here's the abstract so because in this study there was controlling for a variable...i still don't understand what you're getting at. do you have an issue with the methodology of the study?
I am not smart enough with scientific methodology to comment. I do worry when the authors use NIH (National Institute of Health) or CDC (Center for Disease Control). Both agencies have been used by anti-gun politicians so that gun deaths can be classified as a disease and these agencies could then regulate firearms without resorting to law. Legislative clarification for NIH: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-034.html Here is another article about CDC restrictions: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx The above article also cites a link to studies of gun ownership and homicides: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
I think you should read your links a little more closely - in effect they state that there is a muzzle on scientific research when it comes to guns. (11) Gun Control (Section 218) “None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” Essentially any study that treats gun violence, accidental gun deaths or suicides as a bad thing could be used to promote gun control, so, well, yeah. Not a lot of research has been done because there's not a lot of money to do the research.
We don't assign heart disease research to a bunch of cops (the FBI and the BATF)...why are people so gung ho to have a bunch of doctors (Center for DISEASE Control) research criminal activity and lawful self-defense activity?
Understood sir. That is the take of many and why I posted the links. The 'restrictions' on funds specifically states "to advocate or promote gun control" which is my point. The agencies, some have argued, were/are being used as a way to control guns by means of regulations from unelected agencies. I have no doubt that defenders of the idea that gun violence is a disease would be tweeked that funding was limited. In the same links you can find statements that the limitations do not stifle research but defunds advocacy.
How does gun violence act differently than a disease? At a certain point it's just crunching numbers. And crunching numbers. And crunching numbers. I'm doing bioinformatics right now, pretty similar to crunching numbers and going slightly insane. The CDC already does research for injury prevention, including research into violence, automobile safety, etc., etc. Why should this be beyond their purview? If you say of scientific research "You can use your funding, but only if it supports a certain political position" you are not doing good science. Gun control is not defined here; would a study that showed children living in houses with locked guns are less likely to gain access to a gun be advocating for gun control? Probably. It's censorship, plain and simple, because if you can't get funding you can't do science. This isn't about banning scientists from using government funds to make placards, it's about preventing research. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/
Because firearms can be used as both crime deterrents and as tools to commit crime, and because it's outside of a doctor's professional expertise to know anything about that complex dynamic. Doctor just know about treating gunshot wounds; they don't know anything as part of their professional duties about crime deterrence, lawful versus unlawful uses of firearms, how the legal trade and illegal trade in firearms actually works, etc. Law enforcement does. They realize this nuance because most beat cops have had their lives, or the lives of innocent people, saved by firearms, as well as seeing firearms used in commission of a crime. Their professional knowledge is far more applicable to the complex issue, and thus, their stances on firearms issues tends to be a lot more nuanced. Someone trying to give firearms research to the CDC instead of the FBI or BATFE is making a political move, not a practical move. They're relying on the political predispositions of the research team instead of giving the job with the best skills to do the research properly and in an open-ended manner. If a US city gets nuked, the injuries from the blast and the radiation are, technically speaking, a "public health issue." But does that mean that research into nuclear deterrence should be given to doctors instead of diplomats (political deterrence) and the military (technical deterrence, such as anti-missile systems)? Of course not. I fully support more research into firearms issues and policy in the US. I've got no problem with private agencies doing it, and I've got no problem with the FBI and BATFE doing it with taxpayer dollars. I just don't want the CDC wasting taxpayer dollars on it. They lack the qualifications, and there are other federal agencies far more qualified to give us useful information instead of knee-jerk "gunshot wounds are bad so let's ban guns" responses.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disease second line in the m-w definition.... from google.... https://www.google.com/search?q=define:disease&gws_rd=ssl sure, i could look at lots of other dictionaries too. but based on these two sources, classifying deaths and injuries from firearms as a 'disease' certainly seems legit.
Using that broad of a definition, the CDC should have jurisdiction over everything that law enforcement and military typically handles. Does that make sense to you? Should the the doctors of the CDC dictate foreign policy and gang prevention measures, because both war and gangs can result in injury and death? Should the doctors of the CDC replace the NHTSA in overseeing highway safety? I can't help that you avoided listing the #1 definition from each of your sources: The CDC should be using its medical background to fight heart disease and influenza, not ISIS or street gangs, even though all four can result in death.
I'd point out that many people in the CDC are not simply medical doctors, but research scientists. These are people who are comfortable with collecting and analyzing large aggregates of data. Trust me when I say that having street level knowledge of firearm usage imparts a skill that is not related to that analysis. By your logic the CDC should not be doing studies on domestic violence or drug usage. The study that prompted the elimination of federal funds (note: not simply funds available to the CDC, but as far as I know all federal funding including those given to private universities; which means we are funding research on say, bird hybridization, but not funding research on a phenomena that kills people every year) was this one: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 What it found was that there was an increase in the incidence of homicides committed by family members in houses that owned guns. The correlation was robust, the methodology sound, as far as I know. This research could be used to advocate for gun control, but in itself is something important to know! Families that have guns in their house are more likely to be victims of intimate violence. Gathering funding right now is a nightmare. 96.5% of all grants are turned down. Doesn't matter if you're researching cancer or yeast genetics, you've got to put out around 20 applications before you return a hit. I don't know how many scientists you know, but it's true, most of us are liberal. The claim that that leaning though, destroys our research's credibility is basically an assault on all science though. At least, any science that attempts to answer a politically charged question. It says that even when methodology is clear, research is conducted in a documented and transparent way, the political leanings of the people conducting it mean that it should not be supported. This is, again, an attempt at censorship - one explicitly targeted at your political opponents. If it's not, I'd ask you to look at the study and tell me where you think that politics creeps in. Yes, we should scientifically analyze what policies are effective in controlling nuclear deterrence and nuclear disarmament. When you leave it to diplomats and the military you wind up with things like Star Wars and a whole lot of scientists shaking their heads. I fail to see how they are unqualified, besides your opinion that they are just doctors and should stick to the hospital exam rooms? What scientists are employed by the FBI? Where are the papers that they are publishing? Note that I am not asking for statistics, but methodological, rigorous testing that is subject to peer review.
Your entire argument seems to be "Well it says Disease on the sign outside (and I don't like the conclusions they're coming to), I don't know what the hell these fellows are doing researching domestic violence!"
No, I'm suggesting that the "F" in BATFE doesn't stand for "frankincense," and that when you're talking about how to spend limited tax dollars, you don't just pick one agency you have warm fuzzy feelings about and ask "could this one agency theoretically handle this one issue," but instead "out of these five existing agencies, which is the best fit for the job?" The CDC isn't it. We don't have another federal agency that deals specifically with domestic violence. We DO have other federal agencies whose mission statement is far more closely related to firearms issues than the CDC's is, including one with "firearms" right there in its darned name, and another (the FBI) that does lengthy reports and analysis of violent crime trends and issues. Why not use them for compiling and analyzing firearms information, except for certain politicians' concerns about the political leanings of the CDC versus those other agencies? EDIT: as for your comments about the nuclear bombing analogy, yes, the CDC might have something useful to say about treating radiation poisoning. But they're not the right agency to decide how to avoid the bombing in the first place. Similarly, the CDC is the right agency to research the treatment of gunshot wounds, but is an inferior choice to the FBI and BATFE to research how to reduce, combat, and prevent violent crime.
The CDC has demonstrated an ability to conduct rigorous, large scale studies on diverse topics such as domestic violence, illegal and legal drug abuse, youth violence, etc., etc. I'm still missing why you think that they're a bad candidate when, as far as I know, the BATFE and FBI do not release or publish scientific papers. Again, why are you so hung up on the name? Let's say we do assemble a team of scientist's for the purpose of publishing reports on gun violence in another bureau. Where do you think those scientists will be coming from? Same places that the CDC gets them. They will be trained in the same manner, in the same Ivy league universities, with the same professors and likely arrive at similar political leanings. The point is that the methodology of science, actually displaying your evidence and the analyses you used to draw conclusions, is supposed to control for that. What prompted the shutdown of government funds to the CDC was not a concern about tax dollars, or even the political leanings of the CDC (again, you are free to point those out in the paper that shut down their funding!) but the lobbying efforts of the NRA. Everyone's crowing about researcher bias or political leanings, but where is that in the research they did? Bias seems to be a magical thing where you don't need to look at results if you disagree with the person who collected them. I doubt that, had these results been published from another bureau, similar cries of researcher bias would ensue. Again, why? They have evidenced an ability to do so in the past. The FBI and BATFE do not release scientific papers that are peer reviewed as far as I know. With regard to the nuclear analogy, the APA said that Reagan's missile defense would not work and, lo and behold, it did not. Perhaps there is something to be said for liberal leaning organizations.
We can go on and on about whether or not gun violence is a disease or not. This is at the heart of the gun control debate today. One side says it's a disease, the other side says no. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/grassley-gun-violence-is-not-a-disease One side argues it cuts federal funding in general, the other side says it cuts funding for advocacy. One side sees gun ownership as a right, the other side as an outdated blurb in an archaic document. When we start to change the meaning of words so we can achieve a desired outcome ("It depends on what your definition of "IS" is.") then things get very muddled. As one who espouses smaller government, I agree with Mitlov that our U.S. government has so many agencies that overlap is insane and costly. Our solution to problems that arise is to create a new agency to oversee several other agencies and if that fails, we need a bigger agency. Can the CDC do research? Yes it can and should. Can the ATF/FBI/Dept of Justice etc. do research? Yes and they should. They should cooperate as well. But let us not go changing words to "legitimize" something that maybe better off done by another agency. Just today I watched an spokesman for our government jump all of himself to explain how the Taliban is not a terrorist group like Al Queda even while admitting the group uses terrorist tactics and parts of the government has classified the group as terrorists. So, while I love what the CDC does for health related issues, I wouldn't want them to be the go to for studying asteroids that could hit the earth. (yes I am using hyperbole to illustrate)
Not at all. That's not the point. One side says it should be subjected to the same scrutiny that domestic violence is, the other side says it should not. When the backlash against the paper I've cited occurred, the CDC was defunded an amount of money equal to the amount that they had spent researching gun violence. The following year that same amount of money was authorized to the CDC, this time earmarked for researching brain tumors; the intent was clear, the CDC was not to use its funds to research gun violence. This funding was not appropriated to the BATFE or FBI to create a scientific team to research gun violence, it was simply allocated for other things… based not upon the question, but upon the conclusion that research bore out. Had research concluded that guns provided safety for the home, I doubt that this would be the result. Perhaps I veer on the side of fanatical for research, but when one side tries to shut down science I think that they've got something to hide. Why does the sign on the building matter so much to you!? They research youth violence! They research domestic violence! Can we not accept that English is a plastic language and always has been!?!?! The reason this is a problem is because the CDC did research that did not support gun sales. Had their science supported gun sales, the NRA would never have raised a problem and this would have kept on going forever. Not really, you need RESEARCHERS to do research. I think there is a ton wrong with the structure of the academy, but when talking to people who are outside the scientific field about science, they generally don't know which way is up. Their culture has, again, in general, done them a disservice. They don't know how to interpret statistics, what a confidence interval or p-value is, what we broadly know and don't know about physics, chemistry and biology and have even less understanding about how scientific philosophy can be applied to their life. Just because you are a good cop, lawyer, agent, etc. does not mean that you are a good scientist. The only reason, let me repeat THE ONLY REASON anyone has said that the CDC is the wrong agency to perform this task is because they disagree with the conclusions of their studies without being able to disagree with their methodology. Unless someone steps up! Who would you prefer? Why? The CDC has performed studies on gun violence. When new funding came out, they performed more studies! In the time between when they were prevented from using federal funds and when they were authorized to use federal funds there was plenty of opportunity for private groups or the BATFE or FBI to allocate funds towards producing scientific papers. Are you able to present them!? If not, why not!? It is because the interest of those defunding the CDC was not in conducting honest research but in muzzling good science.
I don't believe I have attacked, or otherwise diminished, the methodology or conclusions of the study at all. If I have, I apologize. I have a basic, college level of statistics and methods. What I learned in that class was, you can bend statistics to mean what you want them to mean by your methodology. THAT'S MY limited understanding of scientific research. From the NJEM paper: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 From an article cited by the American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx This is where I formulated my opinions. I am not saying a thing about how the CDC did it's study. I do have an issue when scientific studies are used to classify gun crimes as a disease. By the same argument; can we not call motor vehicle deaths a disease as they cause more deaths then firearms? I am no expert. Nor am I in any way a scientist. I believe that you are and your information is quite informative. As you see, I have read your links and have opined accordingly. I am always one that is willing for open discussion and, this may seem odd, but I don't believe that I am right in my opinions. That is why I read as much as I can when discussing topics such as this. You appear to come from scientific education. I sir, do not. I come from the gun HOLDER/USER side of things. Statistics drive police departments for employment, resources, needs for grants, shift density, location saturation, law suit prevention, training. On and on so I am well versed in using statistics. I also have to make darn sure the statistics that I may make decisions on had to dead on accurate or it was my ****. :hat:
I think that ability is overstated, especially with regards to scientific papers. Peer review is really just a nasty, nasty business. Papers like this are just shredded before they're published, inconsistencies in statistics are really, really closely scrutinized. I think that our education system has really failed in some respects, particularly with education into stats and what exactly statistical testing involves. Lies in statistics leave very tell tale trails. Entire careers are made by calling out other people on their bad stats. Science has created a very cut throat academy, one in which the first sign of dishonesty or breach of trust is the beginning of the end of your career. My problem with defunding the CDC is that the logic seems to be circular. Why did they get their results? Because they have liberal tendencies. How do we know they have liberal tendencies? Because of their results. It's the same sort of thing that people are doing in an attempt to discredit climate change research. It's a post hoc justification for ignoring science that says something contrary to one's preferences. Sure, and the CDC researches motor vehicle deaths. Again, just because they're the CDC doesn't mean that everything they study is a disease. Sort of, I'm kind of a baby scientist. PhD student. I get paid to teach and do science. It occasionally (right now) makes me want to claw my eyes out. Looking to falsify your hypotheses is a very scientific principle. I heartily approve. :] Yeah, I guess I should be more explicit with what I'm looking for - not simply statistics as in "X% of people who owned guns were shot," but statistical testing. How tightly correlated are guns and domestic violence? How strong is that correlation? If we generate a model of gun crime in response to violence in one county, how generalizable is that model? Does gun crime differ significantly in urban vs. suburban areas? All of these are answerable questions, important answerable question (probably more important than my own research to be honest), but we need funding and we need to free people to explore where the science goes rather than saying "Oh, you found something we don't like, BANNED."
Is it just me, or is anyone else now thinking that a nation run by a disease control centre could be a really good idea? Every policy decided on how it impacts the health and quality of life of all citizens, and thoroughly researched to boot. They couldn't make a bigger mess of things than these plutocrats and oligarchs that have been festering away in our political palaces for generations.
