Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Symmetry wrote:Don't those examples require action for the research to happen? Surely you're asking for data for tests that you won't allow without the data they might provide.
Not entirely, but I also said those were just very quick examples.
Its like anything else. You need some research in order to better define the parameters. But, above all, I would say we need more uniformity in data collection and reporting. Crime statistics, just to give an example, are so tinged with politics and funding issues that there is strong impetus to hide or even just skew data... and I don't necessarily even mean with full intent. When there is a lot riding on data, it becomes harder to be objective, harder to truly report honestly even when you try.
But there's been plenty of research already. If you feel that that research has been coloured by politics, what hope do you have for more of the same?
I believe in scientific sampling and data collection. By definition, that excludes political influence. I am saying it is needed, not that it will be easily accomplished given the politics of today and the general disdain that seems currently prevalent here in the US particularly for scientifically accurate data that does not match what people want to hear.
And.. there actually has not been plenty of research. There have been collections of correlations. Correlation does not equal causation. That is the base problem. Folks can pull out a lot of correlations, but it is as useful as the old "the bed is the most dangerous place because more people die there".
Just as an example of something you have pointed out, we have far more guns in private homes per capita here in my area than any similar population section of New York, (barring an arsenal storage depot, etc. -- guarantee it!) or Chicago or just about any city. Yet, we have far less crime. (and actually New York is not as crime ridden as many people think) If the number of guns were a significant contributor, then it would follow that we would have more crime. Even the base example of making all private guns illegal does not fully take into account alternatives. If you eliminate gun deaths, but not overall deaths/serious injuries, then you have done nothing of worth. And, then you have to look at whether the steps necessary to accomplish removing all guns is going to have other ramifications. In the US, it definitely would be seen as a serious impingement on our freedom and therefore would likely result in some serious revolts. You already see some of that even in small sections where guns are heavily restricted. Note, I am not saying no restrictions are possible, but that there is a distinct difference between requiring things like background checks that just eliminate "criminals/psychos/underage folks" and a complete or nearly complete ban on all guns. It is a distinction that the NRA almost always refuses to make (though they have more recently begun to admit that its OK to keep the truly insane and criminally dangerous from having guns)
