Congress reaches deal to fund gun violence research for first time in decades

[GEM]

Being a retired reseach type, let me offer a realistic view. There is a defined problem of how firearms are used in violent crimes and suicide. Yes, there are other means of evil but firearms have some unique characteristics. That is worthy of study by neutral researchers and to be published in peered reviewed outlets. Denying that studying the misuse of firearms because there are other misuses of items is silly.

That being said, the devil is in whether the research programs will have pre-existing biases on the way in that will guide the findings or suppress findings that are not in accord with the current paradigm. We know that both the left and right set of nuts will demand the science goes their way and denounce and deny findings contrary to their ideology. Pick a hot social topic and you will see that. Both sides do it.

For example, it is not unreasonable to study suicide prevention in armed occupations that have a much higher rate of such. How do you deal with the possession of a firearm with a serious depressed individual who has the gun for his or her occupation? How do you deal with such someone from an armed occupation who has used their firearm and is now reluctant to touch or use it if needed? I've consulted on the latter.

We have to accept well done results even if they are against your ideology. It is possible that, let's say, that consitutional carry has compared to shall issue will have negative consequences. We don't know. It might have positive consequences. A well done study would be useful. However, if it came out negative, then you have to live with it. You might say the benefits of such or respect for the Constitution demands we suck it up on the negatives. Denouncing the results as a conspiracy, the socialist wave - makes one look equally biased. Again, the problem is well done, neutral studies. Can these be done is an empirical question?

An analogous stituation is that of pornograhpy. I've read the conservative world wants to take on that issue again. There is mixed research on it having negative or positive or neutral effects on society. However, I'm sure the push isn't based on research and findings of no effect will be denounced. Ideology trumps research. They are anti-sexual as most of the left is anti firearms.

So, the idea of such is not a bad idea. It has to be done well.

 

[ATLDave]

GEM, the problem is that many researchers have already adopted fundamental, untested assumptions that dictate the results of work. And peer reviewers who share those same assumptions are unlikely to notice them, much less question the quality of the research and its publishability. The peer review system has really failed over the past two decades in several academic fields because of this echo chamber effect.

What do I mean by untested assumptions? One is the starting assumption that you almost set forth in your opening paragraph - that gun violence/gun crime is, in some way, unique as compared to other forms of homicide or crime. Once you embrace that view, then reductions in gun availability will necessarily appear to be good in any subsequent analysis.

This is most easy to see if we change the context. Let's say that some people have an untested assumption that red cars are more likely to be driven aggressively and cause accidents. If we take that assumption as true, then we can target "red car crashes" as a specific ill to be reduced. And we could do various analyses that show that areas that have fewer red cars have fewer red car crashes. Voila, we've just proven that people should be subjected to extensive background checks before buying red cars... or maybe banning red cars entirely. Because if we get rid of red cars, we'll drive down the number of red car crashes.

 

[GEM]

I agree that biases are strong. I said that is the devil in these studies. I know the major researchers and the antigun folks are champing at the bit for the funds. Even when they find neutral or no effects of firearms, they will say, the measures of control weren't strict enough. For example, the Koper studies that indicated that the AWB had no effect on crime indices was fairly reported.

The results indicated that the ban failed to acomplish much as:

1. The exisiting pre ban and grandfathered weapons and mags met most criminal demand.
2. Production of gun without the cosmetic features of the AWB but of equally efficacy continued. ARs without bayonets and grenade launchers were produced (LOL). Seriously, I read that about 700000 compliant ARs were produced right after the ban. Mini-14s are and still usually exempt (although this is changing in some places).

Thus, gun folks said - Hurray - NO BANS - they don't work. However, the authors and DOJ sponsors said it was because the laws were too loose and tougher ones are needed. That's why some bans are now proposed that are more draconian to take out all semis. Some idiots say just reinstate the old ban as they are stupid and don't understand.

The red car analogy doesn't work. Denying unique characteristics of firearms just negates your credibility. The potential of easy mass shootings has to be part of the analysis. Yes, someone can make an ammonium nitrate bomb or run over folks with a car but the average nut isn't going to make a truck bomb and the truck run doesn't have the appeal of the warrior fight and death that the gun does.

The big problem is the neutrality of the research. You are correct that the current players are probably anti and will just postulate stricter gun regulations.

The problem with the other items are dangerous is that it ignores the core conceptualization of firearms as weapons and that they exist as agents of lethal force as primary. Hunting and competition are side effects that have nothing to do with the 2nd Amend. You can easily have those weapons stored at the gun club and checked out for usage. The agency focus of a madman using an instrument that is designed as a weapon as a different focus than that of a madman who uses a car (made for transportation) as a weapon, secondary to its purpose. That core concept and agency negates the usual doctors, cars, Draino kills more.

People are concern more with targeted use with a instrument designed for such that even targeted use of a instrument whose usage is a side effect of it core usefulness. Draino is useful for other things. Cars are useful for other things. Weapons are useful as weapons, end of story.

Their constitutional protection is as a weapon, not to thrust your AR into a clogged toilet and open fire.

There have been scholars who have produced well done and neutral work which turns out is positive for the gun world. Hopefully, a gun research program could do that.

Would you object to a grant to study how to deal with weapons access to law and military with PTSD and suicidal ideation or a phobic reaction to their duty weapon after an OIS?

 

[Thibaut]

In prior conversation, the CDC has nurtured a belief that federally funded research will help them better understand the correlation between domestic violence and gun violence, how Americans can more safely store guns, and how we can intervene to reduce suicide by firearms. I suspect that a signed package would contain much the same rhetoric. I think that kind of research covers a lot of ground and will require a lot of money. Whether it will prove useful remains to be seen. I suppose there will be the argument that if only one life is saved then it was worth the time and cost.

Will he sign the bill? I do not know. I do believe, however, that the bill is being introduced as a save-face measure for time much wasted in the house these past few years, as salve for the anti gun lobby and for use in campaign arsenals.

It is clear to me that those persons against gun ownership (I think eventually it will encompass guns, period) believe that the NRA operates from instilled fear. I say that those persons supporting anti gun (literally) take the very same tack.

We still don't have a cure for cancer.

 

[Steve S.]

There are two rules of firearms possession: Rule #1 - firearms were developed to kill efficiently, Rule #2 - you cannot do anything about Rule #1.
The single logic that the anti’s pursue, one cannot shoot another if they do not possess a firearm, literally cannot be argued - it is true. The intent of the 2A is also true, can be twisted and argued but “the right of the people” is hard to argue - that language stands on it’s own.
So here we are in today’s USA, the fight will continue but it cannot go on forever, somebody is going to win and I am hopeful that it is us.

 

[Milt1]

What about the deaths from auto accidents: Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44. They will have to pry my cold dead hands from my steering wheel!

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

So they waste $25 million to tell me "Guns are bad, mmmkay?"

The results of these studies will not change any minds or votes. We can throw all the statistics we want at the antis- they dont care. And I couldnt give a rats tookas about their numbers.

I already know guns are dangerous. I want them to be.

I also know that mine will never hurt anyone who doesnt deserve it.

How about putting that $25mil towards urban job creation or rehab facilities? How about giving it to the VA or Salvation Army?

Nah, that would actually help people. We cant do that.

 

[Tommygunn]

What about the deaths from auto accidents: Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44. They will have to pry my cold dead hands from my steering wheel!

Well, again, it will be said that cars have other, useful and benign uses, guns are intended for weapons, not toilet plungers. This, despite guns being used for hunting, sports, and even self defense (@1,000,000+ uses per year).

It seems to me there have been enough studies. Gary Kleck's, the Lott/Mustard study.... which tend to support the positive utility of gun ownership ....and others which seem to contradict this. People will believe what they wish and have already taken sides.

Let the .gov spend 25 million dollars on the CDC study. It will be what it will be and half the readers will hate it, the other half will worship it.

 

[GEM]

There are already large programs and research on both drug abuse/alcohol abuse and auto safety.

https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/default.aspx
https://www.drugabuse.gov/

So when you say what about those, there are programs in place and research funding. That's not a good argument. Also, if something kills X people, we shouldn't study the something that kills Y number of people.

Those arguments don't hold any persuasive power. The issue is that studies need to be done well and unbiased, that is the problem and none of the substitute problems as a reason not to study the issue legitimately doesn't work.

I agree that the current set of researchers will probably just say: Ban guns.

As far as 25 million, so what. The Navy has thrown away 25 billion on three relatively useless Zumwalt class ships. The trillions that went to the never ending war?

I'm sorry the arguments are not convincing except for the bias issue. BTW, Lott is not the gold standard. Kleck is a better one and he doesn't think much of Lott.

 

[Tommygunn]

..... BTW, Lott is not the gold standard. Kleck is a better one and he doesn't think much of Lott.

Yet, both came to very similar conclusions. Not to disparage Professor Kleck*, I really don't care what his opinion of Lott is. I've heard both good and bad about John Lott and for the most part, peoples' reactions to him seem to devolve from their political agenda.
And, I never said if something kills x number of people we shouldn't study what kills Y number of people.
If we could have true, unbiased studies, that's fine. I know they can be done because they have been done.
I just wouldn't trust a gov./CDC study if one of their top statisticians pronounced that July follows June.
If kongress gives them $$, kongress is looking for their answers, and the people getting the $$ will want to make their benefactors happy.

* I tend to like Kleck's work because he initially assumed that guns were a net bad effect on society, but when he studied the facts he accumulated, crunched the numbers, he changed his theories to reflect the truth.

 

[Stevel]

Studied a few years ago and downplayed due to results not helping the gun control crowd. Scroll towards the bottom for findings.

https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/249799

 

[GEM]

Not to disparage Lott, but legit progun social scientists have some problems with his analyses. Kongress vs. Congress, what argumentative value does that have. Also, there has been a change in the gun world, more shall issue, increasing numbers of military styled semi autos in public hands. The originally Point Blank book is getting old. There is a great deal to research. Kleck and folks are doing lots of work. Some studies are positive some, are negative. Unless you follow the professional literature, you really don't have a feel for the issues.

The best thing is to push for fair studies.

 

[Tommygunn]

"Kongress vs. Congress:" This is not argumentative, it's expressive. There's a difference.

I'm not trying to argue, really, I'm just trying to state what I think.

There have always been a lot of military style semi autos out there. Garands and M-1 Carbines were surpluses out of the .mil decades ago and many went civilian hands in the later 20th century. The big difference is in the last few decades when AR pattern rifles have supplanted the aging WW2 surplus longarm in popularity.

 

[GEM]

There were about 5 million Garands produced. How many made it into civilian hands? The estimates are that are 17 million ARs in civilian hands now. That's quite a difference.

 

[Thibaut]

Not to disparage Lott, but legit progun social scientists have some problems with his analyses. Kongress vs. Congress, what argumentative value does that have. Also, there has been a change in the gun world, more shall issue, increasing numbers of military styled semi autos in public hands. The originally Point Blank book is getting old. There is a great deal to research. Kleck and folks are doing lots of work. Some studies are positive some, are negative. Unless you follow the professional literature, you really don't have a feel for the issues.

The best thing is to push for fair studies.

Ultimately I agree with what you write here. I predict contentious debate, critiques and counter-critiques. Before and after.

 

[Tommygunn]

There were about 5 million Garands produced. How many made it into civilian hands? The estimates are that are 17 million ARs in civilian hands now. That's quite a difference.

Don't forget 6 million M1 carbines. There's 11 million. How many in civilian hands? No one knows or can give a accurate number.....just a best guess. Then count in how many M1As....

Certainly 17 million AR rifles in civilian hands no doubt dwarfs those....Garands, carbines.... AND THAT IS A GOOD THING!

America has always been a well armed country ..... and I hope it always will be.

 

[WrongHanded]

I think it's a good idea, providing the data collected in publicly accessible. That's how the truth comes out.

 

[ATLDave]

The red car analogy doesn't work. Denying unique characteristics of firearms just negates your credibility. The potential of easy mass shootings has to be part of the analysis. Yes, someone can make an ammonium nitrate bomb or run over folks with a car but the average nut isn't going to make a truck bomb and the truck run doesn't have the appeal of the warrior fight and death that the gun does.

The big problem is the neutrality of the research. You are correct that the current players are probably anti and will just postulate stricter gun regulations.

The problem with the other items are dangerous is that it ignores the core conceptualization of firearms as weapons and that they exist as agents of lethal force as primary. Hunting and competition are side effects that have nothing to do with the 2nd Amend. You can easily have those weapons stored at the gun club and checked out for usage. The agency focus of a madman using an instrument that is designed as a weapon as a different focus than that of a madman who uses a car (made for transportation) as a weapon, secondary to its purpose. That core concept and agency negates the usual doctors, cars, Draino kills more.

I actually think just the opposite is true. The vast majority of car deaths are unwanted/unintentional. So research into how cars can be made less deadly is likely to be productive, since you are not working against the intentions of the subject population. The same is true of research into true disease, and this is one reason agencies like the CDC have been able to make useful contributions to reducing accidental death rates from things like autos.

In contrast, the overwhelming majority of firearm deaths are intentional. Most of them are intentioned by the "victim" in the form of suicide. The vast bulk of the remainder are intended by one person against another. Working against this intentionality is one of the primary reasons all the "disease model" stuff is profoundly idiotic when applied to guns.

Gun-involved crime is a matter of crime, not disease. It involves criminal acts and criminal intentions. Criminologists have some relevant expertise. "Public health" experts really do not.

 

[GEM]

From 2008 to 2017, there were about 200,000 M1s transferred through the CMP.

I agree that the public health sector of the gun research world is prebiased as towards it conclusions. However, I don't get the point of intentionality as arguing against research. Investigating that is worthwhile, independent of the public health folks being crappy in general. As I said, a grant for studying why urban kids feel the need to purchase and carry handguns or suicide prevention among African-Americans (which is on the rise) is worthy of study by qualified people. Calling it a disease is just PR. However, is suicide - certainly an indication of psychological problems not a health concern? Mental health professionals deal with it.

To repeat myself, the general blanket dismissal of research is stupid. Asking for quality research is not.

 

[ATLDave]

However, I don't get the point of intentionality as arguing against research. Investigating that is worthwhile, independent of the public health folks being crappy in general.

Intenrionality doesn’t mean it cannot be studied, but it does mean that “public health” models and heuristics aren’t useful. Most “gun violence research” is now coming from this bogus “public health” approach. And that’s almost certainly what this will fund.

It would be equally stupid to pay the FBI or DOJ to start doing cancer research. They don’t have useful expertise.

 

[SwampWolf]

I think it's a good idea, providing the data collected in publicly accessible. That's how the truth comes out.

I think it's a terrible idea and another huge waste of tax-payer's money to fund another leftwing ambition. As far as the "truth" ever surviving "research" conducted by people already predisposed to influence the outcome with their anti-gun biases, no one needs a crystal ball to predict what their "findings" will turn out to be. Who cares if the data collected is "publicly accessible" if the facts are skewed to accommodate a partisan goal?
I'd bet a whole lot of money on prognosticating "how the truth comes out" from this study on gun violence.

 

[LaneP]

Maybe the need for a "study" is lost on me, but crime is crime whether it's committed with a broken beer bottle or an AR-15. According to a Washington Post article I just looked up, if you exclude deaths by suicide, alcohol is 650% more deadly to the US population than guns are. Maybe an "alcohol violence" study is money better spent?

 

[WrongHanded]

I think it's a terrible idea and another huge waste of tax-payer's money to fund another leftwing ambition. As far as the "truth" ever surviving "research" conducted by people already predisposed to influence the outcome with their anti-gun biases, no one needs a crystal ball to predict what their "findings" will turn out to be. Who cares if the data collected is "publicly accessible" if the facts are skewed to accommodate a partisan goal?
I'd bet a whole lot of money on prognosticating "how the truth comes out" from this study on gun violence.

I was under the impression that the heads of such government organizations were appointed. By POTUS. I would suspect that how the research procedure for new studies is established, would largely be based on political influences from the White House.

 

[boom boom]

The idea that government can competently pick research teams and address controversial issues in a world of political correctness is nil. Both the NIH and CDC have engaged in past deception in research on topics such as AIDS transmission, salt intake, firearms (which is why the original Dickey amendment was passed), Ebola, and so on. Why? because adverse findings that targeted certain groups would be uncomfortable politically and that would affect future funding for both the CDC and NIH.

For example, whites, not African Americans, have become the group much more likely to commit suicide than other groups and american indian and white males the most likely of all. Rural white males predominately use firearms to commit suicide. https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/t...he-high-suicide-rate-among-white-american-men, and https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36116166 One of the sources for the first article basically blames the victims by claiming that a loss of "privilege" and how outmoded masculinity is what is driving these deaths.

The heroin, oxycontin, etc. drug overdose deaths which is a slower version of committing suicide demonstrates similar statistics.

I have a pretty good idea what is driving it but I am sure that neither NIH or CDC will touch the massive differences between races with a ten foot pole. The idea that suicide is primarily a disease ignores the fact that in many cultures across history, a lot of folks felt that suicide was actually honorable for a variety of reasons. Thus, the year zero approach that ignores history which is common in the medical fields (primarily because of costs and the extreme difficulty in conducting panel studies over time) is primarily focused on palliative matters that also make a large amount of money for the pharmaceutical industries and the mental health complex funding.

Despite the massive increase in the intake of pharmaceuticals, counselors, medical health professionals and societal awareness, suicide rates continue with little signs of slackening with the U.S. reaching the level of the 1980's.

Thus, perhaps it is not a disease related phenomenon but rather that our society has destroyed family networks, medicated patients with medicines affecting brain chemicals that have scanty and shoddy cause and effect research, sought to globalize our economy at the cost of domestic workers, created an evil world of social media which creates an unpleasant, social status climbing, and increasing dictatorial censoring of individuals.

The retreat of religion and civil society such as civic groups has become replaced by a worship at home via tv of an entertainment culture that purposefully demonstrates antisocial behavior on a continuing basis. Advertising acts in an insidious fashion to cause people to value themselves via their material acquisitions which then results in individuals drowning in debt. And then there is the unpleasantness of a media and academia that has decided on collective punishment of out groups for bad think and alleged privilege. A society where people are afraid of being caught with the wrong ideas is more resembling Stalin's Russia than the home of the free whether or not government is the prime instigator. Being oppressed by corporate barons is not better than that of government.

You can find quite similar results if you look at the breakdown in society in urban areas which demonstrates similar levels of hopelessness, substance abuse, and lack of employment opportunities while local government spends more and more money with less and less results. There you find most of the appalling level of criminal violence associated with gangs and other criminal activities that have filled the void.

Thus, do you really think that the CDC and NIH are going to condemn the institutions such as government, media, and corporations as well as politicians making life for some a living hell and advise corrective measures? What they will recommend is essentially hospice care because they dare not tell the truth. They similarly dare not tell the truth about why birth rates have been flattening across the West but increasing exponentially in some regions. Instead, government agendas will call for more funds for the groups that provide client services such as the pharmaceutical and health care industries and not the underlying conditions driving this situation. If we want to fix things, we know what works to create civilization and what doesn't but it will take a whole lot of sacred cows being slaughtered that would have a lot of folks squealing here and pretty much everywhere.

 

[boom boom]

I was under the impression that the heads of such government organizations were appointed. By POTUS. I would suspect that how the research procedure for new studies is established, would largely be based on political influences from the White House.

I seriously doubt that the appointees will have much say so over what it done other than perhaps suppressing a report or two that runs counter that that appointee. The truth is that appointees rarely have the time to manage the the street level bureaucrats that actually run things. An administrator is rarely someone who excelled at research design or construction but is there to manage personnel and to keep the dept. from embarrassing the politicians.

There is an overwhelming skew to bureaucracies that can more or less sabotage any attempt by a short term administrator to do anything that the permanent employees do not want. If you can find it on you tube, watch clips from a show called Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister which is quite frank on demonstrating the mindset of civil service versus political appointees. The writers used real situations given to them by senior bureaucrats and political aides. Hilarious in ways but quite appalling in others if you believe in voter control of politicians and institutions.