# "An End To the Ban on Gun-Violence Studies"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032 "2013-01-13T04:20:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/61 "2013-01-16T21:10:05Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Your example is its own evidence. People tested his claims, found them to be dubious and he was rejected. That is how science is done. The academy welcomed him with open arms, gave him awards, and lauded his book. He came to the local campus on his book tour, where he was introduced with glowing accolades. It took an independent individual to start finding the problems, the academy failed in its review. But - you were asking for proof of bias - here it is in one situation. Look at the amount of work it took to finally knock him off of his perch. ---
**Author:** ![pikey\_pete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pikey\_pete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pikey_pete)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/62 "2013-01-17T01:08:28Z")
here is my problem with gun control studies: most of the data comes from police/FBI/NCIC. Why doesn’t it come from other sources? because they don’t exist. I tried finding statistical data relating to number of times a concealed weapon owner brandishes their weapon versus number of times a CCW owner brandishes AND discharges their weapon, from a non-partisan institution or group. The data does not exist. As a concealed carry license holder I can tell you why that data doesn’t exist. If I draw, but don’t have to fire, then I am not going to waste my time calling the cops. Do you know how much paperwork there is? I’n the 15 years I have been legal to carry concealed, I have pulled my gun 20 times. I discharged once…at a doberman who had previously mauled two other people, who was out of his yard, who was intent on making me need 100 or more stitches I had no interest in receiving. Every other time the incident went like this: I am in fear of my life and well being because of you; I have a gun and I may still die, but one of you is going with me; 'It’s cool bro, its cool…" with me replying something along the line of ‘yeah, you’re walking away, its very cool.’ Then I find a bathroom and toss my drawers and wipe. I may be (probably am,) an anomaly, but my concealed carry weapon has taught me one of the best lessons I’ve ever learned: how to just avoid a situation where I would need it while still enjoying life and adventure. On a related note, I don’t think that anyone is looking at this in a wide enough scope (pardon the pun.) Everyone is focused on gun violence. That is a start. The big problem is the fact that we (the United States,) doesn’t have a gun violence problem. We have a violence problem. The attention we’ve given to gun violence and the energy we have so far expended on arguing the subject and blame placing could have been better spent paying some anthropologists and philosophers and psychologists to spend their time figuring out why the US is one of the most violent developed countries in the world. I’ll be optimistic and even task these sharp minds with recommending some possible solutions. It seems like it would be a better use of our time and resources, you know, figuring out and addressing the problem rather than its symptoms. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/63 "2013-01-17T01:24:44Z")
> [@](#): > > …By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative… I can see this bothers you, hoss, so I’m going to try and help you out. You see, its not that progressive people are smarter, its that smart people tend to be progressive. Of course, the numbers end up the same that way, but I hope that takes some of the sting out of it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/64 "2013-01-17T01:24:59Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > I already said I supported more research, but we should always keep a skeptic’s perspective on research. It is easy to have your hypothesis influenced by your own bias, perspective, history, etc. Yes, but as I have seen in the case of intelligent design and climate change even the ones opposed to the scientific consensus can get it right and they \*\*do \*\*convince the ones the guys that count to make corrections, how is that possible? Easy, they bring the evidence and others can replicate it. I’m referring here to a claim to fame of one climate change contrarian that demonstrated one bit of data processing was wrong, scientists made the correction and while it still showed that it made almost no difference (earth is still warming) the contrarian did go to gain fame, although he has been coasting on that for more than ten years and has not been effective on finding errors anymore, but I digress. The point is that if evidence that show a mistake on something so controversial as this is willfully ignored by the scientists, then you bet that many groups would jump at it and be very loud about it. Unfortunately, and based on what I have seen so far, there are many politicians that are involved with creationism and climate change denial, these guys (specially the tea partiers) are there in congress to disregard **all science**. Removing funding or preventing research of any inconvenient topic is their bread and butter. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/65 "2013-01-17T01:29:36Z")
> [@pikey\_pete](#): > > here is my problem with gun control studies: most of the data comes from police/FBI/NCIC. Why doesn’t it come from other sources? because they don’t exist. I tried finding statistical data relating to number of times a concealed weapon owner brandishes their weapon versus number of times a CCW owner brandishes AND discharges their weapon, from a non-partisan institution or group. The data does not exist. … Seems to me that if the problem is lack of reliable data, that’s one we can fix. Let’s think on it for a while, see if we can’t come up with something. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/66 "2013-01-17T01:50:53Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > As I stated - based on my friends on the faculty. You can also find plenty of cites for party registration by department where it is overwhelmingly Democratic Party registration. > > Here is the Washington Post discussing a study: > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html) > > > [@](#): > > > > By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans. That statistic is not an indictment of academia, it is an indictment of conservatism. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/67 "2013-01-17T01:55:06Z")
> [@pikey\_pete](#): > > here is my problem with gun control studies: most of the data comes from police/FBI/NCIC. Why doesn’t it come from other sources? because they don’t exist. So? They might come from the Centers for Disease Control, but for the NRA and certain cowardly Congresscritters. ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/68 "2013-01-17T03:46:32Z")
So, no money to fund guns n’ violence, but videogames n’ violence? [TEN meeeelliion dollars.](http://kotaku.com/5976454/president-asks-congress-to-fund-study-of-video-games-and-violence) … seriously guys. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/69 "2013-01-17T04:05:59Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > So, no money to fund guns n’ violence, but videogames n’ violence? [TEN meeeelliion dollars.](http://kotaku.com/5976454/president-asks-congress-to-fund-study-of-video-games-and-violence) > … seriously guys. [Indeed.](http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22385724/obama-unveils-500-million-gun-violence-package) > [@](#): > > The president’s plan does little to address violent images in video games, movies and entertainment, beyond asking the CDC to study their impact on gun crimes. Some pro-gun lawmakers who are open to addressing stricter arms legislation have insisted they would do so only in tandem with recommendations for addressing violence in entertainment. Y’know, they watch the same shows and play the same games in Canada. It does not turn Canucks into killers. And a lot of those games come from Japan, not much real-life violence there. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/70 "2013-01-17T06:59:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If you want to call people “motherfucking scumbags,” do it in the Pit. Especially if it’s a vaguely-defined group of people that could be NRA leaders or millions of people in an organization. :dubious: OK, that is going far too motherfucking far. I have reviewed the GD rules, and there is nothing against “flaming” **organizations.** And the Dope generally is **no** place for decorum, thank Og! Shame on you! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/71 "2013-01-17T12:17:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: OK, that is going far too motherfucking far. I have reviewed the GD rules, and there is nothing against “flaming” **organizations.** And the Dope generally is **no** place for decorum, thank Og! Shame on you! It is not a matter of decorum. It is a matter off poisoning the debate by deliberately antagonizing one’s opponents. A certain amount of that occurs in most debates, but deliberate efforts to kill the discussion through vitriol have always been Moderated against. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/72 "2013-01-17T12:59:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Are you similarly worried about their personal biases about infectious disease control, vaccination, **water fluoridation** and the lead content of paint? Well, obviously the Communist agents in the CDC have been suppressing the facts about what fluoridation is doing to our precious bodily fluids. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/73 "2013-01-17T16:11:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I can see this bothers you, hoss, so I’m going to try and help you out. You see, its not that progressive people are smarter, its that smart people tend to be progressive. Of course, the numbers end up the same that way, but I hope that takes some of the sting out of it. Where do you get the idea that something bothered me? I supported doing research. I simply stated that ALL research should be considered in the context of the researcher. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/74 "2013-01-17T16:13:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That statistic is not an indictment of academia, it is an indictment of conservatism. Who said it was an indictment? It is a simple fact, and should be considered when reviewing research. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/75 "2013-01-17T16:34:19Z")
Isn’t that why we have such things as peer review? To ferret out such biases? Are we to abandon the whole notion of research altogether? You realize, I hope, that you are dangerously close to suggesting the research that supports your preconceived notions is valid, but those that challenge them are suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/76 "2013-01-17T17:15:37Z")
And the fact that the ATF has been limping along with [a part-time director for 6 years](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/13/1178634/-On-the-ATF-Director-or-the-conspicuous-lack-of-same) thanks to Congress probably doesn’t help, as well as having been castrated as Hurricane Ditka said. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/77 "2013-01-17T17:22:33Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Who said it was an indictment? It is a simple fact, and should be considered when reviewing research. And how about when deciding to refuse to fund research altogether? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/78 "2013-01-17T17:32:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Isn’t that why we have such things as peer review? To ferret out such biases? Are we to abandon the whole notion of research altogether? > > You realize, I hope, that you are dangerously close to suggesting the research that supports your preconceived notions is valid, but those that challenge them are suspect. Nonsense. I have said nothing to suggest that. I am nowhere near that, have said nothing about that, and you are reading into my post things that do not exist. Period. You appear to be dangerously close to simply accepting all academic research as pure as the driven snow, with no need for any questioning once it has gone through peer review. I put up the cite to the book as a case point where peer review utterly failed, and where a researcher allowed his bias to influence his work. Are you familiar with how peer review works? How you can have people excluded from your review panel? How various pissing matches hinder research? How others support each other when necessary Are you aware of the gamesmanship that goes on at the grant review meetings? Where discussions and decisions are made on what to fund? It is not a pure academy where everything is above board and professional. The same level of childish behavior and actions occurs there as occur anywhere else. ALL I have stated (and restated several times) is that when you read an article referencing a bit of academic research, before you embrace it 100% you should consider who the author is and do they have an subconscious or conscious inherent bias in their approach. There might be questions they ignored (or never thought of due to their perspective). They might have problems with the dataset. There can be issues around data coding and classification. The sample set might be too small, or it might be of a group that is not representative. Research should be funded, supported, reviewed, considered and duplicated. Personally, I enjoy initial findings, but I like it even more when someone else replicates the findings in another bit of research. THAT is when you know that someone is onto something. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/79 "2013-01-17T17:33:16Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > And how about when deciding to refuse to fund research altogether? Funding should be based on the quality of the grant application and if the applicant has the resources to complete the research. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032/80 "2013-01-17T17:36:51Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Funding should be based on the quality of the grant application and if the applicant has the resources to complete the research. Well, that’s hardly an issue with the CDC. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-end-to-the-ban-on-gun-violence-studies/647032.md?page=5)