United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
Gun violence research is a good example of how science can be skewed to make different political points. For example, one of the new tactics gun control advocates have adopted is lumping homicides and suicides together into “gun deaths” even though the policy implications of the two things are quite different. (Suicides accounting for the large majority of “gun deaths,” but bans on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines will have little effect on suicides. Likely red flag laws as well. Those are the three most viable gun control laws on the table right now.)<p>Measuring homicides versus “gun deaths” also changes whether there is an observed correlation between gun ownership rates and “gun death”&#x2F;homicide rates: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;handwaving-freakoutery&#x2F;everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;handwaving-freakoutery&#x2F;everybodys-lying-a...</a> (there is no correlation for homicides; there is a moderate correlation for suicides). So, for example, whether you research homicides or “gun deaths”&#x2F;“gun violence” is already a politically significant choice that will alter the results.<p>So yes, more research and more data is always good. But this data <i>will</i> get twisted and abused for political grandstanding. People need to be prepared to cut through that.<p>I’d also point out that, at the end of the day, gun rights derive from the Constitution. Gun control is therefore not merely a policy choice to be made based on facts and data. In fact, there are lots of areas where we are quite reasonably sensitive to research efforts being misused for political ends.