4 ms·

The NRA has been extremely effective at keeping gun violence from being studied in exactly this manner in the United States. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/5997

The NRA has been extremely effective at keeping gun violence from being studied in exactly this manner in the United States. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun-violence-research https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-...

AmericanChopper 8y ago
If “the most violent country in the developed world” has the some of the worlds strictest gun control laws, something tells me there’s not much of a connection between gun ownership and violent crime.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  You can only make so strong of an argument from a single data point. Tell that "something" to do some proper research into it.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    When you account for every country that has available data, there is no correlation at all. If anything a very weak negative correlation arises. https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5 https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-li...
    - Lewton 8y ago
      a more nuanced perspective http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/
      - AmericanChopper 8y ago
        I’m not sure if picking random confounding variables until you get the results you want is more nuanced than looking at the raw statistics.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        24gttghh 8y ago
        That is literally what the article you linked does by ignoring suicide statistics, which is a whopping 2/3'rds of the gun-related deaths in the US.
    - aalleavitch 8y ago
      This is excessively not science.
      - pandasun 8y ago
        Mind elaborating on why it's not science? Also, if you can provide better science, that would really add to the discussion instead of an empty comment like that.
        aalleavitch 8y ago
        This, for instance, is science: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26905895 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26905895 Note how it is a meta-analysis of 130 actual studies conducted by researchers at actual institutions aimed at establishing causal relationships and not a bunch of unrelated crime statistics pulled off of wikipedia and scattered sources and dropped into an excel spreadsheet.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  Even though your point is totally valid, you are being downvoted for having an unpopular opinion. Sad.
  - talltimtom 8y ago
    That “point” is that a special interest group is justified in preventing scientific study into a area because he feels that his entirely non encompassing and non-scientific observation would invalidate any results he does not agree with. It is wrong on so many levels. That is why it is being downvoted.
    - vorpalhex 8y ago
      > in preventing scientific study into a area The policy came about because a particular CDC head in the 1980s specifically said he intended to show firearms as the root cause of violence, nevermind what any actual stats said. The CDC to this day still has problems with doing a study, not liking the result, and then deciding it would rather not publish the study - https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#1ce83800299a https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-... This has no effect on private research. It only prevents federal money from being used for a traditionally partisan cause.
      - tacomonstrous 8y ago
        Is your argument that one possibly questionable study invalidates the entire field from being eligible for federal funding? That would mean that the government shouldn't fund any research whatsoever!
        vorpalhex 8y ago
        No my argument is that the major organization pushing for this has repeatedly been caught on record, under oath, explicitly admitting to bias and consistently pushing biased research. If even 5% of a research coming out of a publication was biased, nobody would let anything in the publication be cited. When that publication is funded exclusively by tax payer money paid to a government with a fiduciary duty...
- bertil 8y ago
  You are confusing law and enforcement. The question is not what is legal but what is happening, and whether changing the law would allow a different enforcement.

AmericanChopper 8y ago

If “the most violent country in the developed world” has the some of the worlds strictest gun control laws, something tells me there’s not much of a connection between gun ownership and violent crime.

Dylan16807 8y ago
You can only make so strong of an argument from a single data point. Tell that "something" to do some proper research into it.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  When you account for every country that has available data, there is no correlation at all. If anything a very weak negative correlation arises. https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5 https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-li...
  - Lewton 8y ago
    a more nuanced perspective http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      I’m not sure if picking random confounding variables until you get the results you want is more nuanced than looking at the raw statistics.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - 24gttghh 8y ago
        That is literally what the article you linked does by ignoring suicide statistics, which is a whopping 2/3'rds of the gun-related deaths in the US.
  - aalleavitch 8y ago
    This is excessively not science.
    - pandasun 8y ago
      Mind elaborating on why it's not science? Also, if you can provide better science, that would really add to the discussion instead of an empty comment like that.
      - aalleavitch 8y ago
        This, for instance, is science: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26905895 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26905895 Note how it is a meta-analysis of 130 actual studies conducted by researchers at actual institutions aimed at establishing causal relationships and not a bunch of unrelated crime statistics pulled off of wikipedia and scattered sources and dropped into an excel spreadsheet.
ekianjo 8y ago
Even though your point is totally valid, you are being downvoted for having an unpopular opinion. Sad.
- talltimtom 8y ago
  That “point” is that a special interest group is justified in preventing scientific study into a area because he feels that his entirely non encompassing and non-scientific observation would invalidate any results he does not agree with. It is wrong on so many levels. That is why it is being downvoted.
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    > in preventing scientific study into a area The policy came about because a particular CDC head in the 1980s specifically said he intended to show firearms as the root cause of violence, nevermind what any actual stats said. The CDC to this day still has problems with doing a study, not liking the result, and then deciding it would rather not publish the study - https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#1ce83800299a https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-... This has no effect on private research. It only prevents federal money from being used for a traditionally partisan cause.
    - tacomonstrous 8y ago
      Is your argument that one possibly questionable study invalidates the entire field from being eligible for federal funding? That would mean that the government shouldn't fund any research whatsoever!
      - vorpalhex 8y ago
        No my argument is that the major organization pushing for this has repeatedly been caught on record, under oath, explicitly admitting to bias and consistently pushing biased research. If even 5% of a research coming out of a publication was biased, nobody would let anything in the publication be cited. When that publication is funded exclusively by tax payer money paid to a government with a fiduciary duty...
bertil 8y ago
You are confusing law and enforcement. The question is not what is legal but what is happening, and whether changing the law would allow a different enforcement.