How to Slow Firearm Deaths Without Banning All Guns

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Like the firearms industry today, the automobile industry at midcentury was central to American culture and identity. Cars were big and beautiful, throbbing with power. Yet with that power came danger. By the 1960s motor vehicle accidents killed more than 50,000 people a year. The common wisdom, promulgated by carmakers since the 1920s, held that traffic fatalities were exclusively the fault of individual drivers (or, to put it another way: cars don't kill people; drivers kill people). This assertion, of course, was false, but at the time we had no way of knowing for certain, because we lacked data on the proximate causes of accident deaths.

We now find ourselves in a similar state of ignorance regarding gun fatalities. What factors shape the risk that a gun will be used for violence? What technologies (such as trigger locks) and policies (such as waiting periods) work best to reduce injuries and deaths? What is the relation—if any—between violent entertainment and actual violence? Guns, unlike cars, of course, are meant to kill, but why do they kill so many?

In the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the nation is engaged in a fierce debate over how to reduce firearms deaths without infringing on the rights of citizens to bear arms. A critical first step is to conduct thorough and vigorous research on how to make gun ownership safer.

In autos, the blinders began to come off in the mid-1950s, when physicians suggested that vehicle design was as much to blame for high fatality rates as bad drivers. Through evidence-based work, they found that deaths could be lowered with simple safety devices such as seat belts. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 mandated many of these improvements. It also set into motion a decades-long federal effort to better understand highway safety. As a result of those studies—and policies based on their findings—the death rate per mile traveled has fallen 80 percent since 1966. If present trends hold, in two years car crashes will no longer constitute the number-one cause of violent death in the U.S. That dubious honor will go to gunshot wounds.

Unfortunately, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has been scandalously successful in suppressing public safety research into guns. The problems began when investigators funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that having a gun in the home tripled the chance that a family member would get shot. Outraged that reality was not falling into line with presuppositions, then representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas added language to federal law in 1996 that barred the cdc from conducting research that might be used "to advocate or promote gun control." This deliberately vague wording, coupled with a campaign of harassment of researchers, effectively halted federally funded gun safety research.

In January, President Barack Obama instructed the CDC to resume studying the causes and prevention of gun violence. He also asked for $10 million to support gun safety research at the cdc—a request that Congress must pass. But these measures are not enough. If history is any guide, the NRA will attempt to impede these new investigations. Doctors, scientists and ordinary citizens will have to keep up the pressure to protect research (and researchers) from political meddling.

The NRA has cynically framed the debate as a choice between banning all guns and doing nothing. It is a false choice. Congressman Dickey, for one, has recanted; he has publicly stated that firearms research is the best way to reduce the violence. We didn't have to ban automobiles to cut roadway fatalities, and we don't have to ban all guns to reduce gun-related deaths. All we need is a willingness to examine the causes of violence with dispassion—and the stomach to go where the data lead.

http://www.scientifi..._id=SA_Facebook

[Danno 1,228]

The truth is , we like "blinders" on.

If we took the blinders off we would have to see the gun death rates are so steeply tied to our minority populations ....that it is reported to compare white rates only puts us on par with Belgium.

IN fact go to any interactive map site and see for yourself.

http://data.baltimoresun.com/homicides/index.php?range=2012&district=all&zipcode=all&age=all&gender=all&race=black&cause=all&article=all&show_results=Show+results

choose 2012

Choose white

if you counted the murders on your fingers you would have fingers left over.... and no doubt some of those homicides were committed by blacks.

Now change the search to 2012 and search under Black homicides. (You see the explosion of dots)

This death rate is not typical of Blacks throughout our history but rather a emerging trend in the last half century.... What Changed that is causing such self destruction within our Black citizens?

Yeah, I see your point Steve,.... lets talk about big cars and gun control as the answer.

[decocker 7,198]

The truth is , we i like "blinders" on.

What Changed that is causing such self destruction within our Black citizens?

fixed so you speak for yourself.

and to answer your question: income inequality.

[Danno 1,228]

fixed so you speak for yourself.

and to answer your question: income inequality.

So in 1935 Blacks and whites made roughly the same income?

Come on man you can do better than that...

Here I will help you since you seem to need it so often.

-Blacks have more disposable income to buy things such as....

-Hand guns which are a bit more readily available. (as they are to whites too)

When I have to argue both sides.... it's getting bad.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Guns, unlike cars, of course, are meant to kill, but why do they kill so many?

no, they're not. they are meant (designed) to fire a bullet. what one chooses to fire that bullet at is the issue.

were the above in bold true, i'm guilty of misusing many of my firearms - by shooting paper targets. unless paper targets have feelings.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Like the firearms industry today, the automobile industry at midcentury was central to American culture and identity. Cars were big and beautiful, throbbing with power. Yet with that power came danger. By the 1960s motor vehicle accidents killed more than 50,000 people a year. The common wisdom, promulgated by carmakers since the 1920s, held that traffic fatalities were exclusively the fault of individual drivers (or, to put it another way: cars don't kill people; drivers kill people). This assertion, of course, was false, but at the time we had no way of knowing for certain, because we lacked data on the proximate causes of accident deaths.

We now find ourselves in a similar state of ignorance regarding gun fatalities. What factors shape the risk that a gun will be used for violence? What technologies (such as trigger locks) and policies (such as waiting periods) work best to reduce injuries and deaths? What is the relation—if any—between violent entertainment and actual violence? Guns, unlike cars, of course, are meant to kill, but why do they kill so many?

In the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the nation is engaged in a fierce debate over how to reduce firearms deaths without infringing on the rights of citizens to bear arms. A critical first step is to conduct thorough and vigorous research on how to make gun ownership safer.

In autos, the blinders began to come off in the mid-1950s, when physicians suggested that vehicle design was as much to blame for high fatality rates as bad drivers. Through evidence-based work, they found that deaths could be lowered with simple safety devices such as seat belts. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 mandated many of these improvements. It also set into motion a decades-long federal effort to better understand highway safety. As a result of those studies—and policies based on their findings—the death rate per mile traveled has fallen 80 percent since 1966. If present trends hold, in two years car crashes will no longer constitute the number-one cause of violent death in the U.S. That dubious honor will go to gunshot wounds.

Unfortunately, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has been scandalously successful in suppressing public safety research into guns. The problems began when investigators funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that having a gun in the home tripled the chance that a family member would get shot. Outraged that reality was not falling into line with presuppositions, then representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas added language to federal law in 1996 that barred the cdc from conducting research that might be used "to advocate or promote gun control." This deliberately vague wording, coupled with a campaign of harassment of researchers, effectively halted federally funded gun safety research.

In January, President Barack Obama instructed the CDC to resume studying the causes and prevention of gun violence. He also asked for $10 million to support gun safety research at the cdc—a request that Congress must pass. But these measures are not enough. If history is any guide, the NRA will attempt to impede these new investigations. Doctors, scientists and ordinary citizens will have to keep up the pressure to protect research (and researchers) from political meddling.

The NRA has cynically framed the debate as a choice between banning all guns and doing nothing. It is a false choice. Congressman Dickey, for one, has recanted; he has publicly stated that firearms research is the best way to reduce the violence. We didn't have to ban automobiles to cut roadway fatalities, and we don't have to ban all guns to reduce gun-related deaths. All we need is a willingness to examine the causes of violence with dispassion—and the stomach to go where the data lead.

http://www.scientifi..._id=SA_Facebook

I thought you liberals hated cars and gun violence comparisons. Why does every solution I ever hear from the left involve spending large amounts of tax payers money ?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

fixed so you speak for yourself.

and to answer your question: income inequality.

Hmm we had a much more income inequality prior to the 60's and we did not have near the violence. Nope must be something else

[decocker 7,198]

So in 1935 Blacks and whites made roughly the same income?

what?

distribution of household income.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

So in 1935 Blacks and whites made roughly the same income?

Come on man you can do better than that...

Here I will help you since you seem to need it so often.

-Blacks have more disposable income to buy things such as....

-Hand guns which are a bit more readily available. (as they are to whites too)

When I have to argue both sides.... it's getting bad.

Your arguring in this matter are misinformed at best. First, why are you so fixated on the black community? Steven's post is talking about gun violence as a whole. I guess you're like Ann Coulter and think that it's only a minority problem because whites don't kill each other.http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/121214/top-10-deadliest-shootings-us-history.

Second, I'll piggy back off of val, income inequality, poverty, drugs, gangs, no home training, poor education. These things all factor into why the murder rate is higher in an urban setting. You can't compare white poor class to black poor class, they aren't equal.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Hmm we had a much more income inequality prior to the 60's and we did not have near the violence. Nope must be something else

Look at what was going on back then. Blacks were fighting for equal rights, we had folks like MLK and Malcolm X, the black panthers were trying to do something positive and radical at the same time. They didn't have time for the foolishness we are dealing with now. Back then, Mothers held the house down while Fathers worked a few jobs to provide for their families. Church was a must, and it held some communitites together. As Bane put it "Peace has cost us our strength, victory has defeated us".

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

no, they're not. they are meant (designed) to fire a bullet. what one chooses to fire that bullet at is the issue.

were the above in bold true, i'm guilty of misusing many of my firearms - by shooting paper targets. unless paper targets have feelings.

In a lot of arguments (normally related to cars) the whole designed to kill statement is always mentioned. I don't disagree with the statement in that initially firearms were designed to kill, but as you've stated in modern times they have many uses.

there are quite a few technologies that started out with the mission to kill, yet they go beyond that in our society today.

On the OP, I have no problem with research in to safer firearms. Thus far there have been two proposals for "safer" firearms - biometric control and case stamping.

[decocker 7,198]

Blacks were fighting for equal rights, we had folks like MLK and Malcolm X, the black panthers were trying to do something positive and radical at the same time.

omg. did you just say that malcolm x and the black panthers were doing something positive??

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

omg. did you just say that malcolm x and the black panthers were doing something positive??

Yep, Malcolm X started out as an advocate for black supremacy and advocated separation of black and white Americans. But afer his Mecca, he returned with a different view of things. He disavowed racism on both sides and wanted to work with civil rights leaders. You can't fight hate with hate, no matter what's going on. It's sad he learned this so late in life, once he came to the right side of things, he was killed for it.

The Black Panthers was founded on an idea of black pride and self determination, like I said the other day, the 2nd amendment was used by them properly. Huey Newton studied law and was able to disarm a few encounters with the police without incident. They even started a program that the federal government had to copy because of its success. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Breakfast_for_Children. The problem is when you have a group like that and it grows it number, you get those bad apples and things change.

[decocker 7,198]

Yep..

it's unfortunate that the above mentioned are not accurately portrayed in public school.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

it's unfortunate that the above mentioned are not accurately portrayed in public school.

That's what wrong with schools today. I went to an all black middle school in eighth grade. We had to sing the Black National Antem(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_Every_Voice_And_Sing) every morning. We learned the basics and some Black history every single day. The classrooms were a lot smaller(counting me, there were four of us, 4 seventh graders and 5 sixth graders). And if you didn't do your homework, you got to see the principal personally, which meant you got beat with a paddle. You were told constantly, you have to work harder than anyone just to make due, they never let up on us. It was the hardest year of my school life, and the most rewarding.