
United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze - sohkamyung
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03882-w
======
rayiner
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 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...](https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-
the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5) (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.

~~~
dx87
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'm not trying to imply that gang
shootings are acceptable, but it's misleading to lump them in with school
shootings to push the "think about the children" angle.

~~~
kasey_junk
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.

~~~
stevenicr
I think it's because it's easier to divide and conquer with 'big scary assault
rifles meant for the battlefield' \- it helps gather some people who are in
the middle, and agree with Heller in that people should be able to defend
themselves especially at home... if you say assault rifle bad - no one needs
one to hunt with - you get some people nodding...

so it's easier to pass and claim a victory lap.

I saw a definition recently that said assault rifle bans.. any rifle with at
least one 'military type accessory' \- that wording is part of the charade.
I'm guessing a forward grip, maybe a red dot would be in that?

Frankly if the grandma next door needs to use a weapon, I would hope that she
is not limited by regulations such as that - I would like her to have as good
of a grip and sighting options as absolutely possible. I'd rather her have an
easily controllable SBR type of weapon, expandable stock and maybe 30 rounds
of 22 winmag - this would be much safer for her and for the neighbors I think
if something went down... JB's double barrell shotgun suggestion would not be
the best protection for many grandmas, imho.

so maybe 'because of the popularity of hand guns' is that in a way, in that
people in the middle want them.. I think some people will read that as in 'the
popularity' is causing lots of shootings and that makes gun control popular.

maybe. all situations are different not an exhaustive suggestion(s) thought
processes atm. ymmv.

~~~
everdev
> Frankly if the grandma next door needs to use a weapon, I would hope that
> she is not limited by regulations such as that - I would like her to have as
> good of a grip and sighting options as absolutely possible. I'd rather her
> have an easily controllable SBR type of weapon, expandable stock and maybe
> 30 rounds of 22 winmag - this would be much safer for her and for the
> neighbors I think if something went down... JB's double barrell shotgun
> suggestion would not be the best protection for many grandmas, imho.

Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire
power to defend themselves? Maybe it is and I just haven't been exposed to it.
For me, I'd feel more nervous with someone with deteriorating memory and
eyesight handling a lethal weapon next door.

~~~
stevenicr
a mag full of 22 win mag is not really 'serious firepower' \- I mean it is,
but I think people would consider like a SCAR or M60 to be serious - and lots
of people chuckle at someone using '22'...

I think it depends on where you live, and how valuable you are in terms of
theft and attractiveness.

For examples - the super rich in Miami probably need more security than the
richer in Beverly Hills. If you are attractive / sexy in Miami you are
probably not more in danger than if you are that sexy in like St Louis or
Newark NJ / Detriot.

There was a country girl in the news a couple years back, she was young and
very pretty. The whole town knew her husband had died / had a funeral - a
couple weeks later she needed firearms to stop bad things happening at her
house.

I've been in Nashville (TN) and the suburbs of it for many years, and I will
say that you won't need weapons everyday, but the crime, especially with
violent younger people is increasing at a rate that is kind of shocking. We
have multiple armed robberies all around us. Last week someone put a knife to
a convenience store customer;s throat in order to rob the gas station.

People and places are being robbed left and right around here these days - and
many of them get extra violent without reason. Some have been caught on door
cams lately. With the 'gentrification' that certain places are bringing - it's
not going to get any better.

I spent more than a decade working the nightshift downtown. It was during
those times it became clear to me, when you need help, if you have time to
call the cops - it will take a long time for them to get to you.

My neighbor who is grandma age has had her house attempted to be broken into
multiple times throughout the years. Partially because it is off the main road
enough to be secluded for privacy in attacks.

People around her are busting into cars, jacking mail from mailboxes a lot..
that is not usually violent, but when you catch these people doing these
things, sometimes they pop off with all kinds of crazy, sometimes with stolen
guns.

I don't know what it's like in the part of the world you are in, but around
here it's not everyday you in the thick of it - not like SE DC was in the
80s.. but everyday there is lots of crime all around us (like within a 1/2
mile and lots within 5 miles) - it's just a matter of time before you are in a
normal place at a bad time.

Hopefully you can run / drive away and maybe just use a pepper spray and
whistle.. but the criminals around here have really stepped up the violence
and guns the past few years. There are signs it's getting worse. I would
suggest the possible need for weaponry during the daylight hours is much more
often now than it was a decade ago I'd say only those who worked at night
needed to really be extra aware of surroundings and such.

~~~
masonic

      lots of people chuckle at someone using '22'
    

President Reagan very, very nearly _died_ from one _ricocheted_ .22 round.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ron...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ronald_Reagan#George_Washington_University_Hospital)

~~~
stevenicr
I had not known that, appreciate the reference. Indeed I think a 22 or 22 win
mag is probably good for most grandma situations - it could certainly stop a
couple of bad guys that are not wearing plate armor.. easy to control recoil,
so they won't be afraid of it going off, and they can focus on sending
multiple rounds towards targets to stop them.

From what I've seen in the news and videos most of violent criminals around
here have been tshirts and hoodies, generally 1 -4 people, although the group
of kids that took a musician out recently over a van I think was 5 maybe 6 at
once. 30 rounds of 22 would be better than trying to swat them with a heavy
purse.

If your threat was high value target, or some kind of state entity, I would
not count on a 22 to be the best choice. Some people have suggested winter
coats and layers of cloth can impede a 22, maybe if it's hollow.. for grandmas
in Minnesota and such I'd probably suggest training with and getting used to
something that can run critical duty or critical defense ammo through it
instead maybe.

Most of my older neighbors would do well with any low recoil round if the
platform was easy to handle.

Which is one reason this assault style banning talk bothers me so much. It
literally makes them more dangerous and puts them in more danger by
regulation, which is not silly.

It gives the strong criminals an advantage and the weaker citizens a
disadvantage in life threatening situations.

again, not an expert, doctor, lawyer, etc.. just been doing some research and
trying to share some things I have found that may be surprising for those who
have not. There is certainly more to know, ymmv.

------
ryeights
While 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...

~~~
larnmar
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”.

~~~
sohkamyung
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](https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/disease-gun-violence)

~~~
ryandrake
You could say a similar thing about car accidents. Does that make car
accidents a disease?

~~~
bb611
Regardless of whether you classify it as a disease, the CDC does in fact track
and research car accident deaths and injuries:
[https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-
safety/index.ht...](https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-
safety/index.html)

Additionally there are two federal agencies (NHTSB and NTSB) that regulate the
various elements of vehicular safety at the national level, on top of state
DMVs and transportation departments. By comparison, the federal BATFE is
basically hamstrung on firearms regulation, and outside a few States so are
its state level equivalents.

~~~
nl
Additionally, CDC funds and publishes research of motor vehicle safety[1].

Their seat belts topic is a good example:
[https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/pubs.html](https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/pubs.html)

[1]
[https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/](https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/)

------
baobrain
It's dismaying in the comment section to see people who are seemingly unaware
of the Dickey Amendment straight up defending it. The Dickey Amendment banned
the CDC from funding any research that may be used to advocate or promote gun
control. And it was lobbied for by (who would've guessed) the NRA.

Pretty much all medical associations have called for the amendment's repeal.
It's had a stifling effect on research into gun violence __since 1996
__because most research in this area is funded by the federal government.

This is nothing but good news and a blow to groups who want to stifle public
knowledge to protect their own interests.

------
busymom0
Slightly related but I come from a country where guns are pretty much illegal
and you need to go through a ton of background check etc to even get a 6
bullet pistol. Yet my country has a severe gun violence shooting problem
because of illegal guns being manufactured at home as well as imported from
neighbouring countries. Another similar example is Mexico with less than 2%
legal gun ownership and only a single gun shop and yet they have mass gun
related crimes. If one were to look at US or Switzerland, huge majority of the
gun deaths (60% if I remember right) are from suicide and another 15% if law
enforcement). Gang related crimes happen using handguns and not ar15 etc.

------
pgodzin
But only $25 million

~~~
kasey_junk
That’s actually a huge number given the clout and lack of nuance of the gun
lobby.

------
yahwrong
Man fuck the government. I ain't free until I can purchase a fully automatic
AK with grenade launcher attachment and the finest kush this side of the
Rocky's at Walmart.

------
thrower123
Honest research on gun violence can't help but find some inconvenient
statistics, so I'm somewhat surprised anyone in the current political
environment would be interested in lifting this freeze.

