Skip to main content

View Diary: I regret nothing (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah, well (14+ / 0-)

    It's easier to develop a supporting epidemiology when the product lobby doesn't prohibit you from doing so.

    It is inaccurate to say there is nothing. But there would be a lot more if it weren't for the efforts of the NRA and their enablers in Congress.

    •  Re: (4+ / 0-)

      What, your resident billionaire is too hard up to pay for the research?

      In any case, there's no prohibition against studying gun violence and there never was.  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as if Kellerman, Rosenberg and Hemenway are all that eager to get to work; guess it pays better to rehash old arguments.

      When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

      by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:11:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have a resident billionaire? (15+ / 0-)

        Darn, wish I had known earlier.

        Anyway, as I said, yes there are some studies, and you named some of the authors, along with Cook & Ludwig and some others. But the research is sparse compared with what it could have been. Hopefully we will get some more now.

        •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happy camper, noway2

          Yes.  Bloomberg.  Any price to for publicity but not a penny for research?

          Research is very sparse.  Had a talk with Greg Dworkin about it some time ago.  We disagree on the reasons; he emphasizes the alleged pall cast over the field after the 1996 brouhaha.  I think there's a more innocuous dynamic in play. Specifically, this sort of research is hard.  

          Investigators don't have uniform data sets that offer decent visibility into incidents while coding for an extraordinary broad class of surrounding circumstances.  Think about it, in any given instance of gun violence, how many sources of data would you have to query to get a full picture?  Police records for the proximate events.  Hospitals for the trauma reports.  Realtors for residential data.  Public records offices for licensing information, etc., etc.  And let's not forget all the confidential information that we're always trying to proxy out of the picture (adjusting for mental health, etc.).  The result is a series of investigations that focus either on a handful of controls in deep dives into a small, varied set of locations (usually cities), or a set of aggregate indicators against national data, or more infamously self-reporting against some random set of the population (the interesting respondents tend to be few in number, further compromising the sample).

          Anti-tobacco activists didn't have to contend these sort of challenges.

          When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

          by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:27:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah (8+ / 0-)

            Well, he has donated over a billion to JHSPH so I wouldn't call that 'not a penny' but I don't know specifically what they have spent it on. I'm sure some has gone to research programs, but I don't know whether it has been for firearm violence or not.

            Sure, it is not an easy topic but it does depend on what you want to look at. Not all studies will require the variety of linked sources you are talking about, obviously it will depend on the research question. But even so, data linkage from multiple sources isn't necessarily all that big a deal, I have done studies like that before. Certainly with some time, patience and support for coding and data linkage it can be done.

            •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              For almost any question of interest related to gun violence beyond aggregate mortality and injury statistics, you will need highly granular, very broad, and multiply sourced datasets.  There's no getting around it, especially when gun violence concerns the most inscrutable class of people--criminals.

              When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

              by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:45:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes. (8+ / 0-)
                you will need highly granular, very broad, and multiply sourced datasets.
                That seems like the kind of data one may get from having a national registry of gun purchases and registration of owners.....

                It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

                by smartdemmg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:20:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib

                  You'll need more data than that if you want to examine relationships between gun ownership and living conditions, family structure, associations, medical and mental health histories, etc.  Also, you'll need a way to ensure people comply.

                  Short answer, yes, we could technically amass all this data, but only at the expense of privacy and a degree of heavy handed government that would rankle both conservatives and liberals.

                  When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                  by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:29:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That sounds like something (11+ / 0-)

                    the CDC might be interested in doing.

                    Let's ask them to ... Oh, hang on, we can't.

                    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                    Who is twigg?

                    by twigg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 04:43:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose

                      Actually, we did.  Or has there been some new development?

                      When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                      by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:32:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'll believe that (6+ / 0-)

                        when the funding is in place.

                        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                        Who is twigg?

                        by twigg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:43:51 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          VClib, FrankRose

                          Funding is already in place.  CDC can disburse from any of its grant accounts, though it would likely be administered under Injury Prevention and Control.

                          When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                          by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:49:18 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You didn't (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DefendOurConstitution

                            Use to post under the name Mary Rosh by any chance, did you?

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            And we were doing so well.

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:12:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, we really were not (5+ / 0-)

                            You are new here. You have published one Diary and have a comment list that has not demonstrated much in the way of agreement.

                            You may be on the level, but it's hard to tell so far.

                            A lot of comments with replies but few or no recommends raises a flag.

                            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                            Who is twigg?

                            by twigg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:16:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                            Probably because we're not in agreement, even in areas where we superficially agree.  Your history suggests you probably would be skeptical of my preferred approach to universal background checks, gun owner insurance, and secure storage.

                            We are in solid agreement on one issue.  We need better insight into firearms injury and mortality, and the federal government needs to support that inquiry.  

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:28:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Enlighten me please (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus, DefendOurConstitution

                            How would our views on the regulation of firearms differ?

                            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                            Who is twigg?

                            by twigg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:43:42 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib

                            1. On background checks, our disagreement would revolve around registration (or anything that poses the same risk risks as a registry).  This is a deal breaker to me, it may or may not be for you, but I doubt it since the argument is largely physical and technical.  However, I bet we have an irreconcilable over auditability of records, however they're maintained.  I want a full expectation of privacy (you want to see my records?  Show me a warrant).

                            2. An individual insurance mandate for gun owners.  Don't know where you stand on this; don't think its a hill you've picked to die on, but assuming it was politically viable I think we'd butt heads most on the issue of pay outs for criminal misuse by third parties.  Also, insurance makes for a more mindful gun owner.  A more mindful gun owner is less likely to be swayed by dumb gun control arguments than a casual one.

                            3. Our disagreements on secure storage are largely technical (which methods work, which ones are just time wasting, and which ones might actually get you killed), but our largest one will probably be over the issue of safing ready weapons.

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:59:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yep, we would disagree (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus, DefendOurConstitution

                            There seems to be a strange belief that public safety records should be treated differently for guns, as opposed to anything else. There is no logic to this other than a personal preference.

                            There are no insurances I can think of that lend liability on an owner for criminal misuse by a third party. However, were a claim to be made alleging negligence of the owner in the safe-keeping, or reporting of a loss, then that claim deserves to be heard by a jury.

                            There is no such thing as a "safe" ready weapon. However, the risks a citizen is prepared to take in his own home can be treated differently to the risks he exposes the public to.

                            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                            Who is twigg?

                            by twigg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:09:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't think it's that strange at all.  If you seek to hedge against the risk of confiscation, prohibiting registries is a solid first step.  I readily admit it may be naive; the notion largely comes from an informal survey of countries that have implemented registration, then confiscated firearms.  However, those countries also had low rates of gun ownership from the start, where as we have over 8 guns for every ten people.  However, it costs nothing to guard against the risk, however small, and doing so does not interfere with the objective of reducing gun violence.

                            I think we can dispose of the matter of liability for criminal misuse arising from negligent safekeeping.  

                            "Safing" is a term of art, and it refers to practice and mechanism to prevent or mitigate unintended injury or criminal misuse.  It does not mean "safe," and in this context it refers to the fight over trigger locks, magna-triggers, design of the firearm itself, etc.

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:23:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Lawsuits like that can (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus, DefendOurConstitution

                            easily be disposed of by developing "safe practises" which would render the owner safe from harm if followed.

                            Guns are uniquely dangerous, and owners should be held to a standard.

                            The "safeing" you mentioned .... Again, uniquely, the gun manufacturers are held safe from all product liability, and public safety laws. This is outrageous and applies to no other industry.

                            The manufacturers of BB guns are held to a higher standard. Maybe they couldn't afford lobbiests.

                            Confiscation fears are paranoia. No one is coming to get your guns, and if they really did want to ... if the government wanted to ... they would have done something about that by now. Without a constitutional amendment it ain't happening, and giving up the advantages of full registration is nonsensical.

                            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                            Who is twigg?

                            by twigg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:35:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                            I do advocate minimum due diligence for gun owners, and it ties very well with mandatory liability insurance.  More importantly, adhering to a standard is obviates the need for a jury trial; its absolute evidence of non-negligence.

                            As I said, we're going to disagree on the issue of "safing" ready weapons.  I see no profit in discussing that issue at this time.  And it looks like we're not going to agree on the confiscation point (I don't know about you, but a 5-4 decision on a Court we both want to see changed doesn't make for a secure right in my view).  

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:44:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Wow, you need a whambulance for those crocodile (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    tytalus, DefendOurConstitution

                    tears.

                    •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                      You know, I'm record as supporting more investigation into gun violence.  1996 was a dumb move even if Rosenberg is a hack, as I explained previously:

                      Yes, the NRA did move to defund Rosenberg in 1996.  I also think that was indefensible.  And possibly stupid.  There's been no serious attempt to validate Kellerman since 1996, or a host of other garbage that came out of Rosenberg's shop around the same time.  I say possibly stupid because maybe it wasn't.  Once something like Kellerman gets out there, clear and convincing simply isn't showing confounding problems that obstruct the conclusion.  You'd have to utterly refute them, and without better data you can't.  

                      No, I'll stick with stupid.  Because the cover up always stinks, crime or no crime.

                      But please, don't let that get in the way of your awesome plan to accomplish absolutely nothing other than pissing off voters in advance 2014.

                      When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                      by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:12:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Your response indicates a lack of knowledge (11+ / 0-)

            regarding epidemiological research. This type of research is carried out daily with much more complex behaviors than gun violence. The research that has been done on the effects of cigarette smoking (both first and second hand) as well as AIDs research was equally if not more complex (with the latter addressing issues of much more significance in terms of confidentiality. I have colleagues who do this work (a few at the CDC at various times) and it is not as you describe.

            It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

            by smartdemmg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:18:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't mention aids research, but I have to call bull on your characterization of the challenges faced in producing an epidemiology of tobacco abuse.

              When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

              by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:55:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What specifically? (5+ / 0-)

                Surely you are not arguing that understanding the epidemiology of carcinogenic effects of cigarette smoking was easy? If that is your argument, you are quite ill-informed.

                Epidemiology of tobacco use in the United States

                Abstract

                Efforts to understand trends in and patterns of lung cancer are well served by studies of trends in and patterns of tobacco use. In the United States, the manufactured cigarette emerged as the tobacco product of choice shortly after the turn of the twentieth century. Lung cancer emerged after years of inhalation of cigarette smoke, first among men and then among women. The massive public health education campaign that began after scientists recognized the dangers of cigarette smoking has contributed to large reductions in cigarette use and subsequent smoking-attributable morbidity and mortality. Since 1965, the prevalence of cigarette smoking among US adults has declined by almost half, with positive trends observed among persons in almost all sociodemographic groups and efforts to reduce disparities recognized as an important goal in public health. An epidemiologic approach to understanding and controlling patterns of tobacco use is proposed. The model focuses on the agent (tobacco products), host (consumer or potential consumer), vector (tobacco companies and other users), and environment (with influences from families, social sources, culture, history, politics, law, and media). Accelerating progress in reducing tobacco use will accelerate reductions in tobacco-attributable morbidity and mortality.

                Oncogene (2002) 21, 7326-7340. doi:10.1038/sj.onc. 1205808

                Epidemiology of tobacco use in the US

                It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

                by smartdemmg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:53:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                  Which is why it's a strawman.  I'm speaking to the issue of data collection.  Investigators into the epidemiology of tobacco abuse married uniform, properly coded mortality and injury data to surveys of respondents on questions that have nothing to do with illegal behavior.  Gun violence researchers deal with either poorly coded uniform data, spotty reporting into national collection systems, collating data from various public and private agencies and persons in order to gain sufficient granularity in each sample event, and their work frequently bumped up against the inscrutable criminal element.  

                  When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                  by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:11:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You just have no idea what you are talking about. (5+ / 0-)

                    Your comment reads like a list of talking points from a lobbying group. Again, the notion that it is impossible to obtain good epidemiological data on illegal activities is simply false. Investigations on the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases among prostitutes for instance discredits the argument.

                    There are sophisticated methodologies that have been developed through decades of research that involve multiple sources of information (proband, collateral informants, access to publicly accessible records and non-public records with identification stripped from the data, etc to access the needed data for analysis as well as appropriate statistical methods to address missing data.

                    It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

                    by smartdemmg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:57:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Bloomberg should collapse in shame, eh. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tytalus

            Oh, the humanity!

            Your prose is delightfully fanciful.

      •  Actually, there is! (18+ / 0-)

        As was covered in the firstof two JAMA articles I wrote about last month. The initial damage dates back to 1996...

        To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “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.”4

        Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up. Even today, 17 years after this legislative action, the CDC's website lacks specific links to information about preventing firearm-related violence.

        The research suppression effort was later extended in 2011 to Health and Human Services agencies.

        We demanded a plan to reduce gun violence. Now it's time to demand a vote.

        by tytalus on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:21:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The CDC had their funding slashed and were (12+ / 0-)

        prohibited from doing public health research on gun safety (if facts are of interest in this discussion).

        A little-known kibosh on government research into the public health effects of gun violence is expected to be lifted after President Barack Obama called Wednesday for renewed scientific inquiry -- and funding -- to address the problem.

        Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other scientific agencies to research the causes and prevention of gun violence -- and he called on Congress to provide $10 million to pay for it.

        "We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from not knowing the science from this epidemic of violence," he said.

        The move effectively reverses 17 years of what scientists say has been a virtual ban on basic federal research and is part of a package of new gun control policies aimed at reducing gun violence after tragedies such as the shootings last year in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn. It would encourage research including links between video games, media images and violence.

        It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

        by smartdemmg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:13:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  George Soros just paid me to say your comment is (4+ / 0-)

        ridiculous. Keep 'em coming, I need the cash from Papa Soros.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site