Gun research is allowed again. So what will we find out?

[SecularMotion]

One of President Obama’s less-noticed actions on guns yesterday could actually prove to be one of the most significant in the long run. Among other things, the president signed an executive order directing the Centers on Disease Control to start studying “the causes of gun violence” once again.

Why does this matter? Because one of the major reasons that gun-policy disputes are often so contentious and interminable is that there’s remarkably little hard evidence to go on. And that ignorance is partly by design.

Back in 1996, Congress worked with the National Rifle Association to enact a law banning CDC funding for any research to “advocate or promote gun control.” Technically speaking, that wasn’t a ban on all gun research, but the law was vague enough that the centers shied away from the topic altogether. Funding for gun-violence research by the Centers for Disease Control dropped from $2.5 million per year in the early 1990s to a mere $100,000 per year today.

Since federal funding was the primary source of support for gun-violence research, the entire field withered as a result. Gun studies as a percentage of peer-reviewed research dropped 60 percent since 1996. Right now, there are only about a dozen researchers in the country whose primary focus is on preventing gun violence — despite the fact that more than 30,000 Americans were killed by guns in 2011.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/17/gun-research-is-allowed-again-so-what-will-we-find-out/

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. The research is not funded and there are other legal impediments

Without both of those hurdles being cleared, the executive action meaningless.

[iiibbb]

2. The research news cycle

[Eleanors38]

3. Hopefully, not Michael Bellesiles' Arming America...

Winner of "Bancroft Prize" for history.



Bellisiles "left" his tenured position at Emory University after that institution found unprofessional conduct in his "research."

Columbia U. Later revoked the prize, and asked for its money back.

Bad day at Black Rock for the academic credibility of the controllers.

No, I hope not to expect that.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Predictions

1. Rifles of all types will remain an outlier in total firearm related deaths, even upon closer examination.
2. The earlier study that claimed a 4x multiplier in chance of death with a firearm in the home will be revealed to have been in correlation/causation error. (For instance, people in high risk environments tend to seek weapons)
3. Magazine size is statistically irrelevant, per # of shots fired per homicide related to firearms.
4. The rather small number of accidental deaths by firearm will shrink even more, as better scrutiny finds some of those accidental deaths were actually suicides.
5. The vast majority of gun violence in the country could be addressed by removing gang influences, like ending the war on drugs.

[NewMoonTherian]

8. Do you really think these are going to be THAT kind of studies?

I hope you're right, but my money says these will be the type of studies that begin with a desired conclusion in mind, and tailor their research to produce that conclusion. You know; the type of studies that produced the fallacious ideas you mentioned in the first place.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. I have great faith in the peer review process.

There will be positives and negatives.

[Clames]

5. No changes from the research that is currently funded by private funds.

Unless you somehow believe that a tax dollar is somewhat different in value than a dollar than comes from private grants?

[slackmaster]

6. The phrase "More research is needed..." will occur in almost every abstract for the first year.

You can count on that.

There will probably be some possible links discovered between gun ownership and global climate change. Of course more research will be needed on those.

[Eleanors38]

7. "more research:" Every PhD, every school, coast-to-coast.