Gun research faces roadblocks and a dearth of data

[Beady]

That is the situation now, with little effective research. That might change depending on what the results of reliable research might be.

I'll bet you also believe that fact-checking the claims of the presidential candidates "might" have an appreciable effect on the opinions of the electorate.

You have a touching faith in the critical - thinking skills of the average human, in spite of everything you should have learned on these forums.



Oh crap!

 

[WildCat]

Really? So why aren't they doing it?

They are doing it.

 

[arthwollipot]

You have a touching faith in the critical - thinking skills of the average human, in spite of everything you should have learned on these forums.

I'm saying absolutely nothing about the critical thinking skills of the average human, I'm talking about evidence-based policy. Lawmakers basing policy on the findings of recognised experts in the field.

They are doing it.

Then where are their results? Let's see them.

 

[Noztradamus]

I'm saying absolutely nothing about the critical thinking skills of the average human, I'm talking about evidence-based policy. Lawmakers basing policy on the findings of recognised experts in the field.
Then where are their results? Let's see them.

Never going to happen. lawmakers base policy on what they think sounds good to the marks

 

[arthwollipot]

Never going to happen. lawmakers base policy on what they think sounds good to the marks

Are you saying that there's absolutely no such thing as evidence-based policy making?

 

[catsmate]

Really? So why aren't they doing it?

That would be money and the concentrated and directed odium such projects attract from the gun-fondlers.

 

[Nessie]

That's because that article was a stinking pile of excrement. It made no effort to distinguish lawful vs. unlawful gun ownership, and even counted it as a "gun kept in the home" if the murderer brought it there.

Nothing at all prevents any organization besides CDC from doing whatever study they want.

Then the reaction should have been more research to confirm the alleged flaws in that study. It should not have been to restrict the CDC from doing further research.

Universities publish research and sometimes a study is found to be flawed. That does not mean the University should then stop researching that topic.

 

[Giz]

That would be money and the concentrated and directed odium such projects attract from the gun-fondlers.

Are you saying that Bloomberg et al are unable to finance any research?

This is ridiculous excuse mongering.

 

[3point14]

Are you saying that Bloomberg et al are unable to finance any research?

This is ridiculous excuse mongering.

I may be missing something, but why would they?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Again, why isn't anyone else studying it?

Because reality has a liberal bias so they need to limit our understanding of reality for political reasons.

 

[Giz]

I may be missing something, but why would they?

Well, they have the funds:

"Mayors against illegal guns (Bloombergs primary gun control group) has an action fund with income of about 3.5 million, which appears to be it's direct lobbying.* It's unclear of Bloombergs pledge for $50 million in spending for gun control is going to go to direct political activity (In which case he might, slightly, outspend the NRA, at least for one year) are if it's going to just go to MAIG and it's various subsidiaries (Mom's demand action, etc).*"

And that's just talking Bloomberg. There are other anti gun pegs or there too.

So if the studies aren't being done (or aren't being published) perhaps it's because the results wouldn't be particularly useful to the anti gunners.

 

[3point14]

Well, they have the funds:

"Mayors against illegal guns (Bloombergs primary gun control group) has an action fund with income of about 3.5 million, which appears to be it's direct lobbying.* It's unclear of Bloombergs pledge for $50 million in spending for gun control is going to go to direct political activity (In which case he might, slightly, outspend the NRA, at least for one year) are if it's going to just go to MAIG and it's various subsidiaries (Mom's demand action, etc).*"

And that's just talking Bloomberg. There are other anti gun pegs or there too.

How much weight would a study commissioned by either pro or anti gun groups have?

Regardless of methodology, I suspect neither side would accept the results of any study financed by an ardent supporter of the 'opposition'.

Any study that has a whelk's chance in a supernova would have to be independently financed or whichever side doesen't like the results is just going to ignore it.

So if the studies aren't being done (or aren't being published) perhaps it's because the results wouldn't be particularly useful to the anti gunners.

Which would raise the question of why the studies haven't been financed by the 'pro gun' side.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which would raise the question of why the studies haven't been financed by the 'pro gun' side.

They need to spend all their money on lobbying too.

 

[Aepervius]

So - the conclusion is that studying the effects of gun ownership is necessarily synonymous with promoting gun control. Why might that be, I wonder?

I take a hint from tobacco companies and I am willing to bet that despite their ongoing PR strategy to pretend arming people make them safer, they knows very very well that it is not true and in reality guns endanger people, but out of ideology and possibly financial consideration (their own budget) they would rather have that inconvenient fact not evidenced. Otherwise they would the risk of gun restriction, financial lost and maybe a miracle occurs in 50 or 100 years and the second amendment get repelled.

But if there is no strong evidence and the CDC cannot do proper study.... Then the status quo persist.

 

[Nessie]

Past research has founded on the lack of data from the police and FBI. Hence the likes of Mother Jones and Cook and Ludwig have searched newspapers to find articles to try and further research. Gary Kleck's oft cited study was based on a telephone survey.

 

[Giz]

Here's some useful data :

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

 

[Nessie]

The researchers themselves are arguing over the best way to research the issues;

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/gun-control-study-flawed-researchers

"Implementing three state gun control laws at the federal level could reduce the rate of American gun deaths by more than 90%, a new study has found.

But leading gun violence researchers have called that result “implausible”, and said the study’s design is so flawed that some of its findings are not believable.
The paper, published in the British medical journal The Lancet and written by researchers at Boston University, Columbia University and the University of Bern in Switzerland, found that one of the three most effective gun policies were laws requiring ballistic imaging or microstamping, which help law enforcement identify guns used in crimes.
Experts noted that the laws, which were on the books in only three states, were not actually being implemented in practice."

That suits the pro gun lobby to a tee as it means the status quo is preserved.

 

[Giz]

The researchers themselves are arguing over the best way to research the issues;

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/gun-control-study-flawed-researchers

"Implementing three state gun control laws at the federal level could reduce the rate of American gun deaths by more than 90%, a new study has found.

But leading gun violence researchers have called that result “implausible”, and said the study’s design is so flawed that some of its findings are not believable.
The paper, published in the British medical journal The Lancet and written by researchers at Boston University, Columbia University and the University of Bern in Switzerland, found that one of the three most effective gun policies were laws requiring ballistic imaging or microstamping, which help law enforcement identify guns used in crimes.
Experts noted that the laws, which were on the books in only three states, were not actually being implemented in practice."

That suits the pro gun lobby to a tee as it means the status quo is preserved.

All that study shows is how extrapolating can lead you to crazy results.

 

[a_unique_person]

Because the studies have been driven by ideology rather than data*. You can't expect the opposition to fund your propaganda.

* i.e. the CDC study that included ages up to 26 as youths. Or the "risk of a firearm in the home" studies that ignore whether the possessor is engaged in illegal activity. It's hugely misleading, and dishonest, and should not be publicly funded.

Well. I guess the best way to deal with claimed flaws in research is to ban research.

 

[catsmate]

Are you saying that Bloomberg et al are unable to finance any research?

This is ridiculous excuse mongering.

Or, and I understand this is a revolutionary idea to certain people, why not let the CDC do its job and study firearm injuries and deaths? What is it that the gun-fondlers are so terrified of?