Gun violence research is a good example of how science can be skewed to make different political points. For example, one of the new tactics gun control advocates have adopted is lumping homicides and suicides together into “gun deaths” even though the policy implications of the two things are quite different. (Suicides accounting for the large majority of “gun deaths,” but bans on semi-automatic rifles and high capa…
I'm just going to note that in the responses, there are people saying that gun control advocates are abusing statistics when they ignore gang violence ("because it happens in high gun control areas") and when they include it ("because they can't tell the difference between a hand gun and assault rifle"), and of course it's not like you're being totally honest either: actual public health researchers who aren't some d…
United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
61–70 of 373 posts
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a little confused on your overall point here - are you saying that it’s only good to reduce gun homicides, not suicides?
It seems like the point is that different policies would affect suicides versus homicides, so grouping them into one category is not as useful as if they were separate.
A better way of stating the point without letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and thereby losing sight of the underlying need for further research, would be to say something like the following:
"This is great news. I hope the studies account for x,y, and z, and I look forward to their publication. I also look forward to supporting the legislation this research may make possible and to the safety benefits that stand to be gained. Anyone have any links for ways I can effectively pressure my local legislator and ask them to support even more funding in the future?" That way it's not ambiguous whether the research is supported. If, on the other hand, people just don't want more research, we would all benefit from having that clearly stated at the outset as well.
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we should be confiscating guns on one's 45th birthday? Probably not all that effective, but it's a start I guess.
Alternatively, you can just repeal the second amendment. I’m unsure why anti-gun advocates don’t just argue this. The constitution can be changed. Justice Stevens argued this in an op-ed: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opin...
For the record, it's impossible under our current system and political reality. The process to repeal an amendment requires more than three population centers on the east and west coast, and the rest of the country isn't going to roll over for you.
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#64Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another way I've seen statistics misused when advocating for gun control is bringing up the high number of "mass shootings" any time an event makes the news. The majority of "mass shootings" are gang violence, but gun control advocates will bring it up when there is a school/mall/etc. shooting to play on people's fears and make them believe that almost every day there is someone killing a bunch of kids in a school. I…
The vast majority of gun violence of all types, suicides, gang murders, mass shootings, domestic violence etc. are committed with hand guns. Hand gun ownership popularity is at a high in the US across many demographics. But assault rifle bans are the most popular form of gun control, probably because of the popularity of hand guns.
People focus on rifles, which are responsible for relatively few deaths, because banning handguns is wildly unpopular. (Heck Kamala Harris owns a handgun.)
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CDC has a history of anti gun bias. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/...
They also have a history of anti malaria bias. Public health agency finds that guns kill people, recommends fewer guns, news at 11
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meaning what? The SCOTUS has ruled several times that the individual right to bear arms is separate from the "militia" statement and both are covered in the 2A.
Why is the phrase "well-regulated militia" in there then? Is it just fluff that can be ignored?
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#68Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quote from this website [1] ===== “Gun violence is America’s most preventable disease. I say that because it’s almost entirely preventable and the numbers of people affected are so high.” Judy Schaechter, MD, MBA University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine ===== [1] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/disease-gun-violence
You could say a similar thing about car accidents. Does that make car accidents a disease?
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just going to note that in the responses, there are people saying that gun control advocates are abusing statistics when they ignore gang violence ("because it happens in high gun control areas") and when they include it ("because they can't tell the difference between a hand gun and assault rifle"), and of course it's not like you're being totally honest either: actual public health researchers who aren't some d…
I'm not sure how the link support your point.