Skip to main content

View Diary: Repeal the Ban on Gun Violence Research (82 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that's not research, that's just data. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Real research involves experiments. I'd like to know what they're planning.

    •  and I thought you where pissed at the moon (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, smartdemmg
    •  Here, lemme see if I can help you: (8+ / 0-)
      From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide.
      See you do "research" and then you publish the data in peer-reviewed publications like the New England Journal of Medicine.  I hope that clears things up.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:11:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kellerman's articles in the NEJoM were (0+ / 0-)

        "special articles", and were not peer-reviewed.

        Criminologists who are being kind consider them a joke (when not kind, they consider them a fraud).

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:56:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Playing devil's advocate can be fun. (3+ / 0-)

      But when you find yourself arguing that research isn't "real" unless it involves experiments, it's time to slow down and think about things.  Scientific research also includes statistical analysis and observation.

      I would think a responsible gun owner would be fine with that sort of research.   The NRA was fine with it until recently, when it was finally overwhelmed with the right-wing libertarians that run it these days.  

      The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

      by Beelzebud on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:40:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If it's just a matter of studying the data, I (0+ / 0-)

        Don't see hoe the gun lobby can stop that. The data is publicly available. It's nothing a group project, well organized fron here couldn't tackle. First step is that people here from each state contact their state police authorities to find out what information is available. The results of each dtate are compared, and what is available is used to determine the analytical projects available. Then we try to bring back the federal data to fill in the wholes. Lasty We take the final data
        And choose those studies that best show our position, while not burrying results that went against our thesis (that guns are always bad). Then we publish it hear, where it was
        Born. We'd need 20 people willing to spend a few hoUrs on this who have excellent google skils and aren't afraid of making a foia request or two. A well-led, competent, open-source project could produce a lot of gun usage statistical facts that people have never seen.

        •  No, the data is not publicly available (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Goddamned Tiahrt amendment made sure of that. Only the federal government directly working on an active crime can access the data. Can't be shared with anyone else, including local governments in a different locale where the crime took place. certainly not with universities or government agencies not directly investigating a crime.  Useful data such as which gun stores have the most weapons that end up being used in crimes, for example, have been shut away from almost everyone who could use it to... Show certain gun stores are enabling straw buyers.

          The way the damned amendment is written, a city cannot get the data on where a gun was purchased if it was obtained outside the city.

          And this has been discussed multiple times on the site, so now I am wondering if you're just trolling.

        •  Well, you should read a bit more before spouting (0+ / 0-)

          off, because the gun lobby (NRA) did in fact stop this data from being researched.  

          The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

          by Beelzebud on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:47:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Real research doesn't always involve (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      experiments.  The whole field of epidemiology is not based on experiments.  Much of Darwin's work was based on analysis of observations.  

      Before you dismiss the effort I suggest you brush up on how science is done.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site