What % of gun violence victims/witnesses are/become in favor of regulation?

[intrepidity]

Do all of these shootings change any minds, even of victims and/or their families? Or the hundreds of terrified bystanders? Does anyone know?

[Irish_Dem]

1. There was a prohibition on universities conducting any gun related research.

So we don't know much about any of this.
By GOP design.

[intrepidity]

3. WTAF?

No, really, what??

[CrispyQ]

7. There was a ban on the CDC studying gun violence for 20 or 25 years.

The gun worship in this country is sick.

[Skittles]

20. I thought that was pretty common knowledge

it's true

[DemocraticPatriot]

6. Could you please be more specific ?

A link to something would be very nice here.

What you say sounds quite credible, but I would like to know more.

[Irish_Dem]

8. 1997 Dickey amendment is one example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

Prevented federal funds for gun related research.

Once you get politicians taking action like this it is a chilling
effect and no PhD wants to get into trouble with funding sources
or politicians.

University Chairs tell PhD students to stop pursuing certain
research topics. And your advisor won't approve those topics.

ETA At one point the GOP wanted to pass a law saying that psychologists
could not ask patients about guns in the home. Despite the fact we know that the
presence of a gun in the home of a depressed patient dramatically increases
the risk of suicide. So yes the professional community has had their hands
tied a great deal by politicians.

[DemocraticPatriot]

11. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK??

Thank you, Irish.

[Irish_Dem]

12. YW.

Yes we couldn't study anything to do with guns.
Too risky as we would lose funding.
Or break the law.

[taxi]

10. That would be the Dickey Amendment of 1996

Federal funding for research on gun violence has faced severe restrictions for more than two decades.

This makes it difficult for policymakers to fully understand the problem and create solutions to fix it.
This lack of federal funding largely is due to the 1996 Dickey amendment, which specifies that “none
of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” In 2011, Congress extended this
restrictive language to other health agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These
actions created a chilling effect, significantly curtailing the amount of gun violence research that has
been performed at the federal level.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0061b4e8-6a15-4bea-b9c4-a99ede7180f2/gun-violence-backgrounder-final.pdf

[Irish_Dem]

14. Studies like this are often done in conjunction with large research universities

so it has a widespread chilling effect everywhere.

What university is going to get into trouble with the NIH and CDC?
And federal lawmakers?

[taxi]

15. The closing paragraph of the link gives an answer - ...without federal data...

Without federal data on gun violence, for example, it is impossible to take local prevention programs that work and scale them up to function on a nationwide basis. The lack of federal information on the
causes of gun violence also allows policymakers to hypothesize about solutions to gun violence that
may not be supported by actual data. This prevents an informed debate from taking place and further
polarizes the issue of preventing gun violence.

[Irish_Dem]

17. Yes exactly. With no data, we cannot come up with any solutions.

And that is the whole GOP point about stopping research.

[SYFROYH]

22. There was no ban on universities conducting gun related research.

I think you're confusing what you think with the 1996 Dickey Amendment that prohibited the CDC promoting or advocating for gun control

[Irish_Dem]

23. Let's use some logic here. Universities assist the CDC and NIH in their research.

Perhaps you are confused as you do not understand how NIH and CDC
research grants work in real life.

So when the CDC and NIH are hit with a ban, it impacts universities which
do not want to lose federal dollars.

No university department chair wants to cross federal politicians or
lose money. That shifts down to doctoral students and non tenured faculty
who do not want to cross the department chair.

More basic logic: Gun violence is one of the most serious
and profound issues of 21st century America. It is a major threat to the
stability of our country, a huge social, cultural, political, public health issue.
Gun violence has been going on for some time.

One would think there would be a huge body of literature across many
university departments: sociology, political science, public health, medicine,
psychology, etc etc. With extensive public discussion about how to tackle this
problem at all levels of politics, government and academia.

If this all exists and I don't know it, well then perhaps I am confused.
I welcome being unconfused with any facts you may have.

[SYFROYH]

24. Universities were free to use foundation and other agency funding like NSF.

There was never an accusation that I know of retaliation and losing federal funds for other projects because universities used other sources.

I work at a university. I've known public health and social science faculty who did gun violence research and there was never any issue with concern about federal funding.

The CDC budget that was zeroed out was only $2.6 million. Not a lot.

You're supposition that there should be more research out there is just that. Not logic.

[Scrivener7]

2. That is a really good question. But we can't ask it because of what Irish Dem said.

[intrepidity]

13. Why don't we raise holy hell like the right does?

I don't get it.

[Irish_Dem]

18. That's a whole other research question.

[Septua]

4. It's increasing.

This was the latest poll I could find and is left-handed to your question, asking if people are satisfied with current gun regulations. And more people are dissatisfied.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/470588/dissatisfaction-gun-laws-hits-new-high.aspx

[Irish_Dem]

19. Yes but polling information is totally inadequate in addressing the gun violence issue.

It is a complex issue and needs in-depth scholarly study.

[brewens]

5. You'd think there would be. It has to happen to them effect. You sometimes see it in anti-vaxxers

after they get COVID. Not enough though.

[milestogo]

16. Steve Scalise didn't change at all.

[Scrivener7]

21. That's not a normal person.