27 ms·

United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

166 points by sohkamyung 7y ago

baobrain 7y ago
It's dismaying in the comment section to see people who are seemingly unaware of the Dickey Amendment straight up defending it. The Dickey Amendment banned the CDC from funding any research that may be used to advocate or promote gun control. And it was lobbied for by (who would've guessed) the NRA. Pretty much all medical associations have called for the amendment's repeal. It's had a stifling effect on research into gun violence since 1996 because most research in this area is funded by the federal government. This is nothing but good news and a blow to groups who want to stifle public knowledge to protect their own interests.
ryeights 7y ago
While I am an opponent of gun control I will be glad to see this change go into effect. Ethical research shouldn't be constrained by politics, and the optics of the policy weren't great anyway...
- larnmar 7y ago
  On the other hand, shouldn’t the Center for Disease Control spend its time and focus on things that could reasonably be argued fall under the heading of “disease control”? By all means, gun violence research should be conducted by, say, the Department of Justice. Like many policies in the US at this stage, the goal appears not to be good governance but simply “pwning the other side”.
  - minikites 7y ago
    >The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the leading national public health institute of the United States. The CDC is a United States federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Its main goal is to protect public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the US and internationally. Gun violence is definitely a public health issue.
  - sohkamyung 7y ago
    Quote from this website [1] ===== “Gun violence is America’s most preventable disease. I say that because it’s almost entirely preventable and the numbers of people affected are so high.” Judy Schaechter, MD, MBA University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine ===== [1] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/disease-gun-violence https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/disease-gun-violence
    - ryandrake 7y ago
      You could say a similar thing about car accidents. Does that make car accidents a disease?
      - datashow 7y ago
        I also like to see what is the argument for treating gun violence as disease but not car accidents.
      - bb611 7y ago
        Regardless of whether you classify it as a disease, the CDC does in fact track and research car accident deaths and injuries: https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht... Additionally there are two federal agencies (NHTSB and NTSB) that regulate the various elements of vehicular safety at the national level, on top of state DMVs and transportation departments. By comparison, the federal BATFE is basically hamstrung on firearms regulation, and outside a few States so are its state level equivalents.
        nl 7y ago
        Additionally, CDC funds and publishes research of motor vehicle safety[1]. Their seat belts topic is a good example: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/pubs.html https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/pubs.html [1] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
    - shpongled 7y ago
  - kasey_junk 7y ago
    They also are experts in the study of epidemics broadly which many people have noted mass shootings look like. Similarly gun violence encompasses suicide and domestic abuse which clearly fall into the expertise of the NiH
  - beart 7y ago
    The u.s. government has a history of departments performing work that would not seem to logically fit with their stated intention or primary focus. I don't think that alone implies a misuse of authority. For example, the secret service is in charge of protecting government officials but is also tasked with investigating forgery.
    - datashow 7y ago
      This could be a reasonable argument. Unfortunately it is not the one used by CDC officials. They are literally saying gun violence is a disease.
- virmundi 7y ago
  The CDC has a history of anti gun bias. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/...
  - ip26 7y ago
    They also have a history of anti malaria bias. Public health agency finds that guns kill people, recommends fewer guns, news at 11
    - datashow 7y ago
      How is malaria comparable to guns? Is malaria in the Constitution? Does Americans have a malaria culture?
      - throwaway2048 7y ago
        If it did, im sure there would be plenty opining about the wonderful benefits of malaria, how it stops government tyranny from invading the swamps of our forefathers, and how you can always rely on it to dissuade thieves and criminals.
      - ip26 7y ago
        The point is they both harm people; so it's no great surprise for a public health agency to have concerns about them.
        jakeogh 7y ago
        Gun use is overwhelmingly defensive.
        beefalo 7y ago
        citation needed
rayiner 7y ago
Gun violence research is a good example of how science can be skewed to make different political points. For example, one of the new tactics gun control advocates have adopted is lumping homicides and suicides together into “gun deaths” even though the policy implications of the two things are quite different. (Suicides accounting for the large majority of “gun deaths,” but bans on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines will have little effect on suicides. Likely red flag laws as well. Those are the three most viable gun control laws on the table right now.) Measuring homicides versus “gun deaths” also changes whether there is an observed correlation between gun ownership rates and “gun death”/homicide rates: https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5 https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-a... (there is no correlation for homicides; there is a moderate correlation for suicides). So, for example, whether you research homicides or “gun deaths”/“gun violence” is already a politically significant choice that will alter the results. So yes, more research and more data is always good. But this data will get twisted and abused for political grandstanding. People need to be prepared to cut through that. I’d also point out that, at the end of the day, gun rights derive from the Constitution. Gun control is therefore not merely a policy choice to be made based on facts and data. In fact, there are lots of areas where we are quite reasonably sensitive to research efforts being misused for political ends.
- susijdjdjxa 7y ago
  I’m a little confused on your overall point here - are you saying that it’s only good to reduce gun homicides, not suicides?
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    It seems like the point is that different policies would affect suicides versus homicides, so grouping them into one category is not as useful as if they were separate.
    - glenstein 7y ago
      It's just a weirdly nitpicky place to decide to start the conversation, just to state something that's already going to be obvious to anyone researching the subject, something that sure as heck seems to be coming from a place of not wanting the research to be done at all. A better way of stating the point without letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and thereby losing sight of the underlying need for further research, would be to say something like the following: "This is great news. I hope the studies account for x,y, and z, and I look forward to their publication. I also look forward to supporting the legislation this research may make possible and to the safety benefits that stand to be gained. Anyone have any links for ways I can effectively pressure my local legislator and ask them to support even more funding in the future?" That way it's not ambiguous whether the research is supported. If, on the other hand, people just don't want more research, we would all benefit from having that clearly stated at the outset as well.
pgodzin 7y ago
But only $25 million
- kasey_junk 7y ago
  That’s actually a huge number given the clout and lack of nuance of the gun lobby.
crazy_monkey 7y ago
Lol, you mean basically Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria? #gunviolence
thrower123 7y ago
Honest research on gun violence can't help but find some inconvenient statistics, so I'm somewhat surprised anyone in the current political environment would be interested in lifting this freeze.
8bitsrule 7y ago
More research is often the last refuge of a scoundrel.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Jamwinner 7y ago
Can we ban bad faith posters like this? This is pure flamebait.
- QualityReboot 7y ago
  It's not bad faith, and it's not flamebait. 1) He's technically correct, the best kind of correct. 2) That's tptacek you're suggesting to ban. He's a fixture here and has been an outstanding contributor to this community since near the beginning.
yahwrong 7y ago
Man fuck the government. I ain't free until I can purchase a fully automatic AK with grenade launcher attachment and the finest kush this side of the Rocky's at Walmart.
busymom0 7y ago
Slightly related but I come from a country where guns are pretty much illegal and you need to go through a ton of background check etc to even get a 6 bullet pistol. Yet my country has a severe gun violence shooting problem because of illegal guns being manufactured at home as well as imported from neighbouring countries. Another similar example is Mexico with less than 2% legal gun ownership and only a single gun shop and yet they have mass gun related crimes. If one were to look at US or Switzerland, huge majority of the gun deaths (60% if I remember right) are from suicide and another 15% if law enforcement). Gang related crimes happen using handguns and not ar15 etc.

166 points by sohkamyung 7y ago

It's dismaying in the comment section to see people who are seemingly unaware of the Dickey Amendment straight up defending it. The Dickey Amendment banned the CDC from funding any research that may be used to advocate or promote gun control. And it was lobbied for by (who would've guessed) the NRA. Pretty much all medical associations have called for the amendment's repeal. It's had a stifling effect on research into gun violence since 1996 because most research in this area is funded by the federal government. This is nothing but good news and a blow to groups who want to stifle public knowledge to protect their own interests.

ryeights 7y ago

While I am an opponent of gun control I will be glad to see this change go into effect. Ethical research shouldn't be constrained by politics, and the optics of the policy weren't great anyway...

larnmar 7y ago
On the other hand, shouldn’t the Center for Disease Control spend its time and focus on things that could reasonably be argued fall under the heading of “disease control”? By all means, gun violence research should be conducted by, say, the Department of Justice. Like many policies in the US at this stage, the goal appears not to be good governance but simply “pwning the other side”.
- minikites 7y ago
  >The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the leading national public health institute of the United States. The CDC is a United States federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Its main goal is to protect public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the US and internationally. Gun violence is definitely a public health issue.
- sohkamyung 7y ago
  Quote from this website [1] ===== “Gun violence is America’s most preventable disease. I say that because it’s almost entirely preventable and the numbers of people affected are so high.” Judy Schaechter, MD, MBA University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine ===== [1] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/disease-gun-violence https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/disease-gun-violence
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    You could say a similar thing about car accidents. Does that make car accidents a disease?
    - datashow 7y ago
      I also like to see what is the argument for treating gun violence as disease but not car accidents.
    - bb611 7y ago
      Regardless of whether you classify it as a disease, the CDC does in fact track and research car accident deaths and injuries: https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht... Additionally there are two federal agencies (NHTSB and NTSB) that regulate the various elements of vehicular safety at the national level, on top of state DMVs and transportation departments. By comparison, the federal BATFE is basically hamstrung on firearms regulation, and outside a few States so are its state level equivalents.
      - nl 7y ago
        Additionally, CDC funds and publishes research of motor vehicle safety[1]. Their seat belts topic is a good example: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/pubs.html https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/pubs.html [1] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
  - shpongled 7y ago
- kasey_junk 7y ago
  They also are experts in the study of epidemics broadly which many people have noted mass shootings look like. Similarly gun violence encompasses suicide and domestic abuse which clearly fall into the expertise of the NiH
- beart 7y ago
  The u.s. government has a history of departments performing work that would not seem to logically fit with their stated intention or primary focus. I don't think that alone implies a misuse of authority. For example, the secret service is in charge of protecting government officials but is also tasked with investigating forgery.
  - datashow 7y ago
    This could be a reasonable argument. Unfortunately it is not the one used by CDC officials. They are literally saying gun violence is a disease.
virmundi 7y ago
The CDC has a history of anti gun bias. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/...
- ip26 7y ago
  They also have a history of anti malaria bias. Public health agency finds that guns kill people, recommends fewer guns, news at 11
  - datashow 7y ago
    How is malaria comparable to guns? Is malaria in the Constitution? Does Americans have a malaria culture?
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      If it did, im sure there would be plenty opining about the wonderful benefits of malaria, how it stops government tyranny from invading the swamps of our forefathers, and how you can always rely on it to dissuade thieves and criminals.
    - ip26 7y ago
      The point is they both harm people; so it's no great surprise for a public health agency to have concerns about them.
      - jakeogh 7y ago
        Gun use is overwhelmingly defensive.
        beefalo 7y ago
        citation needed

rayiner 7y ago

Gun violence research is a good example of how science can be skewed to make different political points. For example, one of the new tactics gun control advocates have adopted is lumping homicides and suicides together into “gun deaths” even though the policy implications of the two things are quite different. (Suicides accounting for the large majority of “gun deaths,” but bans on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines will have little effect on suicides. Likely red flag laws as well. Those are the three most viable gun control laws on the table right now.) Measuring homicides versus “gun deaths” also changes whether there is an observed correlation between gun ownership rates and “gun death”/homicide rates: https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5 https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-a... (there is no correlation for homicides; there is a moderate correlation for suicides). So, for example, whether you research homicides or “gun deaths”/“gun violence” is already a politically significant choice that will alter the results. So yes, more research and more data is always good. But this data will get twisted and abused for political grandstanding. People need to be prepared to cut through that. I’d also point out that, at the end of the day, gun rights derive from the Constitution. Gun control is therefore not merely a policy choice to be made based on facts and data. In fact, there are lots of areas where we are quite reasonably sensitive to research efforts being misused for political ends.

susijdjdjxa 7y ago
I’m a little confused on your overall point here - are you saying that it’s only good to reduce gun homicides, not suicides?
- freeone3000 7y ago
  It seems like the point is that different policies would affect suicides versus homicides, so grouping them into one category is not as useful as if they were separate.
  - glenstein 7y ago
    It's just a weirdly nitpicky place to decide to start the conversation, just to state something that's already going to be obvious to anyone researching the subject, something that sure as heck seems to be coming from a place of not wanting the research to be done at all. A better way of stating the point without letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and thereby losing sight of the underlying need for further research, would be to say something like the following: "This is great news. I hope the studies account for x,y, and z, and I look forward to their publication. I also look forward to supporting the legislation this research may make possible and to the safety benefits that stand to be gained. Anyone have any links for ways I can effectively pressure my local legislator and ask them to support even more funding in the future?" That way it's not ambiguous whether the research is supported. If, on the other hand, people just don't want more research, we would all benefit from having that clearly stated at the outset as well.

pgodzin 7y ago

But only $25 million

kasey_junk 7y ago
That’s actually a huge number given the clout and lack of nuance of the gun lobby.

crazy_monkey 7y ago

Lol, you mean basically Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria? #gunviolence

thrower123 7y ago

Honest research on gun violence can't help but find some inconvenient statistics, so I'm somewhat surprised anyone in the current political environment would be interested in lifting this freeze.

8bitsrule 7y ago

More research is often the last refuge of a scoundrel.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Jamwinner 7y ago

Can we ban bad faith posters like this? This is pure flamebait.

QualityReboot 7y ago
It's not bad faith, and it's not flamebait. 1) He's technically correct, the best kind of correct. 2) That's tptacek you're suggesting to ban. He's a fixture here and has been an outstanding contributor to this community since near the beginning.

yahwrong 7y ago

Man fuck the government. I ain't free until I can purchase a fully automatic AK with grenade launcher attachment and the finest kush this side of the Rocky's at Walmart.

busymom0 7y ago

Slightly related but I come from a country where guns are pretty much illegal and you need to go through a ton of background check etc to even get a 6 bullet pistol. Yet my country has a severe gun violence shooting problem because of illegal guns being manufactured at home as well as imported from neighbouring countries. Another similar example is Mexico with less than 2% legal gun ownership and only a single gun shop and yet they have mass gun related crimes. If one were to look at US or Switzerland, huge majority of the gun deaths (60% if I remember right) are from suicide and another 15% if law enforcement). Gang related crimes happen using handguns and not ar15 etc.