and educational services that could help intervene. Still, public health experts say it is a methodically sound and instructive study, if limited. “If there were adequate funding on firearm-related research, there would have been papers out on this a decade ago, not just in Wilmington, but in many other large cities,” Dr. Miller said.
Unless you are the 800 pound Gorilla in the story .... the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
And then ... you are congressionaly BARRED from glamorizing Gun Violence
The CDC has found itself constrained from researching/reporting strictly on "Gun Violence" because for a time their research on that subject was unbalanced; they spent their efforts on the negative aspects of firearms ownership while ignoring the positive aspects. Specifically, they declined to report on the lives saved by individuals who were able to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their possessions because they had legal access to firearms.
This centered around the Kellerman Paper which posited that you are "43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance ..." if you have a firearm in your home. Which 'finding' was widely .. if uncritically ... accepted by people who wanted to hear that firearms have no justifiable purpose in a civilized society.
Since the CDC also accepted that proposition as fact, their research tended to justify that flawed research. Which was why their funding for "gun violence" research was discouraged by Congress: it was scientifically unjustifiable.
(That is, their research reports tended to ignore the benefits of firearms ownership entirely!)
So now, the CDC has been asked to research "firearms violence in Delaware", and their report is criticized by the anti-gun zealots in Delaware (and elsewhere) because their report only says that "violence in higher in Delaware than in most states" ... which is true ... rather than saying "GUN violence is higher in Delaware ...." etc. Which may or may not be true.
It's just that Congress has been pressured (perhaps justifiably) into banning CDC from discussing "Gun Violence" at all.
As an analogy: It's as if your child likes the dog you gave her, but she kicks the dog, and she forgets to feed it. So you take the dog away and give it to somebody who will take care of it.
Sad, for your immature daughter.
But a lot better for the dog!