How would you research gun violence?

[cow451]

I'm cautiously optimistic that politicians could be publicly shamed into stripping the research ban next time. It'd take some effort, though.

That reminds me, did you buy your Powerball tickets, yet?

 

[iluvatar5150]

That reminds me, did you buy your Powerball tickets, yet?

lol

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which is how the NRA has been able to quash the very kinds of research you say you want. It cannot happen as long as NRA members and the firearms industry continue to feed the dragon.

Actually the information I want is politically neutral. It wouldn't directly serve either side. As I revealed in another thread I've seen a sample of the information I would seek, and there is no compelling gun problem anywhere in it. The NRA is profiting greatly from the issue and advancing their pro-gun agenda, so they aren't interested in the sort of information that would lay the matter to rest. I left the NRA because they wouldn't entertain my idea.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's an interesting idea. I don't know if I'd want a whole new agency for that, but I could see that being handled by one of the existing scientific organizations or the Library of Congress, i.e. some group that already handles research and statistics. I'd consider expanding it to include not just criminal stats, but all stats the government has access to. Sort of like a beefed up version of the Congressional Research Service: https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/

We are all ready up to our butts in numbers (http://www.library.ucsb.edu/news/2015/03/statistical-abstract-united-states). What we need is raw data.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm cautiously optimistic that politicians could be publicly shamed into stripping the research ban next time. It'd take some effort, though.

Something similar is in the courts now, that of teachers not wanting to pay union dues to a union that doesn't represent their interests. There are a least 100 million people that don't want the CDC using their taxes to promote more gun control.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Here's a good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

However, people from both sides typically reject these stats immediately because it destroys both narratives.

These stats basically say:
When Ted Nugent says "more guns in private hands reduces the murder rate", he's full of it...and likewise, when Michael Moore says "It's a fact that if you reduce the number of guns, the murder rate will go down, that's been proven!", he's completely lying.

If people are trying to find out the root causes of violence in our country, and they're solely focused on the gun aspect and not looking at anything else, then they're barking up the wrong tree.

There are a half dozen societal factors that have a higher correlation rate with gun violence than the guns themselves, but nobody wants to talk about them because people are dead set on their own personal likes and dislikes.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Something similar is in the courts now, that of teachers not wanting to pay union dues to a union that doesn't represent their interests. There are a least 100 million people that don't want the CDC using their taxes to promote more gun control.

Research doesn't "promote" anything - it provides us with information. If your ideology can't withstand the scrutiny brought by additional information, then it's a weak and baseless ideology built on fantasies and fairy dust. My hope is that pointing out this fact would be able to shame people into acquiescing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Research doesn't "promote" anything - it provides us with information. If your ideology can't withstand the scrutiny brought by additional information, then it's a weak and baseless ideology built on fantasies and fairy dust. My hope is that pointing out this fact would be able to shame people into acquiescing.

The purpose of the proposed CDC study was to "advocate and promote" gun control. The NRA convinced Congress to oppose this, on political grounds. The CDC and others still won't do studies because they would be reporting the results to a Congress hostile to new gun regulations. They are just waiting for a more receptive Congress, then they'll resume their advocacy for gun control through their, imo, flawed research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

 

[iluvatar5150]

The purpose of the proposed CDC study was to "advocate and promote" gun control.

Source? That's the language in the omnibus bill, but I don't see anywhere in either the article your provided or in the sites it references that say that that was the goal of the research itself. (though the scribd.com link in the WaPo article isn't working for me right now)

The CDC and others still won't do studies because they would be reporting the results to a Congress hostile to new gun regulations. They are just waiting for a more receptive Congress, then they'll resume their advocacy for gun control

Source? Absolutely everything I've read points to them not doing the research because they believe doing so is against the law and they're worried that doing so would hurt them professionally.

through their, imo, flawed research.

Which research do you believe is flawed and why?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Source? That's the language in the omnibus bill, but I don't see anywhere in either the article your provided or in the sites it references that say that that was the goal of the research itself. (though the scribd.com link in the WaPo article isn't working for me right now)[/QUOTE]

That language was enough to bring, and win, a suit against public funding of the study.

Source? Absolutely everything I've read points to them not doing the research because they believe doing so is against the law and they're worried that doing so would hurt them professionally.

The article pointed out that Obama ordered research to resume two years ago. They voluntarily declined to do so.

Which research do you believe is flawed and why?

They are starting with the perception that repeating the same studies that have been done for decades will lead to a different conclusion (insanity?). They're beginning with a flawed premise; that guns cause violence, not human failings. If they began with the events themselves instead of the weapon used they might come up with some clarity about the issue. As it is they will just immerse the issue in the murky clouds of more useless statistics.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Source? That's the language in the omnibus bill, but I don't see anywhere in either the article your provided or in the sites it references that say that that was the goal of the research itself. (though the scribd.com link in the WaPo article isn't working for me right now)

That language was enough to bring, and win, a suit against public funding of the study.

What study are you talking about? The language in the omnibus bill was a general ban, not targeted at one study.

They are starting with the perception that repeating the same studies that have been done for decades will lead to a different conclusion (insanity?).

What studies do they want to repeat?

They're beginning with a flawed premise; that guns cause violence, not human failings.

How do you know this?

If they began with the events themselves instead of the weapon used they might come up with some clarity about the issue. As it is they will just immerse the issue in the murky clouds of more useless statistics.

How many of these studies have you actually read?

Good statistics would be able to tell us, among other things, whether or not guns are a catalyst for violence, i.e. if they serve to escalate situations where violence may be likely.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Good statistics would be able to tell us, among other things, whether or not guns are a catalyst for violence, i.e. if they serve to escalate situations where violence may be likely.

Of course the presence of a gun can lead to a deadly escalation. Why do we need a study for something so patently obvious?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Of course the presence of a gun can lead to a deadly escalation. Why do we need a study for something so patently obvious?

1.) Because assumptions are dangerous.

2.) So we know the degree to which they escalate tense situations, or otherwise make situations more dangerous.

One of the long-running memes regarding gun ownership is that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." This sentiment has been expressed by the pro-gun side every time there's a crime thwarted, and mocked by the pro-regulation side every time there's an accident. The truth is that we don't really know how much or how often the presence of a gun is going to cause a fight or a moment of carelessness or despair to go from bad to deadly, and on the other side, we don't know how often guns are used to protect people from harm. Studies have been done, but they've been flawed and/or limited in scope and both sides are guilty of cherry-picking data that suits their agendas. Having better data about how the presence of a gun influences other factors can help us better craft policies that prevent tragedies while also protecting freedoms.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

1.) Because assumptions are dangerous.

2.) So we know the degree to which they escalate tense situations, or otherwise make situations more dangerous.

One of the long-running memes regarding gun ownership is that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." This sentiment has been expressed by the pro-gun side every time there's a crime thwarted, and mocked by the pro-regulation side every time there's an accident. The truth is that we don't really know how much or how often the presence of a gun is going to cause a fight or a moment of carelessness or despair to go from bad to deadly, and on the other side, we don't know how often guns are used to protect people from harm. Studies have been done, but they've been flawed and/or limited in scope and both sides are guilty of cherry-picking data that suits their agendas. Having better data about how the presence of a gun influences other factors can help us better craft policies that prevent tragedies while also protecting freedoms.

The only long term solution to any social problem is to become better people ourselves and to raise better children. Sadly we no longer have a true sense of propriety.

 

[Texas101]

Accurate statistics is certainly necessary not just at home but in other nations as well. The experience of other nations in gun control would also be helpful. Australia would be an excellent case in point.

And Switzerland as well.

 

[Texas101]

the task is made more difficult by lawmakers in the pockets of the NRA having made it illegal to spend federal dollars on any related studies, so...one can only wonder what they fear will be revealed.

And this is where ideology begins to shift the objective to the subjective.

 

[Texas101]

So you are implying that the "current regime" does not have the best interests of the people in mind when it attempts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally imbalanced?

From myownmynativeland: No need to do 'research' to know that any gun reg proposed by the current regime will be worthless to prevent crime and will put the lives of innocent people at risk.

There is no debate about the intentions of the "current regime". But intentions do not prevent criminal acts. My question is; would the latest executive actions have prevented any of the recent mass homicides?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And Switzerland as well.

Switzerland might be a little misunderstood.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

 

[Texas101]

Mandatory reporting by law enforcement and hospitals/health care would be a good start IMO.

This is already the law.

 

[Texas101]

Of course the presence of a gun can lead to a deadly escalation. Why do we need a study for something so patently obvious?

The presence of a gun "can" also lead to rapid deescalation. So why do we need to study something so patently obvious.

Just because something can happen, doesn't mean something will happen.