Gun Policy Research

[Dill]

(06-23-2017, 02:40 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And this is exactly why they have stifled attempts for gun violence research. You already have all the data you could possibly need to draw a conclusion. It's just that you choose to ignore the obvious conclusion in favor of making excuses for people's choices. Oh it can't be their fault, they're not responsible for choosing to murder people. It's society's fault. Then the gun violence "research" will do what it always has done... ignore the real problems, and attempt to just restrict the law abiding portion of the population who own a gun legally and don't commit crimes.

You're not actually wanting real research, because you've already determined the answer isn't the answer.

Whoa Leonard. You can't talk about "real research" while speaking of "obvious conclusions." When you "know" the conclusion without the research Bels refers to, then you are the one who has already determined the answer isn't the answer.

People don't lobby to prevent research because all the data needed are already gathered. They prevent research because they sense risk, the obvious isn't so obvious.

You are assuming that people's choices are not researchable, not related to social environment, which may be very different for some demographics than others. People can still be held responsible for murder even if they come from a bad environment. But you cannot change that environment if criminality is only a personal choice.

[Dill]

(06-23-2017, 02:40 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Who is responsible for the other 52%? The other 93.7% of the population...
93.7% of the population = 52% of homicides
6.3% of the population = 48% of the homicides

 I thought we were laughing at people who provided anecdotal evidence in this thread? I never said all black men were gang members who carried guns, because obviously they are not. I just said if you're truly looking to curb gun violence in the country, you don't need to do any further studies. You just need to focus on that relatively small, disproportionately violent, section of the population.

Black people who don't own guns and don't murder are not "anecdotal." And you were addressing the whole 6.3% as "the problem." Not some fraction thereof.

When you write "93.7% of the population = 52% of homicides" you imply the rest of the homicides are evenly distributed among other demographic groups. Is that really the case? Why does curiosity immediately stop with "black males"?

A good social scientist would be trying to look at the data from different angles created by different social categories.
Can some other factor besides race produce a demographic category which corresponds more precisely to those who commit homicides?
E.g., how many gun homicides are carried out by gun owners as opposed to non owners?
 

[Dill]

(06-23-2017, 02:40 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Incarcerated for committing crimes. What's your alternative? Give all law breakers a pass, regardless of what they have done, so long as they pledge to get a job instead?

I don't think that's "white culture". I think that's "adult culture", where you're responsible for your own life choices and actions. That line of thinking is how we've gotten to the point that people try to label drug addiction as a "disease"... as if it's cancer or something.

Medical professionals label drug addiction as a disease, in part because they think that gives them a better chance of controlling and curing addiction--much better than incarceration. Why shouldn't that count as "adult culture"--especially since they strive to base their policy on experimental method and data?

One alternative might be to end the war on drugs, which has massively raised the incarceration rate in the US without producing any appreciable reduction in drug use. And it has arguably done more to expand and maintain a culture of criminal recidivism. Get rid of all 3 strikes laws. Don't sentence people to life for stealing a bicycle.

Shorter sentences for non-violent crime might also help, along with "coddling" criminals by offering them vocational training and liberal education while in prison.

[Belsnickel]

(06-23-2017, 02:40 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And this is exactly why they have stifled attempts for gun violence research. You already have all the data you could possibly need to draw a conclusion. It's just that you choose to ignore the obvious conclusion in favor of making excuses for people's choices. Oh it can't be their fault, they're not responsible for choosing to murder people. It's society's fault. Then the gun violence "research" will do what it always has done... ignore the real problems, and attempt to just restrict the law abiding portion of the population who own a gun legally and don't commit crimes.

You're not actually wanting real research, because you've already determined the answer isn't the answer.

Actually, we don't have all of the data because the collection of it is so spotty. Your claim is that black people are to blame. Well, what do we do about that? Do you have an answer that would be effective and constitutional? You said eradicate gangs, but that is, again, only 10% of gun deaths. So the majority is not gang related. How do we make an impact on that number?

This is why data is needed. You say we have it all, but we don't. We have people who think they know the answers but have no idea how to actually interpret data and think critically about the issue trying to say they have solutions which are really just playing a blame game.

I advocate for evidence based policy decisions, but we need the data to have the evidence to make those decisions. This is data we don't have, whether you see that or not. You've bought the story the NRA has been selling which is that any legitimate research in this issue will result in gun control efforts. But if the evidence tells us those won't work, then the policy community won't push for them. If the evidence tells us to look at another solution, we will. But we need the evidence because we need to do something.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-23-2017, 09:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, we don't have all of the data because the collection of it is so spotty. Your claim is that black people are to blame. Well, what do we do about that? Do you have an answer that would be effective and constitutional? You said eradicate gangs, but that is, again, only 10% of gun deaths. So the majority is not gang related. How do we make an impact on that number?

This is why data is needed. You say we have it all, but we don't. We have people who think they know the answers but have no idea how to actually interpret data and think critically about the issue trying to say they have solutions which are really just playing a blame game.

I advocate for evidence based policy decisions, but we need the data to have the evidence to make those decisions. This is data we don't have, whether you see that or not. You've bought the story the NRA has been selling which is that any legitimate research in this issue will result in gun control efforts. But if the evidence tells us those won't work, then the policy community won't push for them. If the evidence tells us to look at another solution, we will. But we need the evidence because we need to do something.

It may not be gang related, but I have to believe drug related would shoot that number up a lot.  I'm wholesale in the camp of end the war on drugs now.  There are some caveats.  If you want to spend all day with a needle in your arm, that's up to you, but we aren't paying your way.  We will however, pay for rehab when you decide you've had enough.

[Belsnickel]

(06-23-2017, 10:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It may not be gang related, but I have to believe drug related would shoot that number up a lot.  I'm wholesale in the camp of end the war on drugs now.  There are some caveats.  If you want to spend all day with a needle in your arm, that's up to you, but we aren't paying your way.  We will however, pay for rehab when you decide you've had enough.

I would agree with you were it not for the deep decline in violent crime in the 1990s. I have zero doubt that rethinking our strategy regarding drugs would impact violent crime rates, but I don't think the impact would be a drastic one.

Edit to add: I think criminal justice reform combined with rethinking our drug policy would help violent crime rates and should be attempted, but also need to look at other solutions. These two things would also impact some socioeconomic issues in our communities.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-23-2017, 09:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, we don't have all of the data because the collection of it is so spotty. Your claim is that black people are to blame. Well, what do we do about that? Do you have an answer that would be effective and constitutional? You said eradicate gangs, but that is, again, only 10% of gun deaths. So the majority is not gang related. How do we make an impact on that number?

This is why data is needed. You say we have it all, but we don't. We have people who think they know the answers but have no idea how to actually interpret data and think critically about the issue trying to say they have solutions which are really just playing a blame game.

I advocate for evidence based policy decisions, but we need the data to have the evidence to make those decisions. This is data we don't have, whether you see that or not. You've bought the story the NRA has been selling which is that any legitimate research in this issue will result in gun control efforts. But if the evidence tells us those won't work, then the policy community won't push for them. If the evidence tells us to look at another solution, we will. But we need the evidence because we need to do something.

Black people are not "to blame". Obviously everyone has a hand in contributing to the violence. You asked how to *CURB* it, not eliminate it. (Which would be impossible, we're evolved, but still animals.) So if you're looking to curb it, then yes, it is obvious that the best effort-to-results demographic there could be to target would be black males from the age of 12-28 range or so.

I have no idea how to go about that, but you're no longer looking for gun policy research now. You're looking for racial/social research now. No amount of "oh, magazines can only hold 6 bullets now" is going to change that number.

I don't really listen to what the NRA says. I have made my own opinions upon what I have viewed happening. The Sandy Hook shooting happens and so immediately they push through a law without any kind of vote retroactively making a large portion of their law abiding population into criminals if they refuse to sell certain (now suddenly illegal) weapons to the state or risk being a felon, and register their magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and aren't allowed to load more than 10 rounds in it or it's illegal. (Because criminals will be sure to follow that.) In California they tried just in the 2016 election to retroactively make owning high capacity magazines illegal, forcing a turn-in. It was passed, but dropped because it was blatantly unconstitutional to make your citizens criminals for something that was previously legal.

Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. It doesn't work. "But they get the guns from other states." you might say.. well then what's the solution, ban guns in the entire country. Then guns will just come in from Mexico and Canada. It doesn't work. Criminals are *CRIMINALS*, which is a disregard for the law. No law you make will stop that. It just punishes the law abiding citizens.

It doesn't matter if the evidence tells us it won't work. Unless you believe evidence showed Connecticut that banning certain weapons and telling people to not put more than 10 rounds in their 30 round magazines would stop a criminal from stealing weapons and loading them to the max anyway, and then shooting people.

If someone wanted to research into banning Free Speech because they believed if they did, it would remove all hate speech and racism in the world. Would you be upset if the ACLU constantly tried to stop that research from happening?

[Millhouse]

(06-23-2017, 10:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would agree with you were it not for the deep decline in violent crime in the 1990s. I have zero doubt that rethinking our strategy regarding drugs would impact violent crime rates, but I don't think the impact would be a drastic one.

Edit to add: I think criminal justice reform combined with rethinking our drug policy would help violent crime rates and should be attempted, but also need to look at other solutions. These two things would also impact some socioeconomic issues in our communities.

You ever read the book "All God's Children: The Bosket Family and the American Tradition of Violence"? I took at a History of crime in the U.S. class at OSU, and that was one of the books we had to read. It was very interesting to say the least, as it follows 3 generations culminating with Willie Bosket, who is one of the most notorious New York criminals in their cjs. 

Its been years since I read it, but Willie had terrible circumstances growing up, which led to him committing crimes and murder by the age of 15. I think he was released by time he was 19 or 20, but got arrested for something else (maybe assault), then attacked guards, and spiraled out of control in the NY cjs and their laws, which as he got older, he never had a chance to be released. 

Anyways not just based on that, but just common sense as well, I think a lot of the violence in this country can be curbed down with a solid upbringing of children at home. And bettering the environment in the area they are raised in. I know it sounds simple, but I do believe that can be a silver bullet to a lot of things. Of course I also know it is a lot harder to try to do as a society such as ours sad to say.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-23-2017, 05:09 PM)Millhouse Wrote: You ever read the book "All God's Children: The Bosket Family and the American Tradition of Violence"? I took at a History of crime in the U.S. class at OSU, and that was one of the books we had to read. It was very interesting to say the least, as it follows 3 generations culminating with Willie Bosket, who is one of the most notorious New York criminals in their cjs. 

Its been years since I read it, but Willie had terrible circumstances growing up, which led to him committing crimes and murder by the age of 15. I think he was released by time he was 19 or 20, but got arrested for something else (maybe assault), then attacked guards, and spiraled out of control in the NY cjs and their laws, which as he got older, he never had a chance to be released. 

Anyways not just based on that, but just common sense as well, I think a lot of the violence in this country can be curbed down with a solid upbringing of children at home. And bettering the environment in the area they are raised in. I know it sounds simple, but I do believe that can be a silver bullet to a lot of things. Of course I also know it is a lot harder to try to do as a society such as ours sad to say.

There's actually a lot of stuff about that.

http://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-real-root-causes-violent-crime-the-breakdown-marriage-family-and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326420/Children-parents-split-NINE-times-likely-commit-crime.html
http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2012/11/25/statistics-reveal-stark-challenges-for-children-raised-/28936631/

Which goes back to this...
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/573,869,36,868,867/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/432,431
2015 % of children in a 1 parent family...
Native American: 52%
Asian/P Islander: 16%
African American: 66%
Hispanic: 42%
White: 25%
Bi/multiracial: 42%

Which is also pretty much the same order for things like % with college education, poverty, violent crime rates, etc... But it's not like you can force people to stay together and raise their child(ren) in a healthy environment. So not sure what much can be done there, it's personal choices.

[Belsnickel]

(06-23-2017, 05:09 PM)Millhouse Wrote: You ever read the book "All God's Children: The Bosket Family and the American Tradition of Violence"? I took at a History of crime in the U.S. class at OSU, and that was one of the books we had to read. It was very interesting to say the least, as it follows 3 generations culminating with Willie Bosket, who is one of the most notorious New York criminals in their cjs. 

Its been years since I read it, but Willie had terrible circumstances growing up, which led to him committing crimes and murder by the age of 15. I think he was released by time he was 19 or 20, but got arrested for something else (maybe assault), then attacked guards, and spiraled out of control in the NY cjs and their laws, which as he got older, he never had a chance to be released. 

Anyways not just based on that, but just common sense as well, I think a lot of the violence in this country can be curbed down with a solid upbringing of children at home. And bettering the environment in the area they are raised in. I know it sounds simple, but I do believe that can be a silver bullet to a lot of things. Of course I also know it is a lot harder to try to do as a society such as ours sad to say.

Never read it, but based on what you are saying here I definitely would enjoy it. I also agree with your statement at the end, but solutions to that aren't a high priority for lawmakers of either party.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2017, 03:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: tl;dr: The NRA has been stifling gun violence research for 20 years and it is why we don't have a viable solution for curbing gun violence in our country.

First of all, I'm glad this thread was made and I'm glad you made it.

Quote:So, it's no secret that gun control tends to become a hot button issue every time a mass shooting occurs, and sometimes it randomly crops up as well. We know that there are a number of different methods that are discussed to reduce gun deaths in the country.
Enhancing and strengthening NICS

I don't personally know anyone who is against this, right up to the point of universal background checks.  I'll get into why later.

Quote:"Assault weapons" bans

Which have shown to have no impact on gun related crime.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

Quote:Reducing access to the mentally ill

Again, something no one I know would argue against.  The way to really address this though is to strengthen the ability to deal with the mentally ill and reverse the disastrous actions of Reagan.  This would not only address this issue in relation to firearms but it would make a huge dent in the homeless population as a very large precentage of the homeless are mentally ill.

Quote:And that could go on with the different nuances that are discussed. The problem is, we don't know the effectiveness. There was a study by Lott that said (literally, in its title) More Guns, Less Crime. That study has been called into question with further research. The effectiveness on expanding background checks to private sales, licensing for ownership, all of these things is questionable. There are studies on them, but nothing conclusive as to what would actually cause a benefit. Sure, violent crime, including homicides, have been dropping since the 90s (though they have been steady for a couple years), but we are still at a higher rate than our fellow developed nations. Some do attribute this to a rise in the number of guns available, which that number has risen, but the number of households with firearms has decreased. Then there is the question of the root causes, because let's be honest, firearm availability is only a proximate cause to gun violence. Socioeconomic issues can be the root cause for many, problem is that we don't know.

The problem is that there is no faith in a non-partisan, government funded, study being possible.  Even if it was, do you think if the study showed gun control had no discernible affect on crime that the Dems would let it go?  Conversely, if it showed that gun control was effective do you think the GOP would allow stricter gun control laws?  I have zero faith in either outcome.

Quote:Gun violence in this country should be a major concern, so why is it that we don't know much about it?

In 1996, there was an amendment attached to a bill by a many named Dickey that prevented the CDC funding from being used to promote gun control. Now, Dickey's own words are that what happened after was not the intended effect (and probably why he now regrets he ever drafted this). This has effectively ended gun violence research in this country. There is an average of $5 million spent on gun violence research, almost entirely by private donors (who are also hesitant to spend on it because of the political climate). To give you an idea, one HIV study can cost that much, and we lose many more Americans to gun violence than we do HIV. Even though the amendment does not cut funding for gun violence research, Congress did that the following year, and directors since then have not bucked that trend. This is due to, in large part, lobbying and spending efforts by the NRA.

The issue is that we have an issue in this country that needs to be researched. There needs to be something done, and it may not even be gun control, but we don't know until there is adequate research. Anyone that tells you something will or will not work for certain is full of it, and don't let them convince you otherwise, because they don't have the data to back them up. I know, I'm sitting with a stack of the data that is out there. Maybe it doesn't need to be the CDC, maybe it is some other research avenue, but we need to be doing research on this so we can find out the appropriate policy solutions.

Sorry, I took a break from my research to go on a bit of a rant. I just figured I would throw this out there for anyone interested in it. Now back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

I'd be cool with the RAND corporation doing a study, but I don't think a study is actually important to anyone.  The gun issue is an easy wedge issue to exploit.  It energizes the bases of both parties and gets them to the ballot box and opens their wallets.  If it was actually important it could be privately funded in a second.  You think mega-donors like the Kochs or Soros couldn't pay for an in depth exhaustive study and not even notice the money they spent was gone?

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2017, 02:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First of all, I'm glad this thread was made and I'm glad you made it.

I appreciate that.

(06-24-2017, 02:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't personally know anyone who is against this, right up to the point of universal background checks.  I'll get into why later.

Coincidentally, on Thursday there was a report put out by Pew on attitudes and experiences regarding guns in the U.S. The timeliness of this report or me was not unnoticed. Anyway, 77% of gun owners and 87% of non gun owners are in favor of background checks for private sales, including gun shows, according to their survey. So the support is there for such a measure, that is certain.

(06-24-2017, 02:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which have shown to have no impact on gun related crime.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

I don't disagree. Their use in mass shootings is noticed, but given that they make up less than 1% of gun homicides it seems pointless. Interestingly enough, though, something that also receives majority support from gun owners and non gun owners alike.

(06-24-2017, 02:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, something no one I know would argue against.  The way to really address this though is to strengthen the ability to deal with the mentally ill and reverse the disastrous actions of Reagan.  This would not only address this issue in relation to firearms but it would make a huge dent in the homeless population as a very large precentage of the homeless are mentally ill.

Absolutely. Also, there is the issue that while we have seen mentally ill commit homicides, most were undiagnosed/untreated prior to the action they took and so would not be stopped by a background check. It is definitely something where working on policies to help with mental illness in this country will see a positive result for gun policy.

(06-24-2017, 02:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The problem is that there is no faith in a non-partisan, government funded, study being possible.  Even if it was, do you think if the study showed gun control had no discernible affect on crime that the Dems would let it go?  Conversely, if it showed that gun control was effective do you think the GOP would allow stricter gun control laws?  I have zero faith in either outcome.

I know, but I have to have some hope.

(06-24-2017, 02:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd be cool with the RAND corporation doing a study, but I don't think a study is actually important to anyone.  The gun issue is an easy wedge issue to exploit.  It energizes the bases of both parties and gets them to the ballot box and opens their wallets.  If it was actually important it could be privately funded in a second.  You think mega-donors like the Kochs or Soros couldn't pay for an in depth exhaustive study and not even notice the money they spent was gone?

Private donors like that don't care about this sort of issue, and smaller ones that do are hesitant to spend the money. There is also the issue of data collection. The FBI collects it from across the country, but reporting by localities is voluntary and the data does not include homicides investigated by federal authorities, or those deemed negligent/involuntary.

I just lament the lack of evidence based policy decisions in all areas. Ever since the war on the bureaucracy due to distrust in government we have seen a decline in that. Society does not place value on the efforts and opinions o experts in policy areas.

[xxlt]

(06-22-2017, 04:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Viable solution to curbing gun violence in our country:
Step 1: Eradicate gangs.
Step 2: Stop counting suicides as "gun violence".

Done.

Honest question. When a guy walks into a mall, a movie theater, a parking lot - wherever - and shoots and kills people for a bit, and then points the gun on himself and shoots himself or is shot by a cop (suicide by cop) should we not count those deaths as gun violence either?

Follow ups: Are you aware of a more efficient way of committing suicide than with a gun? Would you agree that being shot and killed is a violent death? How then, if someone shoots and kills himself or manipulates police officers into shooting and killing him is this not a violent death via a gun, aka gun violence?

(Btw, I usually strive to use inclusive language, but until American women step up to the plate and commit some mass homicides I will just use male pronouns in posts like this. Which raises the question, why don't more of our women kill more people with firearms? What the hell is wrong with American women?)

[Belsnickel]

I know this thread was thoroughly buried, but I figured if anyone was interested they could check out my paper. This isn't the final form, but it's pretty close. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7QASTGZ-BEdZDEwS2dIaGl6YkE/view?usp=sharing

[GMDino]

(07-02-2017, 08:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know this thread was thoroughly buried, but I figured if anyone was interested they could check out my paper. This isn't the final form, but it's pretty close. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7QASTGZ-BEdZDEwS2dIaGl6YkE/view?usp=sharing

Not tonight...fireworks.

But I have to go to work tomorrow and man the phones for a couple hours.  I'll read it then!

[Benton]

(06-22-2017, 04:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Viable solution to curbing gun violence in our country:
Step 1: Eradicate gangs.
Step 2: Stop counting suicides as "gun violence".

Done.

I agree with Step 2, but Step 1 is ...uh... yeah.

I've reported on nine murders in the last two years in my coverage area (+/-30,000 residents). Seven involved firearms, one involved a knife and one involved a guy beating his sister to death. Seven involved money/money for drugs. One involved two drunk guys (the stabbing). None involved gangs. Ages in the shooting deaths ranged from 15-73.

I'm not for gun bans, I own several. But I am for realistic gun ownership and improved education.