Science and gun violence: why is the research so weak?
boingboing.net
boingboing.net
Given someone with critical thinking skills who is well versed in scientific methods, they would quickly move to asking why violence is a problem. Why are there so many violent crimes in the U.S. compared to Canada? With a huge number of guns in Canada, why aren't their gun violence stats similar to the U.S.? But very few people seem interested in that line of questioning. Instead, we get pro-gun vs. anti-gun arguments. And of course the media and the public feed into this as well. It's just so easy to think something as symbolic as guns must be the problem and/or solution. But this is a much deeper problem, and one that is in desperate need of more attention.
I do agree that those interested in gun rights and gun violence will find BfC is worth watching.
Granted there are knee-jerk partisans on both sides of the issue. But thinking people would benefit from solid data. There are intelligent people who believe that defensive gun use almost never occurs, and then there are intelligent people who believe it's far more common than criminal gun use. They cannot both be right, but I believe intelligent people could be persuaded to the truth, if science could establish what the truth was.
That being said, gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment. So it is not just a scientific question, but also one of constitutional law.
The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns; it speaks of arms. And we seem to have a science-based cost-benefit based policy regarding all sorts of non-gun arms: you can't buy shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles or landmines or tanks. You can't even talk about practical astronomy with foreigners in some cases thanks to ITAR.
In Heller v DC, the Supreme Court said:
"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
If the Supreme Court ever has to decide whether tanks fit this definition, my guess is they'll say tanks do not. The existence of laws against civilian-owned tanks does not tell us anything about how the 2nd Amendment applies to ordinary guns.
Also Canada has less than half the per capita rate of firearm ownership compared to US.
I consider this a huge problem. How can you have a well-regulated militia if you don't know who is in it?
How do we know any of our gun laws have any effect at all?
Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “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.”
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it is dirty, deadly, and banned."
He had no interest in conducting unbiased research, he wanted to treat gun ownership like a disease, and did everything in his power to try and 'eradicate' it.
So just because the numbers didn't reach the conclusion that you agree with, they are automatically biased?
>Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research':
An out of context quote - and an ad hominem attack?
As far as I can tell, your strategy at this point is to try and muddy the water.
Meanwhile, here are some useful numbers to contemplate.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fa...
Also, assuming that account is accurate, that's no reason for a legislative ban on such research - it's a reason to remove that person from a position of influencing the course and outcomes of said research. Unless you're of the opinion that considering firearms as dangerous is in and of itself an indication of bias, in which case you're beyond reason.
Every able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and less than 45 years of age who is not a member of the regular military is a member of the militia per US law. There is no requirement that you own a weapon in the definition.
The government knows my age so, as a male US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 years, I am presumptively a member of the militia.
First, you say, "Every able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and less than 45 years of age who is not a member of the regular military is a member of the militia per US law."
Curiously, you left out one conspicuous qualifier: white.
Here's the relevant text of the law[1]:
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the
respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of
eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is
herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled
in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company,
within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve
months after the passing of this Act.
Also, note that according to the above-quoted text of the law, you're not automatically part of the militia, but have to be explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" and that only "within twelve months after the passing of this Act" -- meaning in 1793 at the latest.
That's because this is effectively a conscription act[2], enacted with the specific and limited purpose of defending the nation "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".[1][2] It's quite debatable whether such a situation has existed at any time since World War 2, and certainly not now. Furthermore, it's clearly not intended that these so-called "militias" use guns to defend themselves against each other, much less against the US government (as some vocal American gun advocates would have it).
Also, according to the Militia Act of 1792:
this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of
two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress
thereafter, and no longer.
Here's another important part of the Act:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months
thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a
sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a
pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four
cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each
cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a
good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited
to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder
In summary, according to the text and intent of the law, to be in the militia you'd have to be a white man who has been explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" by 1793 at the latest, your enrollment wouldn't last past 1794, and the intended arms for militiamen would be muskets and rifles, swords, hangers, and espontoons of the kind made up to 1794.
You did not invalidate my point -- all able males of a certain age are definitionally members of the militia in 2013 -- which was my purpose because it answered a specific question of the parent. That definition has a long history. The evolution of the Militia Act is both irrelevant and uninteresting in this context.
Sampling is the answer.
If the federal government is keeping really close tabs on 100% of non-criminal gun-related happenings, that's Orwellian supersurveillance.
If a randomly selected 1% of gun sales or local police blotter entries or whatever are selected for a scientific study, that's a lot less invasive of gun owners' privacy while still giving scientists enough data to work with.
USA is really violent for a western civilization
The only correlation is identified that poorer regions have more violence, regardless of guns.
Guns doesn't really play a big role at all, according to the statistics.
Of course one thing the statistics cannot account for that guns are available in any state.
And really, while mass shootings get all the news attention, they are only a tiny part of the problem. The real tragedy is the way easy access to handguns has transformed communities like the South Side of Chicago, where kids are gunned down every week. This American Life recently did a remarkable report [3] on the conditions in and around one Chicago high school where in the past year 29 current and former students were shot. That reporting could have just as easily been done in Oakland, or Detroit.
This is not about ideology. People are dying every day, innocent people going about their lives, and our current strategy of doing nothing, of burying our heads in the sand, is accomplishing...nothing.
[0] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/12/in...
[1] http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootin...
[3] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/487/h...
Cars are useful and beneficial devices that enhance our lives. Guns are weapons intended to kill. They have zero utility to people who are not farmers or members of the police or military. That leaves recreational hunting as the sole activity for which one could justifiably claim gun ownership as a necessity. You don't need a hand cannon or a semi-automatic assault rifle to hunt deer.
Seriously, fuck guns.
These would be the same organizations (well, excluding farmers, I suppose) who killed about a hundred million of their own countrymen in the twentieth century alone?
Yeah, I can see where allowing the government to hold a monopoly on the use of force is a really bright idea. Good thinking there, Tex.
The right to bear arms is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Two points:
1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you.
2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move.
Fine, that's a valid opinion. There's a process for that: work for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Otherwise, please stop the passive-aggressive end runs around the Constitution. Your favorite part of the Bill of Rights may be next.
1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you.
(Shrug) If you say so. History, including very modern history, suggests otherwise.
2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move.
No.
You move.
Furthermore, not everyone lives in an area where the police actually give a shit. There are plenty of bad areas in major cities where you are basically on your own (Flint, Detroit, New Orleans, etc.).
Don't you think there's something seriously wrong with a society that requires people to carry guns in order to feel safe? Focus on fixing that, not protecting your right to bear arms!
Just for the sake of argument, where is that not true? Are you aware that a Swedish prime minister was gunned down in the street (Olof Palme)? And in Norway, a mass murderer has just been sentenced to 21 years for gunning down 77 people.
I mention these cases because people tend to think of these Scandinavian countries as polar opposites of gun-crazy America. They are certainly much safer than the U.S. with respect to gun violence, but they're not safe in any absolute sense, as in your claim.
The problem with your position is not that it's false -- it's very clearly true -- it's that nothing can be done about it. Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous. It's an existential problem, not a practical one.
I never claimed abolishing guns would lead to absoute safety. As you point out, there's plenty of senseless violence all over the first world, including gun violence. The difference between America and other places such as Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ is that people elsewhere do not see gun ownership as a necessary prerequisite in order to feel safe.
> The problem with your position is not that it's false -- it's very clearly true -- it's that nothing can be done about it. Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous. It's an existential problem, not a practical one.
The problem is that American society glorifies guns and gun violence. A good first step to changing that is to limit gun ownership to people who actually need them: farmers, police, and the military. A good second step is to limit the types of guns that are available; e.g. famers need shotguns, not semi-autos.
Not even remotely true.
Mine must not be working right then. Do you think I could get a refund? Seriously though, what does it mean or matter to say that an inanimate object is "intended" to do anything?
And there are all kinds of legitimate uses. Target practice/sporting uses, hunting (as you mention), self defense, defense against tyranny...
Do you have any idea how many laws are already being broken when that happens? How are more laws going to help?
More to the point, how is registering my guns (in preparation for future confiscation, it's safe to say, because that's what's happened elsewhere) going to protect those kids?
Must not be the guns. Must be something else.
There is just no evidence that easy access to handguns has done any such thing. There's easy access to handguns pretty much everywhere in the country. Why is it to blame in south Chicago, when it hasn't had the same effect elsewhere? If anything, it's harder to get a handgun in Chicago.
see how silly you're being?
Being against scientific studies because what they uncover may lead to measures you dislike is not anti-scientism. It's anti-science. Science, done correctly, inconveniently disregards your values and preferences, so it's perfectly rational to oppose its use in certain situations, but doing so is absolutely anti-science.
Preemptive gun use. Bam, done. Any other categorisations required?
"A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes."
The definition is unclear and one researcher may use one definition while another might use the other. Both cases are distinct, however. In one case, I am actually preemptively using the weapon and in the other, I am merely carrying it in anticipation of use.
Part of the article is a discussion of the fact that such definitions are muddied and lost as statistics are looked at.
You would also want to tag incidents based on 1) harm done to victim, and 2) harm done to criminal. These are two separate dimensions, and in reality there are incidents to fit into every region on that 2d plane.
That kind of variability does not create an environment where it is easy to craft evidence-based policy
fuck you, yes it clearly does, it just isn't the answer you want. Author has clearly written the bottom line first in this article. 20k deaths occur annually from gun violence discounting suicides. The lowest estimate for defensive uses of guns (which came from a study which only counted actual police reports) was the aforementioned 200k. This is an order of magnitude difference. Criminals in our country are going to have guns for a long time and no law is going to change that.