United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
1–10 of 373 posts
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#2While I am an opponent of gun control I will be glad to see this change go into effect. Ethical research shouldn't be constrained by politics, and the optics of the policy weren't great anyway...
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#3Gun 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 capacity magazines will have little effect on suicides. Likely red flag laws as well. Those are the three most viable gun control laws on the table right now.)
Measuring homicides versus “gun deaths” also changes whether there is an observed correlation between gun ownership rates and “gun death”/homicide rates: https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-a... (there is no correlation for homicides; there is a moderate correlation for suicides). So, for example, whether you research homicides or “gun deaths”/“gun violence” is already a politically significant choice that will alter the results.
So yes, more research and more data is always good. But this data will get twisted and abused for political grandstanding. People need to be prepared to cut through that.
I’d also point out that, at the end of the day, gun rights derive from the Constitution. Gun control is therefore not merely a policy choice to be made based on facts and data. In fact, there are lots of areas where we are quite reasonably sensitive to research efforts being misused for political ends.
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#4Gun 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 a little confused on your overall point here - are you saying that it’s only good to reduce gun homicides, not suicides?
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#5Gun 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 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.
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#6Gun 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 a little confused on your overall point here - are you saying that it’s only good to reduce gun homicides, not suicides?
> Suicides accounting for the large majority of “gun deaths,” but bans on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines will have little effect on suicides. Likely red flag laws as well.
At the risk of sounding grim, if you're looking to commit suicide, a 12-gauge shotgun (very common for bird hunting) is probably your best bet. Nobody's looking to ban those.
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#7But only $25 million
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#8Gun 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…
>gun rights derive from the Constitution
Many people conveniently leave out the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment.
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#9While I am an opponent of gun control I will be glad to see this change go into effect. Ethical research shouldn't be constrained by politics, and the optics of the policy weren't great anyway...
On the other hand, shouldn’t the Center for Disease Control spend its time and focus on things that could reasonably be argued fall under the heading of “disease control”? By all means, gun violence research should be conducted by, say, the Department of Justice.
Like many policies in the US at this stage, the goal appears not to be good governance but simply “pwning the other side”.
Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
#10Gun 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…
Banning research funding is a decidedly more political act. One that people don’t have the opportunity to cut through.
Also as an aside your point about existing data not correlating with homicide rates is particularly non compelling because it doesn’t normalize for firearm kind (handguns are more likely to be used in homicides than other forms of firearm) nor victim type (firearm ownership is massively correlated with domestic murders) statistical collection bias (the Las Vegas mass shooting was not included in national homicide statistics) or the massive scale difference of the US vs the rest of the world (we have a lot more murders of all type).
But here is the thing bad data is _easier_ to manipulate. Every good actor should be cheering expanded research into this issue because it gives all of us a better framework to reason from.