PDA

View Full Version : N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say


ipser
01-25-2011, 1:24 PM
In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there’s a reason for that. Both scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off funds for such work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html

Apparently "scientists" are not able to find funding anywhere else.

Chester
01-25-2011, 1:33 PM
Maybe scientists to should get back to work on developing fusion reactors and figuring out how to put people on Mars instead of wasting their funding on erroneous social pondering.

stix213
01-25-2011, 1:44 PM
The link appears to go to the paid side of the nytimes site. Though I'm happy the NRA is helping to avoid government waste.

Werewolf1021
01-25-2011, 1:49 PM
I call BS on these "scientists". They want more money. Plain and simple.

Easy to blame the NRA when you are trying to cover up for plain ineptitude. A**hats. :rolleyes:

MindBuilder
01-25-2011, 2:09 PM
We gave them money to do research. They produced crap. There is no reason to send them any more money. We've got all the crap we need.

GOEX FFF
01-25-2011, 2:27 PM
Total BS.

So, research only depends if the NRA gives them money for it or not?
What a crock!

Again, so many so quick to blame others for their financial faults and difficulties....and now the NRA for not funding research.
C'mon "scientists", surely your claim isn't you "need" the NRA to survive. :rolleyes:

The lies will never stop from gun grabbers because their defense is rapidly deteriorating.

bwiese
01-25-2011, 2:28 PM
We saw the 'science' in the lead ammo/condor controversy.

Ultra bad stats at best, misrepresentation using Fed monies at worst.

Amazing how scientists clam up when private detectives and lawyers start scrutinizig their work, sources and data flows.

halifax
01-25-2011, 3:08 PM
Didn't the CDC do some firearm studies already?

Yep. Here it is:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Must not have gotten the results they wanted.

Uriah02
01-25-2011, 3:29 PM
Didn't the CDC do some firearm studies already?

Yep. Here it is:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Must not have gotten the results they wanted.

Nice, someone needs to post that on the comments section!

wazdat
01-25-2011, 3:38 PM
In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.

Well, there's your reason... "We screwed up the study and want more money to screw it up again."

:rofl:

ipser
01-25-2011, 4:28 PM
Ultimately, the conundrum in firearms research comes in establishing what scientists call “causality.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26gunsresearch.html

Who would have guessed?!

creekside
01-25-2011, 5:39 PM
Facts:

There are two scientific communities who do firearms and crime research. One is the criminology community, which has well established working definitions for crime, is familiar with issues in sociological research, and is primarily funded by the National Institute of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/) (NIJ), which is the only major government research institute headed by a political rather than a career appointee. The phenomenon studied is crime and the outcome is crimes prevented. Most researchers are career social scientists with a sprinkling of lawyers.

I will also add that the primary measures of crime in the United States, the Uniform Crime Reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Crime_Reports) (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey) (NCVS), are maintained by NIJ.

The other is the public health community, which uses epidemiological models (guns as disease vectors) and medical records, especially emergency room admits and mortality statistics, to assess the impact of gun violence on communities. Most of the public funding is from National Institutes of Health (http://www.nih.gov/) (NIH). The phenomenon studied is violence and the outcome is prevented injuries and deaths. Most researchers are physicians otherwise inexperienced in sociological research with a sprinkling of epidemiologists.

Opinion:

The whiners listed in the NYT article are among the most notorious pseudo-scientists in the public health community. Their research has been torn to shreds, mostly by criminologists but also by other public health professionals. Congress spanked them and took away their money not for the content of their research, but its utter lack of quality and scientific rigor.

From "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda (http://www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/guns_public_health.pdf)"

"The health advocacy literature exists in a vacuum of lock-step orthodoxy almost hermetically sealed from the existence of contrary data or scholarship. "

None of the above information is the fault of the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California, Irvine. However, please feel free to contact them for further information. Just don't tell them who sent you.

freespool
01-26-2011, 9:32 AM
....

From "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda (http://www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/guns_public_health.pdf)"

"The health advocacy literature exists in a vacuum of lock-step orthodoxy almost hermetically sealed from the existence of contrary data or scholarship. "



Thanks for the cite. That is one goldmine of scathing analysis, from some guys with serious credentials.

QQQ
01-26-2011, 9:44 AM
As a graduate public health student emphasizing in epidemiology and member of both the NRA and the APHA, let me assure you that as far as my knowledge goes there is no convincing epidemiological evidence that strict gun control laws in the United States cause a substantial reduction in violent crime. Nor is there convincing evidence that a lack of strict gun control laws in the United States causes a substantial reduction in violent crime.

And research has been done to try to establish both.

Devilinbp
01-26-2011, 10:01 AM
My favorite part was at the end:

And there is a sense in which violence is a public health problem. So let me illustrate the
limitations of this line of reasoning with a public-health analogy.
After research disclosed that mosquitos were the vector for transmission of yellow
fever, the disease was not controlled by sending men in white coats to the swamps to
remove the mouth parts from all the insects they could find. The only sensible, efficient way
to stop the biting was to attack the environment where the mosquitos bred.
Guns are the mouth parts of the violence epidemic. The contemporary urban
environment breeds violence no less than swamps breed mosquitos. Attempting to control
the problem of violence by trying to disarm the perpetrators is as hopeless as trying to
contain yellow fever through mandible control.368

maddoggie13
01-26-2011, 10:05 AM
Are these the same scientists that research global warming???

dantodd
01-26-2011, 10:36 AM
Are these the same scientists that research global warming???

No, these guys are more honest.

nick
01-26-2011, 10:41 AM
Umm, scientists? Doing research doesn't make one a scientist, the methodology used and outcome do. These people aren't scientists, given the methodologies they normally use (and I use the word 'methodology' loosely when applied to what they do), an the outcome is generally junk (you know, garbage in, garbage out).

What these people are saying is that they need something official-looking to misrepresent in their "studies", and the big bad NRA prevents them from doing so. There's a lot of relevant data out there, even in public domain. What these people are trying to get instead is ATF firearms trace data, of which even the ATF warns that it's not suitable for firearms-related research (unless one researches the tracing process or ATF's data collection techniques, of course :)). So by ignoring the other data out there and demanding the ATF trace data, these people show that they aren't scientists interested in scientific (scientific being the key word) research, but agenda-driven politicians who have (or pretend to have) some claim to being a researcher.

The "90% of guns in Mexico come from the US" claim and the recent NYT piece on gun confiscations in VA have demonstrated the kind of "research" they're after, and calling it scientific is an insult to grad students fetching coffee for their professor.

dantodd
01-26-2011, 11:14 AM
Fixed Your Title.

jrtf83
01-26-2011, 11:45 AM
I was concerned about this when I read it this morning in my local paper (SJ Merc).

Interesting to read here that the reasoning behind it is that the studies were biased and based on bad methods? More detail to this?

It seems to me that we should want to fund studies to find out the real truth about firearm ownership preventing crime, and protecting law-abiding life.

dantodd
01-26-2011, 11:49 AM
I was concerned about this when I read it this morning in my local paper (SJ Merc).

Interesting to read here that the reasoning behind it is that the studies were biased and based on bad methods? More detail to this?

It seems to me that we should want to fund studies to find out the real truth about firearm ownership preventing crime, and protecting law-abiding life.

Read post #12

Wherryj
01-26-2011, 12:09 PM
In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there’s a reason for that. Both scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off funds for such work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html

Apparently "scientists" are not able to find funding anywhere else.

1. Scientists produce slanted studies.

2. NRA challenges slanted studies.

3. Scientists unable to publish slanted studies claim NRA stymies firearms research.

Did I miss anything?