Gun research faces roadblocks and a dearth of data

[arthwollipot]

Gun research faces roadblocks and a dearth of data

Buying a handgun in Connecticut means waiting — lots of waiting. First comes an eight-hour safety course. Then picking up an application at a local police department. Review of the application (which includes a background check and fingerprinting) can take up to eight weeks. If approved, the state issues a temporary permit, which the buyer trades in at state police headquarters for a permanent one. Then it’s back to the store for the gun.

Head west to Missouri, though, and buying a handgun is practically a cakewalk. Customers at Osage County Guns in Belle, Mo., for example, can walk into the store and walk out with a gun if they pass the FBI’s instant background check, says John Dawson, the store’s chief technical officer.

...

Missouri and Connecticut have staked out opposite ends of the gun law spectrum. Connecticut didn’t require handgun buyers to get a permit until 1995. Missouri had a tough law on the books, but repealed it in 2007. The states’ laws have flip-flopped, making for a fascinating natural experiment on gun laws’ effects on gun violence.

The states “had mirror image policy changes, and mirror image results,” says Daniel Webster, a health policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University.

...

The evidence is very suggestive, says Harvard University researcher David Hemenway. But it’s not extensive enough to persuade everyone — or to move national policy.

In fact, questions loom about the impact of all sorts of policies, from background checks to assault weapons bans to gun buybacks. That’s partly because gun research faces roadblocks at every turn: Scientists have to deal with data shutouts, slashed funding and, occasionally, harassment.

Does anybody here believe that preventing research on whether restrictive gun laws are an effective way to reduce gun crime is a good idea? Does anyone want to advocate for reduced data access and research?

 

[applecorped]

must not be responsible

 

[arthwollipot]

I acknowledge the futility of attempting to herd these cats, but I'd like to try and keep the topic of the thread as much as possible on gun data research, and the advisability/inadvisability of restricting it, and not on gun control itself.

He said, with naive optimism.

 

[catsmate]

Gun research faces roadblocks and a dearth of data



Does anybody here believe that preventing research on whether restrictive gun laws are an effective way to reduce gun crime is a good idea? Does anyone want to advocate for reduced data access and research?

I'm sure some people want to, hence the congressional ban on CDC funding of any research into links between firearm possession/access, and gun violence, and medical and mental health issues, added in 1996...

...none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.

...along with a funding cut that matched exactly the previous year's funding for gun violence research. The policy continues, for example earlier this year Republicans killed the Honda proposal (the Gun Violence Research Act).

It started back in 1993 when the New England Journal of Medicine published an article by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues; "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home" which presented the results of research funded by the CDC and showed that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide. The article concluded that rather than confer protection, guns possession in the home was associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or acquaintance.
Naturally the gun-lobby and NRA went ballistic (pun intended) and attempted to kill the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention for daring to sponsor such research.
Since 2011 the National Institutes of Health has been similarly prohibited from research into the effects and causes of firearm violence.

 

[arthwollipot]

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'm still interested in seeing if any of our resident Second Amendment Advocates would like to try to defend this policy.

 

[3point14]

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'm still interested in seeing if any of our resident Second Amendment Advocates would like to try to defend this policy.

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

 

[arthwollipot]

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

Then whose remit is it within? (I would ask those defending it in that way). Any why are those people still not studying it?

 

[3point14]

Then whose remit is it within? (I would ask those defending it in that way). Any why are those people still not studying it?

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

 

[Giz]

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'm still interested in seeing if any of our resident Second Amendment Advocates would like to try to defend this policy.

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.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

Again, why isn't anyone else studying it?

 

[catsmate]

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

Because the research shows conclusions that gun advocates don't like perhaps?

I'm still interested in seeing if any of our resident Second Amendment Advocates would like to try to defend this policy.

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

While vehicle crashes (for example) are? The ban is widely opposed by universities and professional bodies such as the APA.

 

[arthwollipot]

Because the research shows conclusions that gun advocates don't like perhaps?

That would be the obvious interpretation, yes.

 

[mgidm86]

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[WildCat]

I'm sure some people want to, hence the congressional ban on CDC funding of any research into links between firearm possession/access, and gun violence, and medical and mental health issues, added in 1996...

...along with a funding cut that matched exactly the previous year's funding for gun violence research. The policy continues, for example earlier this year Republicans killed the Honda proposal (the Gun Violence Research Act).

It started back in 1993 when the New England Journal of Medicine published an article by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues; "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home" which presented the results of research funded by the CDC and showed that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide. The article concluded that rather than confer protection, guns possession in the home was associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or acquaintance.
Naturally the gun-lobby and NRA went ballistic (pun intended) and attempted to kill the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention for daring to sponsor such research.
Since 2011 the National Institutes of Health has been similarly prohibited from research into the effects and causes of firearm violence.

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.

 

[mgidm86]

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.

Ahhh, but the murderer probably kept it in their home! In a safe, of course.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

But there haven't been effective studies. That's the point. The things you mention have been implemented without previously having been studied.

 

[arthwollipot]

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

Really? So why aren't they doing it?

 

[Beady]

What would these notional studies accomplish, other than possibly/probably influencing insurance rates? Barring a constitutional convention, which is not in the cards for the foreseeable future, the 2nd Amendment is not going away.

I don't say that because I own guns, which I do, but because I've seen how ardent the pro-gun side is. Given their zeal, organization and numbers, the 2A won't even be amended. National policy on guns will continue to fluctuate according to successive court rulings on various state initiatives. I don't foresee any significant changes to either process or result.

Getting back to studies, has anybody been interested enough in the situation to privately fund one? If not, why not? Doesn't that, by itself, say something?

Oh crap!

 

[arthwollipot]

What would these notional studies accomplish, other than possibly/probably influencing insurance rates? Barring a constitutional convention, which is not in the cards for the foreseeable future, the 2nd Amendment is not going away.

Evidence-based policy. I think most people would agree that it is a good goal.

I don't say that because I own guns, which I do, but because I've seen how ardent the pro-gun side is. Given their zeal, organization and numbers, the 2A won't even be amended. National policy on guns will continue to fluctuate according to successive court rulings on various state initiatives. I don't foresee any significant changes to either process or result.

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

Getting back to studies, has anybody been interested enough in the situation to privately fund one? If not, why not? Doesn't that, by itself, say something.

Indeed, it does. Also, the question of why studies haven't been done in other countries.

 

[Brainster]

I did have to laugh at this part of the article referenced in the OP:

For a few questions, however, researchers have come up with solid answers: There’s a convincing link between gun availability and gun suicide, for one.

That's some solid research there! I wonder if there's ever been proven a link between suicide by jumping in front of a train and the availability of local rail lines.