Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 07:12 AM Dec 2015

The Smartest Way to Address Gun Violence? Research

The most re­cent mas­sacre in San Bern­ardino and oth­er hor­rif­ic acts of vi­ol­ence en­countered in the U.S. and abroad spur the po­lar­iz­ing de­bate around gun own­er­ship and its easy ac­cess. There would be little de­bate if the num­ber of fire­arms-re­lated deaths was small, but that is not the case. Fire­arms con­trib­ute to over 30,000 deaths by hom­icides and sui­cides an­nu­ally. This does not in­clude the more than 70,000 non­fatal in­jur­ies. The per cap­ita rate of gun in­jur­ies and deaths in the U.S. far ex­ceeds all European coun­tries and Ja­pan com­bined.

While re­search on ad­verse health ef­fects is re­quired for most con­sumer goods, from toys to cos­met­ics, none ex­ists for guns.

To il­lus­trate the pos­it­ive ef­fects of re­search, we can ex­am­ine the ad­vance­ments made in mo­tor-vehicle safety. In 2013, mo­tor vehicles con­trib­uted to 33,804 deaths, about the same num­ber as guns (33,646). In con­trast to gun-re­lated deaths, this is the low­est deaths per cap­ita ever and half that of 1975, ac­cord­ing to the In­sur­ance In­sti­tute for High­way Safety. This im­prove­ment was pos­sible be­cause of the tre­mend­ous re­sources that went in­to col­lect­ing data on vehicles, the people who drive them, and the roads.

The Na­tion­al High­way Trans­port­a­tion Safety Ad­min­is­tra­tion 2015 budget for safety re­search and de­vel­op­ment is $122 mil­lion. This does not in­clude the re­search fund­ing im­bed­ded in its budget for vehicle safety ($152 mil­lion) and High­way Traffic Safety Grants to states ($577 mil­lion). It also does not in­clude the vast amounts of re­sources auto man­u­fac­tur­ers in­vest in safety. Re­sources for data and re­search en­able NHTSA to know that 50 per­cent of people killed in crashes are un­belted; 30 per­cent of high­way fatal­it­ies in­volve an im­paired driver; and 90 per­cent of crashes in­volve an ele­ment of hu­man er­ror. The re­search leads to in­nov­a­tions like airbags, high-strength oc­cu­pant cages and crumple zones; laws and reg­u­la­tions such as drunk-driv­ing laws, seat-belt and cell-phone use laws; and en­vir­on­ment­al im­prove­ments like bet­ter street light­ing, safer guard­rails, and im­proved sig­nage.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/criminal-justice/smartest-way-address-gun-violence-is-research
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
2. Maybe I missed the part about how much the FBI and DoJ have been spending every year?
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:28 AM
Dec 2015

And the cost of the CDC 2013 study on the effectiveness of gun control laws, done at the request of the White House?

The FBI does an annual report on gun violence and I can't imagine they do that on $50 bucks. That annual FBI Uniform Crime Report has to be a big ticket item. I'm sure it was just overlooked by the author.

Or are you just cutting and pasting another article propagating the myth that the CDC isn't allowed to do gun research?

This is what the 3rd or 4th post related to that gun control lie?

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,577 posts)
4. It doesn't have to...
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 10:27 AM
Dec 2015

...be true, make sense, be a new topic or present a new point of view. It's just an opportunity to stick another virtual post-it up that might push another story with some facts off the group's first page.

Those that believe this.. stuff fall into 3 categories: believers, noobs and boobs.

The believers: those who listen to pro-control "preachers" and screen out debate, eschew compromise and fear thinking about being wrong. To them I say, have fun talking among yourselves.

The noobs: have done no research at all and just read/heard some emotion filled ideas. I hope they'll mature and learn.

The boobs: they know the Apollo landings were fakes but spend more time searching for Elvis than most anything else. They'll believe anything and to them I say..



..since I'm a French model.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
5. Too bad we can't vote on which is which among the control "fans"
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 12:25 PM
Dec 2015

I'd say generally the folks that post "Fuck the NRA" in all caps in any and all GD gun related posts are among the "Noobs" or "Boobs". Mainly because they don't ever bother to post anything in the "Gun Control Inactivism group" and don't seem to care enough to actually support any gun control group. Saying Fuck the NRA is cheap and easy to do.

They only show up for high profile crimes, shout once or twice, then go back to fighting and pissing on each other in the Primary Forums. For a brief period the primary wars are more of a focus for trying to get people banned than the Gungeon is.

But with the typical DU jury, any naming names or even implying individuals would be sure to get a hide ... or two if they could figure out a way to do that.

Of course some of the "True Believers" seem to be always pissed off at Skinner for even allowing the Gungeon to exist, so they're easy to spot in ATA.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,577 posts)
6. the primaries
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 01:42 PM
Dec 2015

They seem indicative of anger, emotion and allegiance to an individual... Much like the whole pro-control whine chorus... Which seems rather contrary to the legislative process. That is what gun-control is about right, laws?

The primaries are closer to being a sporting event like a horse race than anything else.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
7. It just gets really personal and angry really quick in there - just like here
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 01:52 PM
Dec 2015

It's not a "we disagree on this or that policy" kind of discussion.

It's more "you are obviously an idiot and shouldn't be allowed an opinion or vote", kind of attitude.

IIRC, we went through the same thing in 2008.

A whole lot of bitterness and some of it's still there today it seems.

And of course, if any candidate in any race doesn't win, it will be because of all the "Right Wing Gun Humpers" in the Gungeon.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,577 posts)
10. "because of all the Right Wing Gun Humpers in the Gungeon"
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 03:03 PM
Dec 2015

I just had a flashback to a Barney Miller. Fish emerges from the bathroom as 2 detectives looking very soiled lock up someone they chased through the sewer and remarks, "Oh no, I may be guilty of obstructing justice."

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
11. Price tag: $67,000 taxpayer cash for Wright/Rossi study commissioned by Jimmy Carter
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 03:08 PM
Dec 2015

Jimmy didn't like the return on investment. The two liberal criminologists reported that there was no credible evidence that the Gun Control Act of 1968 yielded a measurable reduction in gun crime. In fact, they suggested that meaningful reduction of gun violence could be best achieved by attacking the problem at it's source. (The impoverished/drug-ridden urban environments where the problem is most acute.)

Straw Man

(6,771 posts)
3. Flawed analogies.
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:31 AM
Dec 2015

Does the NHTSA do research on motor vehicle use in the commission of crimes? Will research on gun violence lead to advancements in the technology of body armor? Will there be new ad campaigns telling people not to drink while shooting?

Let's not pretend that the recommendations of all this "research" will be anything but calls for more gun control laws, OK?

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
8. The Controllers simply don't like what solid research has turned up thus far.
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 02:59 PM
Dec 2015

Among the many brazen lies The Controllers push is that there is a deficiency in research w/regard to gun violence. Hogshit! They simply don't like what solid research has turned up thus far, and want to re-research in order to arrive at conclusions more charitable to their "cause". Even given the fact that the latest CDC statements have admitted to high numbers of defensive gun uses, and other things that support the RKBA position, I still don't trust them any further than I can punt a rhino.

I recall scoping out a web page which listed items that the CDC listed as aspects of gun violence which screamed for more research. I wish that I had saved the page......as I haven't been able to relocate it. The remarkable thing about the items listed is that they were areas well researched by James Wright, Peter Rossi, Gary Kleck and others. Most notably, many of the "questions" they ticked off have been adequately addressed by Wright and Rossi with their groundbreaking prison survey.

So ENOUGH with this garbage that there is inadequate research into gun violence. The only people who make this claim at this point in the game are the ignorant and the mendacious.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
12. Secmo, what you want is a return to CDC pumping out anti-gun propaganda...
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 05:09 PM
Dec 2015

As for that ilk of "research,"' there are still foundations who keep that squirrel cage turning, CDC or no; since the issue is so big, there must be plenty of dough and culture warriors picking up the tab. The drug warriors have their institutes, the anti-gunners have their's.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The Smartest Way to Addre...