Gun Policy Research

[Dill]

(06-22-2017, 03:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Well said. Your "rant" brings us to the point where we can see a problem behind the problem--namely the stifling of research into gun violence.  So the issue really is that there is sufficient political will and power to prevent this research from going forward, from finding answers which could be the basis of sound policy.

As is the case with so many other social problems, there are groups who wish to keep the fog in place. If no one knows for sure, then there is no basis for policy change. Which groups? Who benefits from the fog? What interests find the status quo preferable to policies which could reduce thousands of deaths, accidental or otherwise?

One question--if you are sitting on "a stack of the data that is out there," then why can't you use it or make it available to those who can?