Jun 4, 2022 05:50 PM
(This post was last modified: Jun 4, 2022 05:51 PM by C C.)
https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/06/01/sci...bate-16339
EXCERPT: . . . Now think through this next paragraph. It's almost identical to my hypothetical above, except this one was published in Science, perhaps the most prestigious academic journal in the world, and it pertains to gun control instead of vaccination. In an article titled “We know what the problem is,” journal editor-in-chief H. Holden Thorp wrote this:
“Scientists should not sit on the sidelines and watch others fight this out. More research into the public health impacts of gun ownership will provide further evidence of its deadly consequences. Science can show that gun restrictions make societies safer.”
You almost certainly have your mind made up about gun control, and I have no desire or ability to change it. But I do have several serious problems with Thorp's article. First, he ignored any evidence that contradicts his view. More importantly, he called on the science community to take a stand on an incendiary political issue—and announced in advance what that stance should be. This is antithetical to proper scientific reasoning and likely to undermine the public's trust in science.
What do the studies show? The first and obvious response to my argument could be that research has indeed shown that gun-control laws reduce gun violence. Thorp took this approach. Citing a 2017 analysis, he argued that
"… extending criminal sentences for gun use in violent crime, prohibiting gun ownership by individuals convicted of domestic violence, and restricting the concealed carry of firearms lead to demonstrable reductions in gun violence. It’s not a stretch to assume that further restrictions would save even more lives."
It's actually more of a stretch than Thorp lets on. There are quite a few studies that seem to vindicate gun control, but many others don't. According to one study, for example, which looked at the influence of guns in the home on suicide and violent crime globally, “no significant correlations with total suicide or homicide rates were found, leaving open the question of possible substitution effects...” (MORE - details)
- - - - - - -
Studies (wikipedia): "High rates of gun mortality and injury are often cited as a primary impetus for gun control policies. A 2004 National Research Council critical review found that while some strong conclusions are warranted from current research, the state of our knowledge is generally poor. The result of the scarcity of relevant data is that gun control is one of the most fraught topics in American politics, and scholars remain deadlocked on a variety of issues."
EXCERPT: . . . Now think through this next paragraph. It's almost identical to my hypothetical above, except this one was published in Science, perhaps the most prestigious academic journal in the world, and it pertains to gun control instead of vaccination. In an article titled “We know what the problem is,” journal editor-in-chief H. Holden Thorp wrote this:
“Scientists should not sit on the sidelines and watch others fight this out. More research into the public health impacts of gun ownership will provide further evidence of its deadly consequences. Science can show that gun restrictions make societies safer.”
You almost certainly have your mind made up about gun control, and I have no desire or ability to change it. But I do have several serious problems with Thorp's article. First, he ignored any evidence that contradicts his view. More importantly, he called on the science community to take a stand on an incendiary political issue—and announced in advance what that stance should be. This is antithetical to proper scientific reasoning and likely to undermine the public's trust in science.
What do the studies show? The first and obvious response to my argument could be that research has indeed shown that gun-control laws reduce gun violence. Thorp took this approach. Citing a 2017 analysis, he argued that
"… extending criminal sentences for gun use in violent crime, prohibiting gun ownership by individuals convicted of domestic violence, and restricting the concealed carry of firearms lead to demonstrable reductions in gun violence. It’s not a stretch to assume that further restrictions would save even more lives."
It's actually more of a stretch than Thorp lets on. There are quite a few studies that seem to vindicate gun control, but many others don't. According to one study, for example, which looked at the influence of guns in the home on suicide and violent crime globally, “no significant correlations with total suicide or homicide rates were found, leaving open the question of possible substitution effects...” (MORE - details)
- - - - - - -
Studies (wikipedia): "High rates of gun mortality and injury are often cited as a primary impetus for gun control policies. A 2004 National Research Council critical review found that while some strong conclusions are warranted from current research, the state of our knowledge is generally poor. The result of the scarcity of relevant data is that gun control is one of the most fraught topics in American politics, and scholars remain deadlocked on a variety of issues."