Customer Discussions > Science forum

Gun use is not being studied scientifically in America because the NRA banned it


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 44 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 21, 2012 4:13:20 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
Most people with scientific training don't know this, but the National Rifle Association's political arm (i.e. the Republican Party) stopped the CDC and any other government agency from either studying the effects of gun use in America but also banned the BATF from releasing the statistics it has compiled on gun crime, so no researchers at private universities and think tanks can use the data either.

It's astonishing that they can ban science when it comes to guns, but they have.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 4:30:43 PM PST
noman says:
citations? Journal,author, title,volume, date

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 6:05:55 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
I find this very hard to believe. I see plenty of statistics quoted on the subject all the time. Most, if not all, are not favourable to the gun industry.

Citation?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 6:18:51 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Ehkzu says:

[It's astonishing that they can ban science when it comes to guns, but they have.]

Where do you see a scientific connection with guns and gun ownership ?

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 7:31:53 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: citations

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

>>January 25, 2011
N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
By MICHAEL LUO

In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.

"We've been stopped from answering the basic questions," said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research. <<

-----------------

Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) 1986 Pub. L. No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (May 19, 1986) - 18 U.S.C. 921 United States federal law that revised many statutes in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
...
Ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing
Forbid the U.S. Government or any agency of it from keeping any records linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners
Records of background checks from the NICS Check are legally required to be destroyed after 24 hours

http://www.pistolbuyersguide.com/Pictures.php?action=detail&g=image1256591412

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 7:36:17 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: "Where do you see a scientific connection with guns and gun ownership ?"

Scientists can use gun registration, gun crime and other data to build a model of the consequences of gun ownership on society.

Gun advocates and gun opponents regularly make claims about the impact of our gun laws and gun use on society. Data and research on that data are needed to see where the truth lies. The NRA's opposition to finding this out is a big hint as to just what the truth is.

What we do know from incomplete research is summarized here:

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

It criticizes both sides for stretching what we know to fit their ideological position.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 7:38:10 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: citation

See above, but more generally, the NRA can't stop private parties from researching guns and gun use of course. What they can do and have done is hamstring the federal government when it comes to doing or assisting doing such research.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 8:28:11 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
Thanks for the citation.

Posted on Dec 22, 2012 4:57:05 AM PST
mark says:
Ehkzu,

What is your opinion on firearm ownership in the US?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 22, 2012 5:51:16 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Ehkzu says:

[Scientists can use gun registration, gun crime and other data to build a model of the consequences of gun ownership on society.]

OK. I wasn't sure if you felt that's science or more like statistics. Then again I guess statistical modeling using computers is like a science.

When I left IBM an emerging technology they were getting into is called Business Analytics where they try to predict trends in the business world such as demand for a product.

Maybe if they had a lot of data about gun ownership in a particular geographic area they might be able to predict how likely it would be for someone living there to get shot.

Then again there's the method of adding up the dead bodies they already have.

I'm not sure exactly what the psychological causes are for people like the Connecticut, Aurora, or Columbine High School shooters if there are any common causes between the different cases. But I'm sure glad I graduated before this trend became popular.

Just the shear number of guns that are owned in American society creates a potential risk. Most people who own guns aren't crazy since most people in society aren't crazy. But there's those few that are.

The mother of the Connecticut school shooter was a gun enthusiast. I guess she somehow created her monster son who ironically turned on her as often happens when people create monsters.

The criminal element is a separate issue.

I recall watching a segment on 60 Minutes years ago where they gave this guy $ 500 in cash and no identification whatsoever and sent him into a gun show in Virginia. He emerged from the gun show with an arsenal. There's no way those weapons could have been registered to this guy since he went in with no identification. Not that using a registered gun matters much to the person who gets shot.

Some people think we would all be safer if everyone could carry concealed weapons. This would be a return to the American Old West frontier days.

It is true that there are many cases where people use lethal force to protect themselves from home invaders and other criminals who want to harm them.

Everyone doesn't want to have to carry a gun to be safe. I don't. I'm afraid I might drop it and it will go off.

Jeff Marzano

Posted on Dec 22, 2012 4:25:27 PM PST
noman says:
Lobbying
Top Spenders


Lobbying Client Total
US Chamber of Commerce $901,195,680
General Electric $278,470,000
American Medical Assn $277,757,500
American Hospital Assn $229,264,136
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $228,433,920
AARP $220,332,064
National Assn of Realtors $204,335,133
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $196,908,552
Northrop Grumman $184,925,253
Exxon Mobil $179,292,742
Edison Electric Institute $169,526,789
Verizon Communications $168,877,933
Boeing Co $167,959,310
Business Roundtable $166,920,000
Lockheed Martin $161,930,008
AT&T Inc $149,019,336
Southern Co $141,200,694
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $136,500,000
General Motors $133,054,170
National Assn of Broadcasters $129,600,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 26, 2012 7:41:45 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
Well, Ehkzu specified GOVERNMENT research. As far as I know, private and university-driven research has been going on in the area of gun use and gun violence for quite some time.

Posted on Dec 26, 2012 12:55:15 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 26, 2012 5:20:37 PM PST
A. Caplan says:
This thread points out one of several reasons why I, as an owner of several firearms, will never join the NRA, even though it shuts me out from the only two outdoor ranges in this area. I would rather be limited to shorter indoor ranges than to support an organization that aims to infringe on the rights of free speech and which has caused needless deaths.

Posted on Dec 26, 2012 2:32:19 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
I see in the news we had a shooting in New York State in the town of Webster on Monday.

It sounds like William Spengler, age 62, set the entire neighborhood on fire and then opened up on the fire fighters when they arrived, killing 2.

Spengler left a typewritten note saying he wanted to burn down the neighborhood and "do what I like doing best, killing people."

Perhaps we really do need to create a new form of computer modelling called Psychotic Shooters Analytics (PSA) in an attempt to predict such behavior in advance.

The FBI uses psychological profiling to try to identify the characteristics that someone like a serial killer might have such as age, race, their lifestyle, and even more specific things like what type of car they drive. But in the cases I've heard about they attempt to create a profile only after a crime has already been committed by studying the crime scenes and victims. The type of injuries and method used to kill someone can tell the FBI profilers a lot about the perpetrator.

The case of Arthur Shawcross is interesting. Arthur killed two kids in my home town of Watertown, New York and was sent to prison. He was released 15 years later and picked up right where he left off killing prostitutes in Rochester, New York.

The FBI created a profile for Arthur and they were deadly accurate about many details including the type of vehicle he would drive. But they miscalculated his age and said he would be 15 years younger than he really was. This is strange because it was like during his 15 years in prison Arthur's mind went into a sort of suspended animation and stopped evolving.

I guess another one of the FBI's predictions was that Arthur would return to the crime scenes and mess around with the dead bodies. And that's how they caught him. They found one of his victims and told the news media not to report it to the public. Arthur assumed that the body hadn't been discovered yet so he went back to the crime scene to engage in various activities with the victim.

Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer, did the same thing. Gary left many dead bodies out by the Green River which he would revisit to engage in sexual acts with. I guess as long as there were no visible maggots on the body they were still fair game for Gary.

Serial killers often take keepsakes from their victims including jewelry, drivers licenses, and even body parts. Those are like trophies for them and reminders of what they have done.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 26, 2012 6:21:51 PM PST
Ehkzu,

Amen! Thanks for posting the op. The NRA & Wayne LaPierre are evil! They've tried to ban science from the gun discussion like they've tried to ban science from global warming. Some of the Republican politicians are abandoning the NRA. It's truly evil to continue to promote the Bush-master rifle after Sandy Hook & the fireman being shot in upstate NY.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 26, 2012 6:22:57 PM PST
noman?

Are you defending the evil NRA?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 26, 2012 6:23:20 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
Agreed. This entire "man card" business should get them put out of business.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 5:33:37 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 28, 2012 5:57:53 AM PST
Ashwood says:
noman says: citations? Journal,author, title,volume, date

Brad Watson, Miami says: Are you defending the evil NRA?

Ash : Asking for citations is defending truth, not the NRA.

People were accused of "siding with Saddam" for wanting to see actual evidence that Iraq had WMDs before starting a war. If we are to act rationally then we need to base our actions on accurate information, that means we don't accept accusations simply because the accused is unpleasant and we don't give people a hard time for wanting to see evidence.

Ehkzu was able to back up his claims, but that might not be true of the next person who makes a accusation against the NRA. If we don't require evidence for our beliefs, it puts us on the same level as the people who think 97% of climate scientists are in a conspiracy to scam cash from the government.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 10:40:51 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 28, 2012 10:42:05 AM PST
A. Caplan says:
Ehkzu says: It's astonishing that they can ban science when it comes to guns, but they have.
>They can't. Unfortunately, they can get government funding of such studies banned as well as getting government agencies to refuse to give out data.

I'm waiting for someone to try to get the data released under Freedom of Information. I have a feeling the courts would have fun with that issue.

By the way, just another way the NRA tramples on peoples rights.

Posted on Dec 29, 2012 7:05:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 29, 2012 12:30:48 PM PST
The Second Ammendment
Its over 200 years old.
Its purpose: So farmers would be able to stop the British when Paul Revere called them out.

Does this make sense today?
Do we let people have howizers, missles, tanks?
And if not, does anyone seriously think some gun-nut hicks could defeat a large modern army equiped with advanced weapons?

Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Obama, he called the first the "Stupid War".
The second he called the "Good War"
Whatever.

What's important is this:
"The Most Powerful Military in the World", how did it do?
It lost both of them wars to rag-tag militia.
Okay maybe they was bad guys. But they sure was rag tag militias.

It proves this: The purpose of the Right to Bear Arms, which is to allow the people to revolt, it still applies.
Them high tech weapons they didnt never change nothing.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2012 12:51:46 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 29, 2012 12:57:06 PM PST
time-man says:
The republican party is not a part of government.. Congress and the president are the origin of laws which might "ban guns", but it would require an amendment abrogating the 2nd amendment.
The CDC is the center for disease control...How does it figure into the question?

Posted on Dec 29, 2012 10:40:55 PM PST
Is there an actual forum for science?

Posted on Dec 29, 2012 10:44:24 PM PST
Subways are killing people. Ban them.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2012 11:14:46 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
So you see no difference between a mode of transportation and an object designed to kill?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2012 11:25:27 PM PST
I wasn't expecting a reasonable answer. point to you.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  44
Initial post:  Dec 21, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 31, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions