Gun research faces roadblocks and a dearth of data

[WildCat]

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.

People post them here all the time art...

 

[WildCat]

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.

There's absolutely nothing preventing any university from researching gun violence, and in fact many do.

 

[WildCat]

I may be missing something, but why would they?

Because he's a billionaire that has already spent tens of millions of dollars trying to push through gun control legislation, funding anti-gun political campaigns, and creating astro-turf anti-gun groups.

 

[WildCat]

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

Your response to studies researching guns is to claim the research was banned?

 

[WildCat]

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?

I thought the CDC was there to control disease?

I guess they have that cancer thing figured out and can move on to hot-button political issues now.

 

[Giz]

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?

See the link in my post above (#36). It shows the latest CDC study, $10M in funding, to say that firearms are a good thing.

 

[3point14]

I've seen it defended before with 'it's not within their remit'

Ah, that's where, surprisingly, the conversation broke down, as I recall.

I thought the CDC was there to control disease?

I guess they have that cancer thing figured out and can move on to hot-button political issues now.

Ah, yes, and here we've arrived.

 

[WildCat]

Ah, yes, and here we've arrived.

What exactly is it you want the CDC to study? Are there questions about whether guns in the wrong hands can be dangerous?

 

[3point14]

What exactly is it you want the CDC to study? Are there questions about whether guns in the wrong hands can be dangerous?

Oh, I don't really want them to study anything, it's your country. I was just being momentarily precognitive.


My question would be, which government department do you think should be responsible for collating and studying data on gun violence in the USA? Or do you think it's something that the government shouldn't fund study on at all?

 

[WildCat]

Oh, I don't really want them to study anything, it's your country. I was just being momentarily precognitive.


My question would be, which government department do you think should be responsible for collating and studying data on gun violence in the USA? Or do you think it's something that the government shouldn't fund study on at all?

Again, what questions do you think need answering?

 

[3point14]

Again, what questions do you think need answering?

Again, it's your country.

If your view is that there isn't a problem with gun violence in the USA, then you believe that there are no questions that need answering. Given the fact that this view is in opposition to that of many of your countryman, don't you think it would be nice to have your point of view confirmed by an independent, government funded study? Or do you think that the level of gun violence in your country doesn't rise to the level that investment in investigation isn't worth it?

Wouldn't all of this constant arguing here be more productive with some decent, independent research?


Edit - For the record, I don't actually believe that the primary driver of gun violence in the USA is the ubiquitous availability of guns, but don't let that stop you.

 

[Ashorn]

See the link in my post above (#36). It shows the latest CDC study, $10M in funding, to say that firearms are a good thing.

I seem to be having trouble finding that conclusion in the report - do you have a page reference?

 

[Nessie]

There's absolutely nothing preventing any university from researching gun violence, and in fact many do.

Which was not the point being made. The CDC were in effect banned from further research into gun control after the allegedly flawed study. Universities are not banned from further research if they publish something that is allegedly flawed. Neither should have the CDC.

 

[Nessie]

I thought the CDC was there to control disease?

I guess they have that cancer thing figured out and can move on to hot-button political issues now.

Indeed they can and controversially they have;

http://www.cdc.gov/features/healthyswimming/index.html

"Healthy and Safe Swimming Week 2016. Pools, waterparks, hot tubs/spas, and water playgrounds are great places to have fun, be active, or just relax. Having fun while you are in the water this summer means knowing how to stay healthy and safe!"

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

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

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?

Which was not the point being made. The CDC were in effect banned from further research into gun control after the allegedly flawed study. Universities are not banned from further research if they publish something that is allegedly flawed. Neither should have the CDC.

If a CDC study found that power lines were associated with criminal behavior and the power distribution industry lobbied to ban the study of power lines I think we would all be outraged. If the study was flawed then more studies will flesh out the flaws and find if there is any signal to pull from the data. If the study is not flawed then more study may narrow in on the possible mechanisms of the connection. But to ban government funding for study of an industry because one study was "bad" just seems absurd.

Indeed they can and controversially they have;

http://www.cdc.gov/features/healthyswimming/index.html

"Healthy and Safe Swimming Week 2016. Pools, waterparks, hot tubs/spas, and water playgrounds are great places to have fun, be active, or just relax. Having fun while you are in the water this summer means knowing how to stay healthy and safe!"

Hey now, don't you bring swimming pools into this thread!

 

[Nessie]

Some think because it is called the CDC it only deals with and should only deal with disease

It is clearly about public health, identifying risks and providing help and advice. Unless, of course there is a group out there who do not think they need any help or advice because all is fine in their world.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I disagree^^ and will explain.

I'm not a 2nd amendment expert by any means.

I have no problem with such research. Well one - The problem for me is that almost every gun law proposed does little to nothing to address death by firearm. Is the money being well spent? That is my concern.

Wouldn't studying the proposals and their effects actually help to prove that most of them are crap?

Take Jerry Brown here in California, for instance. He signed into law that schools are to be gun-free zones and even people with carry permits aren't allowed to bring guns on school grounds. How much did it cost to research and come up with this?

Why would you assume it was studied at all? Wouldn't it be good to study this either before enacting or at least after enacting so that its effectiveness could be evaluated?

I ask because as far as I know, there have been zero school shootings by people with guns they legally owned, and I will guess none of them had carry permits either. So what is the point?

I see this as money down the drain, and if such studies are constantly leading to stupid laws such as this, then I have to question who is doing the studies and receiving the money and what their agenda is.

I think you have it backwards. The stupid laws are due to the lack of good quality studies, not the effect of such studies.

So far it seems to be a big waste of money overall, as most gun policies that I've seen do little to stop deaths by firearm. Of course studies are a good idea, if they are proper. Maybe they'll come up with a good idea some day.

Short version: Studies are a good idea theoretically, but so far it's led to little common sense action, a lot of money down the drain, lawyers being paid, and a lot of money and favors changing hands.

Again, I don't think the laws you complain about, and frankly many of them are stupid, are the result of expensive studies. I think they are the result of a lack of good studies.

Traffic laws are extensively studied and new ideas are constantly tried, studied, and then either dismissed or further implemented. That has led to a decrease in deaths per miles traveled. In contrast we leave gun control laws up to the imagination of people who hate guns. That just seems like an idiotic approach.

 

[Beady]

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.

Do you mean those same lawmakers who are elected by the average humans whose critical - thinking skills you're saying absolutely nothing about?

*Those* lawmakers?

And, which experts, the ones recognized by Bloomberg, or the ones recognized by the NRA? I doubt there's much overlap.



Oh crap!

 

[RobRoy]

Some think because it is called the CDC it only deals with and should only deal with disease

It is clearly about public health, identifying risks and providing help and advice. Unless, of course there is a group out there who do not think they need any help or advice because all is fine in their world.

Correct.

CDC Mission Statement:

CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.​

 

[arthwollipot]

I thought the CDC was there to control disease?

I guess they have that cancer thing figured out and can move on to hot-button political issues now.

This is the CDC's Mission Statement:

CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.

Note that the second paragraph there refers to "health threats", not simply "disease". Guns are a health threat.

ETA: Ninjaed!