Image: Centers for Disease Control
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
From Nature magazine.
US President Barack Obama waded directly into scientific politics yesterday when he announced a series of measures addressing gun violence in the wake of the 14 December shooting in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 26 people dead — 20 of them children.
Of the 23 actions he took under presidential authority on 16 January, Obama chose to highlight just a few in remarks he delivered at the White House. One of them was a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other public-health service agencies to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it”.
An accompanying White House document added:
The CDC will start immediately by assessing existing strategies for preventing gun violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the greatest potential public health impact. And the Administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.
The presidential move is a direct challenge to gun-rights proponents in Congress, who since 1996 have used prohibitions written into funding bills to muzzle CDC research on gun violence, as Nature noted in an August 2012 editorial (see ‘Who calls the shots?’).
Congress also last year began forbidding the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to spend any money, “in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.”
The White House document said that the administration had conducted a legal analysis of Congress’s prohibitions and has concluded that the research ordered by Obama yesterday “is not prohibited by any appropriations language.”
It remains to be seen whether Congress will agree.
This article is reproduced with permission from the Nature News Blog. The article was first published on January 17, 2013.
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentGee, I wonder if it will be biased?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing is more biased than forbidding acquisition of knowledge. Remember, facts are part of the liberal conspiracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiased, as in not supporting some honk-honk, self-serving nonsense about mass murder being strictly about the criminal, not the lethality of the weapon used?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt every mass murder they was a criminal, not every mass murder was done with a gun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGee, I wonder if your comment is biased?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI mean, they haven't even STARTED conducting the research. And what's wrong with looking into ways to curb gun violence? The NRA and the Republicans have been constantly blaming movies, video games, etc. for gun violence, so let's just see if there are any links and what we can do about it.
While I haven't seen any hard proof that violent media leads to violent behavior, maybe we need to look into other policies as well:
Military-style rifles like the AR-15s that were used in Colorado and Newtown are not necessary for hunting or home defense. For all those that say the 2nd Amendment was written so that the American People could be able to rise up and overthrow the U.S. Government one day, what's with all that talk about a "Well-regulated militia" in there? Going all "WOLVERINES!!!" on the U.S. military wouldn't be a well-regulated activity, would it? And if it was written to allow the American People to fight the U.S. military, how come people are not allowed to own fighter jets, tanks, surface-to-air missiles, etc.? The Amendment was written when a highly-skilled rifleman could fire a muzzle-loader once every 30 seconds. Things have changed and assault rifles serve no rational purpose in our society that other long guns can already accomplish.
Large-capacity magazines are likewise unnecessary for hunting or home defense. Being able to shoot off 30 rounds or more without reloading only serves to give crazed gunmen more destructive power.
The mental health system in this country is inadequate. People with the mental problems that contribute to these mass shootings need to be identified and given proper treatment. In addition, these people should not be allowed to purchase firearms until cleared by a mental health professional.
100% background checks would help prevent felons and people with mental problems from acquiring guns. Mandatory gun dealer inventories would help law enforcement trace weapons and keep them out of the hands of criminals.
I say all this as a gun owner and NONE of these policy changes would bother me or most other law-abiding gun owners as well.
This is patently ridiculous. I AM a military leader and this phony "litmus test" you have made up only exists in your paranoid fantasies. Get a grip and stop listening to wacko conspiracy theories!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"At every mass murder they was a criminal, not every mass murder was done with a gun"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrect. Only the vast majority of them involved firearms. Is this how you prioritize unrestricted indulgence in your hobby over having holes blown in children's heads?
Yes, but letting a mass-murderer HAVE a gun, especially one with a high-capacity magazine filled with powerful ammunition, GREATLY INCREASES the death and destruction they can cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry out this material at wingnutfantasies (.com). You'll get a better reception there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are all the gun nuts out there too stupid to see that the whole gun control issue is about prioritizing gun company profits vs. public safety?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny idiot can see that if a psychotic or criminal has easy access to a gun they'll cause way more damage than an otherwise identical psychotic or criminal who CAN'T access a gun.
Except, apparently, for that special (and uniquely American) variety of idiot who thinks that owning a gun is a right in the same way that freedom of speech or freedom of association are rights.
"The mental health system in this country is inadequate."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this^This! I hope among these studies they take a look at Mental Health programs and if there's a correlation with violent crime when funding gets cut. Violent crime and violent games/media is interesting but everything I've read so far makes me think there isn't much of a link there.
Here in Colorado the state has 2 Mental Health institutes. In 2010 one of these had to close down units caring for about 60 patients, which isn't a remarkable number, but it was many children and adolescents who got released back to their parents or guardians who may not be equipped to deal with a mentally ill child, or particularly a mentally ill teenager. It's also indicative of the overall cuts to mental health programs in the state, and probably the country. I'm all for budget cuts and low taxes, but our leaders need to be especially cautious when cutting funding to care for the mentally ill imho. Isn't there a quote about how you can judge a society by how they treat their sick or something like that?
No idea how any conclusion from any study is going to change anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeither the NRA or liberals are going to go 'Gee whiz now we should....
All the 'mental health screening', etc. is a bit polyanish. there are so many issues with the scope of this type of bureaucrac... registrars, evaluations, testing, screening, etc. to make it a trillion dollar bureaucratic insanity in itself.
I'd 'guess' that society would end ou with millions of people who might need mental health treatment foregoing treatment to avoid any stigmitization by being put on some societal 'banned list'. This would lead to MORE violence and not less.
I don't have a gun and don't want a gun and don't like guns. However, most of the gun control lobby is caught up in the 'let's do something for the sake of it' hysteria.
I would find it unlikely not to find a connection between violent video games, movies, books, "news" broadcasters and murders. Words and all do have consequences. That is why "The pen of mightier than the sword" is such a popular statement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne, after all, needs to be consistent in our world view.
None of the recent shooters in these mass murders would be institutionalized if there were more facilities and I doubt if any would have been helped by any medical treatment. The vast,vast majority of people with mental health issues have marginalized symptoms that make them more or less as sane as anyone else in most of their life. They aren't running around threatening people or waving guns in people's faces.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLarry: " would find it unlikely not to find a connection between violent video games, movies, books, "news" broadcasters and murders"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot necessarikly. Per capita murder with firearms has declined 55% in the last 20 years in the USA...not increased.
There are WAY MORE violent movies and video games sinve I was a lad but also way less violence in American society.
The mental health issue is a ruse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it clear that the NRA and the loonies who support their positions evince precisely the mental capacity and state that I would define as too mentally unstable to be allowed to own or use weapons.
There is no question in my mind that the NRA and their supporters are a clear and present danger to the rest of us.
"None of the recent shooters in these mass murders would be institutionalized if there were more facilities"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery true. In my opinion, however, if mental health issues were a larger priority in this country then parents would be more comfortable seeking evaluations for children/teens/young adults, which creates a paper trail. That sort of thing could be flagged during a background check, and those individuals would then need to be cleared before we send them home with guns.
Regardless, it's unquestionable that the perpetrators of these tragedies are mentally ill, so it seems perfectly reasonable to look to see if there's a connection between mental health funding and violent crimes. It's at least as warranted as investigating the video game/media hypothesis.
I am also a military leader (O5), and I almost respectfully disagree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have yet to meet anyone whom I fear having an AR15 or 30rd mags, but of course, I haven't personally met you (or lamorpa). I might feel differently then. Not one of your arguments is valid starting w/your "wolverines" comment, but the one I'm going to address is your last one about 100% background checks because it is so incredibly and inanely false: Criminals don't undergo background checks, only the law abiding do. They steal guns or buy them off the black market. So the end state that your argument portends is that we would eventually have to remove all guns from public hands to be "safe". Well, most of us gun owners aren't going to do that. You might turn in your guns, but most won't. Then what?
Rather than fear guns like so many people do, people should go back to assuming responsibility for their own safety and not expect to have someone come running (i.e. the police) to save them when they feel threatened. It's actually sad that so many people vest their personal safety on other people. I'm not actually recommending that every one carry a gun, lots of people simply aren't comfortable with that and that's OK, but don't tell me I can't carry one. Many have bought into the concept of an inherently benevolent government when it's so easy to see that isn't the case (your military experience should be enough to show you that). But either they/you can't see it or more likely don't want to see it because it threatens their world view where everything is peace and harmony and the government is looking out for their best interests. I'm guessing of course, stereotyping those here with many others who fear guns in their own hands (because that is the reality-they can't trust themselves so they project that fear on the rest of us), but maybe I'm wrong, maybe you honestly believe what you'r3 saying. I know I'm wasting my time, but every once in awhile I'll try again (hence the moniker).
So, back to my only question: What then?
And Larry, if you believe the NRA and the rest of the "loonies" are a clear and present danger, maybe you should arm yourself :-) , or are you waiting for someone else to defend you if the necessity arose?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I say this in jest because you're funny :-)
I'm afraid that is where we are headed. From your comments, you buy into the NRA's stated views that if your not packing you deserve what you get.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSchools need to be packing, theaters, temples, shopping malls. If you are not packing you're an easy target and expect to be blown away.
At the same time you claim you are packing to protect yourself from the government (which is you because you are a military leader), we are needing to protect ourselves from you. Is that right? Should I take your comments, then, as a threat to my life and liberty?
At the same time the NRA and people like you proclaim the right and obligation to carry assault weapons, the NRA's position is to station armed guards in all vulnerable locations, such as theaters, elementary schools, malls, etc. Sounds like a police state to me!
I thought your rationale for your right to carry assault weapons was to protect yourself from the big bad government, but to do so you support making the government bigger and badder?
You're confusing my posts. There was a crazy conspiracy theory someone posted about a new "litmus test" for military leaders under President Obama and that only the ones that agreed to "open fire on the American People" would be accepted. I don't even have to ask you how patently false and silly this is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for background checks, a mental health registry might have prevented the Virginia Tech Massacre. Additionally, convicted felons and criminals still exploit the "gun show loophole" to acquire weapons. Something like 90% of guns used in violent crimes can be traced back to less than 5% of the nation's gun dealers, so having mandatory inventories and audits can help keep these weapons off the streets. Background checks and tighter inventory control for dealers aren't a big deal for law-abiding citizens anyway.
You're employing a slippery slope argument concerning taking guns away. NOBODY is saying that should happen. How in the world would background checks cause this anyway?
And NOBODY is saying you can't carry a gun either. Look, the gun & ammo manufacturers and the NRA like to scare the bejeezus out of folks like you so you stock up on their products and donate to their political funds. My military experience has shown me that the government is TOO INCOMPETENT to try and pull off all the crazy stuff that conspiracy nutjobs think it's trying to do.
Let's check the facts. Assault rifle ban expires in 2004. Gun ownership skyrockets since Obama elected. Murder rates drop but remain stubbornly high in gun banning locales such as DC and Chicago. NRA membership approaches 4.5 million members, second largest political group after the AARP. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence membership at fringe group numbers with membership of 28,000. US rural crime rates in the US are approximately that of unarmed Japan. Sadly, Mexican citizens are helpless against heavily armed savages in "gun-free" Mexico. The last government sponsored genocide in Europe was in the 1990s in Bosnia. Timothy McVeigh killed 176 people with a fertilizer bomb and I suspect an automobile in crowded NY City can easily kill a lot of people. Can anyone on this site quote any reproduced study where gun control reduced crime? I can easily find a dozen studies indicating the opposite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. As I've said before, there really isn't much point in arguing, but here goes...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, I didn't say if you're not "packing" you deserve what you get. Nobody deserves to be a victim. What I am saying is that it is foolish to expect somebody else to always be there to save you if you get into a bad situation. Avoidance is a better policy, but if you find yourself in a bad situation then yes, it's better to be armed than not or be with somebody who is. Done on that point.
Your second point is not worthy of reply.
Your third point is a circular argument. Yes, I work for the government in a military capacity. No, I will not violate the statutes of the Constitution (though sadly there are more and more military "leaders" who plan for insurrection contingencies; the Small Wars Journal occassionally has papers on just this topic). Your last comment in that paragraph asking if I pose a threat to your life and liberty is just stupid (sorry, your comment actually irritated me there); by giving in to emotion over logic in the gun debate, you are the greatest threat to your own (and my) liberty.
We already live in a burgeoning police state. Wait until you have no access to weapons... I don't agree we should station armed guards at every school, theater, etc. The threat is grossly overstated. I do think that if teachers want to carry a concealed weapon, they should do so. Let them get the training and let them be armed. Their armed status, however, should be kept confidential. Side note: I am amazed at the incredibly stupid comments from some parents that object to a concealed carry armed teacher. They actually worry about a teacher, the person who has their kids for more waking hours every day than they do, carrying a concealed weapon that may be someday used to protect their child? Ignorant, stupid people. And they breed. No wonder we are where we are. Anyway...
Your last comment is another useless point. It attempts to turn my very clear points into something I didn't say nor even suggested. You are not worthy of any more of my time. Bummer. I had a glimmer of hope that you might be open to actual logical discussion.
Sault - You are correct, confused your post with another. My apologies. While I don't agree with all your points, some are well taken. Again, my apologies for my error.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this$Millions$ are spent on advertising with the power to change our buying habits. Repeating the same message and image does the trick. Pop culture media feeds us a constant diet of violence. Can we think that there is no affect? Normal people see Rambo, Terminator, Grand Theft Auto, etc. as the fantasy they are, like an anvil falling on Wiley Coyote. But the disturbed mind, the demented soul sees something else. PHD psychology professor Col. Dave Grossman of West Point Military Academy has revised his "ON KILLING". In it he very well documents the 'desensitizing' affect on such people. They can become their on action 'hero'. Any politician that doesn't give this the highest priority in his plan has an agenda other than curbing gun violence, or he/she is 1. naive, 2. stupid, or 3. ON THE TAKE from the entertainment industry ....I pick curtain #3
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault, who are you a military leader for, the Russians or some other communist country. If you are a leader of the United States military,I am even more concened with the direction our great country is headed. I guess you moved up in rank because you are willing to trash our constitution and brainwash our young soldiers. You are part of the problem facing our great country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUm, if you disagree with any of my points, please identify them and state your argument as to why you think that way. Otherwise, leave the ad hominem attacks out of this discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks. I do agree that, aside from the large-capacity magazine prohibition, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was pretty ridiculous and only served to irritate gun owners.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did disagree with these points however:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Things have changed and assault rifles serve no rational purpose in our society that other long guns can already accomplish."; and:
"100% background checks would help prevent felons and people with mental problems from acquiring guns. Mandatory gun dealer inventories would help law enforcement trace weapons and keep them out of the hands of criminals."
AR15s and the like do still serve the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. While the citizenry can't own tanks and planes (without permission of the government), rifles such as AR15s are still highly effective and excellent deterents in insurrection scenarios. And the second point I've already addressed. Criminals won't be affected by any of these changes in the law because they are after all, criminals. I'm 100% on board with your comment(s) on preventing people with mental health issues from obtaining weapons, but if LarryW had his way, I would be classified as mentally ill :-)
I worry about the LarryW's of this country. They just can't understand the boiling frog metaphor.
v/r Don Quixote
"ON KILLING" by PHD psychology professor Col. Dave Grossman of West Point Military Academy makes a strong case for what he calls 'desensitization'. Mostly about police and military traning, On Killing does mention how society is desensitized to the act of killing. It seems normal people too, are affected by pop cuture violence. Just as advertising can change buying habits so Rambo, Terminator, Grand Theft Auto, Black Ops, etc. have an affect on us all and for the disturbed/demented the consequences are more than 'simply negative'. Killers don't learn their stuff at hunter safety, concealed carry, or any firearms safety class taught by NRA officers. Of the 19,000 shooters that used my range last year, I recall no glassy eyed freaks dressed out in tactical gear, playing games.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this