SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the anthropogenic-population-change dept.
We have a recent report by the US government that climate change is almost certainly caused by humans. However, we don't have the same rigor in gun death statistics; instead policy debate can rely only on FBI crime statistics which aren't directly comparable year-over-year due to changing measurement methodology (see "Caution to users").
This is because the NRA put pressure on the CDC through a Republican Congress to halt this research, under the logic that it promotes the cause of gun control.
But how likely is it that this is intentional, to use the US Second Amendment as an ongoing lightning rod for public attention (in a "bread and circuses" sense) while political business continues as usual on the back end (e.g. Paradise Papers)? Obama and a Democratic congress had the opportunity to restart this, which would presumably be just as "common sense" as the actual reforms they have been promoting on this issue, since whoever was actually supported by the facts would presumably have a motivation to set the program back in motion to improve support for their proposals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:57AM (3 children)
That's not what those studies were for. They were using epidemiology to demonstrate the effect that guns have on society. It's a perfectly sensible approach to take which is why the NRA was so angry about it.
We know that there's tens of thousands of gun deaths every hear in the US from suicide alone. We know from when coal stoves went away in the UK that failure to find a convenient method to kill oneself does somewhat reduce the number of suicides. We also know that cases where somebody leaves to get a gun and is still mad enough with poor enough judgment to kill are in the minority.
But, we can't adequately study those things because it would make the NRA look bad. Anybody with two braincells to rub together knows that the lion's share of the illegally purchased firearms started out being stolen or sold by unscrupulous sellers that didn't care who ended up with the guns. Many of these sellers are not legally required to run a background check because that would be inconvenient to the NRA and the gun manufacturers they are supported by.
Ultimately, if guns aren't a large part of the problem, then the NRA should support doing the studies and be cleared. They don't want to do it because they know the calls for regulation are based on facts and the calls against regulation are completely based in emotion.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:49AM (1 child)
There is a conflict of interest in studies done by the government about civilian gun ownership. The (US/shadow/elites) government has a vested interest in disarming its citizens. How can any study done with this conflict of interest be taken seriously?
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:51AM
You publish the raw data and let anyone do the study. Then you peer-review all of them and let everybody discuss it, like science is normally done.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:47AM
Then we should start by banning bathtubs. Those things are lethal.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek