|Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 132):|
Quoting akiss20 (Reply 111):
Wait, how is it possible for any organization to block study funds. That is BS.
Find the money elsewhere. There are thousands of universities and interested organizations - why does the federal government need to provide the funds?
So your argument is still BS. The fed is not the sole legitimate source of study funding.
First of all it was never my argument that research is banned, only that the major funding sources of this type of research is restricted from doing it.
I am not sure how involved in academia you are/were, but universities rarely do research on their own dime. The vast majority of research is done through funding by grants. Grants for studies such as these do tend to come largely from public sources such as the CDC/NIH/NSF. So just saying there are thousands of universities is not a legitimate argument that funding is readily available.
There are likely several private organizations that have the financial capability and interest to fund research that would actually be significant. The question now becomes, how objective is the research that comes from private funding? This is not at all to imply that funding from private sources is inherently more biased than that of public sources, but it is something that must be evaluated, especially when considering such a political topic (we all know how unbiased the "research" from the tobacco industry). The potential for bias is likely greater when the research is backed by the NRA
, or from the Million Mom March. Given all this, the funding for a large-scale study is actually not that trivial. Furthermore, CDC/NSF/NIH funding opens a lot of potential doors to data access. Funding partners often donate not only money but resources and data (this is certainly true for my research). Public studies would have greater access to other parts of government data that may not be easily accessible, or at all accessible, to private studies.
Three super solid articles there.
The Fox news one is predicated on just the number of studies. It finally notes at the very end that the *percentage* of firearms articles with respect to the number of articles has fallen dramatically. The number of medical articles increased by 250% whereas the number of firearm-related articles has been relatively constant. That isn't even including the fact that firearm studies may not always be classified as medical, so it isn't necessarily fair to only compare it to the growth of medical studies (other fields such as criminology should likely be included). Regardless, number of articles is not itself an encompassing metric. It speaks nothing to the quality of articles being produced. I can't speak for this field, but I can speak to my own and say there are quite a few articles out there in lesser known journals that aren't very high quality.
The politico articles is written by the head of the NRA
ILA, which in of itself is a pretty big red flag. It bashes a researcher for being a member of a gun-control advocacy organization when his research has shown that gun violence is high. That's like bashing a cancer researcher for being in an organization that seeks to cure cancer. He claims that the rider doesn't ban research entirely, only research that is aimed "to drive the political gun control agenda." First of all, he clearly isn't a scientist if he thinks that any large percentage of research advocates a specific action. Scientists are much more timid to suggest a course of action in their research than people think, because research's job is not to advocate action. It is to develop models, evidence, and causal relationships. What you do with that information afterwords is up to the individual. Second, who gets to decide whether research drives the political gun control agenda? I can guess what the NRA
would say. He also makes tons of uncited, unsubstantiated hyperbole such as "Statistics and data linked to firearm-related violence are complex, and frequently skewed by those who oppose gun ownership. Firearm research generally speaks only to the alleged possible risks associated with gun ownership, never to the benefits that law-abiding gun owners provide to society as a whole." Got anything to back any of that up there Chris?
Furthermore, all of these articles rely on soundbites and few examples of "bias." They present no statistical argument that the existing gun research is actually biased. Of course there will always be some biased studies in the literature, that is inherently true. The question is whether there is evidence of systemic bias and failure of objectivity. These articles present no evidence of that. The soundbites they use smell of being taken of out of context or misrepresented (not saying they were, but the language used sounds similar to that of, for example, CRU email "scandal").
If the NRA
really wants to paint the picture that they aren't attempting to block research for their own political purposes and actually want objective research, they have to first demonstrate systemic bias, and second develop a system by which the research can be done in an objective manner that is agreed upon by the other side. If the NRA
were to unite with the VPC or some such organization and together develop a framework for objective gun violence research, I might believe they actually want that. I am not holding my breath.
[Edited 2016-03-31 06:12:13]