Basic Gun Violence Research Is Seriously Underfunded

[frizzled]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by GP6971 (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Huffington Post

NEW YORK (AP) — Amid the bloodbaths of 21st-century America, you might think that there would be a lot of research into the causes of gun violence, and which policies work best against it. You would be wrong.

Gun interests, wary of any possible limits on weaponry, have successfully lobbied for limitations on government research and funding, and private sources have not filled the breach. So funding for basic gun violence research and data collection remains minuscule — the annual sum total for all gun violence research projects appears to be well under $5 million. A grant for a single study in areas like autism, cancer or HIV can be more than twice that much.

There are public health students who want to better understand rising gun-related suicide rates, recent explosions in firearm murders in many U.S. cities, and mass murders like the one this month at an Oregon community college, where a lone gunman killed nine people.

But many young researchers are staying away from the field. Some believe there's little hope Congress will do anything substantive to reduce gun violence, regardless of what scientists find. And the work is stressful — many who study gun violence report receiving angry emails and death threats from believers in unrestricted gun ownership.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/basic-gun-violence-research-is-seriously-underfunded_561aa218e4b0dbb8000ef5f0

---

Preventing the fifth biggest killer of Americans under 64 gets less than $5M a year funding! How is this possible?

[frizzled]

1. "Congressional Republicans also included language directing that no CDC injury research funding...

could go to research that might be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control."

Can anyone possibly defend this?

[Duckhunter935]

2. I do not think they should adocate

for any side, just do peer reviewed research.

[frizzled]

4. If only Big Tobacco could have banned research that could be used to advocate against tobacco use

nt

[Duckhunter935]

5. they did not have any facts on there side

when the CDC did the latest research on defensive gun use, it did not support the controllers claims. I do not think that should be limited.

[SunSeeker]

18. Pray tell, Duckhunter, what CDC gun research are you talking about? Got a link? nt

[Duckhunter935]

19. The one

President Obama called for, on my phone, I will link when I get a chance.

[SunSeeker]

21. That's what I thought you were talking about. There is no such research.

What Obama called for the CDC to do was to look into what needs to be researched. They did, and summarized prior research, including the pro-gun crap put out by gun industry stooges. Of the long list of research compiled in that report that the CDC recommended be done, NONE of it was done. Why? Because the GOP continues to BAN FUNDING for such research.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141225979

[flamin lib]

7. What are they supposed to do with the research?

Hmmm, empirical data shows that guns are used in shootings. Let's not advocate curbing shootings by regulating guns.

Hmmm, empirical data shows that immunizations reduce disease mortality and morbidity. Let's not advocate for immunization.

The approach you seem to advocate is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Duckhunter935]

8. That is for other organizations to take the plain data and do

[flamin lib]

9. I reiterate the previous response . . .

[Duckhunter935]

11. I know, you have nothing

I like unbiased research and it should be fully funded

[flamin lib]

12. Gotta have the last word even if it is to double down on,

what's the word, oh yeah I've used it twice now.

[Gormy Cuss]

14. That language prevents peer reviewed research

because if the legislation actually says "may," that means any time the premise of the research even suggests that an outcome could indicate the need for better gun controls, the research violates this stipulation. Thus the research is not funded and we'll never know whether the premise had merit unless some private money funds the research.

[SunSeeker]

20. Coming to reasonable conclusions based on data is not "advocating."

Besides, they provide the data. If their conclusions are unsupported, that would be readily apparent. The NRA argument that the GOP rightfully banned CDC gun research because the CDC was biased and "advocating" against guns is utter bullshit. The GOP might as well ban reality, since that advocates against guns.

[villager]

3. There are even some committed posters here at the "Underground" defending the indefensible

They seem to revel in the snark, denial, and obfuscation. The exact tools the gun manufacturers and their legislative puppets rely on.

[Duckhunter935]

6. I do agree there are very underfunded

[Gregorian]

10. What's to fund: messed up parents in a messed up society raise messed up kids who kill.

There's your fucking study.

Now start funding better schools for that trillion dollars we spend on military might. Or what about a better economic system which allows parents to participate in their financial livelihood? Maybe giving mothers enough time off to actually breast feed their baby. What a novel concept. There aren't too many variables. Nutrition, education, a healthy society. I guarantee one thing: don't do that stuff, and see things remain as they are.

[frizzled]

13. Just goes to show climate change denial and creationism aren't the only kind of science denialism

Nor is denialism limited to the Right.

[SunSeeker]

15. Yup. Sad isn't it?

The anti-vaxxers have a large left contingent is well, led by a Kennedy no less.

[SunSeeker]

17. Many societies have "messed up" parents and kids. Yet they don't have our gun death problem.

I don't think you can blame the epidemic of school shootings on mothers not breast feeding their babies. Breast feeding has increased dramatically in recent years to 77% now. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-breast-feeding-rates-rise-to-77-percent-of-us-moms/ It marks a steady increase over the decades, from a low of 24% in 1971, to 60% in 1989, then 69.5% in 2001. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448139/ Yet the rate of mass shootings in the US has tripled since 2011. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research.

[stonecutter357]

16. K&R!

[mikepete]

22. why does it happen that way?

why does it happen that way?

[GP6971]

23. frizzled.....we have to lock your post

A requirement for LBN is that your source be within 12 hours which it is not. Plus we feel the article is more commentary than news.

We encourage you to repost to General Discussion or Good Reads (or both)