Limited facts on gun control, because of GOP/NRA backed ban on federal research funding (RAND)

[sharedvalues]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/2/17050610/guns-shootings-studies-rand-charts-maps

But after research on gun violence in the 1990s found that firearms do not — contrary to NRA talking points — make people safer, the group backed a federal funding freeze on gun policy research.

But studies have gone on — just without federal funding. And on Friday, a nonpartisan think tank, the RAND Corporation, released the results so far of its Gun Policy in America initiative, a two-year dive into the research on gun violence and the laws trying to curtail it.

RAND’s extensive report does not make any sweeping declarations about gun policy. It does, however, make clear that gun control research is very limited, calling on Congress to lift the NRA-backed funding freeze. It argues that this freeze has, by making it difficult to conduct better studies, led to a confusing empirical environment, where it’s easy for groups on both sides of the debate to cite shoddy work that supports their prior beliefs.

“The studies that have been done often reach opposite conclusions to each other,” Andrew Morral, the head of RAND’s gun policy initiative, told me. The lack of thorough research, he added, “creates this kind of fact-free environment in which people can cherry-pick any study that happens to support what their priors are on the effects of the law.”

Morral’s team spent two years reviewing US-based studies published over the past several decades, pulling out the most rigorous to try to find some “incontrovertible truths.” RAND concluded that, first and foremost, far more research is necessary. “Many of the matters that people disagree on when they disagree on gun policy have not been rigorously studied in ways that produce reasonably unambiguous results,” Morral said.

But there were some things that could be gleaned from the available evidence. While RAND as a nonpartisan group avoided any sweeping policy conclusions in its analysis, its review does seem to point in a direction, based on my own reading: More permissive gun policies lead to more gun deaths, while more restrictive policies lead to fewer gun deaths. Coupled with other evidence in this area, that supports the idea that more guns lead to more gun deaths.

[DBoon]

1. RAND may be nonpartisan, but they do tend to favor "market driven" solutions heavy on econometrics

They are not a progressive think tank by any means

[sharedvalues]

2. Agreed. RAND is technocratic and in some ways leans toward pro-market solutions

Just further evidence supporting that the NRA and GOP has acted to suppress research on guns.


Because they are afraid of what the data will show.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. It is natural to look for evidence that support your own beliefs

Don't you think?

It seems to be cheap and easy for the pro-RKBA side to do nothing to actually finance studies into causes of violence.

OTOH it's also seems cheap and easy for the pro-regulation side to do nothing to actually finance studies into causes of violence but to lie and say the GOP made a law preventing the CDC from doing the research.

A great step forward was the 2013 study Obama ordered from the CDC. It's time for another Democrat to take up his lead.

[sharedvalues]

4. I'll let this study speak for itself. It is wide-ranging and filled with data. n/m

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. I conclude from reading most of your OPs...

...you heavily desire an AWB and semi-autos in general. You cite mostly mass shootings as a reason. The study you point to does indeed speak for itself. The mass shootings column lists nothing for any laws that have had an effect.

The source of most killings is violent crime and the two things in the chart from your study that evidence shows as being inhibitors are BGCs and mental illness prohibitions which are part of BGCs. Thanks for agreeing with my point that improving the NICS and allowing for universal BGCs would be the most effective way to save lives.

[sharedvalues]

6. You're right

If you're willing to engage in good faith I will as well:

The RAND study makes two points:
1. GOP has blocked govt research on guns (because they are afraid of the outcome).
2. Evidence suggests gun restrictions save lives, mainly by reducing daily deaths with handguns.
You are correct the RAND study says little about mass shootings.

Point 2 is why we are advocating for a HANDGUN BAN. Because handgun bans address the BIGGEST source of American gun deaths - not mass shootings but instead daily violence. A friend of mine's kid was in NY a few feet away from a stray handgun bullet that went into a building. So this is personal to me. Handguns are getting american kids killed in cities. So we should do what every other Western country does - greatly restrict (ban if you like) handguns. It's a totally obvious policy that every other country has figured out.

Assault weapons bans are good for America too. It's obvious why they work. But you're right the RAND report says little about them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Good faith?

1. Addressed in other threads several times. I'll say the GOP (in 1996 via Dickey) and various subsequent efforts has discouraged (not blocked) government research on gun violence.

2. DO gun restrictions save lives? There is no way to absolutely know for sure. We can not scientifically study a minute, month, year or decade in time, adjust the laws and then go back in time and replay it again with the new laws. However, it is absolutely and entirely reasonable to place restrictions on those judged to violent, mentally compromised or suicidal.

If you looking to get entire class of guns banned, collected and, if necessary, forcibly confiscated from the entire country you are dismissed along with a suggestion to try this other group with those ideas: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135