NAS, CDC: There is no evidence that gun control works.

[CMF]

I was reading "The Dirty Dozen" by Levy and Mellor about the worst US supreme court decisions and in the chapter about 2A I found the following:

"In 2004 the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 gun-control measures, and its own empirical work. The researchers could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicides or accidents. A year earlier the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration and licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance laws. Conclusion: None of the above laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence."

This was new to me and I thought very significant because these studies come from pretty impressive sources that are unbiased or anti-gun and they reviewed a large body of work looking for high quality data. These would be good studies to cite to make the point that there is no evidence that gun control works. I think they would carry more weight than other options like John Lott's books or www.gunfacts.info.

Neither study concluded that gun control was actively harmful. The CDC study (the only one I have looked at yet) basically said that none of the evidence was any good, so no conclusion could be drawn. The tone of that study was clearly one of expecting to find that gun control worked, which is what one expects from the "guns are a public health problem (so give me lots of money to solve it)" crowd.

The references are:

http://www.amazon.com/Firearms-Viol...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254941527&sr=8-1

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Note: The Dirty Dozen was a good, although pretty heavy, read. It was written before DC vs Heller was decided, but discusses the 2A issue thoroughly.

 

[MasterShinken]

from the CDC summary

(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.

still covering there ass leaving room for future.

 

[Twigg]

I'll bet each side makes a good bit of money from all the fuddery going on.
It's just another business after all.

 

[strangenh]

None of the above laws had a meaningful impact on [STRIKE]gun[/STRIKE] violence.

Because they focus on the adjective, not the noun - on the availability of the tool of convenience and not the causes of the act. And that is why. Ask the UK and AU how it's working out for them.

 

[Garys]

This was new to me and I thought very significant because these studies come from pretty impressive sources that are unbiased or anti-gun and they reviewed a large body of work looking for high quality data. .

Neither the CDC nor NAS are particularly unbiased sources. The CDC is especially politicized and has taken several anti gun stances in the past.

John Lott's work has withstood rigorous scrutiny and he I think he makes his raw data and sources available for replication.

 

[lupis42]

from the CDC summary still covering there ass leaving room for future.

It's an ass cover, but it may also be true. (Not having seen their data, I can't say). It sounds like they looked at the data, decided that it couldn't be used to prove the point they wanted to prove, and called it inconclusive, but it might also be the case that the data actually is inconclusive. There are hundreds of factors that would need to be controlled for, and all of them are very difficult to isolate in the wild. An honest statistician may be rarer than an airborne suidae, but useful data on gun control is about equally rare because it's so hard to design an experiment that meets basic rigor standards.

 

[mikem317]

still covering there ass leaving room for future.

Yup. If they just tried a different combination of draconian legislation here, a little change to the permutation. Modify the equation a bit over there. And then: PRESTO! Perfect gun-control!

That's what they'd like to think anyway.

The perfect gun-control legislation is one that would allow any peaceable citizen the right to carry, anywhere and everywhere unless prohibited by the property owner.

 

[lupis42]

The perfect gun-control legislation is one that would allow any peaceable citizen the right to carry, anywhere and everywhere unless prohibited by the property owner.

(Emph. mine)

I assume that by that you mean that the property owner would have the right to deny access to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. A property owner has no right to confiscate weapons, only to expel people from their property.

 

[MaverickNH]

OOPs - dupe of another post

I believe the "Gun Study Loophole" has been found!!!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...teen-firearms/?feat=article_top10_read&page=2

Originally published 04:45 a.m., October 19, 2009, updated 01:12 p.m., October 19, 2009
U.S. quietly begins to study gun safety

Jim McElhatton

More than a decade after Congress cut funding for firearms research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another federal health agency has been spending millions of dollars to study such topics as whether teenagers who carry firearms run a different risk of getting shot compared with suffering other sorts of injuries.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also has been financing research to investigate whether having many liquor stores in a neighborhood puts people at greater risk of getting shot.

Such studies are coming under sharp scrutiny by Republican lawmakers who question whether the money could be better spent on biomedical research at a time of increasing competition for NIH funding. They're also leery of NIH research relating to firearms in general, recalling how 13 years ago the House voted to cut CDC funding when critics complained that the agency was trying to win public support for gun control.

"It's almost as if someone's been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago," Rep. Joe L. Barton, Texas Republican, said of one of the NIH studies. "But it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then."

The NIH, which administers more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds for medical research, defended the grants.

"Gun related violence is a public health problem - it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH," Don Ralbovsky, NIH spokesman, wrote in an e-mail responding to questions about the grants.

"These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances involved in many violent crimes, especially how alcohol policy may reduce the public health burden from gun-related injury and death," he said.

Mr. Barton and Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the ranking member on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, respectively, first questioned the NIH about the gun-related grants in a letter Friday to NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins.

The letter sought information about grants for current projects and for others starting as far back as 2002, totaling nearly $5 million. The lawmakers called the study of criminal behavior "a laudable endeavor which consistently benefits the American people, often in ways that people do not see."

"And yet we have trouble understanding the administration's desire to spend, for example, $642,561 in taxpayer funds to learn how inner-city teenagers whose friends, acquaintances and peers carry firearms and drink alcohol on street corners could show up in emergency rooms with gunshot wounds.

"The day-follows-night quality of this question and its potential answer simply do not seem to justify the expense that would be borne by people who work and pay their taxes," the lawmakers wrote.

Special interests on both sides of the gun-control issue differ on the question of whether the NIH ought to be conducting firearms-related research.

"This kind of research does concern us, and we're going to be watching it closely," said Erich Pratt, a spokesman for the Gun Owners Association of America. "You'd think that after the CDC had their money revoked, we wouldn't be dealing with this."

But Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Republican lawmakers were "blaming the messenger" by criticizing the research.

"Burying the evidence is what the gun lobby is best at," he said. "Whether the members of Congress like it or not, gun violence is a public health problem in America today."

NIH records show that one study being questioned by lawmakers aimed to "investigate whether adolescents who consume alcohol and/or carry firearms, and/or whose daily activities occur in surroundings rich in alcohol and/or firearms, face a differential risk of being shot with a firearm or injured in a non-gun assault."

A separate study on child safety looked at the decision-making process by couples on whether to own firearms, in part trying to identify whether women are less supportive of firearms compared with their partners.

The questions about whether the NIH should fund such research are being raised more than a decade after the House voted against restoring $2.6 million to the CDC's budget, money that the agency was spending on gun studies. The move, backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), was made after Republicans and some Democrats complained that the CDC was pushing for gun control.

The money was eventually restored to the CDC budget but with a spending restriction that has remained in place ever since, mandating that funds cannot be used "in whole or in part to advocate or promote gun control."

Mr. Barton and Mr. Walden, both of whom have received political contributions from the NRA over the years, requested more information on the NIH firearms research funding a month after they separately raised questions about several other NIH grants.

Their earlier letter to the NIH cited questions about grants that "do not seem to be of the highest scientific rigor," including one on whether participating on dragon-boat paddling teams helped cancer survivors more than taking part in an organized walking program.

 

[jdubois]

from the CDC summary
still covering there ass leaving room for future.

They were not covering their ass, they were simply reiterating a basic tenant of any scientific research- Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[RKG]

While this is true (indeed, it is axiomatic), it is equally true that absence of evidence is also absence of a rational basis for promulgating a rule.

 

[Garys]

While this is true (indeed, it is axiomatic), it is equally true that absence of evidence is also absence of a rational basis for promulgating a rule.

Not for the left. For them, the absence of evidence means that the evidence has been covered up by the VRWC.

 

[lupis42]

They were not covering their ass, they were simply reiterating a basic tenant of any scientific research- Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In science, when the existence of a thing (gravity) would imply some events (stuff falling), absence of those events (evidence) is, in fact, evidence of the absence of said thing (if stuff does not fall, you might be in zero g). The strength of the evidence for absence depends on how many other factors have been correctly controlled for (there could just be a table under the stuff).

 

[cekim]

The strength of the evidence for absence depends on how many other factors have been correctly controlled for (there could just be a table under the stuff).

Therein lies the "problem"...

Their statement went so far as to recognize that they could not provide adequate control or data to show that gun control worked. They did not go so far as to recognize the reality that the data CAN be used to show that gun control does not work...

 

[jdubois]

While this is true (indeed, it is axiomatic), it is equally true that absence of evidence is also absence of a rational basis for promulgating a rule.

Absolutely! In the absence of evidence, rule making is simply shooting in the dark.

In science, when the existence of a thing (gravity) would imply some events (stuff falling), absence of those events (evidence) is, in fact, evidence of the absence of said thing (if stuff does not fall, you might be in zero g)

That is not absence of evidence. Dropping something and having it not fall is evidence against gravity. Not dropping anything would be absence of evidence. What the CDC was saying is that they looked for evidence for gravity, and didn't find any; but they're not sure anything was actually dropped.

 

[cekim]

That is not absence of evidence. Dropping something and having it not fall is evidence against gravity. Not dropping anything would be absence of evidence.

When trying to prove something specific like "gun laws reduce crime", the failure of the analysis or data to provide any conclusion which controls for various other factors is a "lack of evidence" for the thesis in question...

Of course, as we know, if the question is, "does gun and violent crime increase with gun control", then there is a strong correlative link and causality which can be demonstrated...

So, like so many things its a function of "what question" or "how do you ask" which determines whether there is a "lack of evidence" or an intentional ignorance of the evidence which runs counter to their hypothesis...

 

[RKG]

Absolutely! In the absence of evidence, rule making is simply shooting in the dark.

True enough, but what I had in mind is a tad more mundane, to wit: that, under the Administrative Procedures Act, rulemaking in the absence of evidence is grounds for a holding of invalidity.

 

[jdubois]

True enough, but what I had in mind is a tad more mundane, to wit: that, under the Administrative Procedures Act, rulemaking in the absence of evidence is grounds for a holding of invalidity.

Sounds like a fair enough application of principle to me.

 

[lupis42]

What the CDC was saying is that they looked for evidence for gravity, and didn't find any; but they're not sure anything was actually dropped.

I got the impression they were saying "We looked for evidence that would show that gun control worked, and we couldn't find any data that wasn't contaminated with other factors which could not be controlled for", which would be "nothing was dropped, so we can't tell if gravity works". Cekim seems to have gotten the impression that they said "We looked for evidence that would show that gun control worked, and we couldn't find any data that supported our position.", which would be "Stuff was dropped, it did not fall, gravity may still work." I'll have to read it again now, to see if I'm misremembering.

 

[Baystatesuks]

OOPs - dupe of another post


NIH records show that one study being questioned by lawmakers aimed to "investigate whether adolescents who consume alcohol and/or carry firearms, and/or whose daily activities occur in surroundings rich in alcohol and/or firearms, face a differential risk of being shot with a firearm or injured in a non-gun assault."

I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but isn't it likely (almost surely) that a substantial number of this surveyed population will be gang members or other not so upstanding teens if they carry firearms (which may be illegal for long arms depending on age and would be illegal if carrying a handgun) and consume alcohol (which would be illegal)?

It's the old adage, if your statistics don't support your finding, find some that do. I am going to go out on a limb and say that this population is at a higher risk of injury. Can I collect my Nobel Prize now? Maybe Obama will give me his for my revolutionary hypothesis?

 

[lupis42]

It's the old adage, if your [STRIKE]statistics[/STRIKE]d*mn lies don't support your finding, find some that do.

FTFY