From Addicting Info, so gun-fuckers will scream it’s a liberal site and refuse to hear any of what’s said. But the truth is, they’re absolutely correct. All the NRA’s twisting of statistics will never be the truth. The real statistics show exactly what they don’t want to hear.
(They don’t like hearing that they’re completely wrong about how the 2nd Amendment gives the right to a militia but not to individuals owning firearms either, but we’ve already covered that).
This Is Why The NRA Absolutely Hates It When Real Scientists Study Gun Violence
There’s science; actual, real science, showing things about gun violence, against which the NRA vehemently fights. There are peer-reviewed, scientific studies that show having guns makes homes more dangerous, not less. Relaxing gun laws does not reduce crime rates, while stronger gun laws do. The NRA, the GOP, and the ammosexuals fight these findings tooth and nail, though, like they fight all science, because science inevitably trumps all their ideologies.
The Los Angeles Times published an op-ed from David Hemenway, a professor of public health at Harvard and the director of Harvard’s Injury Control Research Center, which discussed how he’s been surveying scientists in the fields of criminology, economics (yes, economics does play a factor in gun violence), public health, public policy, and political science.
The questions he asked dealt with whether people are more likely to commit suicide if there’s a gun in the home, whether strong gun laws increase or decrease the homicide rate, and whether guns are mostly used for self-defense or crime. Hemenway found:
- 84 percent agree that having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide;
- 72 percent agree that having a gun in the home significantly increases the chance that a woman will be murdered (only 11 percent disagree);
- 64 percent agree that a gun in the home makes the place more dangerous (only 5 percent disagree);
- 73 percent agree that guns are most often used in crime, and not self defense (only 8 percent disagree);
- 62 percent agree that more permissive carry laws do not reduce the crime rate (only 9 percent disagree);
- 71 percent agree that strong gun laws reduce the homicide rate (only 12 percent disagree).
In all cases, there was a very strong consensus that the ammosexuals and the NRA are off their rockers.
These people are quite anti-science, though. They’re the type to say that these scientists are pushing a political agenda, because notrue scientist would come to conclusions that are so in line with the commie liberal agenda. This is what the right says about climate science, and it’s their machinations that have manufactured that into a hot-button issue where people seriously think that scientists legitimately disagree about whether the climate change we’re seeing is man-made (they don’t).
That’s also what they’re doing with gun violence, except they have a leg up because the NRA has actively worked to suppress research into gun violence for 20 years. So, unlike climate science, this research isn’t nearly as prevalent as climate research. According to The New York Times, the NRA choked off money for such research through legislation that their allies drafted and passed, and they said they weren’t trying to stop legitimate research, just politically slanted research. Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, said:
“Our concern is not with legitimate medical science. Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.”
There is language in the funding bill for the CDC every single year that says, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” In other words, they want to stop research that doesn’t confirm the message they’re trying to put out. The NRA and its political allies in Congress are responsible for that, and it’s the reason the CDC can’t fund research into gun violence.
No scientist is calling gun ownership itself a disease. They’re calling gun violence the disease, and they need to study it to find ways to end it. But that’s the politically and financially motivated slant that the NRA will put on any research that doesn’t end with “MOAR GUNZ!” They will stoke anti-science fires, because the entire anti-science crowd of the right believes that any science that doesn’t confirm their preconceived notions is, somehow, not real science.
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” said Wayne LaPierre, vice president of the NRA. The evidence, the science, however, points elsewhere, and the science is what we need more of in order to stop this growing plague of gun violence.
The NRA used to be all about gun safety and responsible gun ownership. They’re a sad, sorry, and pale imitation of what they once were. And it’s literally killing us.
We already knew the NRA purposely tries to obfuscate and block actual science on the issue. Here’s what is in the NY Times:
N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
This leads to the op-ed in the LA Times two days ago:
There’s scientific consensus on guns – and the NRA won’t like it
After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. They wanted to know whether strong gun laws reduced homicide rates (I said they did); and, conversely, whether permissive gun laws lowered crime rates overall (I said they did not). I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.
One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.
So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won’t please the National Rifle Assn.
My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).
Most of the scientists who were publishing relevant articles were from the fields of criminology, economics, public policy, political science and public health. Since there are typically many more authors on public health articles than on criminology articles, to have a balanced list I decided to include only the first author on the byline. Graduate students working for me identified more than 300 distinct first authors, and found more than 280 email addresses.
It’s possible to find researchers who side with the NRA in believing that guns make our society safer, rather than more dangerous. As I’ve shown, however, they’re in the minority.-
Last May we began sending out short, monthly surveys. The first question on each survey asks how much the respondent agrees with a particular claim related to firearms, and the second and third questions ask the respondent to rate the quality of the scientific literature, as well as their own level of familiarity with the scientific literature on that particular topic.
So, for example, one survey asked whether having a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide. An overwhelming share of the 150 people who responded, 84%, said yes.
This result was not at all surprising because the scientific evidence is overwhelming. It includes a dozen individual-level studies that investigate why some people commit suicide and others do not, and an almost equal number of area-wide studies that try to explain differences in suicide rates across cities, states and regions. These area-wide studies find that differences in rates of suicide across the country are less explained by differences in mental health or suicide ideation than they are by differences in levels of household gun ownership.
A 2014 meta-analysis, conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco, of the scientific studies on guns and suicide concluded that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide. Similarly, the 2012 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention from the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention and the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that “firearm access is a risk factor for suicide in the United States.”
As I said, I wasn’t surprised by the results of that questionnaire. Still, it was nice to be able to document that the large majority of gun researchers have arrived at the same conclusion about firearms and suicide from their reading of the scientific literature.
I also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
Of course it’s possible to find researchers who side with the NRA in believing that guns make our society safer, rather than more dangerous. As I’ve shown, however, they’re in the minority.
Scientific consensus isn’t always right, but it’s our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We’re not.
David Hemenway is a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
– posted at Tumblr